Originally posted by Insomniatric
I don't see how it could be genetic because I've heard about identical twins having different sexual orientations.
Well, there is some conflict in the twin studies, to be sure. Some showed no difference, some showed a little difference, some showed random difference.
I believe the consensus (if I remember the study that reviewed the studies...it wasn't a meta-analysis) is a 30% occurrence. Meaning, when variables are controlled for, monozygotic twins are 30% more likely, regardless of the circumstance, to be homosexual (both of them). Maybe that was compared to dizygotic or maybe that was compared to the rest of the population: I do not remember. I would have to go back and read it.
I may have botched the numbers, horribly, but it goes something like that.
What does that mean? It means a significant portion of sexual orientation is most likely genetic.
to be fair, the only numbers I've ever seen are correlations, which while being in the .3-.4 range, shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as "30%". nor can any causality be determined from them, indicating that we can't say with any certainty what causes those values. genetics could explain it, yet something like different life experiences could make one twin more or less likely to embrace their homo/hetero orientation.
this focus on genes specifically seems somewhat silly though. I'm not suggesting it has anything to do in any serious way with later childhood development or whatever, more just that there are a number of ways homosexuality could be biological without it depending on specific genes.
Originally posted by inimalist
to be fair, the only numbers I've ever seen are correlations, which while being in the .3-.4 range, shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as "30%". nor can any causality be determined from them, indicating that we can't say with any certainty what causes those values. genetics could explain it, yet something like different life experiences could make one twin more or less likely to embrace their homo/hetero orientation.this focus on genes specifically seems somewhat silly though. I'm not suggesting it has anything to do in any serious way with later childhood development or whatever, more just that there are a number of ways homosexuality could be biological without it depending on specific genes.
If you're talking about a correlation coefficient, I did not read about one being .3-.4. Likely, that is coincidental to the percentage to which I was referring. But, a .3 R would be a weak correlation.
But, I was only addressing the notion that, "I do not see how it could be genetics". I was not, however, typing up a comprehensive post about the entirety of theory and speculation regarding homosexuality.
Originally posted by inimalist
oh wow...
He's commenting on actions.
"I want to put my ween in a man's butt, tonight" would be comparable to his example. That's not the same thing as "same-sex attraction", imo.
Originally posted by dadudemonIt means a significant portion of sexual orientation is most likely genetic. [/B]
Well, correct me if I'm wrong but if it's genetic, why isn't there a significant amount of homosexual animals either in the wild or kept in zoos or domesticated as pets or livestock?
Surely if it's genetic the percentage would be as significant & noticeable as the human population's ratio of homosexuality to hetero.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Well, correct me if I'm wrong but if it's genetic, why isn't there a significant amount of homosexual animals either in the wild or kept in zoos or domesticated as pets or livestock?
I would be happy to correct that: there are tons and tons of homosexuality activities among animals.
Our closest relatives, the bonobos (Pan which includes common chimps, too), have quite a bit of samesex relations.
However, and I think this is important: I am quite certain that none of the bonobos are exclusively homosexual...bisexual.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Surely if it's genetic the percentage would be as significant & noticeable as the human population's ratio of homosexuality to hetero.
IIRC, some animals have much more homosexual behavior than humans.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're talking about a correlation coefficient, I did not read about one being .3-.4. Likely, that is coincidental to the percentage to which I was referring. But, a .3 R would be a weak correlation.But, I was only addressing the notion that, "I do not see how it could be genetics". I was not, however, typing up a comprehensive post about the entirety of theory and speculation regarding homosexuality.
fair enough. depends on the field, anything in human behaviour with an r of .3-.4 is astounding. not so for biology or physics, but given how variable and malleable human behaviour is, we drool over r's of .4 (I don't, I wouldn't use a correlation if I could avoid it, but... yeah...)
What I should have said is more about factor analysis and the "30%" claim. The only way you could come out with that number is if you could run a full ANOVA that included all of the relevant variables that would impact why someone would report being gay or straight (twin studies are almost all self report, meaning that if one twin had the "biology of homosexuality" [I know, I know, its short hand so I don't have to write a tl;dr defining a proper term] but was socially conditioned against it, they would reduce the correlation even though, biologically, they should increase it). clearly that is impossible at this point, as we really don't even know what the major ones would be, and we lack a real, objective method of defining homosexuality that doesn't simply look at behavioural outcomes.
Originally posted by dadudemon
He's commenting on actions."I want to put my ween in a man's butt, tonight" would be comparable to his example. That's not the same thing as "same-sex attraction", imo.
actually, no, he is commenting on desires.
He says that the feeling of wanting chicken is one he chose, which is ludicrous. Feelings of hunger are biological and determined by systems designed to maintain homeostasis, and the desire for chicken comes from systems that determine what nutrients the body needs and memories for what food is available.
The only choice he has in the matter is whether or not he acts on the desire he has, and depending on how neuro we want to get, the only choice he may have control over is deciding not to eat chicken.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
This is a silly comparison I'm making but, "I FEEL like having chicken for dinner tonight."
Isn't that considered a CHOICE I've made?Regardless of your sexuality, why question one's choice of attraction?
You may look at your partner & think he/she's the most beautiful person on this planet & yet another person may judge he/she as a 4 out of 10.
Or you may be attracted to someone of a totally different faith that your family objects too & still you'd think they were worth the grief & negativity to be with.I'm straight, I'm assuming you are too, so yeah it is beyond our grasp to contemplate "the love of cock." Maybe it's not all about gay sex, maybe the bonding & mutual understanding does make relationships easier.
Yes, in some countries homosexuality is deemed a crime that's punishable but then again I am & was referring to present day Australia & not Iran. Your same logic doesn't stop people from taking & dealing in drugs although it too is punishable by law.
That is silly, so ignoring.
You're talking about choice of action. We're both straight, we can choose to sleep or not sleep with women; we didn't choose that we're sexually attracted to women though. Why do you assume that homosexuals choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex, when you didn't choose to be sexually attracted to women?
There is evidence that drug attraction is inherent, were some people are more prone to alcohol/drugs than others. eg An alcoholic will always be an alcoholic, though he/she may choose to not drink anymore, the desire is always there.
As far as committing crimes(dealing drugs), crime is lucrative and criminals believe they won't get caught. So you're making another silly comparison.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Well, correct me if I'm wrong but if it's genetic, why isn't there a significant amount of homosexual animals either in the wild or kept in zoos or domesticated as pets or livestock?Surely if it's genetic the percentage would be as significant & noticeable as the human population's ratio of homosexuality to hetero.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I would be happy to correct that: there are tons and tons of homosexuality activities among animals.Our closest relatives, the bonobos (Pan which includes common chimps, too), have quite a bit of samesex relations.
However, and I think this is important: I am quite certain that none of the bonobos are exclusively homosexual...bisexual.
IIRC, some animals have much more homosexual behavior than humans.
and the inevitable reply would be "well, are you suggesting that we should base our ethics on the actions of dumb animals?", shunning the point which they tried to win the thread with. fascinating how it plays out like clockwork every time with this topic.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
and the inevitable reply would be "well, are you suggesting that we should base our ethics on the actions of dumb animals?", shunning the point which they tried to win the thread with. fascinating how it plays out like clockwork every time with this topic.
Humans are some of the dumbest animals I have ever seen. Lets base morality on fact, would that be ok with you?