I have a hunch, one that is completely unsupported by any actual research that I’m aware of, that maybe there are multiple “types” of homosexuality.

And for most, it’s a combination of a lot of things. Or something else entirely different.

This is the “theory” that I tell everyone I talk to about these matters.

That perhaps people become gay due to different reasons.

Oh, by the way, the APA states that there “different people are probably gay due to different reasons.”

So your thoughts are bang on the spot with them as well.

Craig

I suspect that if we could ever tease out all of the reasons why some folks are gay and others aren’t and others still are somewhere inbetween, I think the picture would not be much less muddy than it is now. I have a hunch, one that is completely unsupported by any actual research that I’m aware of, that maybe there are multiple “types” of homosexuality.

For some, it’s genetic.
For some, it’s hormonal disturbances during pregnancy.
For some, it’s maternal stress.
For some, it’s developmental.
For some, it’s listening to too much Donna Summers.

And for most, it’s a combination of a lot of things. Or something else entirely different.

I’ll be interested in what this particular study finds out. But I suspect it won’t be conclusive, no matter how large the sample size may be or what effects they take into account. But it will be interesting nonetheless.

Maybe I’ll learn more about why I’m left-handed.

I too find some assumptions on the website to be concerning. For example, sexual orientation is discussed in terms of sexual desire or sexual activity without even a token mention of the romantic, emotional, or connectedness aspect of orientation. I think this skewing of orientation purely into genital activity (or desire) suggests a misunderstanding of its most basic nature.

I was also concerned that the estimates used for total homosexual population was from the lowest end of the spectrum: 2.8% combined gay and bisexual from 1994 as opposed to the much larger, more recent, more accessable, and more broad study by the CDC which found that at least 4.1% could be considered gay and bisexual from either identity, activity, or reported attraction. This suggests either bias or sloppy research.

Nonetheless, these are minor and may mean nothing at all. So too does your objection seem to be a very weak indication of bias.

Fortunately, genetic research is a much more direct science than, say, observations about gender conformity. It’s much more difficult to introduce bias to the results and conclusions can be reevaluated from the data.