Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

[Coyote]

There is a lot of space between genetic and a "choice" - those aren't the only two options in otherwords.

Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are choices in that that acting on it is a choice. A person has free will and can choose whether or not to act on desire. Theoretically.

Sexual orientation however, is far more complicated. A more relevant question might be "is homosexuality hardwired"? Something can be genetically influenced or caused by multiple genes, the interaction of a number of genes, the interaction of genes with environment and the end result is something that is hardwired but not necessarily traceable to a single gene - the so-called gay gene. It's also possible that there are multiple causes - homosexuality is just the external manifestation that in some people may be caused by one thing, and other groups of people by something else.

The Gay Brain What makes us LGBT - Out FrontOut Front

Contrary to what you may have heard, scientists have yet to discover a “gay gene.” But there is scientific evidence that homosexuality has a hereditary component and usually runs in families.


“There’s no genetic evidence for homosexuality. But there’s no gene for race determination either,” explained Dr. David Wagner, Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Denver. “It’s the way genes are managed and controlled. It’s their epigenetics that make a difference.”​

The reasons I believe it is hardwired are:

• as far as we can tell, the ratio of homosexual/heterosexual seems to stay about the same. You don't see huge fluxuations when societies are more permissive or more draconian.
• it occurs in non-human species
• why would someone in a society where it is despised, criminalized and potentially lethal "choose" that?
• most attempts to change orientation (the ex-gay movements) ultimately fail and even some of the success' say their orientation, who they are attracted to, remained unchanged - they just changed their external behavior.

Brain science has advanced explosively in the past couple of decades and it is in the brain science that I think we see the most evidence.
The Gay Brain? Neuroscientists find evidence that homosexuality is hard-wired:

[Neuroscience researchers] found that the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual women were more symmetrical than the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women. A similar difference emerged when the researchers looked in particular at the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional reactions. Heterosexual women and homosexual men had more connections between their right and left amygdala and more connections with other brain regions than did homosexual women and heterosexual men.
​

In the end, though - does it matter?

Dr. John Corvino, Chair of the Philosophy Department at Wayne State University in Michigan and author of the book, What’s Wrong with Homosexuality? said the question itself is problematic. Corvino described a dilemma in framing a question to have only two possible answers: Homosexuality as a choice, or homosexuality as hardwired.


“There are two separate issues here,” said Corvino. “One is the question of how we come to have the sexual orientation that we have. The other question is can we choose to change that in some way.”
Corvino writes in his book that he neither knows nor cares if he was “born” homosexual. “I don’t remember the way the world was when I was born, and I can’t discern my genetic makeup by simple introspection. All I know is that I’ve had these feelings for a long time, they’re a deep fact about me, and they’re not something that I can readily change, even if I wanted to.”

​

Corvino jokes that it’s almost heretical for a gay man to claim he doesn’t know if he was “born this way.”


“I think a lot of gay people, in going through the coming out process, face the idea (particularly from their parents) that this is somehow an act of defiance,” said Corvino. “So they feel like, in order to establish that ‘no, this is a real and deep part of me,’ they have to show that they were somehow born with it.”


But Corvino points out that for a trait to be a real and deep characteristic of someone’s life, it doesn’t need to have a biological origin – like religion, for example. Furthermore, there are many biologically–driven human characteristics that can be changed, such as hair color. That’s not to imply one can change sexual orientation.


Being born with a trait, and whether you can change that trait, are two completely different issues, Corvino says.

​

 

[MaryL]

Let's be real here. Homosexuality is an anomaly. Heterosexuality, as biology dictates, is the norm.My proof? Your mother and father were heterosexuals. Gays call straights "breeders". Wow. What do gays actualy add to the gene pool?

 

[Coyote]

Let's be real here. Homosexuality is an anomaly. Heterosexuality, as biology dictates, is the norm.My proof? Your mother and father were heterosexuals. Gays call straights "breeders". Wow. What do gays actualy add to the gene pool?

In an evolutionary sense, one doesn't have to reproduce one's own genes to be successful. What matters is the survival of the group. For example look at meerkats. There is only one breeding pair, and the rest of the colony support that pair and help raise the offspring.

