So what if someone doesn't like certain foods...is that genetic? Example -- I've always hated the taste of raisins.
I don't see much merit or usefulness in this particular argument. I think homosexuality in humans is more about identity and the kinds of persons others are emotionally drawn to more so than particular sex acts. For instance, a celibate person can be gay or strait (what they identify with, who they are attracted to)--yet by definition a celibate person isn't having sex at all. IMO it is far more informative to view homosexuality in the context of identity, sub-culture and attraction/intimacy desires than any particular sex acts. If you try to define it by sex acts it also gets really complicated (have to further subdivide homosexual groups) for gay men or lesbians based on more specific preferences.
You have to keep your kids from watching Casper and Po--gays start their clandistine recruiting young ya know.
Who says it is not genetic (or biological)? It's just that there has been more studies, and therefore more publicity, concerning homosexuality than the taste of raisins. BTW, I absolutely detest the taste of eggs...any eggs, any style. I'm sure it's biological. Nobody can hate eggs as much as I do without some root cause.
Behad My son hates jello. When he was little he used to like jello. One day the day care worker made him eat all of his jello when he didn't feel up to it. Shortly thereafter, he threw it up. To this day he will not eat jello (it's been at least 15 years). In some cases the hatred of a particular food has nothing to do with biology. In his case it was 'environment'. DISCLAIMER - I am in no way comparing eating jello to the origins of homosexuality, simply pointing out that it is possible to really hate a food due to reasons other than 'biological'.
bobrek: Part of that may depend on the age of your son. The taste buds are some of the last physical parts of people to develop and they can change radically over the course of time. I'm sure lots of people hated things as kids that they love today and vice versa. That really isn't a case of environment as much as it is biological development. But, it's a funny business. Sometimes it is one factor, other times another and other times multiple factors. It's different for everyone I think.
I saw one of those specials once (dateline, 20/20, may have even been HBO) and it was on homosexuality. The part I found very interesting was that one of the subjects were identical twins. One was gay, the other wasn't. There has got to be more than one case of that (you would think), which leads me to believe either it is not biological at all, or it is a little bit of both.
Oh, I agree. I'm not saying biology is the sole reason for food dislikes. Hell, I can tell you about the night I drank my last tequila shot. But in my case against eggs, I was never force fed them. My parents both ate eggs, but my brother and I never could stand the taste. If it is a biological factor, both of us have it.
giddyup: I have a small scar underneath my chin from when I fell when learning to walk. I only know this because my parents told me. As far as I know, it's been there my whole life, but it's definately not genetic. Your example does not rule out environmental causes. As for Behads Jello example, that is almost certainly environmental based on his description. John Garcia showed that being sick after eating a food can lead to aversion to that food. Doesn't even matter if the sickness is related to that food. The change is bioligical, but it's not from development growing up in a vacuum. I think it would have to be considered environmental by any conventional meaning. In general, nothing is purely environmental or genetic. You are interacting with the environment from the day you are born, and genetics/environment can not be looked at as causes for things in isolation. Genes do not encode behavior. They do not even encode physical traits such as height or hair color. They encode a description for making a particular protien. The way those protiens interact in whatever biological proccesses lead to physical traits. We only have a basic understanding of how genes lead to physical features. I don't think anyone knows even on a basic level how genes could eventually lead to any behavior. Obviously, the play some part, but that's about all you can say. I think there is a danger in saying homosexuality is a genetic issues. It leads to the stigma that something is inherently freaky about homosexuality, that homosexuals are genetically inferior. **I am not saying that if you think homosexuality is genetic you think homosexuals are inferior** What I am saying is that by simplifying homosexuality to something genetic, it becomes easier to throw it into some sort of category without thinking about it. I think this is dangerous whatever your views on the morality of homosexuality are.
First off I have not argued that it is a "genetics" issue, but rather a "biological" issue. Chemicals in the brain, production or lack thereof of necessary chemicals by certain glands, in conjunction with genetic code, as well as environmental factors may be the cause. However, I think there would be a bigger stigma attached to labeling homosexuality as a product of one's environment by categorizing it as a "learned response". If you tell someone (in the general public) "That man is gay because he learned to be gay", then the public would respond with "Well, let's just teach them how to be straight". It just doesn't work that way, no more than you can teach someone to be tall or teach them eye color.
Raisins, jello, ghosts, chemicals, Elvis, South Beach and the supernatural. What's this thread about again?
My discussion on why I felt it was bad to label homosexuality as a gentic issues was not directed at anyone in particular on this board, nor was it meant to imply that you were arguing it was a genetics issue. The only part of my post directed at you was the first paragraph addressing your question to me. Perhaps I was mistaken in this being debate about gentics vs environment (the original post did say biological, I just took that to mean genetic). I agree with you that biological factors as well as environmental factors contribute. As I said before, nothing is purely genetic or environmental. Everything biological that goes between plays a part. I also agree that saying someone "learned to be gay" would attach a stigma to homosexuality also. However, arguing that homosexuality shouldn't be considered genetic does not imply that it should be considered learned. Again, I didn't learn to have a scar on my chin, but it was still caused by my envinronment. I think we both agree that using the biological/environmental argument of a cause to create excuses to change behavior is a bad thing. At least that's what I read into your last paragraph. I'd say arguing that homosexuality is genetic is more likely to lead to beliefs that there is a simple cause and something is wrong with homosexuals. Genetic inferiority has been the excuse for a lot of bad things over the past century. There's a stigma attached either way if you say it's just biological or just social and we differ on which we think is worse or easier to provoke stupid behavior in other people.
How's this for a fusion of beliefs: Being genetically predisposed to being tall or having blue eyes carries no moral stigmas, but being genetically predisposed to being gay does. It's a biological difference that has been made inferior by public morality.
