The Forum > General Discussion > 'No gay gene.' Does new study have faults or hold merit?
'No gay gene.' Does new study have faults or hold merit?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Page 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- ...
- 29
- 30
- 31
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
![]() |
![]() Syndicate RSS/XML ![]() |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
lesbians are simply "born that way".
But since we know that even heterosexuals are
not "born that way," this explanation seems
unlikely. Despite extensive research, no
consistent evidence has been found for genetic or
hormonal factors that might predispose individuals
toward homosexuality - or, for that matter, toward
any of the other acts or preferences that occur in
the vast spectrum of human sexual experience.
Those who offer a biological explanation for
homosexuality seem to do so, in fact, only because
they can think of no other. But biological
factors cannot explain the different extent of
homosexuality in different societies at different
times, or the changes of sexual orientation that
may take place during the lifetime of an individual.
Homosexuality, like any other sexual behaviour ranging
from oral sex to sadomasochism to a pursuit of
blondes or brunettes, is learned.
We might well ask how people learn their eventual
sexual orientation - and, more specifically, why
do some become homosexual in the face of so much
discouragement in the socialisation process?
Several theories have been offered ranging from
early experiences, family environment, social
learning, self-labeling, cultural, religious,
and so on.
Cultural beliefs strongly influence the self-
definition that the individual makes.