Political Crossfire Forums

Put more simply epigenetic theory is "an emergent theory of development that emphasizes the interaction of genes and the environment - that is, both the genetic origins of behavior (within each person and within each species) and the direct, systematic influence that environmental forces have, over time, on genes."

Animal development is used as common examples to illustrate epigenetics. "For example, the shape of an animal's face and the color of its fur are the result of genetic factors, but some species develop abnormal facial features or change the color of their fur depending on environmental conditions. Even biological sex can be epigenetic: Experimenters incubated a clutch of alligator eggs at various temperatures. At about 32C all the baby alligators became male, and below that temperature all became female (Ferguson & Joanen, 1982)."

Quoted from Berger's The Developing Person.

I think as far as making a point about the accurate assertion that homosexuality is NOT a choice, it would be smarter to steer clear of the question of whether or not people are born gay or straight. It's something scientists are going to want to continue studying in order to learn more about humans and the world we exist in, but it's not important to the social issue of how homosexuals are treated or perceived in society.

If sexual orientation is not embedded in us from birth and in fact it's something that develops later in based on factors other than genetic predisposition, that doesn't change the fact that it isn't a choice. It should be self evident to everyone that sexual orientation is not a choice. If you are straight, you know that you couldn't just choose to be start being sexually attracted to people of the same gender. Being gay can't be considered a choice if the only people who were able to "choose" are the ones who are gay. If it's a choice then it would be a choice for straight people too.

OK I'm dating myself here, but back in college in a psychology class I actually did my term paper on the "nature vs. nurture question."

Based on my research--and remember this was before the interwebs and Google and all that stuff--my finding was, to put it simply, that people are born with the potential from the outset to be gay--it was a matter of how external factors influenced that trait that determined the course. By "external" I don't mean turning gay because somebody at school told you it was okay--far more subtle factors beginning very early in life.

Am I mistaken in believing this is kind of what these guys are saying?