The word is still out on genetics and homosexuality

Question: Are people born gay?
Position‹3 of 4›: We don't know if people are born gay
Argument1 of 2›: The word is still out on genetics and homosexuality

Although numerous studies have been conducted, none have come to a definitive conclusion. Between small data sets and conflicting results, the current studies show no conclusive evidence.

The argument

Over the last few decades, most genetic studies looking at the link between genetics and sexual orientation has only had several hundred participants at the most. They have also looked almost exclusively at men. This data set is not large enough or diverse enough to generate any conclusive findings. The only study on the subject that examined several hundred thousand genomes was skewed heavily in favour of U.S. and European men. It also included mainly older men, between 40 and 51 years old on average. The study found genetics played almost no role in sexual behaviour, but the lack of diversity among the participants means we can’t draw firm conclusions. A critical piece of extrapolating the results of scientific studies to broader populations than the participants, and of determining causal proof, is how the study is done. Though there have been many studies on the association between being gay and genetics, no conclusive evidence has been found. There are plenty of studies supporting both sides of the debate. In addition, none of these studies have included the scope necessary to extend the findings to a causal relationship. No experiments have been done, so a correlation can only be inferred and no studies have included a diverse participant group. With inconclusive correlational studies that only study a single group of people, we simply can’t determine whether people are born gay based on the current scientific literature.

Context

In order to draw any conclusions on genetics, studies need to be carried out across a broad section of the population on a vast scale to accurately identify a genetic link. None of the genetic studies carried out so far has met these criteria.

Premises

[P1]Drawing firm conclusions about whether sexual orientation is genetic requires large, diverse studies and causal experimental designs. [P2] Existing genetic studies on sexual orientation have been small, demographically narrow, and purely correlational, with results pointing in conflicting directions. [C] Therefore, the current scientific evidence is insufficient to determine whether people are born gay.

Counter-arguments

Critics respond that 'we can't be certain' understates a real convergence of evidence. Twin studies, the finding that sexual orientation runs in families, and the very large 2019 genome-wide study the argument itself cites all point the same way: genetics contributes modestly but genuinely to same-sex attraction, alongside prenatal and developmental influences, with no single 'gay gene.' Demanding controlled experiments is impossible and unethical for a human trait like orientation, so correlational and genomic methods are the appropriate tools, not a sign of weak evidence. And even granting real uncertainty about mechanism, 'we don't know whether people are born gay' overstates the doubt: the consensus is that orientation is not a choice and has substantial innate and early-developmental components, even if the exact genetic architecture remains unresolved.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Controlled experiments on a trait like sexual orientation are impossible and unethical, so the absence of experimental proof is expected and does not make twin, family and genome-wide evidence weak. [Rejecting P2] The genetic studies do not merely point in conflicting directions; twin studies, familial clustering and the large 2019 GWAS converge on a modest but real genetic contribution alongside developmental factors, so the evidence is more consistent than the premise allows.