Genetic Theory describes the cause of homosexuality as people being born gay. The brain theory is much more in depth about the cause of homosexuality. It states that the size of a person’s hypothalamus will cause them to be homosexual or not. Gay’s hypothalamuses were less than half of the size of straights’.
Social constructionists focus on how society treats gays and lesbians, and it views that treatment as what determines how a homosexual will live his or her life. For example, homophobia is a societal reaction to homosexuality, and this interpretation of homosexuality becomes the social meaning that will shape a homosexual’s life. -hani
Gay’s hypothalamuses were less than half of the size of straights’.The sociological perspective of deviance describes society and socialization to be the causes of homosexuality (Taylor, Thio ; Schwartz, 2013).
Media, religious teachings, and individuals’ discussions with others, observations, and personal experiences are often used to form and justify their beliefs about homosexuality (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001).
Genetic Theory describes the cause of homosexuality as people being born gay. The brain theory is much more in depth about the cause of homosexuality. It states that the size of a person’s hypothalamus will cause them to be homosexual or not.
Another part of the brain that is found to be the same size in homosexual men and women is the anterior commissure, a bundle of fibers running across the midline of the brain. In heterosexual men, however, this bundle of fibers is much smaller (LeVay ; Hamer, 1994).
Hormonal theory does not describe a cause of homosexuality. Genetic Theory describes the cause of homosexuality as people being born gay. The brain theory is much more in depth about the cause ...
It will not happen in the short term, but it will be a gradual cultural transition over time that will last approximately 100 years or five generations.
The only thing that prevents sexual gratification of these behaviors are cultural values and not biology or instinct. In fact, in peoples who historically valued the homosexual conduct as appropriate, as in ancient Greece, homosexuality was widespread and sibling marriages were accepted. Therefore, the removal of the value ...
The rejection of the incestuous behavior is the result of culture values that guide the conduct of persons living in society. These values are opposed to the satisfaction of the most primitive instincts in humans.
Innate factors of sexual behavior as innate factors of all human behavior are shaped, molded, fitted or conditioned by the cultural teaching and learning of values of the society, which are ultimately the determinants of the social behavior or individual conduct over the group .
Humans are the only animal in which sexual behavior is determined by culture, not biology or instinct. Heterosexual behaviour is culturally learned. Humans are the only animal in nature that has values and governing their behaviour based on values and not on the basis of their biology or instincts.
Dogs or pigs or horses are animals in which the conduct in general and sexual behavior in particular is determined by biology or instinct.
The belief that homosexual conduct is biological or innate and, consequently, that you can not teach or learn it. However peoples sexual behaviour is not biological but culturally learned through the system of social values. As a result, the heterosexual behavior of peoples is culturally learned, as well as homosexual behavior can be if ...
To understand more fully participants’ beliefs concerning the different potential origins of homosexuality, we also coded their responses into the four broad areas explained previously: (a) genetic/biological; ( b) environmental, (c) personal choice; and (d) other influences. Participants often gave multiple answers concerning the causes of homosexuality. Although many participants (n= 31) gave responses that fell into two or more of these four broad categories, some participants gave answers that fell into one and only one of the categories. For example, 17 individuals gave only genetic explanations. (Important to note, however, is that 9 of these 17 participants specifically stated that genes play a partialrole in the origin of homosexuality, yet they only discussed the role of genetics and did not elaborate on other possible causes.) In addition, two respondents gave only other biological answers, 12 participants gave only environmental explanations, and 14 respondents gave only personal choice explanations. Additionally, 7 respondents stated that they did not know the cause of homosexuality.
Specifically, if respondents stated that they believed homosexuality is genetic or partially genetic, the interviewers asked, “What have you seen or heard that has influenced your opinion that homosexuality is genetic [partially genetic]?” If respondents initially stated that they believed genes played no role in the etiology of homosexuality, the interviewers asked them, “What have you seen or heard that has influenced your opinion that homosexuality is not genetic?” Participants were also asked, “Have you had any personal experiences that influenced your opinion?” Interviewers probed for more specific information when necessary.
Black respondents were selected based on their views about (a) the possible genetic basis for perceived differences between men and women in violence and intelligence, and (b) the possible genetic differences between Whites and Blacks in athleticism, violence and intelligence. The sample was also stratified by gender of respondent. Therefore, the 44 respondents were represented from the following four groups: 1) male/high use of genetic explanations (n= 11), 2) male/low use of genetic explanations (n= 11), 3) female/high use of genetic explanations (n= 10), 4) female/low use of genetic explanations (n= 12). The interviews were conducted during May and June, 2002.
Recent scientific and media attention has been focused on research attempting to discern potential origins of homosexuality. Homosexuality is generally framed as a social problem, which can explain this intense interest in seeking its causes. Among the scientific studies exploring the etiology of homosexuality, much work has examined the possible influence of genes. Importantly, attributing causation of human characteristics to genetics generates a way of framing the issue that may have particular social implications. For example, when traits are understood to derive from genetic origins, they may be perceived as more immutable, “natural,” and/or as something that “cannot be helped” (Stein, 1999). Such attributions concerning causation can subsequently affect individuals’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviors (Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). Considering the potential social and psychological implications of framing homosexuality as something that is or is not caused by genes, it is necessary for more studies to focus on the public's etiologic beliefs. In addition, the field of bioethics has shown the importance of exploring potential dangers and benefits of discovering the genetic bases for many psychosocial phenomena; therefore, a focus on the public's understanding of the ramifications of genetic explanations for homosexuality will expand this important literature.
In light of these findings and assertions, and given that public opinion influences social policy, more systematic and extensive examination of these issues seems critical. Therefore, we also chose to investigate in this study whether the public has considered the psychosocial harm that could result from discovering a genetic basis for homosexuality.
Allowing parents, by means morally unproblematic in themselves, to select for heterosexuality would be morally acceptable. This is because allowing parents to select their children's sexual orientation would further parents’ freedom to raise the sort of children they wish to raise and because selection for heterosexuality may benefit parents and children and is unlikely to cause significant harm (from the Abstract).
Ascribing the etiology of homosexuality to genetics implies that homosexuality is immutable and uncontrollable, and therefore is not a choice or “lifestyle.” Research has found that positive attitudes toward homosexuality are associated with the belief that its origins are biological, whereas negative attitudes are associated with the view that its origin is personal choice (Jayaratne, 2002; PEW Research Center, 2003; Schneider & Lewis, 1984; Whitley, 1990; Wood & Bartkowski, 2004). Because beliefs about the origins of homosexuality are strongly related to attitudes, it is likely that such beliefs will ultimately relate to social policy and behaviors.