Talk:Causes of sexual orientation/Archive 3

One
I think RK, Dmerrill and I may be able to work together on constructing a balanced article. Some points from old talk:


 * I intend to avoid mentioning Cohen's religious views. I am unaware of his political views. I intend to concentrate exclusively on his psychological views and on genetic research his website and book have brought to my attention.
 * I think some mention of religious views of causation are appropriate, but they should take a lot less space to describe than the genetic research and psychological theories.
 * My religion specifically disclaims eternal torment in Hell. In fact, that's one of the reasons I chose to join it.
 * Ed Poor

Two
Nice move. Causes of sexual orientation is a much better title.

I agree that this is a better title, but the article now needs to reflect this balance, since right now it just focuses on the causes of homosexuality. My point in creating an article on the causes of heterosexuality was to provide balance. This article should address what causes someone to be either heterosexual or homosexual, not just focus on what causes someone to be homosexual. -- Egern

A lot of this talk was really Debate as to what "normal" is. Please show how this is relevant to causation. Then come back to Talk Ed Poor


 * You also snipped the debate about use of the word "abnormal", which is a fighting word, not NPOV. But there's no surprise, since you are a man, and we all know that there are more women then men in the world, so you are therefore abnormal. GregLindahl


 * I won't argue that (my wife says pretty much the same thing :-) Ed Poor

You won't argue that "abnormal" is a fighting word, and not NPOV? Why, Ed, that's unusually perceptive of you. Normally you mostly ignore what I say, and only respond to my jokes. GregLindahl

Three
I don't know much about this field, so I don't want to get involved in improving the article. I just have a comment about this: "Scientists are now in agreement that homosexuality is not a freely made choice or "lifestyle" that someone decided to follow, and many religions are updating their theologies to conform with science." Is it true that all scientists, as this implies, believe that homosexuality is not a freely made choice? No scientists believe that homosexuality is, to any degree, a matter of choice? I find that difficult to believe, but maybe that's because I'm just ignorant about this stuff. --LMS

I'd like to remove 4 or 5 sentences from the middle of the article. They don't say much. Ed Poor


 * Ed, your approach to many of the entries you work on is disturbing. This is a case in point. Don't you realize that some of the sentences below are the main point of this entry?


 * This is largely because heterosexuality was considered the norm and homosexuality an aberration, although this view has been contested and weakened by the results of the research as well as political activism.


 * This is a minor point, and is not really necessary on a page about scientific views of how sexuality is determined, but it is not inappropriate to mention in one sentence.


 * There has also been a realization that any attempt at understanding the causes of sexual attraction to the same sex will be more successful if we understand the mechanisms that underlie sexual attraction per se, and more specifically what causes many people to feel sexual attraction primarily towards members of one particular sex.


 * Um, this is one of the major fields of scientific research! Why delete it?!?!


 * The traditional Judaeo-Christian view that homosexuality was caused by mingling with non-Israelite tribes, man's rebellious or fallen nature, or demonic temptation has given way to scientific explanations which regard homosexuality as normal and natural.


 * Scientists are now in agreement that homosexuality is not a freely made choice or "lifestyle" that someone decided to follow, and many religions are updating their theologies to conform with science.


 * The part about religion should be redirected to the appropriate Wikipedia entry on religion and homosexuality. But deleting it is not the answer.


 * The last 20 years have seen an explosion in the scientific knowledge available on the genetic, biological and psychological causes of homosexuality.


 * This is the entire point of this entry. If you delete it, you might as well delete everything else here. Isn't this obvious? RK

Four
Ed, it seems to me those sentences say quite a bit. What is needed is more information in addition to this, e.g., about the traditional Chinese and Indian views of homosexuality. The way forward is not to delete sentences that you simply disagree with. That way lies madness, and more importantly, less content! What's important is that we try to phrase things in such a way that everyone can agree with; and when that seems impossible, the way forward is to describe the controversy fairly, rather than try to force each other to make the article say something controversial. --LMS


 * This article is stubby. It basically asks a lot of questions and points the way to further article development. Dmerrill made a good start, but it's really far from finished. I'd like to add to it myself, but I fear my anti-homosexualty bias would combine with my lack of research knowledge to produce an even worse article than the stub. So, I merely defined sexual orientation is a separate article. Would someone else please refine the "causes of" article? --Ed Poor

Five
Following moved out from end of article:

'''This entry is only about causal theories. It is not for discussing issues of morality, ethics, human rights, religion, etc. This is not a place to make a point about supposed "sins."'''

