The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

I'm quite (socially) liberal and I thought your post was simply wrong, for starters. Among the places you can ask the question "what is being gay" without getting "dogpiled" are countless gay sites. Aren't gay sites part of the internet?

One of the sad things about the state of sex ed is that this isn't taught in school. The interplay between genetics (homosexuality is at least somewhat heritable) and environmental factors (each older brother a boy has from the same mother increases the chance he will be gay by about 40%).

Also, this study and many others uses the term "men who have sex with men" not gay. These are two overlapping but different groups.

Plus you need yo look at evidence that sexuality is a modern construct. The Kinsey scale and attitudes to sex in other societies (where men who have sex with men are sometimes considered a third gender or where its more a matter of taste/fancy than a rigid part of identity) would help people understand actual sexuality more effectively.

What you end up with is some genetics, some epigenetics and some environmental factors creating preferences of various strengths. Those are then buried under a layer of socially acceptable behaviour. Which in turn is filtered through identifies ("I'm not gay, I just do it with my mate").

The point being humans are messy.

> But that's always been a fucked up idea. It shouldn't matter whether it was predetermined or otherwise not in your control. If it's constructed then it's constructed. If it's not then it's not. People shouldn't be oppressed for their sexuality full stop, regardless of reason.

You are right, I think, to root the conflict in religion. The dominant religion in the West, Christianity, treats the human body as a given. That is to say that while you are more than just your body, you are certainly not less: there is a union of mind and body that separates only at death. If they disagree, a reconciliation must be attempted from the outside (i.e., by God).

Of course today we have technology that puts a veneer of science on what is really a religious idea: we are essentially our mind and not our body. When the two disagree, we needn't change our minds because we can alter the body through hormones and surgery.

On the face of it, I don't see how you could reconcile these two positions. I think the use of genetic predestination was used as an attempt to do this: if I'm made this way then how can it be wrong to be {gay, trans, etc.}? But in general I think the denominations that were predisposed to blessing homosexuality (for example) were unlikely to need scientific persuasions like that. When it became clear that rigid denominations weren't going to budge, it feels like genetic predestination became unfashionable.

But we do measure a person by their reproductive success. Where would one see otherwise?

Right. Selfish genes don't necessarily need to be beneficial for every individual that carries them. Queen bees have evolved -- through regular Darwinian evolution -- the trait of having a majority sterile offspring. Those genes don't help the worker bees, but they help the queen and so get passed down.

If you have a genetic mutation that means 1/4 of your offspring won't bear their own children, but will increase the likelihood of your grandchildren living to adulthood, that may well be something that gets selected for.

Not saying that this is necessarily the case with "gay genes," simply that it is perfectly consistent with standard evolution.