We're just a bunch of chemicals thrown together and see what happens. 9 times out of 10 the same thing happens, one in every 10 a random event occurs and it changes the outcome, determined by 1/3 and 6.
Cell fusion is messy and unpredictable. I could have just as easily come out born with no arms as I could have been born non heterosexual.
I supposed I'd say number 5 and 7. While I'm not willing to conclude that people are born a certain sexuality, I am willing to conclude that, for as long as the person can remember, they were a certain sexuality. Thus, I think there is a possibility that sexuality is the result of a particular upbringing or environment, be it consciously or unconsciously achieved.
Deterministic, yes. But that doesn't mean that sexuality can't change over time. I've known of some persons that have evolved from straight to bisexual (and who knows, maybe they'll end up being gay). However, I believe that flexibility is also predetermined; either you're born with it or you don't.
A co,bination theory, i mean of course it is dictated by the hormonal influece that are codify before birth but influenced by the enviroment, but also the society and his moral influence the sexuality(what the different type of sexuality in ages) and in this society-moral i put also the enviroment that influenced the think-way of the people.
Anyone who looks for the One True Explanation for any aspect of human behavior is barking up the wrong tree, and that included any particular "combination". You might be able to identify the building blocks of sexuality in one or another individual, but the last thing I expect would be to be able to identify them for everyone, everywhere, in all times.
8, because: 1. Both. Mostly before birth but sexuality can be affected (particularly in regards to fetishes) after birth. Or if someone's somewhat middle of the road bisexual, they can probably mentally influence themselves in one direction or the other. But if someone's mostly straight or mostly gay at birth, then that's not going to change much afterward.
2. B. Definitely. I've always thought A to be a bunch of hokum.
3. B. Genetics play a factor, but I'm a personal fan of the "maternal stress" theory (in relation to homosexual offspring). Makes the most sense to me given the likelihood of homosexuality being adaptive (as a way to alleviate stress of a family or group by providing more child-rearing homes without the ability to have children unless times get tough population-wise).
I don't think anything is cut and dry and black and white. Everything is grey and sexuality is a big ol' grey mass.
(I couldn't make heads or tails of how you wanted answers formatted, so take mine as you will).
1. Or if someone's somewhat middle of the road bisexual, they can probably mentally influence themselves in one direction or the other. But if someone's mostly straight or mostly gay at birth, then that's not going to change much afterward.
-It seems like you enjoy to adhere to a certain semantic interpretation of bisexuality. If someone's mostly straight or gay at birth, it's most likely not going to change although it is extremely rare for changes to happen, but it isn't unheard of. You heard of fluid sexuality?
2. "maternal stress" theory
-That is a compelling finding. At least it has some support evidence. However, it isn't without problem as here's something from a study regarding prenatal hormones. It can be argued that the prenatal hormones effects is rather dubious as they noticed a mild, but significant shift toward homosexual orientation. In table 5 of the study I just found regarding it, table 5 shows some correlations, but the amount of same-sex partners were few. The link also shown that there is problems with other studies regarding this. Oh well, problems are always expected as something so complicated as sexuality and to complicate matters even more, some people go against the general rules for example, those who do not operate on their attraction for social, religious, or other reasons or those who experienced extreme shifts in fluid sexuality or those who have disassociated sexual activities, etc....
"Unfortunately, there are no behavioral studies of non-human primates that mimic the androgen history of 46,XX humans with CAH, so that we cannot be sure if we should expect to see much more bisexuality and homosexuality in 46,XX individuals without postnatal androgen suppression."- A study I just found. Link will be seen later.
"somatic symptoms of androgen excess, and, if occurring early enough during childhood development, also to stunting of growth, while overtreatment brings about variable degrees of obesity, all of which may reduce attractivity to men and romantic approaches by men,"-Another thing to consider.
Some of these areas I'm not educated on enough to form an opinion on, and some of them I think haven't been scientifically researched enough to form an opinion. But from what we know (or at least can be fairly certain of) so far I think it's a combination of things, and probably not a consistent combination across gay individuals. Human psychology is extremely complex and I very much doubt there is any single formula that accounts for the sexuality of all individuals. The causes in females and males could be very different too. Sexuality itself isn't black and white either, it's a spectrum.
I go for 1-a, yep - rarely is the first answer what I choose in anything, but it just makes the most sense to me. Genetics comes close but I don't think there is a "gay gene" since from an evolutionary standpoint there would be no practical benefit from one (then again, there are genetic diseases and disabilities that randomly pop up, but it's kind of a dog-shot to compare homosexuality with a genetic disease or disability, but if it is then it's a harmless one and doesn't impede one's health or mental state).
I saw a documentary that seemed pretty unbiased. Though its strongest point was about how hormonal influences in early development can be a dictating factor. Mothers can have different circumstances between one pregnancy to the next, such as different age, diet, stress levels etc which could all be an influence. Apparently first-born males usually receive a higher dose of testosterone in the womb than follow-up males too, meaning gay males are more likely to be second or third borns with older, straight brothers (not always, but I think they did notice a trend in their studies) I think the study had been going on for a long time too, tracking several young boys and girls from fairly typical families as children from an age before sexuality was even "switched on" at puberty, and they noticed certain behaviour patterns were more common in kids likely to be gay or lesbian later on in life too
This format makes no sense, care to explain a little? If you are asking what causes different sexualities, there is already research done that amounts of testosterone exposure in utero during certain phases of the pregnancy determine sexuality and relative gender roles. After that, society determines what masculine and feminine roles are. Societal viewpoint may play a bit of a role as well - for example, a child growing up in a family that is against homosexuality may sway a child who is predisposed to being homosexual to fight against it.
For 1, it's the idea that hormones determines or influences one's sexuality. 1a represent the scenario that sexuality is set into the womb while the 1b represent the scenario that hormones influences sexuality throughout the entire lifetime or set at a certain age.
For 2, it's basically about the findings that deals with anatomy's measurement and correlation to a sexuality.
For 3, 3a is the viewpoint that people are born into a certain sexuality while 3b is the viewpoint that genetics should be seen as a influence.
You get the idea. What you're talking about in the gender roles is social construction.
8 but mainly 3a I guess because it has influence on so many factors like 1a/b, 2a/b, 4, partly 5 due to the feedback loop by which dna replication machines are entwined with their environment, 6a/b and even somewhat 7 again due to a feedback loop. Interestingly there is a case in which genetics didn't seem to have an influence so there seems to be more than one answer: [link] Don't kow how legit this is though.
Sexuality is kind of like a black box inside your brain that just sort of exists and does stuff but you don't know how it works. You enter stimuli into the box and it outputs responses, such as "arousal", "indifference" or "repulsion" or a mix of each.
Sexual *preference* ? I think you're reading too much into it. All the things you've listed -and more- can play a part in someone's sexual make-up. Just as no two people are exactly alike, no two people's sexual make-ups are exactly the same.
Then prove homosexuality is not normal. You won't have much to stand on. Even attempting to prove homosexuality is normal isn't really a good idea as advocates of that idea don't have much to stand on. Normal is quite a very subjective term.
It's subjective. The argument you make depends on your definition, but all in all, you have this problem of proving your definition is in fact more valid than the other side. That's why both sides aren't going anywhere.
Well, you could make the case that gender is a nice little concept which may not exist or is too arbitrary to define that we must reject it, yes. You could also make a case that chromosome do not define gender as there are male species that have XX chromosomes, AIS, and all of that do not alter one's gender while that person can be argued as broken from the statistical perspective with the bio-mechanical perspective. But that's really another topic as opposed to the thesis statement that homosexual is not normal which can't be proved just like you can't prove homosexual is normal.
Bonobo females engage in homosexual acts, but you aren't wrong that other animals are more limited in what kind of sexual acts they perform. Often though when people speak of homosexuality in the animal kingdom they don't just mean actual same-sex intercourse, but same-sex courtship behaviors as well.
We're talking animals and dogs do not have sex with their tongues. Male dogs do all the leg humping- or humping anything that bends over. Female dogs don't do that. But I guess if 2 bitches lie down together they are lesbians.
We're talking dogs here. I still call BS that dogs can be gay unless you count them laying in the same vacinity together as acting like homosexuals. I've still to see what people think dogs do to be thought of as homosexual acts, or any animals. Give me some evidence that it happens in nature.