Genetic studies

Twin Studies

Biological Studies not strictly dealing with genetics

Interplay of the environment and the biological make-up of the individual. (Nature vs. nurture)

Various psychological views will also be examined.

A fascintating topic, of course.

Surely the point has been made, by researchers, that the fact that gay people are not aware of having chosen to be gay (any more than heterosexuals are aware of having chosen to be heterosexual) surely does by itself not imply that homosexuality is biological? Are those the only two possibilities? Particularly in this day and age, what could be more obvious than that cultural factors can make someone with a predisposition of some sort to homosexuality to become a self-conscious and practicing homosexual? Surely gay activists would agree with that, because they abhor the fact that some people "with a predisposition of some sort to homosexuality" might be shoehorned by a heterosexual-dominated culture into a heterosexual mold? I mean, wouldn't that be why some gay activists have wanted the school curriculums to be changed, so that more people who otherwise wouldn't become homosexual will feel freer to become self-conscious, practicing homosexuals, and less pressure to become heterosexual (or to hide their homosexuality, even from themselves--I guess that's what they say, eh)?

I'm just stating what seems obvious to me; I hope someone with more expertise in this area will help to change the article so that it is a little more sophisticated in this way. On such a sensitive topic as this, I do not want to pretend to be able to work directly on the article reliably! --LMS


 * Yes, but that's only part of the whole story. The primary arguments for school curriculum about homosexuality are 1) it's intellectually dishonest to pretend it doesn't exist, and 2) homophobia is a social problem that needs to be dealt with early and directly. The two main reasons for 2) are a) that it's considered the reason why gay teenagers commit suicide several times more often than their straight counterparts, and, b) as you said, it drives people into the closet. --Dmerrill


 * Those two points are the primarily arguments given -- but there may be a hidden agenda as well: to normalize homosexuality and make it a permanent accepted part of society, a goal I oppose. Ed Poor

Six
Unlike LMS, whose reticence is due to his professed lack of knowleged in this area, I know so much about the subject that I am convinced of the point of view opposite to gay rights; hence, I shall make sure I use the talk pages to avoid making peremptory deletes or edits. I rely on Demerrill to keep me straight (pun intentional), or failing that LMS can tell me to butt out. Hear that, Larry? You have the authority. Ed Poor


 * Oh do you now (know so much about the subject you are convinced of a view opposing gay rights)? Well please, bless us here with your abundent knowledge (yes this is bitchy sarcasim). Lestatdelc 18:16, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is at least one way I can think of that might cause people be predisposed towards homosexuality (or heterosexuality) that has nothing to do with genetics, but which I presume would still be considered "biological", and that is the possibility of something happening in the womb. This article doesn't really address that question, and I don't know what the research is or the body of opinion is on that aspect of the question anyway.


 * A very great deal is known about this subject. You could start with Gay, Straight, and In-Between by John Money. Ann Fausto-Sterling has a couple of good books out, too. P0M 19:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I heard that the ancient greeks attitude towards homosexuality wasnt as tolerant as it is often believed to be, more along the lines of beeing accepted in some circumstances but not in general, any further infos of the validness of this anyone?


 * It was very well accepted, but only in limited forms -- see homosexuality for a discussion. --Dmerrill

Seven
I'm not sure how accurate the final part about "conscious choice" is. To the best of my knowledge (and if I knew more I'd rewrite that part of the article), there are very few, even among relligious social conservatives, who claim the orientation as opposed to behavior is a conscious choice. I've heard it compared more often to something like alcoholism, something that may not be a conscious choice and that may have a variety of causes. But whether one chooses to do anything about it (one way or the other) is a choice, or so I believe they'd say.


 * Some people, primarily Christians and most often fundamentalist, believe that a person can change their sexual orientation if they choose to. They operate programs, some of them modelled on 12-step programs, to help people change from homosexuality to heterosexuality. 

