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%)
The issue with choice is, once you suggest there is one, then someone will suggest that we simply make a different choice (ie; be straight, don't be gay). Allowing that there is choice in the matter of gives credence to all the people out there who don't like us, don't want us, and think we can be fixed.
There is choice of course, in how people across the spectrum of sexuality choose to act on their drives and instincts, but that is completely different than what makes a person gay in the first place.
Your story says to me not that you chose to feel a "spark" from the friend, but that once you did, you were in a position to choose/decide how to act in light of it.
The initial feeling you got from the touch seems to me to be just part of you, and where you might be in the spectrum. That, I believe is how you we're born.
The difference from claiming biological is that DNA therapy and medicine could easily rid the world of homosexuals if it were ever considered a disease again. And there are plenty of religious governments who wouldn't mind that... What would the Christian Right do if homosexuality was medically treatable?
Much more difficult to eradicate if it is a personal conviction, an unfree subconscious choice. Like strict adherents to Jainism. There's nothing wrong in being a convinced Jainist, it's even inspirational to those who don't share the belief and practices.
I did try posting an identical new discussion on the subject of 'heterosexuality - biological or psychological' and whether but this got moderated. Equality must give way to forum tidiness apparently.
I thought it was brilliant and reposted it from my email.
I don't know why it would be moderated, but I thought it had just as much merit, if not more, to stand as a discussion.
I believe homosexuality cannot explained by pure genetics, cos if so then how are those genes going from generation to generation. Support to this theory can come from the fact that in the past century, homosexuals were forced to marry and procreate, meaning that the genes were being transmitted. But this begs another question : As gays gain more recognition and become less and less forced to marry and have kids, will that mean the 'gay gene' will slowly disappear?
I tend to support the theory of genetic predisposition with environmental factors leading a person to be homosexual.
Dear Lord, what if spawning queer kids is just a potential capability of all humans? Then, we'd all have Teh Geh!!!
Nature is not perfect. Before modern day science any creature born with a defect would generally not survive. Homosexuals in the human and animal kingdom meant that that line would simply die out suggesting it's biological which in some homosexuals and lesbians is plainly obvious by the way they look and speak whereas in others, like Rock Hudson, it is not obvious so there maybe another reason.
For me though it is a genetic fault which in days gone by, when it was in full control, nature had a way of dealing with it.