Philosophy Compass 10 (7):479-488 (2015)

This paper is a review of how biological as well as other scientific theories, concepts and findings have been used to answer philosophical questions regarding the nature of male homosexuality. We argue that while these sciences are certainly relevant for present philosophical debates, few of the different philosophical issues surrounding male homosexuality can be settled by science alone. In the first section, we introduce a number of various essentialist and constructivist views on (male) homosexuality. The second section focuses on the innateness debate over homosexuality. In the last section, we assess the typically constructivist critiques of biological research into homosexuality.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2015
DOI 10.1111/phc3.12233
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,404
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What is Innateness?Paul E. Griffiths - 2001 - The Monist 85 (1):70-85.
Innateness and the Sciences.Matteo Mameli & Patrick Bateson - 2006 - Biology and Philosophy 21 (2):155-188.
On Human Nature.David L. Hull - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:3-13.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Queer/Early/Modern.Carla Freccero - 2006 - Duke University Press.
Anti-Gay.Mark Simpson (ed.) - 1996 - Freedom Editions.
A Foucauldian Analysis of Homosexuality.George Drazenovich - 2012 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (3):259-275.


Added to PP index

Total views
87 ( #123,660 of 2,448,992 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #223,322 of 2,448,992 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes