89

There is a widespread belief that one chooses to be a homosexual, and that people can successfully overcome such feelings.

On the other hand, some scientific studies have shown that finger length may be linked with sexuality:

It has long been suspected that high levels of androgenic steroids in the uterine environment have a musculizing effect on the fetus.

Furthermore, several psychiatric organizations claim it is not a choice, but disagree on whether it is completely innate, affected by early childhood, or whether we really have any clue at all!

So, as far as we know now, is homosexuality a matter of choice, nature, or nuture?

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
Patches
  • 8,162
  • 8
  • 44
  • 58
  • 3
    Which psychiatric organisations disagree on the cause? – Prometheus Jul 10 '17 at 01:25
  • 5
    Need a citation that it is a "widespread" belief that one chooses to be a homosexual. – pacoverflow Sep 01 '22 at 02:26
  • 3
    I don't know how much the numbers have changed, but a Pew poll done in 2013 indicates that over 40% of Americans believed being gay is "just the way some choose to live", which was about the same number as those who believed it was something people are born with. (See link I added to the question.) It is definitely a notable and widespread belief. – Laurel Sep 01 '22 at 12:57
  • 1
    These 40% of Americans then obviously think that they could “choose to live gay” themselves. – gnasher729 Sep 02 '22 at 03:32
  • @gnasher729 yes, and many of those no doubt believe that they've made the moral choice not to. – phoog Sep 28 '22 at 21:06
  • 1
    @phoog Makes you wonder when they *chose* to be attracted to the opposite sex. – Django Reinhardt Jan 13 '23 at 19:34

6 Answers6

50

To be clear, science has thus far failed to produce reproducible experimental evidence demonstrating a statistically significant genetic predisposition to any sexuality or a lack of one. There are only theories, no consensus.

This is part of a much larger problem dubbed "Nature vs. Nurture" that makes it extremely difficult to tell whether a great number of human characteristics (especially psychological) have a genetic predisposition or a purely a result of environmental parameters.

Some scientists have searched for a direct genetic cause of same-sex attraction—a gene or chromosome that actually determines sexual orientation. (Friedman and Downey, p. 149) Some studies hint at a biological component, but have not proven that same-sex attraction is an inborn or biologically-determined characteristic. If you read the reports published by the researchers, you find that they admit their current findings are not conclusive and simply hint at what some of the causes may be. Furthermore, these studies have not been able to be replicated. [1]

[1] Biological Causes of Same-sex Attraction, - A compilation of published Twin Studies, Brain Studies, Chromosome studies, Hormone Studies, and Psychiatric dissertations on Psychiatry.

How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual is not well understood by scientists. Various theories provide different explanations for what determines a person's sexual orientation, including genetic and biological factors and life experiences during early childhood. Despite much research there is no proven explanation of how sexual orientation is determined. However, many scientists share the view that for most people sexual orientation is shaped during the first few years of life through complex interactions of genetic, biological, psychological and social factors.

Despite what some people claim, there is no evidence that society's greater acceptance of homosexuality results in more people having a homosexual sexual orientation. The greater numbers of people identifying as homosexual are a result of fewer people fighting their homosexual feelings while attempting to live heterosexual lives. [2]

[2] Australian Psychological Society, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection database.

Although previous studies have suggested that sexual orientation is influenced by familial factors, which may be partly genetic, these studies have relied on unrepresentative and potentially biased samples. The authors attempted to estimate the role of genetic and environmental factors in the determination of sexual orientation in a more representative sample. [This study suggests that] familial factors, which are at least partly genetic, influence sexual orientation. The results of these analyses should be interpreted in the context of low statistical power and the use of a single item to assess the complex phenotype of sexual orientation. [3]

[3] Kenneth S. Kendler, M.D. et al. Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs. Am J Psychiatry 157:1843-1846, November 2000.