The above paragraph should be removed or changed radically. I had edited it (perhaps too hastily) this week, but now I realize it's out of place entirely.

No one is seriously saying that a person just up and decides one day, "I think I'll become gay." Perhaps some gay rights activists claim that fundamentalist think so, but I do not recall reading anywhere -- even on the most "homophobic" (i.e., openly hostile and admittedly hostile) anti-gay website -- that any Christian has said that anyone consciously chose to become homosexual.

I have read only -- and this is a crucial distinction, one made in the article itself -- that some persons have chosen to engage in homosexual acts.

If there is anyone who says that having sex with the same or opposite sex causes one's sexual orientation to shift, I'd like to know about it, as in: spokesman A of group B believes C. Otherwise, I vote for deletion of the above paragraph. I'll check back Monday. Thanks in advance for everyone's objectivity and NPOV dedication. Ed Poor, Friday, April 19, 2002


 * Oh?


 * Your assertion that nobody is seriously suggesting homosexuality is a conscious choice seems to not be under the umbrella of your vast knowledge of the subject. "If homosexuality is not inheritable, is not an inborn predetermination, not an evolutionary misfire bent on extinguishing itself, then it must involve choice .  In order to test whether any choice is involved, one needs only to urge a homosexual to pursue corrective therapy and/or religious help toward changing his orientation.   We know the vast majority refuse.  They want to remain homosexual.  Undoubtedly that is their choice .   No one who resists all possible means for changing his condition can coherently claim that his condition is not his choice."" - Richard J. Rolwing (a retired theologian and often quoted "source" of reparative therapy proponents)


 * The "Assemblies of God" denomination of the Pentecostal church for example believes Homosexuality is a conscious choice; a lifestyle; the implication being that an adult can change their sexual orientation. They are most assuredly not alone in many of the more "conservative" denominations of the Christian faith.


 * Furthermore, and more to the point of the actual issue at hand, many of the so-called "reparative therapy" outfits and there affiliated religious groups who promote them often in their literature expressly denote that homosexuality is a conscious choice. For example, here is what Joseph Nicolosi the founder of NARTH has to say about it: "Yet not to be gay is as much a decision and a conscious choice about one's self-identity as deciding to be gay." Lestatdelc 18:16, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * The paragraph you're objecting to doesn't claim that anyone says that 'having sex with the same or opposite sex causes one's sexual orientation to shift', it says that some groups claim that people can change their sexual orientation if they choose to. The paragraph is entirely true as it stands. If you need a reference, Homosexuals Anonymous is one such group . Matthew Woodcraft

Thanks for the HA reference. I will add it to the reparative therapy article.

I think the term sexual orientation was created by gay rights advocates to co-opt the debate about the morality of homosexuality. Their argunment is that homosexuality ought not to be criticized. This argument is supported by the premises (a) homosexuality isn't immoral and/or (b) it's impossible to change anyway. (Indeed, the presumed impossibility of changing is often used as support the first premise, on the view that an unchangeable attribute shouldn't be viewed as immoral.)


 * I think that the term "sexual orientation" developed because all sorts of people find it useufl. I think Gays talk about their own sexuality in terms of their "orientation" because it fits in witht heir experiences.  But your argument makes no sense to me.  You assume that innate orientation removes morality as an issue, and cannot be changed.  Neither of these are correct.


 * First, a person may be born a sociopath or psychopath, or certainly become one at an early age. This does not mean that when they torture animals including humans there is no moral issue, or that it is a good thing.  Similarly, someone may be born with sickle-cell anemia or tay-sachs diseas.  That they are born with it does not make it a good thing.


 * Second, just becuase something is born and innate does not mean it cannot be changed. I have, no doubt for genetic reasons, poor eye-sight, but I can correct for that with glasses.  My mother is short, but can reach tall shelves bbecause of a step-ladder.  Some people are born with one color hair and dye it.  The number of things we are born with and that are genetic and natural, but that can be changed, is countless.


 * Third, Those of us who believe that homosexuality is moral do so not because it is innate (whether it is or not) but because it can be a very important part of a consensual, pleasurable, spiritual, meaningful relationship and life. These (or some of these) may not be moral criteria to you, but they are to others.  Even if people were gay entirely by choice, being gay would still be moral.