A gay Gene - The gay Gene And Evolution - A Problem Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS

This discussion so far still leaves bare the question why an orientation that appears so inimical to reproduction might nevertheless persist in human or animal populations. Homosexuality needs to demonstrate a survival benefit sufficient to offset the reproductive cost that the orientation would be expected to exact. Most reproductively disadvantageous traits occur because of occasional and random mutations which are gradually selected out of the kindred. Huntington's Disease, for example, occurs in only about four people per million. The gay/lesbian phenotype is far too common to be entirely the result of deleterious mutation. if genetic, it must have undergone some degree of favorable selections. One concept to understand about "reproductive success" is that it can be realized by different strategies. The oak produces thousands of acorns and is lucky if one or two grow to make acorns of their own. The larger land mammals on the other hand, have relatively few offspring and are metabolically expensive in guarding and protecting the relatively few offspring that we are able to have.

This line of thinking, elaborated by biologists Robert Trivers and James Weinrich, among others, is that gay people may have evolved character traits of an altruistic nature that prompt them to work harder for the protection and advancement of closely related family members rather than invest in having children of their own. This idea, called "kin altruism," results from the simple calculus that two nephews or nieces are genetically equivalent to one son or daughter. Reproductive sacrifice explainable by a theory of kin altruism has been demonstrated in some animal species but remains speculative for humans, most of whom, sad to say, seem rather short in the department of altruism.. (Cf., Jim Weinrich, Sexual Landscapes: Why We Are What We Are, Why We Love Whom We Love, 1987.)​

 

[MaryL]

Let's be real here. Homosexuality is an anomaly. Heterosexuality, as biology dictates, is the norm.My proof? Your mother and father were heterosexuals. Gays call straights "breeders". Wow. What do gays actualy add to the gene pool?

In an evolutionary sense, one doesn't have to reproduce one's own genes to be successful. What matters is the survival of the group. For example look at meerkats. There is only one breeding pair, and the rest of the colony support that pair and help raise the offspring.

A gay Gene - The gay Gene And Evolution - A Problem Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS

This discussion so far still leaves bare the question why an orientation that appears so inimical to reproduction might nevertheless persist in human or animal populations. Homosexuality needs to demonstrate a survival benefit sufficient to offset the reproductive cost that the orientation would be expected to exact. Most reproductively disadvantageous traits occur because of occasional and random mutations which are gradually selected out of the kindred. Huntington's Disease, for example, occurs in only about four people per million. The gay/lesbian phenotype is far too common to be entirely the result of deleterious mutation. if genetic, it must have undergone some degree of favorable selections. One concept to understand about "reproductive success" is that it can be realized by different strategies. The oak produces thousands of acorns and is lucky if one or two grow to make acorns of their own. The larger land mammals on the other hand, have relatively few offspring and are metabolically expensive in guarding and protecting the relatively few offspring that we are able to have.

This line of thinking, elaborated by biologists Robert Trivers and James Weinrich, among others, is that gay people may have evolved character traits of an altruistic nature that prompt them to work harder for the protection and advancement of closely related family members rather than invest in having children of their own. This idea, called "kin altruism," results from the simple calculus that two nephews or nieces are genetically equivalent to one son or daughter. Reproductive sacrifice explainable by a theory of kin altruism has been demonstrated in some animal species but remains speculative for humans, most of whom, sad to say, seem rather short in the department of altruism.. (Cf., Jim Weinrich, Sexual Landscapes: Why We Are What We Are, Why We Love Whom We Love, 1987.)​

Your post is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Gays don't breed, homosexuality is biologically broken, it's a dead end. I can respect gays as human beings and all that, but, this hocus pocus of marriage and equal rights, that is going a bit too far.

 

[JoeMoma]

"Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?"

Neither.

It's irrelevant.

As a fact of Constitutional law it makes no difference whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of choice or birth, the condition of being gay is entitled to Constitutional protections, to the right of due process, and the right of equal protection of the law.

Proof:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, the 'argument' that gay Americans are not entitled to Constitutional protections fails, as does the notion that to be gay is a mere 'lifestyle preference,' and that if gay Americans don't want to be subject to discrimination they need only 'stop being gay.'

While science might someday be able to prove or disprove that homosexuality is a result of biology and birth, it will forever be immaterial, having no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberty afforded gay Americans.

It is your post that is irrelevant as it is off topic to the OP. Not every question is a matter of constitutional law.

 

[Coyote]

Let's be real here. Homosexuality is an anomaly. Heterosexuality, as biology dictates, is the norm.My proof? Your mother and father were heterosexuals. Gays call straights "breeders". Wow. What do gays actualy add to the gene pool?

In an evolutionary sense, one doesn't have to reproduce one's own genes to be successful. What matters is the survival of the group. For example look at meerkats. There is only one breeding pair, and the rest of the colony support that pair and help raise the offspring.

A gay Gene - The gay Gene And Evolution - A Problem Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS

This discussion so far still leaves bare the question why an orientation that appears so inimical to reproduction might nevertheless persist in human or animal populations. Homosexuality needs to demonstrate a survival benefit sufficient to offset the reproductive cost that the orientation would be expected to exact. Most reproductively disadvantageous traits occur because of occasional and random mutations which are gradually selected out of the kindred. Huntington's Disease, for example, occurs in only about four people per million. The gay/lesbian phenotype is far too common to be entirely the result of deleterious mutation. if genetic, it must have undergone some degree of favorable selections. One concept to understand about "reproductive success" is that it can be realized by different strategies. The oak produces thousands of acorns and is lucky if one or two grow to make acorns of their own. The larger land mammals on the other hand, have relatively few offspring and are metabolically expensive in guarding and protecting the relatively few offspring that we are able to have.

This line of thinking, elaborated by biologists Robert Trivers and James Weinrich, among others, is that gay people may have evolved character traits of an altruistic nature that prompt them to work harder for the protection and advancement of closely related family members rather than invest in having children of their own. This idea, called "kin altruism," results from the simple calculus that two nephews or nieces are genetically equivalent to one son or daughter. Reproductive sacrifice explainable by a theory of kin altruism has been demonstrated in some animal species but remains speculative for humans, most of whom, sad to say, seem rather short in the department of altruism.. (Cf., Jim Weinrich, Sexual Landscapes: Why We Are What We Are, Why We Love Whom We Love, 1987.)​

Your post is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Gays don't breed, homosexuality is biologically broken, it's a dead end. I can respect gays as human beings and all that, but, this hocus pocus of marriage and equal rights, that is going a bit too far.

No, my post is supported by science, as per OP. The topic is not marriage or equal rights.

An individual does not have to pass on his/her own genes to be biologically successful. He can be equally successful if he enables closely related genes to be passed on. That is not "biologically broken" nor a dead end (you clearly skipped the links)but a good survival strategy. Plenty of examples of that.

 

[MaryL]

I understand that. I am sure Homosexuality is biological, but I am sure that pedophiles or psychopaths could claim it's about biology, too. I don't care. I will not accept them, ever as "normal".

 

[Roadrunner]

I understand that. I am sure Homosexuality is biological, but I am sure that pedophiles or psychopaths could claim it's about biology, too. I don't care.

That's the thing.

Who cares why gays are gay?

Maybe gays do.

I don't.

I only know ONE, and never see him.

 

[Roadrunner]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

That is ridiculous.
Gays on the down low or in the closet breed all the time.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?"

Neither.

It's irrelevant.

As a fact of Constitutional law it makes no difference whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of choice or birth, the condition of being gay is entitled to Constitutional protections, to the right of due process, and the right of equal protection of the law.

Proof:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, the 'argument' that gay Americans are not entitled to Constitutional protections fails, as does the notion that to be gay is a mere 'lifestyle preference,' and that if gay Americans don't want to be subject to discrimination they need only 'stop being gay.'

While science might someday be able to prove or disprove that homosexuality is a result of biology and birth, it will forever be immaterial, having no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberty afforded gay Americans.

It is your post that is irrelevant as it is off topic to the OP. Not every question is a matter of constitutional law.

yes and no JoeMoma
maybe not LITERALLY and legally Constitutional to the letter.

But all people want their free will and free exercise of beliefs.
And since this is a faith based matter, it falls under free exercise of religion
and equal protection from discrimination by beliefs or creeds.

On that level we could respect each other's beliefs equally.

