Sexual orientation
Been doing some googling and other reading on the evidence for the genetic basis for sexual orientation. There is strong evidence for a congenital cause of homosexuality from birth order (the more older brothers, but not sisters, a son has, the greater the chance of their being gay, such sons being notably smaller at birth than their male siblings). But that only accounts for about 1 in 7 gay men. There is certainly evidence of heritability (the more sisters a mother has, the more chance her son has of being gay: having a gay uncle increases the chance of being gay). Homosexuality/heterosexuality has a very similar profile to handedness. One's sexual orientation is a process of discovery rather than choice. And sexual orientation seems to be developed by about 3 years of age at the latest, possibly at least partly due to postnatal hormonal events. But the evidence for a "gay gene" is thin.
On the other hand, there really aren’t enough genes in the human genome for the "gene for everything" approach. Genes seem to be more recipes than moulds.
There is persistent, cross-cultural, evidence that gay men are cognitively intermediate between heterosexual men and women. (Lesbians don’t seem to attract the same research attention: they are also even smaller in number.)
Homosexuality is about a member of one gender (with the physical and hormonal features of that gender) having the sexual orientation typical of the opposite gender. Even given that some traits we think of as masculine and feminine are culturally moulded, the fact remains that some traits are much more typical in one gender than another. So, perhaps it is simply that some men have a strong dose of typically female traits (up to and including sexual orientation) and, somewhat fewer, women have a strong dose of typically male traits (up to and including sexual orientation) - given that male variability tends to be higher than female variability (sometimes put as more geniuses-but-more-morons).
That would seem to me to fit with observed behaviour. Including features such as some men enjoying sex with other men, but not being romantically oriented towards their own gender; some men being romantically oriented to both genders and some to their own gender.
But, as I understand these matters, such variations in traits would not require there being a "gay gene". And there is certainly no reason to expect that something like sexual orientation would, in a complex organism using biological transmission mechanism, be "perfectly aligned" with gender - which is what the homosexuality is unnatural position requires. Particularly given that even gender is not perfectly aligned with gender -- hence intersex folk.
Indeed, the whole homosexuality is unnatural seems very strange. Apparently, if Cain kills Abel, that tells us about the violence inherent in human nature. But if Jonathan loves David, that does not tell us about sexual variety being inherent in human nature. Or, to put it another way, murderers are ontologically superior to homosexuals. Seriously odd, if you think about it.
So, sexual orientation seems to be biologically transmitted, without there necessarily being a ‘gay gene’.
If people think homosexuality is inherent, they tend to be more positive about homosexuality than those who think it's a choice: hardly a surprising fact given cultural attitudes. Not least because homosexuality as a naturally-occuring form of human variety demolishes the it's unnatural position that hostility to homosexuality among the People of the Book is based on.
ADDENDA I have added a few links and details, as I am using this as a bit of a reference point.
On the other hand, there really aren’t enough genes in the human genome for the "gene for everything" approach. Genes seem to be more recipes than moulds.
There is persistent, cross-cultural, evidence that gay men are cognitively intermediate between heterosexual men and women. (Lesbians don’t seem to attract the same research attention: they are also even smaller in number.)
Homosexuality is about a member of one gender (with the physical and hormonal features of that gender) having the sexual orientation typical of the opposite gender. Even given that some traits we think of as masculine and feminine are culturally moulded, the fact remains that some traits are much more typical in one gender than another. So, perhaps it is simply that some men have a strong dose of typically female traits (up to and including sexual orientation) and, somewhat fewer, women have a strong dose of typically male traits (up to and including sexual orientation) - given that male variability tends to be higher than female variability (sometimes put as more geniuses-but-more-morons).
That would seem to me to fit with observed behaviour. Including features such as some men enjoying sex with other men, but not being romantically oriented towards their own gender; some men being romantically oriented to both genders and some to their own gender.
But, as I understand these matters, such variations in traits would not require there being a "gay gene". And there is certainly no reason to expect that something like sexual orientation would, in a complex organism using biological transmission mechanism, be "perfectly aligned" with gender - which is what the homosexuality is unnatural position requires. Particularly given that even gender is not perfectly aligned with gender -- hence intersex folk.
Indeed, the whole homosexuality is unnatural seems very strange. Apparently, if Cain kills Abel, that tells us about the violence inherent in human nature. But if Jonathan loves David, that does not tell us about sexual variety being inherent in human nature. Or, to put it another way, murderers are ontologically superior to homosexuals. Seriously odd, if you think about it.
So, sexual orientation seems to be biologically transmitted, without there necessarily being a ‘gay gene’.
If people think homosexuality is inherent, they tend to be more positive about homosexuality than those who think it's a choice: hardly a surprising fact given cultural attitudes. Not least because homosexuality as a naturally-occuring form of human variety demolishes the it's unnatural position that hostility to homosexuality among the People of the Book is based on.
ADDENDA I have added a few links and details, as I am using this as a bit of a reference point.