 * fourth, even if people could change being gay does not mean that they would want to, would, or should. Of course, given how hard it is to be gay in most parts of the US today, I wouldn't be surprised if someone wanted to change their sexual orientation.  But then again, I am Jewish which has made me the target of anti-semitism and still I refuse to change (even though I can); I bet there are lots of people who have been targets of different forms of discrimination who nevertheless would not change even if they could easily.


 * In short, I think that you have offered an irrelevant non-sequitor. Homosexuality in and of itself should not be criticized for three reasons only, that have nothing to do with the reasons you present: there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it; it can be wonderful; and homosexuals have been targets of so much discrimination in the past it behooves a moral society to be especially sensitive right now.  SR

Groups like Homosexuals Anonymous, NARTH, and Richard Cohen's International Healing Foundation dispute the premise that homosexuality is unchangeable. If society discovers that homosexuality is actually changeable, that takes away the greater ground of the gay rights argument against criticizing homosexuality. If homosexuality is not unchangeable and inherent (like skin color and the shape of facial features), then it is subject to the will. Except for those who reject the concept of morality altogether, desires and acts subject to human will constitute the field of morality, so the focus of the debate would change considerably.

Our challenge in writing 'pedia articles relating to homosexuality is to maintain the NPOV without necessarily buying into spurious anti-morality arguments. Advocacy for or against morality, or any other point of view for that matter, must be labelled as advocacy and (preferably) attributed to a source. As in, "Gay rights advocates generally maintain that..." or "Many Christians, especially fundamentalists, believe that..."

Ed Poor, Monday, April 22, 2002

Eight
Reading through this article, I still think it's highly POV. Primarly, it makes no discussion of the motivations for undertaking this work. Few scientists see any merit or benefit to the world in researching 'causes of sexual orientation' or even if such work is feasible. Many of those who do openly court the publicity. Here are some more of my issues with it:


 * Usually, research on sexual orientation is focused on causes of homosexuality. This is largely because heterosexuality has traditionally been considered "normal" and homosexuality an aberration, although this view has been contested and weakened by the results of the research as well as political activism.

AFAIK, scientists make no prior claim as to whether or not homosexuality is 'normal'. I appreciate the sentiment, but I still don't understand what an article about causes of sexual orientation is doing discussing whether homosexuality is normal or not. Is this a required element of this article?


 * Some popular reports on research, published in a Newsweek cover article entitled "Gay Gene?" had suggested that there was a genetic basis for homosexuality which make people more likely to become homosexual. These reports were later repudiated by the researchers, who said that their work had been misconstrued, and Newsweek printed a retraction on an inside page.

Simply because Newsweek had to publish an apology does not automatically dismiss the concept of a 'gay gene', as this paragraph suggests. My understanding is that, while some of the research does not prove the existence of a gay gene (which is what many claimed), it does actually lend credence to the idea that the causes of sexual orientation has a genetic component. This is discussed more fully in the genetic basis for homosexuality article and should be left there.

Similarly, the 'Psychological and Sociological Factors' attributes 'research' from the International Healing Foundation, without mentioning the IHF is a religious organisation, or that such ideas are widely dismissed by the psychiatric and pschological communities. Similarly, why do fringe views like this get first mention in this part of the article?

--Axon

Nine
-
 * Many other biological factors might be involved. The following topics need to be elucidated in this entry, with references to important scientific and medical journal articles, and books which summarize said articles.

Is this intended to be a "stub"? Does it mean that "the following topics" (which following topics) are going to be expanded sometime? Maybe other people will not find these words puzzling. Patrick0Moran 20:14, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-

This article states:
 * Richard Cohen of the International Healing Foundation claims to have found a constellation of causal factors, primarily non-genetic.

I think this statement must not convey the writer's meaning -- either that or Cohen excludes all of the more likely biological and experiential but includes the one that has the least evidence and the least acceptance among serious researchers. If Cohen does support this unlikely position, it would be good to adduce some evidence. Patrick0Moran 22:27, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In his book, Cohen lists 10 possible factors. Genetics is only one of them. Most of the others are emotional and experiential, leading to his conclusions that "No one is born with same-sex attractions" and that "change is possible". If you are interested, you can check out Cohen's http://www.gaytostraight.org website for further info.


