In the original article, it was claimed that 8 large studies from the US, Australia, and Scandinavia all supplied evidence that showed that homosexuality was not genetic. The original studies were not linked in the article. Did you find them? Could you post one that you looked at?
Interestingly,John, given the claims of the countries involved, I think I did look at some of the same studies-in other words, the writers of the article are claiming findings that are
completely opposite the conclusions put forth by the actual experimenters.
There's this one :
A genetic study of male sexual orientation.Bailey JM, Pillard RC.Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill 60208
and this one:
Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Bailey, J. Michael; Dunne, Michael P.; Martin, Nicholas G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
and this one:
Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden , which studied more than 7000 pairs of twins in Sweden, and concluded-as most have-that there are genetic as well as environmental factors that seem to determine or influence sexuality.
So the article is pretty much B.S., John.
This is interesting, because I referenced another book earlier that looked into the evolutionary psychology of sexuality and the conclusion that huge numbers of researchers are concluding is that sexuality and sexual orientation are far more fluid then we assumed.perhaps it can be "set" in some people, but from a cross cultural perspective, that number is exceedingly small.
See above. I know there's nothing "fluid" about my sexuality, though-over the years, I've had numerous gay friends, some of whom hit on me, and-even at my drunkest and most horny-I have never been slightly interested.
Case in point, if you looked at the cultures where homosexual relationships are normal and accepted, an overly large percentage of people who perhaps would have claimed to be heterosexual in another culture, now freely engage in homosexual relationships. This is a big problem for people who think sexual orientation is something that you are born with.
Define "overly large percentage." I mean, essentially, what you're saying is that there's more evidence of certain sexual behaviors in environments where those behaviors are accepted-I'd posit that it's not that there's a higher percentage of homosexuals, but a higher percentage of
open homosexuality.
I mean, you don't really think that there are
no homosexuals in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan, do you? :lol:
In the end, and this is something I've thought for a long time, perhaps our language is flawed. Perhaps classifying people as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual is not valid.
People classify themselves, John-one could say much the same about race:am I
black or African-American or Indian or Native-American or white or Polynesian or "other?" Does it matter? In the end, I am all of those things-some to a lesser degree than others, perhaps-and, quite truly,
none of them. I am simply who I choose to be. Sexuality may be the same, but basic drives are basic drives-I don't much like some cheeses-as in, find them completely unpalatable-but I bet I'd eat them if I were starving....this is, of course, not the best analogy-I'm pretty good at taking care of myself, sexually, and would prefer that over congress with another man, I think, just as I prefer love making with my wife over masturbation-but you get the idea.