Alain
  • 5,052
  • 2
  • 34
  • 35
  • 3
    How does this account for the finger-length ratio results then? As far as I knew these are highly statistically significant which *strongly* hints at a genetic component. (Although early development through environmental factors could probably have a similar result). – Konrad Rudolph Oct 30 '11 at 12:11
  • 9
    There is a statistical reason why definitive results are hard. The question is to what extent genetic predispositions can be modified by choice or environment. Some twin studies show that many "genetic" tendencies are overcome in twins raised together because of the competing pressure of individuals to be different (twins raised apart are more likely to be similar). This suggests there is sufficient plasticity in human nature for underlying genetic traits to be hard to identify in many circumstances. – matt_black Jan 08 '12 at 17:51
  • 2
    a current article on potential genetic basis for being homosexual, http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/28318/20151014/chemical-dna-tags-predict-homosexuality.htm – Himarm Oct 14 '15 at 16:51
  • 2
    Note that there have been some reasonably well-informed conjectures that homosexuality is somehow guided by the womb environment -- kind of in-between nature and nurture. – Daniel R Hicks Nov 06 '17 at 12:54
  • 1
    Keep in mind that "innate" <> "genetic," necessarily. If there are environmental factors that drive it, but it is set in utero or very, very early in life, it would still be innate, but not genetic. – PoloHoleSet Nov 06 '17 at 16:52
  • 7
    In scientific contexts, "theory" can generally be understood to mean "evidence-based consensus" such as in "the theory of gravity." You may want to use "speculation" or "hypotheses." – Tashus Nov 08 '17 at 21:51
  • 1
    The much much bigger effect - being male vs female - is innate, without any genetic reason. – gnasher729 Sep 02 '22 at 03:34
45

Here is a good breakdown from a grad student on twin studies. However, the key thing to note reading through it is the re-iterated theme that most research to date has not been of a sufficient sample sizes to be able to claim to represent homosexuality in general.

How we define "homosexuality" is also very much up in the air, particularly with prison populations. When do two inmates having sex count as homosexual?

As far as we know, from a truly skeptic viewpoint, we just don't know yet what "causes" homosexuality.

I will add, as an aside, that this is insanely hard to research. 95% of all pages I get are strongly activist for or against.