 * In that case, shouldn't the Wikipedia article reflect that he excludes all but the straw man? Patrick0Moran 18:10, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ten
About reproductive disadvantage of homosexuality: Sorry I did not explain the sentence I added but I'm new to this. That homosexuality in any species (not just humans) is not favourable for the reproduction of that species is quite self evident. Unless it can be shown that there are other advantages confered by homosexuality that outweight the disadvantages. If homosexuality is inherited through the genes, that means that the homosexual parent would have to reproduce in order to transfer such genes to the next generation. However, the gene itself will not survive a few generations because of the reproductive disadvantage. Minkwe Sat Apr 10 21:29:25 CEST 2004

[P0M:] I think we need to consider several possibilities: (0) Homosexuality/heterosexuality (despite what ideology says) is not a black-and-white distinction, so it's a question of the threshold levels that have to be met before the homosexual behavior is manifested. (1) whatever the genetic factors involved, they may be recessive. (Hemophilia is definitely disadvantageous, but it persists nonetheless.) (2) the genetic factors that bias one towards homosexuality may be multiple and therefore not necessarily passed down as a group. (One can inherit genetic characteristics from all four grandparents because of a mechanism called "crossover".) (3) there may be advantages to the species that do not necessarily benefit individuals. (A breeding population that includes individuals that themselves have harder lives may survive better than a population that does not include these individuals. A breeding population that produces some number of young males who rove the periphery of the group territory and defend against predators may survive better than a group without these "rogues" or "guards." The roving guards may frequently fail to breed because they are killed by predators, but their siblings may pass the same genes that made them guards. P0M 21:16, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[Minkwe] (0,2) Agreed, the important point here is that what ever the nature, the result is an individual that is less prone to reproduce than the others in the population. Therefore genetic transfer potential of those factors are reduced every generation. They are still destined for elimination eventually. Do we agree that a reproductive disadvantage exists?


 * [P0M:] A "gay gene" or a constellation of "gay-favorable genes", if they actually exist, have not been eliminated after a few thousands or tens of thousands of years. Whether one or many, the "gay gene(s)" would be alleles of genes that occur in everybody. It doesn't seem that they are dominant genes, else there would be a much higher incidence of siblings who are gay. So a carrier of one copy of a "gay gene" could pass it down. If more than one gene is involved, having only one of them might not do anything to reproductive behavior. Unless the genes are located on the Y chromosome, they could be passed down on the female side as well as the male side of any family. Females in many societies have little to say about whether they marry and whether they reproduce. (Hopefully that is changing fairly rapidly.) To be eliminated in any quick and sure way, a gene has to be so deadly that the bearer dies before s/he can reproduce. The gay person who has two copies of recessive genes and so does not reproduce or even dies before reproducing can have siblings who carry only one copy of the gene(s) and so reproduce quite normally. Also, whether one behaves in a "gay" way is a threshold phenomenon. People who may be predominantly gay in their orientation may marry and father several children. Some never leave a heterosexual lifestyle. Some carry on a gay lifestyle on the side. Some divorce, frequently after their children reach maturity. Also, as with sickle-cell anemia, there may be advantages bestowed on the reproductive success of family members -- gene carriers if not gene expressors.


 * [Minkwe:] I think you are over-analysing the situation. Assuming that homosexuality is caused by genetic factors, the question is: Is there are reproductive disadvantage for the transfer of homosexual triats (irrespective of the dominance, or recessiveness of such traits or on which chromosome they are situated)? My point is that there is. The reason is simple. If we agree that a homosexual individual(phenotype) is less likely to reproduce than a heterosexual individual then there is a reproductive disadvantage. If that homosexual individual does not reproduce then you have one less person that carries those genetic factors (irrespective of wether they are single genes or combinations, and irrespective of what chromosome they are on) that will transfer those genetic factors to their offspring. Unless, those genetic factors also confer a reproductive advantage that is of the same magnitude as the disadvantage. Such an advantage may exist. I don't know of any that has been mentioned yet but it doesn't rule out that the disadvantage exists.

