<p>It's both.</p>
<p>"Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html</a></p>
<p>I don't think you can completely change it at all. It's like if a straight person were to attempt to become gay. If you're not attracted to a certain gender, you're not attracted to that gender. You can't say to yourself "Well, I've preferred guys up to this point, but might as well swing the other way" and suddenly become attracted to girls.</p>
<p>Magicmonkey: Are you advocating conversion/reparative therapy?</p>
<p>The APA is a joke. They said homosexuality was a mental disorder until about 1992 when they did a 180 while under mega pressure by pretty much every homosexual special interest group in the U.S. The change caused a schism in the APA and resulted in the formation of a parallel psychologist organization that maintains that homosexuality is a mental disorder.</p>
<p>I think that tons of research should be done on the topic and decisions should be based on what is for real and not conjecture and personal anecdote. If it so happens that it is discovered to be nurture, then I think preventive measures should be established such as educating parents and students (they'll be parents eventually) in actions to avoid. </p>
<p>happypoo: you're assuming that both homo and heterosexuality are parallel genetic functions. That is exactly what is not known. Maybe heterosexuality is an actual natural genetic function while homosexuality is a mental perversion of that function brought on by whatever.</p>
<p>The American Psychological Association adopted the American Psychiatric Association's position on homosexuality (that it is not a mental disorder) in 1975, not 1992. A segment of the gay rights movement did pressure the American Psychiatric Association to consider objective evidence leading to such a decision. Previously, psychiatrists had examined homosexuals mostly in prisons and mental hospitals, hence the disproportionate number of "mentally ill" gay people discovered. The APA has now eliminated that bias. Even back then, pioneer scientists like Dr. Evelyn Hooker concluded that there was no discernable pathology among gay patients; also, the clinical judges for the experiment were unable to distinguish between straights and gays. As it stands, the medical establishment as a whole supports the theory that homosexuality is not a mental illness. I hope you don't truly believe that it is. If you do, what is your definition of a mental illness?</p>
<p>"The change caused a schism in the APA and resulted in the formation of a parallel psychologist organization that maintains that homosexuality is a mental disorder."
Which one are you talking about? NARTH? Do you honestly think that this organization is more credible than the medical establishment?</p>
<p>Besides, most organizations advocating reparative therapy have religious bias, in case you haven't been able to tell.</p>
<p>"happypoo: you're assuming that both homo and heterosexuality are parallel genetic functions. That is exactly what is not known. Maybe heterosexuality is an actual natural genetic function while homosexuality is a mental perversion of that function brought on by whatever."</p>
<p>Happypoo did not at all assume that homosexuality and heterosexuality are genetic functions. Once again, magicmonkey, the issue is whether or not being of a particular sexual orientation is a voluntary choice. Did you voluntarily choose to be straight? Do you believe that you can turn gay?</p>
<p>The APA is a joke because it has Psychology in its name. Psychology is mainly concerned with coming up with meaningless big words strung togather in hopes of impressing laymen. I recently saw a new psychological syndrome coming out...I believe its called something like "trans gender mutation identity crisis". My mom was watching TV with me and we had the hardest laugh we had in years...Only in America does such pseudoscience flourish.</p>
<p>Another case in point, I saw a few APA pages devoted to how to be politically correct while addressing gays (you can't use the term sexual [n]preference*, but its PC to use sexual **orientation*...you know, bollocks like that).</p>
<p>
[quote]
As many people have said, biomedical studies on the "gay gene" theory have been inconclusive. No one knows. No one is claiming that they know. What's factual is that homosexuality is not a choice.