Russell Steen
  • 12,872
  • 1
  • 64
  • 86
  • 11
    As for definition, I really don't think having sex should be a part of it. In that case, I could have sex with a guy right now, just for the sake of this discussion, and that'd prove that it isn't innate, because I chose to temporarily become homosexual just to prove a point. I really think that attraction should be the interesting metric. That may or may not still leave prison populations in the grey zone, I'm not well read on the particularities of prison sex. – David Hedlund Mar 10 '11 at 15:53
  • 3
    @David - I don't disagree with your definition. The point I was trying to make was that there is not a universally agreed upon, easily measured, definition used for research. That makes it even harder to aggregate studies because they don't all measure the same thing. The definition of "homosexual" could be a long discussion in and of itself :) – Russell Steen Mar 10 '11 at 15:58
  • 1
    @David & @Russell: The twin studies linked and most others skirt around this issue by just considering self-identification. This would seem to lean toward the "attraction" definition (but still include some individuals with only sexual interest). That would also exclude most prison rapists, [who generally believe what they're doing is "not gay" because they are the penetrating partner](http://ow.ly/4c7Dh). – Patches Mar 11 '11 at 00:31
  • @Patches -- It kind of illustrates on of the points. The point is that just about everyone, yourself included, has a different definition of what it means to be homosexual. It also makes it very easy to discount a study by saying "But that's not what gay means". – Russell Steen Mar 11 '11 at 02:53
  • 1
    It should be noted that the twin studies document linked above is well over a decade old. – Adam Davis Mar 26 '11 at 05:39
  • This reference to same-sex intercourse between inmates actually asks for an own question about prison rape. I'm personally skeptic about how real it really is. However, I'm from Europe and things, especially prisons, are quite different here than in the USA, where all the prison-rape stories come from. – Martin Scharrer Mar 31 '11 at 10:40
  • 4
    @Adam -- In science decade(s) old isn't a bad thing. A decade means there has been time to review and repeat studies. Time enough for real science, not just rubber stamp "science is good" consensus. – Russell Steen Apr 10 '11 at 14:56
  • @Russell I'm not disparaging the older studies, I'm simply pointing out that it's interesting that despite the results of previous studies suggesting new directions to go in, there isn't any new information. – Adam Davis Apr 11 '11 at 01:51
  • @Martin Scharrer: Prison rape in the US is much, much higher than in Europe, where it is pretty rare. No-one really has a good answer as to why, although there are lots of potential explanations. – Marcin Apr 15 '11 at 00:54
  • 13
    I'm sorry but this is NOT a good answer. It is not definitive and it makes no attempt to backup its main statement with any verifiable sources. It reads like the authors point of view, with a disclaimer. Surely this is a perfect example of a [pseudo answer](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/383/pseudo-answers-are-the-enemy)? – Django Reinhardt Apr 16 '11 at 02:49
  • You should add that not only do we not know for certain what causes homosexuality, that in spite of our best efforts, we haven't found any way to "cure" it either. And this is in spite of some pretty drastic aversion therapy and early childhood conditioning. The only thing that the "ex-gay" ministries and any therapists have ever managed to do is show people how to better hide their true selves, or to repress their sexual desire somehow. These people still remain attracted to the same sex. – Ernie Jun 16 '11 at 18:49
  • 8
    From the answer alone, nobody knows what the study says. Shouldn't you give a short abstract about the results? – user unknown Jan 08 '12 at 15:03
  • Incomplete. There are a lot of researches in this field and from what I have studied, the consensus is that its neither 100% genetic nor 100% acquired. It is something in between. However, we know for sure that it is not a choice...or at least not a conscious one. – Zonata Oct 11 '12 at 01:57
  • @Zonata -- Consensus is a logical fallacy, not a scientific point. Also we do know for sure it is a choice in some cases. It only takes one case to prove your point wrong, and there *are* cases of people who chose their lifestyle. – Russell Steen Oct 11 '12 at 11:58
  • @Russell - You misinterpret the difference between being homosexual (which we never observed a case where it has been chosen, since it is impossible) and having homosexual relationship. To demonstrate that there is a significant difference, it is reported that as much as 10% of the population did experience homosexuality whereas only 3-4% being homosexual in the end. – Zonata Oct 16 '12 at 17:45
  • @Zonata -- read the rest of the comments and answers, this is an old discussion. In research, homosexuality is not as clearly defined as you describe and most academics disagree on the exact definition with research papers using a wide range of criteria. This makes comparing research or any sort of consensus opinion nigh impossible because very few studies are actually studying the same thing due to said difference in terminology, in addition to the usual differences in sample, methodology, and bias endemic to psychology as a field. – Russell Steen Oct 16 '12 at 19:25
  • @RussellSteen - I agree with you on that. I made the first comment to justify why your answer isn't good. If a good answer exist to this question, it would begin by your sentence saying that there is no answer yet and then a large literature review of the current advancement for each side of the question (natural, environmental, etc.) – Zonata Oct 16 '12 at 22:41
  • 1
    @RussellSteen without a solid definition of "homosexuality" that can be empirically tested in individuals without them self-identifying as such, self-identification is the only way to determine if someone is homosexual. A bigger issue is that homosexuality in many individuals is a sliding scale of bisexuality (thus, having interest in both sexes. In some societies even the slightest interest in same sex partners would be considered homosexuality, in others only exclusive interest might). – jwenting Dec 06 '13 at 06:55
  • -1 for the last paragraph – Comic Sans Strikephim Jan 20 '23 at 15:11
17

There is strong evidence to indicate that in some (many?) cases, the cause can be developmental, i.e. a result of various effects while in the womb.

To quote from Wikipedia to summarize the theory:

The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges later in the adult. Fetal hormones may be seen as the primary determiner of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes and/or environmental and social conditions.

A BBC Article from 2006 reports on a study published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men."

He suggests the effect is probably the result of a "maternal memory" in the womb for male births.

A woman's body may see a male foetus as "foreign", he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child.

The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

A 2010 paper by Dutch researchers seems to advocate that homosexuality is developmental rather than environmental or genetic.

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

I can't access the full text of the paper so I don't know from what basis they draw their conclusions. However the paper is cited by a few reputable sources and was peer reviewed.

There is evidence of a very strong correlation between finger lengths and sexual orientations. To quote from a BBC article paraphrasing a 2007 study:

We can be pretty sure from a large number of human and animal studies that digit ratios are affected by prenatal testosterone exposure. So this result suggests a link between the hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb and their sexual orientation in adulthood.

While we don't know the full range of factors that can cause or contribute to determining a persons sexual orientation, there is certainly good evidence to indicate that prenatal development and foetal hormones play a key part in many or perhaps even most cases.

Is homosexuality (meaning an instructive same-sex sexual attraction) always or generally innate? We don't know. Can homosexuality be innate? Almost definitely.

