No-one disputes hair colour or eyecolour is genetic. People don't question a talent for music (beyond what can be explained by early exposure) that runs in families. People will happily ascribe personality traits of children to their parents or grandparents, even if there could be no rote-learning or imitation involved.
Funny how the minute people claim homosexual oriontation might be at least partially genetically-linked it'a suddenly is so hard for many people to accept.
while humans have some reflexive programming, there is far more aquired programming by experiences which gets linked to partially formed systems...
I'd actually diagree - not because we don't HAVE aquired programming, but because our autonomic, reflexive and instinctive subconsious systems far out-weigh the acquired programming. It't normally these things don't act as differentiators as they are engaged in the everyday tasks of keeping the body going and looking out for sabre-tooth tigers, food, and sex.
Because our sex drive IS one of the mosty basic and essential. It's not like aquiring a taste for olives. It lies UNDER the programming we acquire, and will steer what acquired programming is received.
the sex system exists and can be triggered to give very pleasant stimulation which can cause attachments similar to any sort of drug addiction... combine this with fear and excitement of the forbidden and fetishes and other non-standard desires can result...
Obviously sexual likes can be aquired, even unusual ones. But I haven't seen any sucseful attempts to classify homosexuality as a fetish. Your ideas also fail to account for homosexual acquisition in environments are gay-neutral or gay-postive. If you were right, the children of gay couples would almost always be gay. As it is, they are as gay as the lids of average couples.
there seems to be certain imprinting times, not unlike some animals, where events prior and after these critical times frames dont matter as much as what happens during these time periods....
And undoubtedly experience does shape SOME peopels sexuality. But to reject the primacy of genetics?
it has been found by some researchers that drugs like LSD can erase many of the aquired imprints and then cause a re-imprinting based on current circumstances.
But I don't think you have specific examples of LSD causing a chnage in sexuality, so the relevence of this is moot.
I personally dont believe most children are born hetero nor homosexual and dont know what either of them means but acquire this by experiences which are far to variable to show any direct cause and effect relationships....
Why can't it be genetic? I'm not syaing it is 100% genetic, but when evidence is certainly tipping that way (not that I care), I don't get the need to want to insist it is, after all, environmental (even though many gay people would laugh themselves silly at the idea). Is this just a hunch or do you have any research where this is a conclusion?
I dont believe sexual desires are chosen, but discovered just like one discovers they like chocolate over vanilla or vice versa.... the strength of those desires seems likewise a discovery. perhaps if an egghead child learned of imprinting they could directly cause their own sexual desire choice, but few seem to understand that much at the critical ages
Again I feel you are looking at the NON-REPRESENTATIVE examples of homosexuality. No one is saying some people don't become gay because of experience or deliberate decision. But the majority? It is scarsely credible.