The so-called science of human sexual orientation and secular sexual morality

Lately I have been seeing numerous articles showing up in my news feed on my phone about "gay genes," and "birth order affects." It seems that the media is filled with this new so-called science experiment which claims to show what is said to be genes linked with homosexual traits. It looks interesting and may even pass under some peoples bullshit detector, but, not mine. There are so many issues with this most recent study it is hard to narrow them down. 

A lot is made of the so-called science of human sexual so-called orientation when it comes to arguments for homosexuality/gayness being OK. However, I contend that you do not need to be innately such to defend ones rights to behavior of a same sex nature. Moreover, I contend that a lot of the science we have is actually a mixture between decent science and a bunch of junk pop-science with no actual backing in the overall information we have. Yes, you occasionally get something worthwhile, but, it is under a mountain of bullshit the size of a Hawaiian volcano. 

It is often said that there is a consensus on the issue of human sexuality and desire. This is not correct as we do not have any sort of actual concise full scientific theory for human non-heterosexuality at this time. We have lots of hypotheses, but, not an actual scientific theory of causation of the exclusively homosexual male nor female. Nor do we have have any scientific theory on bisexuality either on any scale. The truth is the issue is not as easily investigated as one might think it is. Numerous times previous studies which claimed to show things like a so-called "gay gene" have failed to be able to be reproduced successfully and thus cannot be validated using the scientific method.

When it comes to the latest study on genes it was done in only European Countries and was only done on about 1000 men. This is only one Country and it is a very small sample. In fact, it is really too small a sample to be meaningful scientifically at all. Their gay genes were some genes related to this sample of men's male chromosomes. Some of them were differently expressed in the gay males from the straight males. This was than interpreted to be linked to the orientation difference in these men and nothing else. Not only that, but, it was not a random sample either. The scientists chose their subjects from various Gay Pride events. They also screened out all women (yes, all women) and all bisexual males (yes all) from participating in the study. In the end scientifically this is once more a meaningless study that shows us nothing new. As well as being something that has not at all been reproduced in any other Country. 

However, when it comes to the search for the common cause of homosexuality in males looking for certain genes on the male chromosomes is only one hypothesis for causation. There are also other ideas such as the birth order affect which talks about hormones and antigens in the womb. Where people with older brothers the younger ones will tend to be gay due to the fact the mom's womb will fire off these antigens and it will feminize the fetus and thus give the new born boy a gay brain which is female typical and thus homosexual. The only thing is this too does not always hold up every time. How many large families exist with lots of brothers where all of them are 100% heterosexual? Quite a lot actually. Which makes it hard to actually be able to say this is duplicated in the real world. This does not mean there is nothing to the research simply that it is not a 1 to 1 cause and affect scenario. 

However, the real issue lies in the numbers of the demographics when they are added up. Cross-culturally in many Countries the numbers come up the same and that is most same-sex attraction is happening in a mostly straight or mostly heterosexual population. This means that the actual driver or drivers of same-sex desire is not something that effects most people to the point of it becoming a part of their identity nor their main attraction and desire. Most Androphile (man for man) attraction in males is found as a side component to a larger Gynophile (man into woman) attraction and desire. Which means that if it comes from birth order it does not equal most of the time anything more than a passing fancy that comes and often by the time one is in their 30's is all, but, fleeting. 

All the studies in the world can be done on genes, epi-genetics and womb environment. However, if one does not test this massive majority of same-sex individuals and sticks only with exclusive homosexual males the research will never be broad enough to be conclusive. This is why excluding any form of bisexual identifying and also mostly straight identifying from tests means you cannot have the broadest sample nor the most accurate one. Not only that, but, it is important to include these people as a control group of sorts to see what is the actual genetic make up of the cross section of orientation of desire. There is also the possiblity that there is no "gay" genes at all and defenders of LGBT rights are grasping for a naturalistic fallacy straw. 

In fact, the more research tries to find this gene or these genes the more it seems they are shooting fish in a barrel. Why do I say this? I say it because it makes no sense from a scientific standpoint of evoluntary biology for their to be a part of the human gnome dedicated to making any man or woman gay. See nature is not like some creationist god that molds us into her or his creation. Any gene or genes that did have an influence on ones future same-sex desires would have this as an unintended affect of some sort of unrelated cause. The same goes for in Utero womb developement. Antigens and androgens in the womb are not intended to stop procreation between the sexes intentionally. It is an unintended consquence of a broader sexual dimorphism between the sexes. 

In other words there is no gay gene or genes coded specifically with the purpose of inputing into the human brain to create the output of same-sex behavior in that person, Any gene or genes infuences only a part and a small one at about 30% according to the studies we have. The rest is envinromental and whether one becomes homosexual exclusively, bisexual in some form, mostly heterosexual or even completely heterosexual despite containing the gene or genes is a combination of both biology and envinronment. Yes, that is right according to even the American Psychological Association and American Phsyciatric Association sexual orientation is a combimnation of numerous factors and biology is only one part. 

Not only that, but, out of what consistutes biology "genes" are one of the smallest parts. Even in the Utero hypothesis it is the Androgen and Antigen bath that really molds the predispositional "gay" brain and wiring. With the genes playing really the most minor of part which is either anywhere between 20-30% depending on which research is looked at. Not only that, but, it is predispositional and not predeterminisitc of orientation as well. We know this because if same-sex desire comes from this experience and these genes most people do not have the disposition at the expense of an even greater outcome of being at least mostly straight. If having "gay" genes meant you always were determined to be gay there should be no bisexuals nor mostly heterosexuals. The disposition for the same-sex drive would be there exclusively always and bis and mostly heteros would be a myth which they are not. 

Further more the amount is so small even if the genes hypothesis is found to be the case that it is meaningless. You could just as easily have such an amount of genes prone for alcholism, but, not become an alcholic. Genes might drive dispositions and impulses, but, they do not drive outcomes of those impulses. It does not give any justification for or against the idea that homosexuality is ok. Someone whom was anti-gay can simply say that genes drive impulses, but, not acting on those impulses and point to alcholism for example as a reason to not act on said impulses. I do not agree with said conclusion, but, they would have a point. 

The true answer is to keep looking, but, to not have a care about if there is such a thing. The samething with the Utero hypothesis it does not need to be true for ones orientation to be considered moral. For it is sexual behavior that is moral and not orientation of ones desires. It is whether or not you are harming others or yourself that is at the heart of sexual morality. Although even that is too simplified. It is not moral to cheat on your seginificent other for example. The truth is the both complex and simple ideas that make up overall sexual morality do not matter on your genes. Or on your in womb environment. Or whether something is nature or nurture. Or whether it is chosen or unchosen. Or whether it has changed or stayed static all your life. Whether it is mutable or immutable. It matters on the actions you take based on those desires.

At the end of the day there could turn out to be 96% nurture and 5% nature to ones overall sexual desires with no change to the morality or immorality of being being gay or lesbian, or bisexual. What matters is if you are an overall good person and the content of your character and moral compass. Ones moral compass is the crux of all of this to me and one does not need scientists to find anything innate at all to show how one can be a moral being and be non-heterosexual. Just like someone whom is heterosexual is not devoid of one like radical nutcases shout about in their nonsesnse academic circle jerks. Whether you are straight, gay, bi, open to trying anything once, mostly straight, mostly gay, once mostly gay now mostly straight, experimented when young now not interested. Whatever you are has 0 impact on your ability to be a moral person.