The study by Pfaus et al shows definitively that sexual preference "behavior" is learned after birth and shows susceptibility to environmental influence on object-gratification-selection. The hundreds of studies citied in the references are those in the field of comparative psychology, or on the peripheral and lend support to Pfaus et al's findings. The point was put that only two reference human studies. That's not getting what comparative psychology is about apparently.
*********
Who Should Study Comparative Psychology?
The study of animal behavior can lead to a deeper and broader understanding of human psychology. Research on animal behavior has led to numerous discoveries about human behavior, such as Ivan Pavlov's research on classical conditioning or Harry Harlow's work with rhesus monkeys. Students of biological sciences and social sciences can benefit from studying comparative psychology.
Important People in the History of Comparative Psychology
Charles Darwin
George Romanes
C. Lloyd Morgan
Ivan Pavlov
Edward Thorndike
B.F. Skinner
Konrad Lorenz
[among hundreds of others]
http://psychology.about.com/od/comparativepsych...
**********
The idea is that you e-x-t-r-a-p-o-l-a-t-e the findings across mulitiple species and compare them to each other and to human behavior to show a common thread. From the number of species from the hundreds of references studies[not all mammal, but most] that exhibit the learned sexual preference, we EXTRAPOLATE that human mammals are not exempt. So if you have say four dozen types of mammals [especially mammals, particularly primates and rats, who are our closest animal "cousins"] and even birds or other fauna that all show a learned preference sexually, that also shows susceptiblity to environmental influences...you EXTRAPOLATE that humans are not immune to this trait.
Maybe you cannot declare without a shadow of a doubt that they apply to humans; but only a fool would take overwhelming findings such as those and definitively state that they do not. In fact, where the majority rules, the findings "declare" that sexual preference in humans most likely is learned, like in other animals besides homo sapiens, and that it is susceptible to environmental influences..
Ergo..*drum roll*
Normalizing fetish behavior such as homosexuality via marriage, in a given society [environment], you can expect, and indeed SHOULD expect an increase in same-gendered selection in subsequent generations in a given population, based on what is the new "normal" for said population.
Keeping homosexuality in the category of a deviant fetish, where it properly belongs, does not eradicate homosexuality. What it does instead is keep it away from the "influence" category of normal human social behaviors. Homosexuals who factually play at being butch and fem anyway, are indeed trying to mimic what they must innately believe is normal. If they cannot access or manifest this normalcy due to some associative conditioning crosswiring [and my heart does go out to molestation, frustration and misplacement victims totally], they shouldn't be hated, or shoved out. Instead every effort should go to educating people about the learned aspects of sexuality and how important it is to sequester formative adolescents from fetish intrusion. Of course it won't be 100% effective. Nothing ever is. But that doesn't mean we should simply stop striving to reach the ideal.
Civil unions are the perfect solution to homosexuality and other fetishes because the deviant-sexuals are right, after a certain point, classical conditioning is very difficult to revert, if not impossible. This is where the christians are dead-wrong. So thus affected, deviants can still live together in their chosen mock-hetero relationships, enjoying the benefits of survivorship, hospital visits and so on and not be either persecuted for their issues nor be denied living with their butch or fem "counterpart".
--I'd like to be there when they explain to you that it just may not be the case.
