Comments on: Americans in poll overestimate the number of gay people

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Mon, 30 May 2011 17:53:51 +0000

sergey: I never said the study was conclusive. No studies on this matter are conclusive. I merely cited it in response to kolnai’s post, as an example of the sort of findings he was referring to.

Nevertheless, from my study of the literature so far, I stick with the idea of homosexuality being a complex interaction (VERY roughtly 50/50) of genetics and environment. That is what the preponderance of evidence suggests to me, and twin studies are part of that and are almost always smaller in size. There is also a great deal of evidence about inrauterine hormonal environments influencing the orientation of the developing brain, masculinizing or feminizing it.

By: Tesh

Tesh — Mon, 30 May 2011 16:34:52 +0000

Incidentally, I’ve long disliked the term “homophobia”. It’s used with the same intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty as “racism” to demonize and mock honest ideological or logical dissent. I, for one, don’t fear homosexuality or homosexuals, rather, I simply believe the behavior to be deeply offensive to God.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Mon, 30 May 2011 15:14:03 +0000

waltj
Grew up in Redford Twp. Fixed windows all over western Wayne County including downtown Detroit. Some of my best work went up in ’67.
The description of not getting out much is pretty close to what happens to immigrants.

By: I R A Darth Aggie

I R A Darth Aggie — Mon, 30 May 2011 14:57:16 +0000

If sexual preference is a choice, when did I choose “straight” and why am I completely opposed to switching?

By: br549

br549 — Mon, 30 May 2011 14:12:28 +0000

Take all the minorities from all directions, drive it into their brains that the democrat party cares about them, the republican party does not, and they should therefore all be democrats. Instant majority. Instantly and pemanently attched at the hip, instantly and permanently dependent on them. Yeah, it’s that shallow.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Mon, 30 May 2011 11:19:51 +0000

Neo, the study you linked is quite inconclusive. Small size samples produced wide confidence intervals, which include 0 as possible measure of genetic influence. I find statistics based on large samples from general population more convincing, and it strongly indicates uniquie environmental determination as the main factor.
This is also consistent with general theory of origin of developmental anomalies. Every phenotypical treat – morphologic, physiologic or behavioral – has some sensitive periods when it it is formed in ontogeny, and that is when a small disturbance can have a major lasting effect. For development of sexuality these periods were identified in studies of Zigmund Freud, and the role of early childhood traumas was decisively highlighted. When applying genetical theories to humans it should be always taken into account that humans have an unique trait unparalleled in all other animals: very long childhood, during which we all are just embrions in the sense of biology of development. Even distinctly human abilities, like speech and upright walking, must be learned in favorable environment, or they would not properly develop. Normal family is condition sine qua non for development of normal human behaviors. Orphanages, single parents or disfunctional families always produce lots of abnormal individuals.

By: Beverly

Beverly — Mon, 30 May 2011 05:23:32 +0000

Here is an expose of the Kinsey Report:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/KINSEY.TXT

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Mon, 30 May 2011 01:30:18 +0000

kolnai: for example, this sort of thing

By: waltj

waltj — Mon, 30 May 2011 01:28:09 +0000

Thanks, Ben David. That’s something that actually makes some sense. And now that you mention it, the gay guys I’ve known have largely conformed to the type of family situation you described. It’s a small sample, to be sure, but a sensitive boy with a distant father (I didn’t know any that had actual abusive fathers, at least not that I ever knew about) combined with the doting and domineering mother fits quite well. A perfect storm of nature and nurture.

By: kolnai

kolnai — Mon, 30 May 2011 00:41:43 +0000

I don’t want to get too deep into this, but I do want to throw something out there –

It’s been my understanding that the only alternative is not genes vs. nurture/choice; the focus as of late, anyway, has been on prenatal environment, i.e., mommy’s womb and the levels of testosterone or estrogen present. I’m foggy on the details, and I don’t care to go look anything right now, but the idea is that whatever it is that “juices” a man to be a “man’s man” in the womb, gays tend to get less of that.

This creates the predisposition, and then nurture probably takes its course from there. Basically from what I’ve read (and from my own experience in having some gay friends) I think neo’s probably right – 50/50. I just wanted to add that the “50” that is not nurture need not necessarily be genetic in order to be “nature.”