If being gay is not a choice, is it therefore genetic?

i cant help but think if being gay was "natural" then why dont we have the organs to accommodate.

why cant men give birth?

as far as genetics are concerned..no

Most of us now agree that homosexuality is something you are born with, rather than it being an individual's choice.

So, based on that fact, could sexuality be genetic. Is someone more likely to be gay if someone in their family was/is gay too?

Some twins like Jedward for example are both gay, so surely that must mean that sexuality is genetic right?

No one in family was/is gay, neither am I ... so it must be genetic!

Sexual desire, and all human desire is governed by hormones. You may be genetically predisposed to generate certain hormones at a certain time in your life which leads to a sequence of evens which makes you more likely to be gay. But nothing is set in stone like that.

The guy who counter-claims homosexuality is unnatural would probably be interested in reading the various documented cases of observable homosexual behaviour in other mammals.

This leads me on to my next point which is that if homosexuality is indeed completely genetic, then it would be impossible for mammals to reproduce and therefore such traits would have become extinct. The very existence of homosexuality proves that it cannot be genetic.

If the hormone argument is at all accurate, how comes hormone therapy didn't work?

Not really though, pal, because animals aren't the same as humans? Many homosexuals have and did have, sex with women to produce offspring or to have a 'normal' life and be closeted due to fear of oppression. It's not exactly a million-dollar question. Just because homosexuality is observed in nature, it doesn't mean that said animals didn't have sex with women at all. It''s a complex thing and it isn't as black and white as that. If it were, we'd have had the answer to all this presented to us an awfully long time ago.

I was careful to imply that I meant the presence of hormones at a particular crucial point in one's life. Corrective hormone therapy is like trying to re-write the past, which is impossible.

You're right though, it isn't entirely black and white and I am probably guilty of oversimplifying the issue. However, if there was a significant correlation between genetics and homosexuality then despite individual couples successfully reproducing occasionally, the trait would have been powerless against millions of years worth of willing competing couples through evolution.

So let's assume homosexuality was a "choice", would that make a homosexuality wrong?

Firstly, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that just because two twins are homosexual, it means that homosexuality is genetic. I am one of two male children - I am homosexual. There are no known homosexuals in my extended family apart from one distant cousin of my mother's. Inheritance and genetics are not exactly the same thing.

There are many theories as to what induces/causes homosexuality to occur:

1. Choice (wrong - lol);
2. Subconscious choice;
3. Genetics;
4. Mother's antibodies attacking the male foetus during pregnancy as the body sees it as a foreign object that must be destroyed;
5. Mental disorder.

But the trait doesn't exactly make any member of a species weaker and thus wouldn't need to be cancelled out, though? I don't think I can agree with you here - I think if it was as simple as saying that, then, like I said before, we would have had the answer to this million-dollar question years back. Years.

So let's assume homosexuality was a "choice", would that make a homosexuality wrong?

3/4/5 can all be kept under the same roof: Genetics.

There's already scientific proof of the presence of a "gay gene", I guess I meant there is enough proof that being gay is somewhat genetic.

I really don't see how you can replace the issue of pregnancy and mental disorder under the same roof as genetics but okay.

Fair enough.

Well it's my belief that homosexuality cropping up every so often is a strong trait as it maximizes the available social support for human offspring as resources are spread less thinly. There are many who believe that humans should not be considered as reproducing individuals but as a reproducing colony. In which case a high parent to offspring ratio is desirable, since we are so reliant on early development.

The implication of the OP though is that it is strongly genetically related, passed from father to son. This is impossible as it would lead to the trait's extinction. I believe that it is a weak trait and all humans have some capability to wield it.



No. If it is a choice for someone then it is a noble one which hurts no-one and provides support for two people.