[/quote]
If its inconclusive and noone knows, then its not factual that homosexuality is not a choice. If it was truly genetic, why don't both twins become homos? Or straights? (Referring to the studies of twins with identical DNA).</p>
<p>Regarding the biological basis of homosexuality, a good place to start:</p>
<p>Primary source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Source reference:
Anthony F. Bogaert. "Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men's sexual orientation." PNAS 2006; doi/10.1073/pnas.0511152103. </p>
<p>Of course this research is still ongoing, and much is still to be learned, but it seems fairly likely that biology strongly afffects sexual orientation</p>
<p>Some people say it's neither genetic, nor a choice. They say that homosexuality is just a chemical imbalance in the brain, much like depression is. </p>
<p>I think, whatever it is, it is not a choice...is it genetic? Well, feminine males have a XXY chromosome (females have an XX chromosome; males have an XY chromosome)...so, you be a judge! But, what about the "macho males" who are gay?...chemical imbalance in their brain?</p>
<p>Whatever it is, it isn't wise to take a hard stance on it yet.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you people are just disgusting, simply odious creatures that will burn in hell.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lololololol</p>
<p>dude...</p>
<p>You obviously have the right to speak to us evil-doers like that, since you're clearly destined for salvation, courtesy of Bible-thumping.</p>
<p>"The APA is a joke because it has Psychology in its name. Psychology is mainly concerned with coming up with meaningless big words strung togather in hopes of impressing laymen."</p>
<p>The American Psychiatric Association is responsible for coming up with terms to describe mental disorders and other conditions, as they are discovered. It is inevitable for the institution to be somewhat influenced by cultural/social norms because of the nature of work psychiatrists do. Back then, religion played a more significant role in American society (more people believed that homosexuality=sin). Because the psychiatric establishment was pressured to fulfill its role as guarantor of social order, its decision to include homosexuality in the list of mental disorders was political. Did the gay rights movement politically influence the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision (and the American Psychological Association's adoption of that policy in 1975)? Because the movement put pressure on the APA to re-consider their use of the scientific method and thus the resulting evidence, it put pressure on the APA to create the change at that particular time. However, now we know that homosexuals aren't mentally ill simply because of their sexual orientation; their mental functioning is not impaired. If you interviewed a straight guy and a gay guy without knowing that one of them is gay, would you be able to discern that one is "unfit to function" (that's what mental illness does) in your workplace?</p>
<p>As for any scientific branch, recent evidence come up to replace what is outdated (and in this case, to also replace "evidence" obtained through improper use of the scientific method).
If you're criticizing the APA, you might as well criticize the NARTH. Based on your rationale, NARTH is in no position to come up with such terms either.</p>
<p>"If its inconclusive and noone knows, then its not factual that homosexuality is not a choice. If it was truly genetic, why don't both twins become homos? Or straights? (Referring to the studies of twins with identical DNA)."
The genetic studies are inconclusive and thus, no one knows for sure to what extent homosexuality is caused by genetics. However, studies have shown time and again that there <em>is</em> a genetic link. If there is a link, how can homosexuality not be partially caused by genetics? Once again, homosexuality is not a voluntary choice, but no one knows if genetics or early childhood environmental factors shaped the condition.</p>
<p>"Some people say it's neither genetic, nor a choice. They say that homosexuality is just a chemical imbalance in the brain, much like depression is."
If that is the case, then people can just take medication to correct the chemical imbalance? Why haven't people tried this, even if illegally (if they are that desperate)?</p>
<p>Some studies at the moment are beginning to study the environment inside the womb as well. Apparently the hormones a mother releases during pregnancy can have some affect.
I personally think that it comes from a person's innate nature. I don't think you can explain homosexuality any other way.</p>
<p>I don't think there is any way for us to know if it's genetic or not. There might be some sort of "gay" gene in humans, but if you are saying that it's passed on through birth to children I don't think so. My cousin is a lesbian but no one else in the family is gay, however that is just one example, if you go back far enough who knows.</p>
<p>Well ok NARTH is garbage too. Happy?</p>
<p>With all the other important issues that are happening, our government should be ashamed of themselves for making this issue a priority.</p>
<p>Yes. This isn't the government's business in the first place.</p>
<p>At least members of Narth weren't swayed by obvious external pressure from special interest groups. You automatically assume they believe what they do because of religous advocates. Also, The APA could not have been swayed by "new" facts. Why? Because there aren't any. There is absolutely no evidence (by evidence I mean substantial proof and not a vague reference to something that MIGHT exist in a mostly unknown area) even remotely suggesting that homosexuality is genetic. The only "evidence" comes from experiments with purposely skewed experimental data that is entirely unreliable. There is no supporting evidence, at all, and if there was it would be plastered all over TIME magazine just like the nebulous "X gene."</p>
<p>You say "studies have shown..." WHAT studies? I've never seen any that held water when investigated by a third party.</p>
<p>Also, how are the studies with the twins inconclusive? If they have IDENTICAL genes then they both HAVE to exhibit the same genetic traits. So, if these "studies" support genetic theory they are valid experiments, but if they don't (like the twins) they are inconclusive?</p>
<p>I DON'T know HOW to ITALICIZE.</p>
<p>animals aren't gay. explain that one.</p>