Christophe Grandsire sikayal:

> Still, many sexed species, and not only the nearest to human kind, show the
> phenomenon of strict homosexuality (nearly all show the phenomenon of
> bisexuality). Most of them show strict homosexuality of *females*, which, from
> an evolutionary POV, should be strictly impossible, It doesn't seem to be that
> suicidal, or this behaviour wouldn't be that frequent.

Actually, this is a pretty invincible argument for homosexuality *not*
being genetically determined.  As someone (?) said, if it were purely
genetic it would be selected out of the populace really quickly, since the
people carrying the gene wouldn't reproduce.  Someone else (Nik?) argued
that the gene has been preserved in humans through "closet" homosexuals
who have children in heterosexual marriages.  This is conceivable, but it
leads to the bizarre conclusion that as our society becomes more
accepting, homosexuality will become less frequent as the genes are
removed from the gene pool.  In either case, I don't think homosexuality
is genetically determined.

> Since exposure to chemicals was probably quite low at those times... I keep on
> comparing with being left-handed. The proportion of left-handed people is the
> same in every culture, everywhere in the world, and even back in times. Still,
> no one has ever found a genetic reason for it. As for environment and culture,
> it doesn't go well with the fact that the proportion is the same everywhere. You
> also have a continuum between strict left-handedness and strict
> right-handedness. All this leads me to think that sexual orientation probably
> has a mechanism not unlike the mechanism of writing orientation. As for what it
> is, I'm as ignorant as everyone else...

I think the 'chemicals' referred to are various organic chemicals present
at all times.  Some have suggested that the levels of various hormones in
the mother's bloodstream during key parts of pregnancy may contribute.
And what started this discussion was the question of whether the
proportion *is* the same everywhere, with the conclusion that we don't
know and probably can't know.

Jesse S. Bangs [log in to unmask]

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton