Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[Jinx_Dragon]

This thing just ate my post... which was long and ranting a little on this matter.

Let me just put this down quickly: This has already been answered!

During the 1970s there was an experiment on two twins designed to answer this question. They where just babies when it begun, and continued right up till the experiment was dropped as it was not getting the results the 'scientists' wanted. This is a common problem with any biased view in the scientific community, they care not for the scientific method and will quickly drop any experiment that disproves their theory instead of re-thinking the theory part itself.

This experiment was simple: gender relocation on a baby!

After a medical mishap that left him without a penis, one of the twins was turned into a girl and was forced into the stereotype of a female. There is a lot of other messed up stuff that happened, including forced incest on a minor, but the outcome was one very messed up 'girl' who was still very much male in the sexuality department. I have included a link below that you can read for yourself the whole story and the tragic end of both twins.

Yes, both committed suicide over what had been done to them.

http://spiritrambler3.blogspot.com/2004/05/homenature-versus-nurture-i-of-twins.html

Now lets hope this doesn't 404 again...

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

If homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuals cannot reproduce and therefor cannot pass on their genes, then how are there still gay people around today? And more importantly, how are there still so MANY gay people?

I mean sure, it is possible that some great great great grandfathers were gay and mated with women under pressure and thus passed on their genes, but how are their still so many gays today? And why is the gay population RISING?

Yeah it could be because people aren't so pressured to be straight anymore, but that would still mean that the number should be falling because if gays embraced their sexuality then they would not breed or have any children to pass this gene onto.

So if sexuality is a gene, why haven't the homosexuals been "bred out"?

 

[incal11]

My riposte is.
So?

So you are a fruit fly

And secondly...?

Where do these millions of kids who come out to their parents, but their parents are shocked and horrified and won't speak to them come from? I would assume they were not nurtured? I've seen plenty of pre-pubescent children over the years who you can tell are gay (by the way they act, by their interests, by their nature), then lo and behold 5-15 years later - gay. So from general observation in my lifetime - I'd still say nature.

Secondly what ? That's about all there is to it.
Your argument doesn't contradict anything in this article. Show me a newborn, or just less than 1 year old baby that actively reject other babies from the opposite sex.

 

[Varya]

Also, your last statement is wrong. As someone with ADD, coming from a family with a history of ADD, ADHD, Aspegers and similar handicaps, I know this for a fact.

This is when i stopped reading that entire point.

You're comparing a physical condition to a psychological standing...
you don't see the flaw in that comparison?

this is like comparing Apples to the year 1933...

You state your views as fact, and that kind of nags at me. Yes, you MIGHT be right, but there is no conclusive evidence for this. Saying that homosexuality definitively is a "nurture" thing is wrong, it's not definitive at all. I do not know if you are a geneticist or not, but even if you are, the facts aren't in yet, so please at least acknowledge that you are stating your views.

to borrow incal11 link:
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm

outside that.
i've raised several arguments which you have failed to adress which fundimentally prove you wrong.

cheif among them-
If there are Homosexual male penguins, and this is caused by a hereditary trait... then why is there no doccumentation of Homosexual Female penguins?

i state my views as logical conclusions based on the evidence i have seen and know.
unlike you which have only provided knee jerk reactions wielding your point of view like it has some merit simply because you believe it so.

I have views, but if you read my posts in this thread, I have mostly debunked arguments that I find questionable, on both sides of the fence. What I believe is unimportant to most of my arguments.
My examples, aren't meant to be proof, just to be a counterpoint to faulty arguments.
And about my ADD:It's a genetic condition that affects my personality, that was all I wanted to say. After you specifically said that that was an extreme case, when 3-5% of the population have may ADD/ADHD it was relevant.
If you don't read my arguments, I don't see why I should be scolded for not answering all of yours.
Anyhow, the penguin one. I don't know if you know this, but gender is also a genetic thing. Quite a lot of research shows that the sexual drive can work quite a lot different between males and females. This could be a factor. More than that I really can't say without expertise in penguin sexuality, and I don't have that. In all honesty, I can't debunk the argument better because I don't see it. You use one animal as an example when over 1500 species has shown different homosexual tendencies. And the fact that each species has different ways of approaching it, yet similar within their species, to me says that their sexuality is affected by their genes.

also... Homosexuality being genetic?
Genetics identify Protein chains and Nothing else...
it is impossible for a purely psychological thing like Sexuality to be influenced by Genetics.

This, I feel, I need to return to. "It's impossible for sexuality to be influenced by genetics"... I missed this before, and while we're on the subject of debunking old arguments.
This.. this is just wrong. Our genetics program us. We have instincts, they are in our genes. Psychology is very much a factor of genetics. We find some traits in females attractive because it's beneficial for us tho think so. Genetics determine our hormones, which very much affect our sexuality. I mean... I have argued with you on the basis that you knew that our genes are programmed to make us like to fuck. Are you seriously arguing that not only homosexuality is based on environment, but heterosexuality also? Because... no... it's in our genes, that's why we there's 7 billion of us...

 

[Frost_King]

I skimmed over most of this forum, I would like to express my own opinion rather than reiterate other peoples points. So, sorry if it has been brought up before.

But I honestly believe it is both, nature and nurture to cause someones sexual preference. I believe some people prefer a same sex partner, like how some people prefer cream and sugar in their coffee. I believe others are hard wired from birth with a hormone defect, more or less a male in a females body, or a female in a males body, creating an urge for a same sex relationship.

But it is a moot point really, I mean if it makes someone happy does it really matter what they prefer in bed? The bedroom is a private place, and more importantly, it really isn't no ones business what you enjoy in the privacy of your own home. I wish people could be more open minded and accepting.

To express why I am on both sides of the issue, by both nature and nurture I should be a very bad person, both sides of my family tree is littered with mentally unstable (form genetic defects) people. And my upbringing was not pleasant and more or less one many serial killers share. However I have no desire to hurt anyone, or see others be hurt. So why am I going against both nature and nurture to be the person I want to be? A good decent hard working person. The world may never know, so as long as it makes the person happy, why bother to debate the issue.

I mean it would be like finding a cure for craving chocolate? Would some people want to not love the taste of chocolate, I mean it would benefit hundreds, no more weight gain, a decrease in obesity, and many other benefits for not liking chocolate. But how many people would resist it, millions? Nature vs Nurture is a moot point. If it is nature then gay is genetic, and can be cured with a pill, or hormone therapy. If it's nurture you sit them in front of a psychiatrist until their mind changes.... it is a moot point in general.

 

[wogi1000]

Homosexuality is most likely caused by factors in the womb. Not necessarily genetics, because a lgbt child can be born to an entire line of straight parents and ancestors. Also to note, same sex couples are naturally less likely to reproduce, meaning the number of same sex couples should decrease, this is not the case. In fact, the number of openly lgbt people is increasing steadily.

However, we can say with certainty that nurture certainly has nothing to do with it whatsoever. You cannot force a person to like or accept anything they would not naturally like otherwise. The easiest way to visualize this is with celery. If a child does not like celery, no amount of nurturing, no amount of enthusiasm or reward for eating celery is going to change that. Celery will always be unpleasant. When the child grows old enough to decide for themselves, even if you've gotten them to at least eat celery in the past, they will cease to do so.

However, we have seen that the amount of testosterone a child receives in utero can affect how the child develops later in life. While there is no direct coloration between testosterone levels and sexual preference, indicating that other factors may still apply, it is at least a hint at a larger picture where there was none before.

 

[esin]

1.why is the gay population RISING?

2.So if sexuality is a gene, why haven't the homosexuals been "bred out"?

1. What evidence do you have that the gay population is rising? For all you know there are simply more closeted gay's coming out.

2 This is why I'm leaning towards it being some sort of semirare fetal defect encouraged by something like prenatal hormones.

 

[LuckyClover95]

Nature, I think they 'proved' there was a homosexuality gene.

 

[Trilliandi]

It's not-so-clearly both.

From personal experience, my little brother turned out to be gay (Though clearly a dominant one, not to mention masculine), and our parents hardly payed attention to the boy. I turned out straight (Yet hesitantly effeminate), and my mother used to SMOTHER me until my late teens.

Of course, THAT depends on how ours minds choose to handle such attention I'd immagine, but we can never be too sure. It CAN be something mentally forced upon someone, after all it is possible to make humans mentally break-down. With enough time, effort, and trauma, you could make anyone be anyway you'd like. The human mind is vast and complex, but nigh indestructable. People have their limits.