[Minkwe] (1) True, you can say the same of any genetically inherited disease (Sickled-cell anemia). However, these have no direct bearing on the reproductive capacity of the species. Indirectly you argue that that victims may die before they can reproduce but the indirect effect is less potent that the direct effect. In the case of Sickled-cell anemia, it has persisted only because it offers other advantages with respect to protection against malaria which is lethal to the species in an acute manner. For hemophilia, it is very well known why it persisted in Europe (In-breeding among royals). In any case, this encroaches on the "normal" vs "abnormal" debate which I also think is relevant.


 * [P0M:] It appears that the gene for sickle-cell anemia actually spreads beyond the community in which it is originally found to other populations that are challenged by malaria. As soon as one traveller brings the gene to a new place that has malaria anybody who ends up with one copy of the gene has improved chances to survive and to reproduce.


 * [P0M:] Hemophilia does not persist in Europe because of inbreeding among royals. If I have one copy of the gene that I got from grandpa and my cousin has one copy of the gene that she got from grandpa and we marry and reproduce, there is a fairly good chance that some of our children get two copies and manifest the disease. If I marry somebody from outside there is relatively little chance that she is a carrier.


 * [Minkwe:] The fact that royals inter-married with each other (a kind of in-breeding) was the main cause of its initial spread. Also, Hemophilia is only a few hundred years old so we can't base its persistence today on purely genetic factors. If hemophilia does have a reproductive disadvantage, then it is being slowly wiped out. This can be verified by cellular automata.


 * [P0M:] What you say above is not true. See, for instance, http://www.wfh.org/ShowDoc.asp?Rubrique=28&Document=335 Sometimes hemophilis appears as the result of a mutation rather than being transmitted from parents, so it most likely was always a problem. P0M 22:25, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * [P0M:] As for "encroaching" on the normal vs. abnormal debate, I think you have the cart before the horse. People learned early on that inbreeding causes bad traits to manifest. So it becomes a rule enforced by law, religion, and social opprobrium that close relatives should not mate. Sometimes these rules get a little crazy. For instance, in traditional Chinese society it is forbidden by custom to marry anybody with the same surname. One might have to trace the family connection back a thousand years or more to find a common ancestor, but it is still forbidden. But it is o.k. to marry a much closer relative who happens to have a different surname.


 * [Minkwe:] I think you missed my point here: People learned early on that inbreeding causes bad traits to manifest. How do you know what trait is bad? It can be a cultural or political or religious reason. Since this is a scientific discussion, bad vs good or normal vs abnormal have to be looked at from a scientific perspective as well. A trait that has a disadvantage to the species is bad and one that has an advantage is good. Same goes for normal. A normal trait is one that does not confer a disadvantage to the species. True, some of the cultural reasons are chosen because of the underlying scientific reasons like the one you mentioned. It is readily accepted that blue-eyes is normal but it is also acknowledged that genetic diseases like hemophilia are abnormal. Even if a genetic cause for homosexuality is identified, it doesn't rule out that it may be abnormal for the same reasons that genetic diseases like hemophilia and sickled cell are abnormal.


 * [P0M:] If your children are born with some debilitating condition, you know that something is wrong. Hemophilia would be an instance of this kind of thing. P0M 22:25, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * [P0M:] What is the advantage of lactose intolerance (the early cessation of production of lactase)? It would seem to have only disadvantages, yet it persists.


 * [Minkwe:] You are assuming that lactose intolerance is a genetic disorder. Besides, what has lactose intolerance got to do with reproduction. Genes are transfered through reproduction not digestion of milk.

[P0M:](3) there may be advantages to the species that do not necessarily benefit individuals. (A breeding population that includes individuals that themselves have harder lives may survive better than a population that does not include these individuals. A breeding population that produces some number of young males who rove the periphery of the group territory and defend against predators may survive better than a group without these "rogues" or "guards." The roving guards may frequently fail to breed because they are killed by predators, but their siblings may pass the same genes that made them guards.

