Erako asked:
Do homosexuals have something in their neurology..for real...that makes them have different sexual preferences?
The two word answer: Sort of.
This is actually a really complex question, because it's also asking the following:
1) How does one define 'homosexual'?
2) How does neurological function relate to behaviors?
These are both extremely contentious questions that don't actually have a clear, concrete answer as of yet. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to try to steer the answer in some kind of direction.
Supposing I said "no", what are the alternatives? Those interested in moralising might say this means that the behavior shouldn't exist but that's question-begging seeing as the behavior evidently
does exist. Phrases such as "it's all in your head" and "you're putting on an act" come to mind, but I'm going to question the usefulness of these phrases
as a whole. This question comes right back to asking whether we, as a whole, have free-will, don't have free-will, or have "some degree" of free-will, or what.
The most general phrase that is applicable to this question and of medicine as a whole is that
everything is connected to everything. Medicine, as a science, seems to work by saying that if we can see something is different then something should be working differently inside, and it's a matter of finding *what* that difference is. It could be one thing, or it could be many things, and it may apply to one person or it could apply to many.
So when it comes to discussing homosexuality, this is such a vague and general term that the best approach is to try and spot trends. Neurologically, hormonally, it appears that there are some common differences between "heterosexual" and "homosexual" people (keeping in mind that it's generally unwise to divide all people into these two groups...there's those who would call themselves "bisexual", those who would call themselves "asexual" and others, given the chance, that wouldn't call themselves any of the above because they're "something else entirely"!) Certain landmark medical studies have demonstrated these differences (such as the neuroanatomy paper that was recently highlighted in the Current Affairs subforum), but it is not entirely clear what these studies mean, and how they should be interpreted. Hence the "sort of".
Ultimately though, I don't think that science is here to, in itself, weigh in on the moral issues although it will undoubtedly affect and be affected by them. For my part, I think that the strongest message is that regardless of what we find or don't find, that whatever is, is. And maybe we should respect that on some level.