Other related studies and areas of research:

A 1974 study which has been widely cited since found that homosexual men tend to have higher levels of testosterone than heterosexual men.

Homosexuality in males is often linked to fraternal birth order, with the theory supposing that there is a maternal memory of sorts which builds up an immunity to a male foetus and the response can lead to homosexuality.

The Wikipedia page on Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation has a good summary (although poorly formatted) with links to many relevant studies.

Sonny Ordell
  • 8,695
  • 4
  • 64
  • 102
  • 2
    I intend to update this to note the differences in hypermasculinity and hypomasculinity, what we know about female homosexuality and how it differs from male homosexuality and the evidence for genetic and/or environmental causes. – Sonny Ordell Mar 01 '12 at 05:56
6

A homosexual person does not choose to have the trait of homosexuality. However, the person is more likely than others to choose homosexual behavior due to having that trait.

Most of the controversy surrounding this topic can be attributed to misunderstandings in terminology. This is because when someone mentions homosexuality, they could actually be referring to one or both of two very distinct things.

The first thing they could be referring to is a homosexual person. A homosexual is defined as, "a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex." Sexual attraction is an inborn instinctual trait that affects whom we are drawn to and how we relate to them. As with many things in nature, sexual attraction is subject to genetic variance which is why people tend to have their own "types" and not everyone is attracted to the same traits in others. This is why (similar to being left-handed) homosexuality occurs in a small percentage of people regardless of their race or culture. However, it's not a simple binary (yes/no, on/off, true/false) system. Perceived gender is only one of many things that determines how one person falls on the spectrum of attractiveness to another person. For some, gender bears little or no influence on their attraction at all (see bisexuality).

The second thing they could be referring to is homosexual behavior or those who participate in it. Homosexual behavior is typically seen as any sexual act involving members of the same gender. Unlike sexual attraction, sexual behavior (or any behavior) is subject to reasoning (choice), which can be highly influenced by culture, experience and environment. Being sexually attracted to a person is not a requirement for engaging in sexual behavior with them, it just makes it much more likely to occur. This explains why a person who identifies as "straight" might participate in homosexual behavior in prison. Not because their attractions have dramatically changed, but rather because their desire to perform the act (also instinctual) combined with their environment may lower the bar for whom they find acceptable. The same can be said for those who participate in either side of a prostitution agreement.

There are a lot of parallels that can be drawn between homosexuality today and the time when being left-handed was controversial. During that time, children were punished for using their left hand and forced to learn using their right one. It's possible for a left-handed person to pretend being right-handed their entire life by choosing to avoid left-handed behavior and actions. However, regardless of how proficient they get with their right hand, it won't feel natural to them. A lot of emotional damage can be caused along the way by the culture that rejects them for who they are or feelings they can't control.

user10407
  • 85
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
    [Welcome to Skeptics](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users)! Please [provide more references](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/5) to support your claims. The references you include only cover a small proportion of your claims. (e.g. you conclude that twins both being sexually attracted to blondes implies that their homosexual "traits" will be similarly inherited. This needs a better reference.) – Oddthinking Nov 23 '12 at 06:37
  • 2
    Unfortunately, as a new user, I was only allowed to include up to two links in my answer. The two chosen are what I believe to be the most appropriate ones based on the question and cover the most relevant points made. Also, I made no references to twins, blondes or inheritance, so I'm not sure if that was intended for my answer or another one. – user10407 Nov 23 '12 at 07:33
  • 1
    Hi, you can still add references in text (by just posting the url). This site is community edited and people with more rep can change the urls into full links. – Sklivvz Nov 23 '12 at 07:58
  • Ah, sorry to hear you were caught by that restriction. It particularly targets new users, which is unfortunate. Sorry for being unclear about the twins and blondes. I was characterising the results of the study you did cite as evidence that "sexual attraction is subject to genetic variance". That study didn't look at gender preference. (Hmmm, I just realised "gender preference" is a phrase that begs the question of whether it is a preference or not.) – Oddthinking Nov 23 '12 at 09:50
  • 1
    I was wondering if you have any evidence on the left/right handed being an immutable thing? A lot of people seem to be righted handed for some things and left for others. I know after a hand injury I just became left handed for some activities. I always thought it was just practice/muscle memory/strength. not anything innate. – Jonathon Apr 24 '15 at 19:05
2

Sexual preferences cannot be chosen...

