Course of Endocrinology and Medical Sexology, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy.
J Sex Med. 2010 Oct;7(10):3245-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02024.x.
Debate continues on whether or not male homosexuality (MH) is a result of biological or cultural factors. The debate persists despite the fact that these two sides have different abilities to create a scientific environment to support their cause. Biological theorists produced evidence, however, that these are not always robust. On the other hand, social theorists, without direct evidence confirming their positions, criticize, with good argument, methods and results of the other side. The aim of this Controversy is to understand the reasons of both perspectives.
Two scientists (R.B. and A.C.C.) with expertise in the area of biology of MH were asked to contribute their opinions. The nurture position is discussed by a third expert in sexology (J.B.).
Expert opinion supported by the critical review of the currently available literature.
The role of the Controversy's editor (E.A.J.) is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. The two experts of the biological issue answer with their data to the questions: “Is male homosexuality partly explainable by immunology?” and “How is male homosexuality a Darwinian paradox?”, respectively. Genetic and immunological factors, birth order, and fertility of relatives are largely discussed. Finally, the expert sustaining the idea that culture and experiences are important determining factors in sexual orientation used a psychosocial and holistic perspective to explain his position.
The JSM's readers should recognize that there are several biological factors in MH. However, these findings do not seem to be able to explain all cases of homosexuality. Some others may be due to particular environmental factors. The issue is complicated and multifactorial, suggesting that further research should be undertaken to produce the final answer to the question raised in this Controversy section.
关于男性同性恋（MH）是由生物因素还是文化因素导致的，一直存在争议。尽管双方在创造支持其观点的科学环境方面能力不同，但这一争议仍在继续。生物理论学家确实提供了证据，但这些证据并不总是可靠的。另一方面，社会理论家没有直接证据来证实他们的立场，却以充分的论据批评对方的方法和结果。本次争议旨在理解双方观点的原因。
两位在 MH 生物学领域具有专业知识的科学家（R.B. 和 A.C.C.）被要求发表意见。性学专家 J.B. 讨论了后天养育论的观点。
专家意见得到了对现有文献的批判性审查的支持。
争议编辑（E.A.J.）的作用是突出双方的优势和劣势。生物问题的两位专家分别用他们的数据回答了以下问题：“男性同性恋是否可以部分归因于免疫学？”和“男性同性恋如何成为达尔文悖论？”。遗传和免疫因素、出生顺序和亲属的生育能力都得到了广泛讨论。最后，支持文化和经验是性取向重要决定因素的专家从心理社会和整体的角度来解释他的立场。
JSM 的读者应该认识到，男性同性恋有几个生物学因素。然而，这些发现似乎并不能解释所有同性恋案例。有些可能是由于特定的环境因素。这个问题很复杂，是多因素的，这表明应该进行进一步的研究，以对本次争议部分提出的问题给出最终答案。