On the OTHER hand, I find it awfully hard to believe it's something one can just decide on. Especially with the way society handles such people, it's no wonder most of them hide in their closets. Human nature is hard to fight against, which is a shame since it's been slowly developing into something quite revolting.

 

[Varya]

Apparently in can be an evolutionary reaction to perceiving your environment as overpopulated.

So there you go...

Source? This seems... strange, since while it would be a beneficial gene, how could it survive? You cannot have a "failsafe" gene, designed not to get reproduced, it would die out in a generation.

Perhaps it's the first step toward becoming, or a left over trait from being, asexual? And that is certainly beneficial.

Evolution does not think, so there are no "first steps" just random mutations.

Also, asexual people are less likely to, you know, have sex, so they probably won't reproduce. It might be beneficial for the individual, or even the society, but the gene still wouldn't survive to the next generation unless we start "breeding" humans. Even if we bred asexual humans, the horny ones would still reproduce and dominate, since that actually makes you want to reproduce.

Unless it was, as I suggested, a left over trait from originally being asexual (single cell organisms).

Even if it were not, the gene to trigger homosexuality could still be passed on but not triggered; and it would still be passed on through hundreds of generations, occasionally triggering in some individuals, who, as you say, would not reproduce; but that does not mean the siblings of that same individual have not inherited the same gene (not trigger in their generation, but is still able to be triggered in future generations). Of course each time it triggers it will cause an evolutionary dead end but the gene will still be being passed on from the original source that caused it to be in the homosexual individual in the first place. Genes are not completely wiped clean in every generation.

I highly doubt that it's a leftover from our single cell days. But your other theory might be correct, as I've said previously. It's possible it has some beneficial traits, as long as it's not triggered, that has made it survive through the ages

 

[esin]

However, we have seen that the amount of testosterone a child receives in utero can affect how the child develops later in life. While there is no direct coloration between testosterone levels and sexual preference, indicating that other factors may still apply, it is at least a hint at a larger picture where there was none before.

The great thing about this is that it concurs with the studies that show the more succesive male children a mother has, the more likely the latest one is to be gay. This is because just one pregnancy has a pretty big effect on a woman's immune and hormonal system and that effect ripples into the following pregnancies.

The hormone flooding theory seems to be a pretty consistent explanation. It explains why gays keep popping up without being a genetic trait and it explains it as not being a choice.

 

[Nimcha]

The most annoying thing is that this 'debate' is so utterly pointless. The problem is presented as a binary choice when that's clearly not the case.

People are neither blank slates nor slaves to their genes. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I think both are in play when it comes to sexuality in human societies.

Nature to begin with. Genetics and circumstance leading up to your birth, all outside of anyones control and both very much 'nature,' create a situation where you will be attracted to others of the same sex some time in your life. I, personally, feel that the vast majority of people swing both ways to some degree with pure homosexuality or heterosexuality being the odd ones out. Some people might never feel more then 'bromance' with other guys and will never explore this part of themselves past that one night in collage with a very close friend who you have since drifted away from*. Others will find themselves in triangle of relationships with men and woman at the same time, happily enjoying their sexuality... and I can tell you those are fun! Some, yes some will even be turned off so badly by the same/opposite sex attraction that they become some of these best comedians on the matter.

It is all nature that sets the building blocks of what your sexuality will be. So where does Nurture come into play?

How open you can be about your sexuality is a factor that will sway you strongly from one side or the other as well. I don't honestly believe there where less "gay" people during then 1930's, for example, just that more people kept quiet about that one time in college, their budding attraction to other men and what not. All because society would make it very difficult, even deadly, for them not to keep this stuff hidden. The higher number of openly gay people in todays society isn't because society is making people gay but because we no longer have to hide it.

Without the nurturing that says it is alright to explore your sexuality, regardless of what that is, one can suppress your nature. Not at all healthy, in fact it can be just as deadly as being open depending on what that nature is, but it can be done. Just ask those 60 something men with families who decide that they are sick and tired of living a lie and come out of the closet. It clearly wasn't nurture that turned them gay but it wasn't nature that made them hide it so long.

*Sorry, it is also in our nature to seek out multiple partners in our life time.

 

[lwm3398]

So if sexuality is a gene, why haven't the homosexuals been "bred out"?

Charles Darwin had about that same idea, saying that homosexuality was an evolutionary "hiccup," some kind of unnecessary mutation that would end up disappearing. He was wrong, as you can see, and somebody, somewhere probably has an idea about why.

