[drjulie]

You’re correct. Researchers in this area have never claimed that sexual orientation is purely genetic, only that there could be a genetic component. I believe there is more evidence to support this in males than females (last time I reviewed the research). There are many misconceptions regarding the role of nature/nurture, which, by the way, accounts for most behaviors. It is rare that a behavior is determined solely by one or the other. We are born with undeveloped brains and our environments contribute to further development throughout childhood. For this reason, we can’t say that a behavior or predisposition that is caused mostly by nurture is easier to change than one that is mostly nature. That is a common misconception.

Also, another misconception is that a behavior determined by nurture is equivalent to “choice”. If sexual orientation is determined primarily by nurture that doesn’t mean that it is a choice.

Finally, sexual orientation is probably not a choice. I think this makes sense, if nothing else, based on our experience. However, sexual behavior, (i.e., what we do) is a choice. Usually, we behave sexually in ways that are consistent with our orientation, but not always. An example is the high rate of homosexual behavior in prisons. Many of these men behaved as heterosexuals before they went to prison and they will likely behave as heterosexuals when they are out. This is one reason why “orientation” is difficult to study. Some people may have a particular orientation but simply choose to behave in ways that don’t reflect their orientation.

[Lucky Dog]

1) The term, sexual orientation, has no practical relevance to the debate on homosexual behavior. This term (sexual orientation) is an expression based exclusively on “feelings.” To contend that only “feelings” can categorically define a person is to maintain that “feelings of “lust” define one as a rapist or “feelings” of “anger” define one as a murderer or “feelings” of “greed” define one as a thief. Therefore, one’s “feelings” toward members of either sex are irrelevant to how one rationally chooses to behave with, or toward, another individual.

2) Homosexuality is defined in a practical sense only by behavior. The reason (genetic, childhood abuse, etc.) homosexual practitioners choose to behave as they do is purely an item of idle curiosity unless their behavior requires clinical intervention for modification. If behavior modification requires clinical intervention then the issue of psychosis (as in an irresistible, compulsive, mental disorder) is on the table.

3) If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Consequently, like other psychoses, its sufferers should be given curative therapy whenever possible. If these individuals refuse or reject curative therapy and represent a significant danger to themselves and/or serious disruption to public order, they should be humanely confined with other dangerous, mentally ill people until they accept and benefit from curative therapy.

4) Any mentally healthy (in the sense of not having some irresistible, compulsive, mental disorder) human being chooses his or her behavior.

5) Therefore, one is a homosexual purely by choosing to be so. Additionally, everyone bears the consequences for their decisions. That behavioral responsibility extends to the impacts, both, to themselves and to others.

Finally, if homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is/should be subject to the same types of societal behavioral regulations/norms/laws as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, pederasty, prostitution, polygamy, polyandry, etc.