When this doesn't happen, when one group imposes their beliefs on other groups of opposing beliefs, guess what? You end up with lawsuits and lobbies because equal beliefs are at stake.
the law is SUPPOSED to protect and include these equally, but that's not what people are doing. They are abusing parties and govt to "bully" one belief over another using majority rule or court ruling to "get their way" at the expense of other people's beliefs, which I find not only cruel and harmful, but unlawful if you consider this discrimination in violation of Constitutional laws.

* If we could RESOLVE our issues personally, this would never have to become a legal mess
* but since beliefs are clashing, marriage laws are already under the state and being challenged to expand
these, then it DOES become a matter of legislative reform or court ruling if people don't agree on the laws.

You are right, we could avoid any legal hassles and Constitutional arguments
if we respected each other's beliefs equally and worked out agreements how to write or reform the laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's be real here. Homosexuality is an anomaly. Heterosexuality, as biology dictates, is the norm.My proof? Your mother and father were heterosexuals. Gays call straights "breeders". Wow. What do gays actualy add to the gene pool?

In an evolutionary sense, one doesn't have to reproduce one's own genes to be successful. What matters is the survival of the group. For example look at meerkats. There is only one breeding pair, and the rest of the colony support that pair and help raise the offspring.

A gay Gene - The gay Gene And Evolution - A Problem Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS

This discussion so far still leaves bare the question why an orientation that appears so inimical to reproduction might nevertheless persist in human or animal populations. Homosexuality needs to demonstrate a survival benefit sufficient to offset the reproductive cost that the orientation would be expected to exact. Most reproductively disadvantageous traits occur because of occasional and random mutations which are gradually selected out of the kindred. Huntington's Disease, for example, occurs in only about four people per million. The gay/lesbian phenotype is far too common to be entirely the result of deleterious mutation. if genetic, it must have undergone some degree of favorable selections. One concept to understand about "reproductive success" is that it can be realized by different strategies. The oak produces thousands of acorns and is lucky if one or two grow to make acorns of their own. The larger land mammals on the other hand, have relatively few offspring and are metabolically expensive in guarding and protecting the relatively few offspring that we are able to have.

This line of thinking, elaborated by biologists Robert Trivers and James Weinrich, among others, is that gay people may have evolved character traits of an altruistic nature that prompt them to work harder for the protection and advancement of closely related family members rather than invest in having children of their own. This idea, called "kin altruism," results from the simple calculus that two nephews or nieces are genetically equivalent to one son or daughter. Reproductive sacrifice explainable by a theory of kin altruism has been demonstrated in some animal species but remains speculative for humans, most of whom, sad to say, seem rather short in the department of altruism.. (Cf., Jim Weinrich, Sexual Landscapes: Why We Are What We Are, Why We Love Whom We Love, 1987.)​

Your post is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Gays don't breed, homosexuality is biologically broken, it's a dead end. I can respect gays as human beings and all that, but, this hocus pocus of marriage and equal rights, that is going a bit too far.

No, my post is supported by science, as per OP. The topic is not marriage or equal rights.

An individual does not have to pass on his/her own genes to be biologically successful. He can be equally successful if he enables closely related genes to be passed on. That is not "biologically broken" nor a dead end (you clearly skipped the links)but a good survival strategy. Plenty of examples of that.

Dear Coyote and MaryL
Both your conclusions remain faith based.
1. MaryL whether or not you have one opinion on social value or purpose, and someone else has another,
those are both personal faith-based opinions and remain valid in private but cannot be imposed in public through law as these are not proven nor agreed upon.
You may be right they can't prove their point, but neither can you prove yours to them,
so you both deadlock. You end up right back where you were; that both viewpoints
are faith based, and remain equally protected as your own personal beliefs in private.

2. as Coyote points out, yes there may be science to show patterns.
but the interpretation of these patterns is still faith based and if people don't agree it can't be forced by law.

I could look at data that shows that the replication of patterns in poor families in poverty,
who don't have means for providing their children nutrition and education for critical brain development
in infancy and childhood, tend to multiply and increase more such generations
until the pattern is changed.

So this can show "proliferation and success" in multiplying that social pattern.
But that doesn't meant that social pattern is good for society.

 

[Coyote]

I don't see how what I stated is "faith based" - speculative maybe.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't see how what I stated is "faith based" - speculative maybe.

