Disclaimer: I should say I am not a psychologist or biologist, though I have a few college level courses in the prior which probably color my view. In addition, I am not sexually a homosexual and have no personal experience with that aspect of it, though it piques my intellectual interest. Also, I am European (this is apparently a synonym to many).

------------

Question: Do you tend to support a psychological or a biological explanation to why some people are homosexuals? Do you have a "pure" or a "mixed" view of the two, and why?

------------

My opinion: I tend to support the psychological explanation of sexuality due to it being more parsimonious. Being "born" a homosexual doesn't immediately ring clear as a biological explanation requires a number of a priori assumptions of future state of the social environment as one grows up. Two people of the same sex cannot biologically reproduce and thus face extinction. Becoming a homosexual through the psychosocial environment is to me a simpler explanation as this would imply it being either a learned behavior, which may account for homosexual couples having a higher probability of raising a homosexual child, or as a response to other environmental factors such as sexual competition.

I'll stop explaining here and rather see where the discussion goes off to.

---------

(Two notes to add: I don't think homosexuality should be treated even if it is "treatable". It is no more a condition than preferring beer over vodka. Also, I tend to support a twin explanation of both inherited and environmental causes, though with the latter overwhelmingly more explanatory, i.e. 90%)

 

 

Tags: biology, environment, homosexuality, inherited traits, psychology

Views: 1932

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The scientific evidence does not support your conclusion that the post womb environment plays the biggest part in creating gay people, especially the male version. Statements from most major branches of mental health professionals state that there is no valid evidence that upbringing or aberrant parenting creates homosexuality.  The environmental argument is greater for females, but still a minor player in the overall scheme of things. 


Arguments that assert that homosexuality cannot be the result of genetics because it fails to result in adults who pass on their genes is arguing from ignorance of how genetics and evolution work.  Woman who produce homosexual boys are generally more fertile than average.  Societies that do not punish homosexuals are able to have more children when homosexual men are involved in caring for the children of others.  And so on.

The twin arguments that environment plays the only or largest part in creating homosexuality, and that there is nothing evolutionary or communally advantageous about the production of homosexuals,  are now almost exclusively sprouted by those with an emotional and/or religious reason for wishing this to be the case. 

We should go with the evidence, not with the self-serving assertions and twisted interpretations produced by prejudice and dogma.

One question if I may, how would biology explain situational sexual behavior and heteroflexibility?

Would you really say that a person who adopts homosexual behavior in a given situation has developed a homosexual orientation?  

 

What is heteroflexibility? 

Probably not, but when genders are separated over a certain length of time, the sexual drive seem to "overpower" the original sexual orientation.

Heteroflexibility is the people who drift between sexual orientations, the prime example being girls who "go lesbian" in college (LUG=Lesbian until graduation) but are strictly straight before and after. A bit different example, I recall a gay captain in the military which had no problem in finding willing volunteers for the position of "field mattresses". 

Rosemary touching on the second paragraph itself;  would that be due to the comforting support a homosexual being would have on the female form as per say a dominating male?

Also are you stating in the third paragraph you would argue against the influence of a homosexual group as it preys on society as a whole, both lonely and or insecure males in a variety of age groups...I ask this as I know by talking with homosexuals some have admitted to this deviance.  As a man I would believe when we are going through our puberty for an example that the desire for sex could be directed for the sake of the pleasure.  This is why I believed this to be the reason this action may exist, although other reasons would apply.

I'm sure this happens.  One party is experimenting, desperate, or gets taken advatage of--and the other party doesn't give a crap.  There are sexual predators in every community.  Don't tell me there aren't thousands of heterosexual men who fantasize about having sex with a lesbian, be she lonely, insecure, or possibly less than willing (it's not like it's a cliched porno theme or anything).

 

As for these encounters changing one's sexual orientation...even in cases where a horny or emotional vulnerable heterosexual male has sex with a homosexual male, this doesn't necessarily "convert" or "turn" the heterosexual into a homosexual.  It might make him more kinky, show him exactly what he doesn't want, turn him into a giant homophobe, or it could be the experience that helps him realize he has been repressing his true or whole sexuality.

 

I think these types of encounters happen a lot less often than you worry...there's a hell of a lot of risk in it for both parties.  A good way to get beaten up is to flirt with the wrong straight person!

So, when did you decide to be heterosexual?
Not really a decision.
I decided sometime around age 6 or 7.  Alas, I am still attracted to women.

I saw this in my email and I think it is the perfect response.

 

Jared Czechen started the discussion "Heterosexuality - bioligical or psychological?" on Think Atheist

------------
Disclaimer: I should say I am not a psychologist or biologist, though I have a few college level courses in the former which probably colour my view. In addition, I am not sexually a heterosexual and have no personal experience with that aspect of it, though it piques my intellectual interest. Also, I am European (this is apparently a synonym to many).
------------
Question: Do you tend to support a psychological or a biological explanation to why some people are heteorosexuals? Do you have a "pure" or a "mixed" view of the two, and why?
------------
My opinion: I tend to support the psychological explanation of sexuality due to it being more parsimonious. Being "born" a heterosexual doesn't immediately ring clear as a biological explanation requires a number of a priori assumptions of future state of the social environment as one grows up. Two people of the opposite sex cannot do interior design and thus face extinction. Becoming a heterosexual through the psychosocial environment is to me a simpler explanation as this would imply it being either a learned behavior, which may account for heterosexual couples having a higher probability of raising a heterosexual child, or as a response to other environmental factors such as sexual competition.
I'll stop explaining here and rather see where the discussion goes off to.
---------
(Two notes to add: I don't think heterosexuality should be treated even if it is "treatable". It is no more a condition than preferring beer over vodka. Also, I tend to support a twin explanation of both inherited and environmental causes, though with the latter overwhelmingly more explanatory, i.e. 90%)
------------

Reggie-  the plagiarism buster 1   Arcus  0  

 

 

 

 

Christ on a bike Arcus!! WTF? lol

RSS

Blog Posts

Creationists Dispute

Posted by Fouad on December 24, 2014 at 7:26am 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service