[Minkwe] (3) The reproductive disadvantage mentioned above is both for the species and the individual. Your "guards" analogy is true but it's applicability to homosexuality remains to be seen. Can you think of an advantage conferred on the species by homosexuality? In any case, if you agree that there is a reproductive disadvantage, I think it should be mentioned in the article. You can also mention any reproductive advantages that you can think of. Minkwe Sun Apr 11 09:18:19 CEST 2004


 * [P0M:] About ten years ago I was in Washington, D.C., and attended a talk given by a researcher doing genetics work on whether there is a "gay gene." It was federal research, I think it was for the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH). I don't know where that research stands today, but the researcher said that the genetic commonalities she was finding among gays were not what you would expect for a "gay gene," and in fact were generally manifestations of a greater than ordinary ability to deal with atypical situations, to be creative, to not be hindered by preconceptions (the "standard operating procedure" being called upon to try to meet a novel and perhaps deadly challenge to the community). The same tendency to think, e.g., "Everybody hates maggots, but maybe that is just the thing to prevent gangrene on the battlefield" may also let the person say, "Everybody says males are attracted by females and vice-versa, and that it is psychologically abnormal to love somebody of the same sex, but I see that some of my same-sex friends feel affection for each other, get aroused, get fearful, and then the whole thing seems to go away. Maybe it doesn't have to be that way." In other words, these people may relate according to where their sexual and affectional thresholds actually are rather than letting themselves be controlled by society. The same kind of person, in China, might say, "So what if we share the same surname. She loves me and I love her. We're getting married and to hell with what the local tongue-waggers say about it." P0M 15:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * [Minkwe:] Similarly, an HIV positive individual may say "I feel like having unprotected sex. to hell with anybody else that thinks I shouldn't". A murderer feels like murdering, a pedophile feels like doing what they do.  Not that I equate being homosexual to murdering or being a pedophile. My point being that Feelings/desire is never a justification of anything. For the same reason the phrase sexual orientation by itself is more comparable to things like food preference, favoratie color than blue-eyes or red-hair or negro. If homosexuality is abnormal as I think it is, does that imply prejudice against homosexual individuals? If so, then we should classify every disease as normal in order not to hurt the feelings of the patients. In addition IF homosexuality is a disease (genetic or psychological), would we be doing service to those suffering from it by recognising it as such and seeking for remedies or will be they be better served by political correctness? Before I'm pulled into a political debate,  I don't think this is relevant to the scientific discussion.

Minkwe Sun Apr 11 20:50:56 CEST 2004

Eleven

 * Studies of homosexual identical twins suggest that when one twin is homosexual that there is a 40 to 60 percent chance that the other twin will also be homosexual. In fraternal twins the figure is 15 to 30 percent.

Is there anything definite about whether the researchers studying twins raised apart, or together? I think this could make a difference, so it has a bearing on the matter. --Uncle Ed 15:11, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * [P0M:] Whoever put the original sentence in should cite their source of information so that Ed Poor's question can be more easily answered. Meanwhile, consider that if twins seem more likely than other siblings to both be gay, that could be because they were raised under nearly identical conditions in the home. But if the twins are separated at birth, raised in different kinds of families, and still are more likely to both be gay than other siblings, that would point more strongly to a genetic component. P0M 15:54, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * [P0M:] Makes sense. John Money and others regard early socialization and other environmental conditions as forces that can exert a profound influence. In view of that, the studies of fraternal twins should also control this factor since fraternal twins would get the same early environment unless they were split up at birth. Patrick0Moran 18:16, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anything that makes sense, should go into the article. Twin studies, Cohen's views, whatever -- as long as it's relevant. (I just don't know for sure whether Cohen 100% excludes genetics as a factor, so I won't endorse your characterization of his views. All I know for sure is, he excludes genetics as an overriding factor. --Uncle Ed 18:26, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cut from article intro:


 * This view has been contested and weakened by the results of the research as well as by political activism.

I only cut this because the article doesn't mention anything about the results of the research contesting or weakening the POV that heterosexuality is normal.

Maybe what we should have instead is a paragraph or two explaining WHY people are inquiring into "causes" of homosexuality. I daresay it's because the behavior is controversial, with opposing camps calling it "immoral" or "none of your business".