...but the latest research has confirmed that it is not down to a single gene, either. Nor is it completely without genetic factors or completely down to external influences.

It is, according to scientists, a polygenic trait (ie. influenced by hundreds or thousands of genes) and influenced by environment.

It is both nature and nurture.

So while we know that sexual preferences cannot be consciously chosen, we also know that external factors cannot solely alter them either.

This should be obvious, given the number of people who commit suicide because of their homosexuality, and the existence of homosexual behaviour where getting caught would mean the death penalty, but it hasn't stopped people trying.

For example, he Mormon Church used to recommend that its members with gay urges get married as quickly as possible, and try to forget about them. At times they had even been known to resort to electroshock therapy when trying to "cure" people of homosexuality.

None of it worked.

Of course, you may argue that there is a way to change someone's sexuality externally, we just haven't discovered it yet.

However, as the articles I've linked to state, science says it's far too complex to be that simple.

One common question is: "Why?" Why does nature have homosexuality at all? (And it exists right across the animal kingdom, being observed in nearly 1,500 species so far.)

If you're interested, one theory as to why a certain percentage of animals/humans are gay is that they might help to protect and raise the young of a given tribe. I.e. Without offspring of their own to look after, they are perfect uncles/aunts to help ensure the safety of children (and so the future of their group's genes).

Finally, it's worth noting that Alfred Kinsey saw that sexuality is prone to change throughout life. Bisexual people often talk about feeling "more attracted" to a particular sex at different times in their life. The few people who consider themselves "ex-gay" (should they exist and are being honest with themselves) may simply be those who would have naturally changed their sexuality anyway.

But the bottom line is that your sexual preferences are largely unique to you, and outside of your control. And those skeptical of homosexuality not being a choice might ask themselves: When did you choose to be straight? :)

(Small aside: Because of its occurrence in nature, homosexuality is, by definition, completely "natural" -- i.e. It "exists in nature; not made or caused by humankind".)

