The latest rather extensive twin studies out of Sweden suggest that the connection may not be as strong as previously believed based on earlier studies. We follow the science where it takes us… even if we are reluctant to go there.

I think that there is a growing concensus that there is not one path to ones orientation, be it gay, straight, or whatever.

It may be a combination of factors for most gay people. But it’s possible that in some it’s purely genetic while in another genes have no role. We just don’t know.

“Homosexuality is not strongly related to genetics . . . ”

I think that the more accurate statement is that a genetic correlation has not been proved to a reasonable scientific certainty. Nevertheless, twin studies do suggest a link. If an identical twin is gay, the chances are 50% that the other twin is gay. With fraternal twins, that number drops to 25%. Without getting into the esoteric sub-genome, there is a higher correlation with a greater percentage of genetic material. Fraternal twin correlation, while lower, is still several times the the random incidence.

What a about nurture? Well, then wouldn’t the fraternal/identical rates be the same?

On a related note, the most reliable predictor of sexual orientation remains the male sibling effect. As women bear more male children, the chances that one will be gay rise considerably. Rather than genetics, this suggests that a woman’s hormones change over time with each pregnancy and that these hormones have an effect on sexual orientation.

In conclusion:

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2. Organic causation need not be genetic causation.

3. As the APA has been saying for years, there may be a combination of determinants of sexual orientation.

4. It seems highly unlikely that parenting has anything whatsoever to do with sexual orientation.

One further observation is that there are millions of sexual orientations. We simplistically categorize these as straight or gay. Imagine a point in the middle of a horizontal line. Further imagine measurement to the left of the line reflects the magnitude of attraction to males; to the right – females. For most people, both lines will be extended where the longer line depicts sexual orientation. People are attracted to men, women, both or none (neither side of the line would be extended). Add sexual identity (which is similarly complex) and the potential combinations are infinite. With this many variable there are no simple answers.

Yes, I do remember that 60 Minutes piece. Here is the link to Part 2 which comes back to the little boys near the end – and it’s particularly interesting in light of Kirk’s story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_bfVvo3dd8

And speaking of twins, here are identical twins that are both gay. They were included in the PBS documentary, Circus, several months ago. My partner and I just finished watching the 5th hour (of 6) tonight. While both are gay, they are different in personality and life goals/ambitions, and ended their circus act because of it.

http://www.wayoutwest.tv/gay-tv-circus-twin-juggler.html

They are well worth a look – trust me on that. Seriously.

Unfortunately, there are other passages, so it’s hard to make it a dominant theme, but it’s there, in black and white, nevertheless…

(I mention it not to give the impression I’m a scholar on this, but merely to round out the discussion in ways that are often neglected.)

Or, as Shakespeare said, “There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will”?

To be fair, I suspect that the best ethical theory cannot be either completely “essentialist” nor, as is the case on both sides of the debate now, divorced from biological understanding.

Meanwhile, remember this series? I remember it because the brother pairs are just so cute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6zPh97qYd4&feature=related

“It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.
The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.
Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.”

Well, we can debate about what strongly means, but certainly the twins studies at a minimum show genetics is a significant factor. To say the evidence is “weak and circumstantial as the studies that used to claim that it was all about parenting.” isn’t even remotely true. I know a lot of people want to give Throckmorton credit for the progress he’s made in the last couple of years but let’s not deny that he’s exagerating when he says gayness is not strongly related to genetics.

. . . there is likely to never be a single moral category for actions that are freely chosen versus those that are viewed as somehow fundamental impulses, drives, or characteristics.

The older I get, the more I seem to lean toward believing that so-called “choices” have an inevitability about them induced by the aggregation of an individual’s unique biological factors and environmental experiences.