I'd have to say it's a dormant gene that comes out occasionally in babies, just not always. If you are born with the gene, then you have the ability to naturally develop homosexuality. With help from your parents, I mean. Depending on the way you're raised, the gene may show externally in you at different times.

So I think it has to do with both. If you're born with the gene you might end up straight by choice or straight because you're too afraid, or gay by choice because you were raised to think that's okay. The different ways you're raised will definitely effect whether the gene comes out or not.

Hell, I'm straight, but might still have the gene in me. There's really no way of knowing.

As for bisexual people, I think that has to do only with nurture and what you were raised to think is okay. Probably starting as a straight person and then deciding that being gay is fine as well, so they're both.

 

[Valksy]

If homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuals cannot reproduce and therefor cannot pass on their genes, then how are there still gay people around today? And more importantly, how are there still so MANY gay people?

I mean sure, it is possible that some great great great grandfathers were gay and mated with women under pressure and thus passed on their genes, but how are their still so many gays today? And why is the gay population RISING?

Yeah it could be because people aren't so pressured to be straight anymore, but that would still mean that the number should be falling because if gays embraced their sexuality then they would not breed or have any children to pass this gene onto.

So if sexuality is a gene, why haven't the homosexuals been "bred out"?

Recessive genes?

An example:

Take two parents. Both carry the dominant "Straight" gene (S) and the recessive "gay" gene (g).

So you have Sg + Sg

The outcome of this can be SS (straight), Sg (straight, recessive carrier), Sg (straight, recessive carrier) and gg (gay, recessive carrier).

We don't know that we are talking about a singe gene, so that is a simplified example. But in 3/4 of the outcomes of an Sg parent, the recessive gene survives (and anyone who tells you that GLBTQ people don't have their own children is a fecking idiot). So the concept of a genetic trait being "bred out" doesn't hold water.

This is pretty basic science that I was taught at age 12 or 13, more than twenty years ago.

 

[Nimcha]

Also, there is no 'homosexuality' gene. Genetics aren't that simple, we don't have one single gene determining our eye color, another one saying how intelligent we are etcetera.

 

[Fearzone]

You cannot transform a heterosexual to homosexual, or the reverse, so it is nature.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Nature. An astounding number of species have been found to have homosexual tendencies. We are no exception. I don't think nurture has anything to do with it other than encourage it, or discourage it. But at the end of the day, it's still there.

 

[Varya]

It's absolutely nature (look at the gay fruit flies - are you going to tell me they were nurtured?).

However nurture can cause a human to repress their feelings and 'make them straight' despite what turns them on (I know some gay married men).

On the other hand peer pressure may make someone extremely weak willed 'experiment' with another sex, but if it doesn't work for them, they're going to have a hard time pretending to get off to it.

If anything 'nurture' is what stops some gay people from being themselves.

Just because there are examples of "genetic homosexuality" doesn't mean it's true for humans, or all humans. It's proven fetishes can be triggered by our experiences, why couldn't you develop a "gay-fetish" Also, if you read the discussion here, you'll see that homosexuality in animals isn't proof of genetic homosexuality.

I'll tell you one thing I know for a fact: No amount of nurture could ever turn me gay. And because of that I believe the same to be true for those who are gay.

You assume it's a matter of trying to raise you to be gay. Subconsciously we gain a lot of input that change our view of the world. You probably won't "turn gay" all of a sudden, but your upbringing can have a vital influence over your subconscious, that shape your personality and even your sexuality. And we're not talking "gay parents raise gay kids" or vice-versa. I do not know what the factors might be, but they can probably be unrelated to sexuality as a whole.

 

[wogi1000]

The most annoying thing is that this 'debate' is so utterly pointless. The problem is presented as a binary choice when that's clearly not the case.

People are neither blank slates nor slaves to their genes. Why is that so hard to accept?

Technically, you are a slave to your genes. It's not a pleasant thought, but your genes are your total make up. They are you. Change one gene and your entire life would be different. Genetic anomalies and mutation are responsible for many of the "syndromes" that develop early on. Downs syndrome, Asperger's (autism), Huntington's disease... the list goes on and on. Not to mention the myriad of genetic disorders that develop later in life.


You are right though, it is not a binary choice. Sexuality is composed of many shades of gray, with no one really being entirely black or white.