If it's not proven then it is based on your beliefs and values that are relative to you.
To be fair, and to treat all such beliefs equally,
I refer to them all as faith-based so there is no slamming of "religious" beliefs versus "secular beliefs."
Neither should be slammed but treated with equal respect, as we would respect someone's sacred religion
within their own space of worship.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't see how what I stated is "faith based" - speculative maybe.

I would have to agree ... Even with the speculative part.
More so with the details in the link ... And a plethora of "qualifiers"

They include phrases like ... "If it is genetic ..." and " ... remains speculative for humans".

In any case it explored avenues I have never heard of and made reasonable conclusions that they did go through the trouble of applying qualifiers to.
To me (broad based opinion unsupported by specific documentation) ... It seems like an equal case of environmental conditioning could also play a part in regards to the documentation you provided.

I will poke around the webz and see if I can find anything that either supports or debunks my opinions.

.

 

[JoeMoma]

"Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?"

Neither.

It's irrelevant.

As a fact of Constitutional law it makes no difference whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of choice or birth, the condition of being gay is entitled to Constitutional protections, to the right of due process, and the right of equal protection of the law.

Proof:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, the 'argument' that gay Americans are not entitled to Constitutional protections fails, as does the notion that to be gay is a mere 'lifestyle preference,' and that if gay Americans don't want to be subject to discrimination they need only 'stop being gay.'

While science might someday be able to prove or disprove that homosexuality is a result of biology and birth, it will forever be immaterial, having no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberty afforded gay Americans.

It is your post that is irrelevant as it is off topic to the OP. Not every question is a matter of constitutional law.

yes and no JoeMoma
maybe not LITERALLY and legally Constitutional to the letter.

But all people want their free will and free exercise of beliefs.
And since this is a faith based matter, it falls under free exercise of religion
and equal protection from discrimination by beliefs or creeds.

On that level we could respect each other's beliefs equally.

When this doesn't happen, when one group imposes their beliefs on other groups of opposing beliefs, guess what? You end up with lawsuits and lobbies because equal beliefs are at stake.
the law is SUPPOSED to protect and include these equally, but that's not what people are doing. They are abusing parties and govt to "bully" one belief over another using majority rule or court ruling to "get their way" at the expense of other people's beliefs, which I find not only cruel and harmful, but unlawful if you consider this discrimination in violation of Constitutional laws.

* If we could RESOLVE our issues personally, this would never have to become a legal mess
* but since beliefs are clashing, marriage laws are already under the state and being challenged to expand
these, then it DOES become a matter of legislative reform or court ruling if people don't agree on the laws.

You are right, we could avoid any legal hassles and Constitutional arguments
if we respected each other's beliefs equally and worked out agreements how to write or reform the laws.

How homosexuals should be treated by society is not the question asked by the OP. It is an interesteing topic, but does not answer the question of the OP.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't see how what I stated is "faith based" - speculative maybe.

I would have to agree ... Even with the speculative part.
More so with the details in the link ... And a plethora of "qualifiers"

They include phrases like ... "If it is genetic ..." and " ... remains speculative for humans".

In any case it explored avenues I have never heard of and made reasonable conclusions that they did go through the trouble of applying qualifiers to.
To me (broad based opinion unsupported by specific documentation) ... It seems like an equal case of environmental conditioning could also play a part in regards to the documentation you provided.

I will poke around the webz and see if I can find anything that either supports or debunks my opinions.

.

Thank you BlackSand and Coyote
I'm going to go with "spiritual" in order to cover all levels from physical environment
to mental to relationships, and connections with people collectively.

The people I've met who have gone through transitions (including
one person who came out transgender after going through healing),
described it as a "spiritual process" of coming to terms with who they are naturally.

In my first post directly to the OP, I included a link to a healing ministry
that does a pretty honest job of describing the process by which they have helped
people transition out of homosexuality who felt it was not natural for them.

From my experience although each person does not choose to be born spiritually this way or that
way, the choice is to forgive and receive healing of whatever conditions and conflicts they face, freeing themselves of any barriers and reconcile with their natural path and purpose in life. I see common patterns with both people coming out either gay, transgender or straight as "reclaiming" and making peace with their natural being. If you don't use the term spirituality or being, then "personality or identity" is often used for orientation or gender.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?"

Neither.