If homosexuality is innate or unchangeable, then (advocates argue) it doesn't make sense to call it "immoral". One might as well hold a person accountable for the color of their skin.

If homosexuality is "curable", however, then the above argument loses strength. I might be born greedy, clumsy, ignorant; but I can make myself become generous, skilful, knowledgeable. (This is a HUGE issue, don't think I'm trying to be simplistic: see nature-nurture controversy). --Uncle Ed 18:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] It sounds to me as though you are opposing your own point of view -- which I take to be that homosexuality is immoral -- to the view of others who would deny that it is immoral. At the top of this talk page you gave another indication of your point of view. Would it not be better to examine carefully the objective information available pertaining to the "causes of sexual orientation"? P0M 02:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I had another look at the passage Ed Poor changed. What can be the justification for removing a statement that is informative and true? I've very much tempted to revert except that I am sick of edit wars. For the future, would it not have been better to discuss this change on the talk page before making what was sure to be a controversial change? P0M 02:04, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I will put the text back verbatim, merely on your say-so, Patrick. I am sick of edit wars, too.


 * But my preference is for intoductory material which is supported or followed-up by text later on in the article.


 * Can we add a little bit about the results of the research? All I've read indicates that the resarch has been utterly inconclusive. I can't see how inconclusive research can get anybody to change their minds. Perhaps we should could say:


 * Despite the inconclusive nature of the resarch results, political activism has weakened the view, etc.

--Uncle Ed 13:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Questions of Evidence
[P0M:] The following sentence seems plausible, but can anyone produce evidence to support the claim?
 * This view [regarding the retrainability of homosexuals] is especially held by religious groups or groups connected to them.

P0M 00:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The section on homosexuality as a conscious choice mentions that besides research from politically motivated groups, there is no corroborating evidence for conscious choice being a factor. However, I think it is important for NPOV to mention that very little scientific research at all focuses on conscious choice; in fact, given that a large number of scientists dismiss free will entirely, we can't expect there to be much research in this area. In any case, the fact there is no evidence is not in and of itself counter-evidence, much as flawed early studies on genetic factors are not counter-evidence of those factors. I think something needs to be added to the article, although I'm quite sure I am not the one to do it in an NPOV manner. CyborgTosser

§ It may be relevant that many homosexuals have consciously "chosen" to be other than they are yet that has not produced any results for them. (At least there are no autobiographical accounts of successful "decisions for heterosexuality" that I know of.) If we are writing an article on anthrax disease in sheep, would it be relevant to mention that no known studies have actually investigated the hypothesis that playing bagpipe music to them will cure their disease? Ordinarily, one does not investigate a hypothesis that does not show much promise of panning out. The burden of proof in cases of "unlikely" hypotheses like the prion hypothesis has always been on the people who put those hypotheses forth. Nobody feels obligated to spend money and time to check out every hypothesis that somebody or other puts forth. (Even though some of them, like prion, turn out to be right.) If there were a substantial amount of evidence, even anecdotal evidence, that choices made were relevant then there might be more research. But, to the contrary, the fruitless question usually asked by parents and homosexuals who are not happy with that status is generally, "Where did I go wrong?" Nobody that I know has come out with convincing answers to this question. At most, some people have blamed themselves for their first homosexual experiences that "turned them queer", and/or other people have blamed them for those experiments. However, I believe it is well established from studies that have been done that many people experiment with homosexual relations and do not find them rewarding enough to continue with them. P0M 03:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The hypothesis that bagpipe playing would cure anthrax is one that no reasonable person would consider a priori. I realize the fact that this analogy doesn't fit doesn't invalidate your argument. But the point I am trying to make is that the fact that there is little to no scientific evidence for or against conscious choice as a factor is more than likely due to the fact that such discussions probably don't belong in the realm of science. You can't have your metaphysical cake and eat it too. If conscious choice is to be dismissed as unscientific, then it doesn't belong here at all. Stating, in the context of scientific evidence regarding other probable causes, that there is no evidence for conscious choice is non-NPOV. The claim is that conscious choice could be considered scientifically, but should now be dismissed for lack of evidence, and I think that is wrong. CyborgTosser