Django Reinhardt
  • 2,205
  • 1
  • 25
  • 35
  • 2
    -1 Talking about animals doesn't really answer the question. – DJClayworth Jun 15 '11 at 16:46
  • 14
    Human beings ARE animals. So why would we be different? It's *entirely* relevant, unless you don't believe in evolution. – Django Reinhardt Jun 18 '11 at 15:20
  • 6
    -1 because the question isn't disputing that non-human animals have preferences; these preferences can be genetic or environmental or incidental; they can be strong or mild; they can be reinforced or discouraged though various conditioning methods with various long- and short-term consequences. The question is _which kind of preference is homosexuality?_, not _do animals have varied sexual preferences?_ –  Jan 08 '12 at 18:34
  • 1
    I don't think "preference" is synonymous with "choice." For one thing, I don't think you're working from any reasonable definition of "choice." Second, for example, the human preference for eating sugar, and likewise not eating feces, is most definitely innate and genetic - nonetheless it's still a preference, a liking for one thing over another. Also I never said "encouraged" so I don't know what you're quoting. –  Jan 09 '12 at 16:13
  • Finally, I don't see how the fact it's naturally occurring in other animals shows that it's "nature, NOT nurture." Animals other than humans have social, environmental, and incidental preferences. –  Jan 09 '12 at 16:16
  • The human desire to eat sugar over feces is not a CHOICE, though. No human can CHOOSE to prefer eating feces over sugar, it is something outside of our control. Likewise, no human can be brought up in an environment that could change that desire: No amount of social reinforcement will be able to change a person so that they PREFER to eat feces over sugar. This preference is genetically chosen for us. This is NATURE. – Django Reinhardt Jan 11 '12 at 02:41
  • I'm sure you understand that many things ARE in our control, though, and there are things that are influenced by the society within which we inhabit. The sexual ideal used to be obesity and pale skin. That represented wealth and health. Today we see wealth and health represented in slim physiques and tan skin. Clearly that is something that changes depending on our society (aka NURTURE). – Django Reinhardt Jan 11 '12 at 02:44
  • While there are animals who exist in groups with basic hierarchic/societal structures, there are plenty who don't. And yet BOTH exhibit homosexuality. Also, let's bring what you're arguing for out into the open: You are arguing that someone can be *turned* into a homosexual. Yes? – Django Reinhardt Jan 11 '12 at 02:46
  • Finally, a point on semantics: "Preference" is synonymous with "choice". That's a fact. In actually it MEANS "first choice". Secondly, you used the word "discouraged" which surely means that such a thing could be "*en*couraged" -- why you desire me to point this out to you, I don't know. I'm sure you made the connection. – Django Reinhardt Jan 11 '12 at 02:48
  • "No amount of social reinforcement will be able to change a person so that they PREFER to eat feces over sugar" You're wrong, I'm pretty sure there are some humans on the earth that prefer feces over sugar. If that's not genetic and these persons are not "sick" (not my intention to have double meaning here), then it should be acquired in some way (that we do not understand for sure, brain is complex) – Zonata Oct 11 '12 at 02:01
  • 1
    On a more serious note, animal (other than human) homosexuality is not a consensus between researchers. They certainly have sexual activities sometime with the same sex, but that does not mean that they are explicitly homosexual. – Zonata Oct 11 '12 at 02:04
  • Humans are genetically programmed to prefer eating sugar over faeces. A society that was programmed to do the opposite would not survive, and so would die out. This is the same across the entire animal kingdom. The fact that there may be some unusual people who exhibit this behaviour is neither here nor there. They are the exception that proves the rule. – Django Reinhardt Oct 11 '12 at 07:09
  • Homosexual population would also disappear considering your saying. Even more in countries that killed the people. It is demonstrated that the homosexuality rate doesn't change that much from one country to another (even in those that killed them in the past). – Zonata Oct 16 '12 at 17:51
  • 1
    No, they wouldn't, because only an estimated 10% of the population is gay. In fact, current theory suggests that having 10% of your "tribe" (thinking in primal human terms) might be good, as they can be "uncles" to offspring, and help ensure their safety. – Django Reinhardt Oct 17 '12 at 11:06
  • You are wrong, the 10% estimation was proven wrong. While 10% of population have experienced homosexuality, only 3 to 4% are estimated homosexual. Your thesis on the good effect on a tribe is correct. However, as stated, country were those people were killed would still have a significantly lower rate since "natural selection" would not have privileged that strategy. Therefore, I keep my believe that homosexuality is neither completely genetic nor completely learned. – Zonata Nov 07 '12 at 18:13
  • 1
    The truth is that NOBODY knows what % of people are "gay" or even how do define "gay". One figure is as valid as the next. I picked 10% because that's the most quoted. The idea that gay genes would die out because they don't pass on their genes shows your complete ignorance of genetics. You should read "The Selfish Gene" if you wish to understand more. – Django Reinhardt Feb 27 '13 at 22:44
  • You said that, must I remember you: "A society that was programmed to do the opposite would not survive, and so would die out." I thank you for your concerns but I know well enough about genetics. – Zonata May 21 '13 at 03:34
  • @Zonata, in a society where anyone gay was killed, anyone gay would know to hide it, and the number of “known gay” people would go to 0. But other than making some percentage of the population very unhappy, nothing would change. – gnasher729 Aug 31 '22 at 14:14
-6

Since homosexuality is seen in many animals, not just humans I'd say it's innate, natural and doesn't factor in choice at all.

In many ancient cultures (pre Judeo-Christian) homosexuality was reportedly very common.

For example in ancient Rome and Greece

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
the JinX
  • 177
  • 4
  • 1
    "Since homosexuality is seen in many animals, not just humans I'd say it's innate," This is not a proof. Even animals have some behaviour innate and some gained, and it is often quite difficult even for etologist to distinguish which is which (see e.g. work of Konrad Lorenz - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology - Learning / Imprinting / Immitation) – Suma Mar 10 '11 at 15:30
  • 12
    Many animals can breathe underwater. Would that mean it is innate and natural for humans to do so? To show that some group of animals has a characteristic in no way provides evidence that humans have an innate one as well – jjj Mar 11 '11 at 22:12
  • -1 because the question isn't disputing that non-human animals have preferences; these preferences can be genetic or environmental or incidental; they can be strong or mild; they can be reinforced or discouraged though various conditioning methods with various long- and short-term consequences. The question is _which kind of preference is homosexuality?_, not _do animals have varied sexual preferences?_ –  Jan 08 '12 at 18:35