Talk:Causes of sexual orientation

Old Talk Debate

---

I think RK, Dmerrill and I may be able to work together on constructing a balanced article. Some points from old talk:

• I intend to avoid mentioning Cohen's religious views. I am unaware of his political views. I intend to concentrate exclusively on his psychological views and on genetic research his website and book have brought to my attention.
• I think some mention of religious views of causation are appropriate, but they should take a lot less space to describe than the genetic research and psychological theories.
• My religion specifically disclaims eternal torment in Hell. In fact, that's one of the reasons I chose to join it.

Ed Poor

---

Nice move. Causes of sexual orientation is a much better title.

---

I agree that this is a better title, but the article now needs to reflect this balance, since right now it just focuses on the causes of homosexuality. My point in creating an article on the causes of heterosexuality was to provide balance. This article should address what causes someone to be either heterosexual or homosexual, not just focus on what causes someone to be homosexual. -- Egern

---

A lot of this talk was really Debate as to what "normal" is. Please show how this is relevant to causation. Then come back to Talk Ed Poor

You also snipped the debate about use of the word "abnormal", which is a fighting word, not NPOV. But there's no surprise, since you are a man, and we all know that there are more women then men in the world, so you are therefore abnormal. GregLindahl

I won't argue that (my wife says pretty much the same thing :-) Ed Poor

You won't argue that "abnormal" is a fighting word, and not NPOV? Why, Ed, that's unusually perceptive of you. Normally you mostly ignore what I say, and only respond to my jokes. GregLindahl

---

I don't know much about this field, so I don't want to get involved in improving the article. I just have a comment about this: "Scientists are now in agreement that homosexuality is not a freely made choice or "lifestyle" that someone decided to follow, and many religions are updating their theologies to conform with science." Is it true that all scientists, as this implies, believe that homosexuality is not a freely made choice? No scientists believe that homosexuality is, to any degree, a matter of choice? I find that difficult to believe, but maybe that's because I'm just ignorant about this stuff. --LMS

---

I'd like to remove 4 or 5 sentences from the middle of the article. They don't say much. Ed Poor

Ed, your approach to many of the entries you work on is disturbing. This is a case in point. Don't you realize that some of the sentences below are the main point of this entry?

• This is largely because heterosexuality was considered the norm and homosexuality an aberration, although this view has been contested and weakened by the results of the research as well as political activism.

This is a minor point, and is not really necessary on a page about scientific views of how sexuality is determined, but it is not inappropriate to mention in one sentence.

• There has also been a realization that any attempt at understanding the causes of sexual attraction to the same sex will be more successful if we understand the mechanisms that underlie sexual attraction per se, and more specifically what causes many people to feel sexual attraction primarily towards members of one particular sex.

Um, this is one of the major fields of scientific research! Why delete it?!?!

• The traditional Judaeo-Christian view that homosexuality was caused by mingling with non-Israelite tribes, man's rebellious or fallen nature, or demonic temptation has given way to scientific explanations which regard homosexuality as normal and natural.

• Scientists are now in agreement that homosexuality is not a freely made choice or "lifestyle" that someone decided to follow, and many religions are updating their theologies to conform with science.

The part about religion should be redirected to the appropriate Wikipedia entry on religion and homosexuality. But deleting it is not the answer.

• The last 20 years have seen an explosion in the scientific knowledge available on the genetic, biological and psychological causes of homosexuality.

This is the entire point of this entry. If you delete it, you might as well delete everything else here. Isn't this obvious? RK

---

Ed, it seems to me those sentences say quite a bit. What is needed is more information in addition to this, e.g., about the traditional Chinese and Indian views of homosexuality. The way forward is not to delete sentences that you simply disagree with. That way lies madness, and more importantly, less content! What's important is that we try to phrase things in such a way that everyone can agree with; and when that seems impossible, the way forward is to describe the controversy fairly, rather than try to force each other to make the article say something controversial. --LMS

This article is stubby. It basically asks a lot of questions and points the way to further article development. Dmerrill made a good start, but it's really far from finished. I'd like to add to it myself, but I fear my anti-homosexualty bias would combine with my lack of research knowledge to produce an even worse article than the stub. So, I merely defined sexual orientation is a separate article. Would someone else please refine the "causes of" article? --Ed Poor

---

Following moved out from end of article:

---

This entry is only about causal theories. It is not for discussing issues of morality, ethics, human rights, religion, etc. This is not a place to make a point about supposed "sins."

Genetic studies

Twin Studies

Biological Studies not strictly dealing with genetics

Interplay of the environment and the biological make-up of the individual. (Nature vs. nurture)

Various psychological views will also be examined.

---

A fascintating topic, of course.

Surely the point has been made, by researchers, that the fact that gay people are not aware of having chosen to be gay (any more than heterosexuals are aware of having chosen to be heterosexual) surely does by itself not imply that homosexuality is biological? Are those the only two possibilities? Particularly in this day and age, what could be more obvious than that cultural factors can make someone with a predisposition of some sort to homosexuality to become a self-conscious and practicing homosexual? Surely gay activists would agree with that, because they abhor the fact that some people "with a predisposition of some sort to homosexuality" might be shoehorned by a heterosexual-dominated culture into a heterosexual mold? I mean, wouldn't that be why some gay activists have wanted the school curriculums to be changed, so that more people who otherwise wouldn't become homosexual will feel freer to become self-conscious, practicing homosexuals, and less pressure to become heterosexual (or to hide their homosexuality, even from themselves--I guess that's what they say, eh)?

I'm just stating what seems obvious to me; I hope someone with more expertise in this area will help to change the article so that it is a little more sophisticated in this way. On such a sensitive topic as this, I do not want to pretend to be able to work directly on the article reliably! --LMS

Yes, but that's only part of the whole story. The primary arguments for school curriculum about homosexuality are 1) it's intellectually dishonest to pretend it doesn't exist, and 2) homophobia is a social problem that needs to be dealt with early and directly. The two main reasons for 2) are a) that it's considered the reason why gay teenagers commit suicide several times more often than their straight counterparts, and, b) as you said, it drives people into the closet. --Dmerrill

Those two points are the primarily arguments given -- but there may be a hidden agenda as well: to normalize homosexuality and make it a permanent accepted part of society, a goal I oppose. Ed Poor

---

Unlike LMS, whose reticence is due to his professed lack of knowleged in this area, I know so much about the subject that I am convinced of the point of view opposite to gay rights; hence, I shall make sure I use the talk pages to avoid making peremptory deletes or edits. I rely on Demerrill to keep me straight (pun intentional), or failing that LMS can tell me to butt out. Hear that, Larry? You have the authority. Ed Poor

---

There is at least one way I can think of that might cause people be predisposed towards homosexuality (or heterosexuality) that has nothing to do with genetics, but which I presume would still be considered "biological", and that is the possibility of something happening in the womb. This article doesn't really address that question, and I don't know what the research is or the body of opinion is on that aspect of the question anyway.

---

I heard that the ancient greeks attitude towards homosexuality wasnt as tolerant as it is often believed to be, more along the lines of beeing accepted in some circumstances but not in general, any further infos of the validness of this anyone?

It was very well accepted, but only in limited forms -- see homosexuality for a discussion. --Dmerrill

---

I'm not sure how accurate the final part about "conscious choice" is. To the best of my knowledge (and if I knew more I'd rewrite that part of the article), there are very few, even among relligious social conservatives, who claim the orientation as opposed to behavior is a conscious choice. I've heard it compared more often to something like alcoholism, something that may not be a conscious choice and that may have a variety of causes. But whether one chooses to do anything about it (one way or the other) is a choice, or so I believe they'd say.

Some people, primarily Christians and most often fundamentalist, believe that a person can change their sexual orientation if they choose to. They operate programs, some of them modelled on 12-step programs, to help people change from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

The above paragraph should be removed or changed radically. I had edited it (perhaps too hastily) this week, but now I realize it's out of place entirely.

No one is seriously saying that a person just up and decides one day, "I think I'll become gay." Perhaps some gay rights activists claim that fundamentalist think so, but I do not recall reading anywhere -- even on the most "homophobic" (i.e., openly hostile and admittedly hostile) anti-gay website -- that any Christian has said that anyone consciously chose to become homosexual.

I have read only -- and this is a crucial distinction, one made in the article itself -- that some persons have chosen to engage in homosexual acts.

If there is anyone who says that having sex with the same or opposite sex causes one's sexual orientation to shift, I'd like to know about it, as in: spokesman A of group B believes C. Otherwise, I vote for deletion of the above paragraph. I'll check back Monday. Thanks in advance for everyone's objectivity and NPOV dedication. Ed Poor, Friday, April 19, 2002

The paragraph you're objecting to doesn't claim that anyone says that 'having sex with the same or opposite sex causes one's sexual orientation to shift', it says that some groups claim that people can change their sexual orientation if they choose to. The paragraph is entirely true as it stands. If you need a reference, Homosexuals Anonymous is one such group [1] (http://members.aol.com/Hawebpage/). Matthew Woodcraft

Thanks for the HA reference. I will add it to the reparative therapy article.

I think the term sexual orientation was created by gay rights advocates to co-opt the debate about the morality of homosexuality. Their argunment is that homosexuality ought not to be criticized. This argument is supported by the premises (a) homosexuality isn't immoral and/or (b) it's impossible to change anyway. (Indeed, the presumed impossibility of changing is often used as support the first premise, on the view that an unchangeable attribute shouldn't be viewed as immoral.)

I think that the term "sexual orientation" developed because all sorts of people find it useufl. I think Gays talk about their own sexuality in terms of their "orientation" because it fits in witht heir experiences. But your argument makes no sense to me. You assume that innate orientation removes morality as an issue, and cannot be changed. Neither of these are correct.

First, a person may be born a sociopath or psychopath, or certainly become one at an early age. This does not mean that when they torture animals including humans there is no moral issue, or that it is a good thing. Similarly, someone may be born with sickle-cell anemia or tay-sachs diseas. That they are born with it does not make it a good thing.

Second, just becuase something is born and innate does not mean it cannot be changed. I have, no doubt for genetic reasons, poor eye-sight, but I can correct for that with glasses. My mother is short, but can reach tall shelves bbecause of a step-ladder. Some people are born with one color hair and dye it. The number of things we are born with and that are genetic and natural, but that can be changed, is countless.

Third, Those of us who believe that homosexuality is moral do so not because it is innate (whether it is or not) but because it can be a very important part of a consensual, pleasurable, spiritual, meaningful relationship and life. These (or some of these) may not be moral criteria to you, but they are to others. Even if people were gay entirely by choice, being gay would still be moral.

fourth, even if people could change being gay does not mean that they would want to, would, or should. Of course, given how hard it is to be gay in most parts of the US today, I wouldn't be surprised if someone wanted to change their sexual orientation. But then again, I am Jewish which has made me the target of anti-semitism and still I refuse to change (even though I can); I bet there are lots of people who have been targets of different forms of discrimination who nevertheless would not change even if they could easily.

In short, I think that you have offered an irrelevant non-sequitor. Homosexuality in and of itself should not be criticized for three reasons only, that have nothing to do with the reasons you present: there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it; it can be wonderful; and homosexuals have been targets of so much discrimination in the past it behooves a moral society to be especially sensitive right now. SR

Groups like Homosexuals Anonymous[?], NARTH, and Richard Cohen's International Healing Foundation dispute the premise that homosexuality is unchangeable. If society discovers that homosexuality is actually changeable, that takes away the greater ground of the gay rights argument against criticizing homosexuality. If homosexuality is not unchangeable and inherent (like skin color and the shape of facial features), then it is subject to the will. Except for those who reject the concept of morality altogether, desires and acts subject to human will constitute the field of morality, so the focus of the debate would change considerably.

Our challenge in writing 'pedia articles relating to homosexuality is to maintain the NPOV without necessarily buying into spurious anti-morality arguments. Advocacy for or against morality, or any other point of view for that matter, must be labelled as advocacy and (preferably) attributed to a source. As in, "Gay rights advocates generally maintain that..." or "Many Christians, especially fundamentalists, believe that..."

Ed Poor, Monday, April 22, 2002

---

Reading through this article, I still think it's highly POV. Primarly, it makes no discussion of the motivations for undertaking this work. Few scientists see any merit or benefit to the world in researching 'causes of sexual orientation' or even if such work is feasible. Many of those who do openly court the publicity. Here are some more of my issues with it:

Usually, research on sexual orientation is focused on causes of homosexuality. This is largely because heterosexuality has traditionally been considered "normal" and homosexuality an aberration, although this view has been contested and weakened by the results of the research as well as political activism.

AFAIK, scientists make no prior claim as to whether or not homosexuality is 'normal'. I appreciate the sentiment, but I still don't understand what an article about causes of sexual orientation is doing discussing whether homosexuality is normal or not. Is this a required element of this article?

Some popular reports on research, published in a Newsweek cover article entitled "Gay Gene?" had suggested that there was a genetic basis for homosexuality which make people more likely to become homosexual. These reports were later repudiated by the researchers, who said that their work had been misconstrued, and Newsweek printed a retraction on an inside page.

Simply because Newsweek had to publish an apology does not automatically dismiss the concept of a 'gay gene', as this paragraph suggests. My understanding is that, while some of the research does not prove the existence of a gay gene (which is what many claimed), it does actually lend credence to the idea that the causes of sexual orientation has a genetic component. This is discussed more fully in the genetic basis for homosexuality article and should be left there.

Similarly, the 'Psychological and Sociological Factors' attributes 'research' from the International Healing Foundation, without mentioning the IHF is a religious organisation, or that such ideas are widely dismissed by the psychiatric and pschological communities. Similarly, why do fringe views like this get first mention in this part of the article?

--Axon