Sexuality and biology

Would there be a reason that the cause of one behavior would be different from the cause of the other? Would it even make sense to assume that being straight is normal and based on biology, but yet being gay would be a choice, or be due to how someone was raised? I don't think it would.

So what does this imply? For one, it implies a lot of double standards that people are using. When someone screams about how gays chose to be gay, doesn't that mean that person chose to be straight? "But I didn't," they may reply - so why do they get to say that because they're straight, but someone who's gay doesn't?

Now I'm not going to get into the religious aspect of the debate, because, well, I don't find it relevant here. What's "natural" and "normal" often has no bearing on what a religion considers "good" and "evil".

But take a minute, and look at why you like who you like. Why should it be any different for anyone else?

Yes, the reproductive organs of a male and female naturally fit together rather well (though not always). But somehow I doubt anyone has used that logic when determining their partner. "Hmmm... I like that guy, and that girl's kinda cute also, which would my parts work better with?" There's no debate, just an attraction. But back to my point, why assume it only works that way for people who are straight?

Besides, many animal species have exhibited homosexual behavior, surely there aren't two different mechanisms at work with them. Now obviously, the things that affect them aren't as complex, which, I think, helps my point.

The arguments for heterosexuality being based in biology usually run something like the following:

• Male and female reproductive organs are naturally compatible with each other, rather than with themselves.
• Male and female intercourse is the only natural way of producing offspring.
• As offspring are the only way for the species to perpetuate its genes, it's logical that those genes would predispose their donors toward heterosexual behavior.

Meanwhile, the arguments for homosexuality having a biological basis goes something like this:

• Anecdotal evidence suggests that most homosexuals were born that way.

Arguing that one must choose to be straight or gay (or bi) is good for a philosophical discussion of the issues, but it's pretty hollow when it comes down to a serious discussion of biology and/or genetics. One of the few things both creationists and Darwinists agree on is that heterosexual behavior is the "default setting" for every species that uses sexual reproduction, because otherwise the species would have long since been replaced by the amoeba.

So, back to the heterosexuals. Who knows what causes it? Certainly on an individual level, for women heterosexual intercourse and resulting childbirth has been the greatest threat to their survival. One for one, there's no advantage in reproduction for women.

It's going to wrench your mind into 23 pieces whichever way you look at it. Perhaps the reason we don't usually debate the reasons for people being heterosexual is simply that they're the majority. And most people are normal, right?

biology != genetics

There are several avenues available to make a legitimate case that sexual orientation is biologically based without ever mentioning genes or, shudder, selective advantage. Furthermore, it's possible to mention genetics without having to bandy about the gay gene concept.

Talk about prenatal hormone exposure. Talk about the psychosomatic effect on a pregnant woman of perceived overpopulation. Talk about sex-swapping Amazonian frogs. Talk at length about the sexual habis of Bonobos.

And then get back to the original point: There's a bit of a contradiction in declaring being attracted to someone of the same sex is a choice, while also asserting being attracted to someone of a differing sex is not a choice. Besides a couple of fairly confused people I knew in highschool that thought it was trendy, I have never known of anyone that claimed to be able to choose to be attracted to someone... much less choose to be attracted to someone that's 180º from what they "should" be attracted to.

Consider: "Not My Type." Why does that phrase have any meaning? Furthermore, assuming you have one, why should "your type" be whatever it happens to be?

There are ideas about hip:waist ratios, pentagonal/geodesic symmetry of bone structure, and other supposed advertisements of fertility. BUT, what about the guys that like slim-hipped girls with small breasts? Or the girls that like slim-hipped girls with small breasts, for that matter?