Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[Varya]

Homosexuality is just a fad if you ask me. Its the cool or hip or fashionable thing to be or do right now so a lot of weak willed humans fallow it. Kinda of like with diet crazes.

Just like disco and Communism.

It will blow out in a another decade or so.

Oh God I so hope you are trolling...It's been around for millennia, and people have been killed for standing up for themselves. Lots of people kill themselves every year because they hate what they are. People get bullied, hated, pushed out of their families because they are weak willed?
I'm so disgusted I have to keep myself in check not to pull a warning in my ass, and even if I'd got one, it might be worth it.

 

[Dexiro]

It's both. Nature and nurture, with nature being the most important aspect. And either way your sexuality isn't a choice, the closer you get to puberty the more your sexuality is set in stone.

This forum needs a "sexuality" section >.>

 

[bombadilillo]

Speaking as a homosexual, I have to say it seemed more like something I developed over time than something I was born with.

Also, I just doubt that a "gay gene" exists, if only because such a gene would rarely get passed on.

This is a common arguement and a false one. Gay men tend to have female relatives that produce a lot of offspring. So the "gay genes" (most traits are not one gene but a combo of many different ones) is passed on through relatives.

So gay men may be a side affect of strong fertility in a female line. It is unnessesary to pass you genes on themselves for them to live on.

 

[Trololo Punk]

Nature with nurture being an influence of how "open" they are to others and such.

 

[randomrob]

Both, mostly nature though. Otherwise it would be "treatable".


Disclaimer: the inverted commas are there for a reason, I have no problem with homosexuality and am in fact bisexual.

 

[LikeDustInTheWind]

A mix of both, but mostly nature. Homosexuality occurs naturally in animals, if that doesn't say something nothing does.

 

[Zukhramm]

I don't know enough about genetics to actually say something on this subject and I suspect most people who do say something also lack the knowledge to do so. Most of all I do not see how it's relevant to anything.

 

[DrOswald]

Speaking as a homosexual, I have to say it seemed more like something I developed over time than something I was born with.

Also, I just doubt that a "gay gene" exists, if only because such a gene would rarely get passed on.

Actually, while a gay gene from a reproductive competitiveness point of view seems unlikely, it would most likely be recessive (requires 2 copies to be expressed) as that would allow carriers (people with only 1 copy) to pass the gene to their children. Alternatively, having 1 copy of the "gay gene" might have a competitive advantage of some sort. To give an example of how this works, there is a genetic illness know as sickle cell anemia. A recessive illness, it requires 2 copies of the gene to express. It causes several problems, some of which can be lethal. It is certainly a competitive disadvantage. We would therefore predict that it's frequency in a population would decrease. However, the gene survives and thrives in Africa. This is because having even one copy of the gene grants immunity to malaria, an extremely deadly disease. Where ever there is malaria, the sickle cell anemia gene is an advantage.

Furthermore, the gay gene may only be expressed under certain environmental stimulus, further complicating the issue.

Also, as is the case with most attributes, there are likely many genes that contribute to sexual orientation, all of which may have their own expression conditions and effects.

Genetics is a really complicated subject.

 

[Varya]

I don't know enough about genetics to actually say something on this subject and I suspect most people who do say something also lack the knowledge to do so. Most of all I do not see how it's relevant to anything.

I think you just summarized the internet.

 

[Versago]

Speaking as a gay man and a follower of science: Its probably a combo of both, but science 'has better things to do than find out'.

Although I did hear that to protect their unborn children, pregnant mother's wombs secrete estrogen over the child - making it more 'like the mother' and not a foreign object that antibodies will attack. The more times the mother becomes pregnant, the more ready to do this her body is, and therefor the more estrogen the child gets doused in.
Therefore from a biological standpoint the more children a woman has, the more likely the girls are to be 'pretty' (apparently an effect brought on by high estrogen levels), and the more likely the boys are to be feminine and perhaps gay?

Also, I hang out with a biologist and a forensic-psychologist so that's where this stuff comes from.

My personal answer is "I'm here, I'm queer, and you're in my way - please pray for my soul somewhere else"

 

[DrOswald]

Both, mostly nature though. Otherwise it would be "treatable".


Disclaimer: the inverted commas are there for a reason, I have no problem with homosexuality and am in fact bisexual.

Not necessarily. If the something that went "wrong" was caused by environment it may equally untreatable. It's like if a child accidentally lost an arm when they were very young. That is certainly an environmental factor, but is equally untreatable as being born without an arm.

Same disclaimer, except I am strait.

 

[kikon9]

Speaking as a homosexual, I have to say it seemed more like something I developed over time than something I was born with.

Also, I just doubt that a "gay gene" exists, if only because such a gene would rarely get passed on.

This is a common arguement and a false one. Gay men tend to have female relatives that produce a lot of offspring. So the "gay genes" (most traits are not one gene but a combo of many different ones) is passed on through relatives.

So gay men may be a side affect of strong fertility in a female line. It is unnessesary to pass you genes on themselves for them to live on.

Ok, fair enough. But, again, I am gay, and I wasn't born gay. I was actually straight when I first hit puberty and I thought guys were disgusting. I changed over time. I wasn't even suppressing anything at first.

 

[The Stonker]

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.

Of course I could call you a prick for saying that a fruit fly and a human beign are not the same thing and that we are somehow "seperate" from nature.
(btw not calling you a prick)
But what your arguement states is that humans are not a part of nature, that we're some how "unique".
While we're not, we're only a primate that has a big enough brain to use tools in retrospect.
Also I would like to state the bonbon monkeys to the fruit fly arguement, it makes it much more solid.

 

[lord.jeff]

Well, are tall people tall because of the way they were raised?

Besides, a straight couple raised the first gay person.

This is a terrible argument, you choose an obvious genetic trait, a could make the same argument for the other side, are smart be people born as geniuses. As for your other argument Christian couples commonly raise atheist kids.

OT: I say it's nurture, I'm not sure what the triggers are but I doubt they are exposer to a gay life style or sexual images, so gays won't raise gays most likely.

 

[bombadilillo]

Speaking as a homosexual, I have to say it seemed more like something I developed over time than something I was born with.

Also, I just doubt that a "gay gene" exists, if only because such a gene would rarely get passed on.

This is a common arguement and a false one. Gay men tend to have female relatives that produce a lot of offspring. So the "gay genes" (most traits are not one gene but a combo of many different ones) is passed on through relatives.

So gay men may be a side affect of strong fertility in a female line. It is unnessesary to pass you genes on themselves for them to live on.

Ok, fair enough. But, again, I am gay, and I wasn't born gay. I was actually straight when I first hit puberty and I thought guys were disgusting. I changed over time. I wasn't even suppressing anything at first.

Psychology community almost always answers nature/nuture as "bit of both" but its not as simple as some of each. This of them as 2 threads and you weave them into a fabric. Its a lot of both or a little of this a lot of that.

So both is the answer.

This doesnt mean however that thats true in every case! Like you say. You can choose to be gay if you please. This doesnt mean other people are predisposed to it, or still others arent so intuned that they couldnt be anything but gay and know from childhood. Still others might have a trauma and swear of 1 sex or another and adopt it totally "nuture" (should be called enviromentl factors)

Like I said most things are a combo of many genes that lead to a trait. Its not as simple a thing as hair or eye color. If it would there would be no debate.

2 things I find odd. First people can be absolutly sure of their heterosexuality and yet not accept it when others are equally as sure about their homosexuality. Second is that people assume their experience holds true for everyone else. (this follows your case more)

 

[viranimus]

I would side with nurture. Psychology identifies that sexual identity begins to form as late as/does not form until 3 years of age. While there may be genetic factors involved. It seems more likely with the developmental phases of the human mind and the built in structure already in place that the likelihood sides with orientation being determined rather than ordained.

 

[Nimcha]

Speaking as a homosexual, I have to say it seemed more like something I developed over time than something I was born with.

Also, I just doubt that a "gay gene" exists, if only because such a gene would rarely get passed on.

This is a common arguement and a false one. Gay men tend to have female relatives that produce a lot of offspring. So the "gay genes" (most traits are not one gene but a combo of many different ones) is passed on through relatives.

So gay men may be a side affect of strong fertility in a female line. It is unnessesary to pass you genes on themselves for them to live on.

Ok, fair enough. But, again, I am gay, and I wasn't born gay. I was actually straight when I first hit puberty and I thought guys were disgusting. I changed over time. I wasn't even suppressing anything at first.

Not consiencely surpressing.

 

[Dexiro]

Here's a thought. We know that it occurs naturally and we know that it's not a choice, so does it really matter?

 

[Human_Sacrifice]

I reckon it's environmental factors, including but not limited to, upbringing. And it most certainly isn't a choice. Speaking English isn't a choice (excepting all you non-English readers), it's just what we were raised with. Lots of things we see as natural, like particular emotions (shame, envy), are just things we learn about as we grow. I believe it's entirely possible to raise a shameless human, just as it is a heterosexual one. However, I don't know HOW that would be accomplished, and I think trying to research it would be incredibly unethical.

tl;dr, nurture, plus other environmental stuff

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

Like 4 times a year this topic comes up. When I first joined, I was enthuastic about discussing this and similar issues, told storys of my own life and experiences which made a few people think about their personal beliefs.
But now I know that if I make such a post, the next post beneath mine will be about how gays are stupid and I can't compete with that.

But the long and short of it is there are people who are born gay and there are people who are born straight with no negotiation. There are also people who are born curious or liberal or whatever. I consider myself straight but one day my best friend who is not asked me out. I thought about it for a second and figured why not? Who's to say I wouldn't be happy living as a homosexual. It wasn't a natural progression but we ending up being in love and I still feel like that was a choice I made as opposed to something that was programmed into me.