It's irrelevant.

As a fact of Constitutional law it makes no difference whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of choice or birth, the condition of being gay is entitled to Constitutional protections, to the right of due process, and the right of equal protection of the law.

Proof:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, the 'argument' that gay Americans are not entitled to Constitutional protections fails, as does the notion that to be gay is a mere 'lifestyle preference,' and that if gay Americans don't want to be subject to discrimination they need only 'stop being gay.'

While science might someday be able to prove or disprove that homosexuality is a result of biology and birth, it will forever be immaterial, having no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberty afforded gay Americans.

It is your post that is irrelevant as it is off topic to the OP. Not every question is a matter of constitutional law.

yes and no JoeMoma
maybe not LITERALLY and legally Constitutional to the letter.

But all people want their free will and free exercise of beliefs.
And since this is a faith based matter, it falls under free exercise of religion
and equal protection from discrimination by beliefs or creeds.

On that level we could respect each other's beliefs equally.

When this doesn't happen, when one group imposes their beliefs on other groups of opposing beliefs, guess what? You end up with lawsuits and lobbies because equal beliefs are at stake.
the law is SUPPOSED to protect and include these equally, but that's not what people are doing. They are abusing parties and govt to "bully" one belief over another using majority rule or court ruling to "get their way" at the expense of other people's beliefs, which I find not only cruel and harmful, but unlawful if you consider this discrimination in violation of Constitutional laws.

* If we could RESOLVE our issues personally, this would never have to become a legal mess
* but since beliefs are clashing, marriage laws are already under the state and being challenged to expand
these, then it DOES become a matter of legislative reform or court ruling if people don't agree on the laws.

You are right, we could avoid any legal hassles and Constitutional arguments
if we respected each other's beliefs equally and worked out agreements how to write or reform the laws.

How homosexuals should be treated by society is not the question asked by the OP. It is an interesteing topic, but does not answer the question of the OP.

Hi JoeMoma
I already explained how it is faith based, so I sum it up as spiritual in process.
None of this can be proven and is based on people's perceptions and values,
and what we agree on or not. See my first post directly to the OP.

the rest is people sorting out their own views and beliefs, because these are all faith-based.
the most we can do is reach an agreement on how we interpret these things,
and possibly agree how to treat people in society.

As for C_Clayton_Jones
It is people's perceptions of each other's beliefs and 'agenda'
that affects how we interpret the data, information and experiences of people.

So all the personal views people post here ARE GOING to affect their interpretation of data,
and explain why we don't come to the same conclusions when we are looking at the same things.

You can read CCJ post and see how this viewpoint is going to bias whatever they look at.

You can read my posts and see how I try to leave it spiritual open to include and explain all
views so that this respects people equally regardless how they look at it.

NOTE: by the time we can make peace with our different views, there will be NO MORE competing needs to "project one belief or another" regarding homosexuality trying to validate or invalidate one or the other.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't know how far science can measure or quantify these factors,
so until then, this area remains "faith-based"
* there are people who believe humans and animals operate the same and are only separated by intelligence
that evolves and can change later on
* there are people who believe humans and animals operate differently and cannot be compared in this case

all faith based,

Not in the least "faith-based".

Animals are mammals as are we. Sexual attraction is not based upon intelligence. There is scientific evidence that animals have the same emotions that we do and yes, they most certainly have the same sex drive.

So the science exists and there is nothing "faith-based" about that evidence. What there is are "faith-based" people who refuse to accept the scientific evidence because it upsets their "faith-based" beliefs. But they are not who gets to make the decisions on scientific evidence because they have disqualified themselves.

Derideo_Te
You cannot be serious.
You think it is proven by science why humans are attracted as mates? Really?

Does your science include or "prove" the influences of past life karma or spiritual development
in stages from one generation to the next in humans?

Can your science prove that is NOT an influence in why people are attracted to each other?

So if I cite studies or cases, similar to people I met who said they had past life memories of
being in the same love triangle in two other lives before this one,
then you can cite science that either proves or debunks this,
or shows that animals do or do not go through these same spiritual experiences or patterns as humans?

You can prove this? The Buddhists trying to research this cannot prove it. They recognize it remains faith based, but the researchers intend to show the prevailing patterns as too commonly reported to ignore as not being factors.

How does your science account for these spiritual patterns that people are reporting as affecting their attractions?

Science can and has measured the brains of people in "spiritual" states. Please note that the people themselves define it as reaching a spiritual state and from a scientific point of view they are measuring the brain activity. So yes, there is scientific evidence for people to be in a spiritual state of mind.

Channeling Spirits Shuts Down Parts Of Brain Discovery News

The same results have been achieved by scientists who have measured animal brains. Their brains are showing the same results as humans who are describing themselves to be in spiritual states.

Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences Discovery News Discovery News

Tthe scientific proof of spiritual brain states exist for both humans and animals.

As far as the anecdotal accounts of what people believe when they are in those spiritual states goes there is no way to measure that. Therefore science considers that to be "faith-based" and leaves it up to each individual to believe as they see fit.

But the scientific evidence of spiritual states has been independently verified and it establishes that humans are not the only ones who experience it. So it is up to those who are "faith-based" to figure out what they are going to do with the hard evidence that their pets can also pray and have out of body experiences.

When science eventually figures out the factors that result in sexual orientation they will probably correlate that to findings in animals and I would not be in the least surprised if they discover them to be more or less identical given that animals display homosexual behavior.

At that point it will be up to those who are "faith-based" to figure out how to deal with the evidence.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't see how what I stated is "faith based" - speculative maybe.

I would have to agree ... Even with the speculative part.
More so with the details in the link ... And a plethora of "qualifiers"

They include phrases like ... "If it is genetic ..." and " ... remains speculative for humans".

In any case it explored avenues I have never heard of and made reasonable conclusions that they did go through the trouble of applying qualifiers to.
To me (broad based opinion unsupported by specific documentation) ... It seems like an equal case of environmental conditioning could also play a part in regards to the documentation you provided.

I will poke around the webz and see if I can find anything that either supports or debunks my opinions.

.

Thank you BlackSand and Coyote
I'm going to go with "spiritual" in order to cover all levels from physical environment
to mental to relationships, and connections with people collectively.

The people I've met who have gone through transitions (including
one person who came out transgender after going through healing),
described it as a "spiritual process" of coming to terms with who they are naturally.

In my first post directly to the OP, I included a link to a healing ministry
that does a pretty honest job of describing the process by which they have helped
people transition out of homosexuality who felt it was not natural for them.

From my experience although each person does not choose to be born spiritually this way or that
way, the choice is to forgive and receive healing of whatever conditions and conflicts they face, freeing themselves of any barriers and reconcile with their natural path and purpose in life. I see common patterns with both people coming out either gay, transgender or straight as "reclaiming" and making peace with their natural being. If you don't use the term spirituality or being, then "personality or identity" is often used for orientation or gender.

Yeah, well I couldn't find anything that thoroughly covered my "environment conditioning" theory that wasn't heavily weighted with religious ambiguity.
The most definitive statement was to the idea that the causes of Homosexuality could not be empirically proven.

The only consensus of ideas collided around the aspect that it could be the result of both biological and environmental factors ... But not restricted to either.

There were good arguments made in some of the articles ... But they don't entirely meet the requirements stated in the OP.
I got excited over one ... Possibly finding something I could use, then Bam ... The freaking author (not the people who did the study) goes off on a tangent about morality.

Oh well ... I will keep digging and see what I can find.

.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I see no need for any proof, myself, as the assumption that one must "prove" homosexuality is innate seems to imply that this is necessary in order to legitimize it one way or another. It isn't. Homosexuality should be argued from the standpoint of moral reasoning, instead.

As far as reason is concerned, it should be quite the easy matter for all those who claim it is a choice to choose it for a little while and see how that turns out for them. A little first hand research can go a long way, you know.

The taboos against homosexuality are the vestiges of social mores from primitive societies in the past who valued the production of children as necessary for survival. These taboos were often codified by religious dictates that insisted it was a "sin", but somehow never getting around to saying WHY it was a sin. It wasn't a sin because it involved one person harming another in any way. It did not breech any trust or involve coercion. It was a sin simply because incurious and fearful people insisted it was.

Whether or not it is innate is moot. People should ask, instead, as to why there is so much prejudice against it. If the only answer that comes back is "just because", they sure don't have much, do they?