Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[PatSilverFox]

Born that way.

 

[PatSilverFox]

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

Answers the question...
So what's the point.

 

[moosek]

TL;DR? It's both, dummy. }B[ (<-- That's supposed to be Steve Brule)

This seems to be an trend when people debate about sexual orientation. Usually the argument is whether someone is born gay or they choose to be gay. Which is just bullshit political rhetoric that inherently designed to polarize people without much in terms of fact or research. It wasn't an endeavor in looking for answers so much as "They're born gay? You're liberal. They choose to be gay? You're conservative."

The nature vs. nurture argument plays into this, but no absolute can account for the entirety of human psychology. I'm pretty sure it was Skinner who wanted to lean entirely on this argument to disprove the presence of free will; that we're all just autonomous reactions. It's been a while since my Personality Psych class, but the Diathesis-Stress model explained that people have certain genetic predispositions that can be activated or remain dormant depending on environmental stimuli.

I believe this is what shapes a person's sexual identity, and in turn they're sexual orientation. Voluntary choice wouldn't really factor into a person's sense of attraction, but I still would never look at a newborn and think, "Wow that baby is gay as Christmas. He's gonna plow some serious ass someday."

 

[Varya]

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

A few reasons. If we know why, can we then choose if we wan't to be gay or not? If we can, should we?
Also, when discussing sexuality people throw around phrases like "I was born this way" or "it's not natural". When we have the facts, we can debunk arguments that are based on false assumptions. It still makes no importance to the phenomenon, but facts are important, otherwise people build "views" and use them as facts
Lastly, We're human, so we're naturally curious. We need to know everything, its' just who we are. Good for us.

 

[Gamer_152]

As with pretty much every argument of this type, the answer is that it's a little bit of nature and a little bit of nurture.

 

[Dexiro]

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.

Urgh, it comes up a lot more than 4 times a year xD More like once a month.

As you put it sexuality isn't black and white, you have gay, straight, bi, bi with gay/straight tendencies etc, it's more of a scale. In your case you were probably bisexual with straight tendencies. Sexuality can be a choice with an element of bisexuality, but only in the sense that you can choose which attraction to act on.

 

[bombadilillo]

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

A few reasons. If we know why, can we then choose if we wan't to be gay or not? If we can, should we?
Also, when discussing sexuality people throw around phrases like "I was born this way" or "it's not natural". When we have the facts, we can debunk arguments that are based on false assumptions. It still makes no importance to the phenomenon, but facts are important, otherwise people build "views" and use them as facts
Lastly, We're human, so we're naturally curious. We need to know everything, its' just who we are. Good for us.

I think his arguement was, that it is NOT a choice, so weither it is caused by genes or enviroment is irrelevent.

Not an arguement against the discussion.

He did not provide how we know its not a choice however, so it sounds weird.

 

[incal11]

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.

Fruit flies and human beings are not the same, but I was not implying that we are separate from nature. Apparently I should have been more clear on that.
and are gay fruit flies observed in nature btw ? apparently they are "turned" by alcohol (lol).
http://sexuality.about.com/b/2008/01/07/gay-drunk-fruit-flies.htm
Reminds me of some behaviors we know, right ?
An hypothesis is: if some of us can be gay while drunk it could mean we are actually inhibited, not pushed, against homosexuality. Which would make sense for encouraging reproductive behavior, extremely sensible topic for most gays but a real aspect of the issue. So maybe some are "born" gays in the sense that their natural inhibition is weaker. It does not explain all cases of homosexuality, but some who may be due to a hormonal imbalance in the mother as some have said here. In conclusion, this would mean that there is really actually no "gay", only a set of rules that normally pushes us to a reproductive behavior.
It doesn't mean it is a crippling condition, a weaker inhibition toward homosexuality has it's role for social bonding in mammals, including humans (until the church came along).

Insects are one thing, but other mammals are another. You use some of them as example, but it's like you're saying "see, dumb animals can be gay too, they HAVE to be born that way", ironic.
You forget some apes actually do use tools, they and some marine mammals have even their own cultures. Herbivores are not that dumb too, I read a funny article about a cow who could open her pen's simple lock with her tongue. their relatively complex experiences make it so that we can't really tell if they are born gay any more than us. Unless you use the article I gave earlier as a point of reference.
I can go on to say that other species don't limit themselves with inane labels, only the human mind is apparently capable of this kind of stupidity.

 

[TheLoneBeet]

Nature. Friend of mine is homosexual. Hides it from his parents (who strongly disapprove). He was raised to be straight (and had a fake girlfriend for a long time) but he cannot deny who he is and I'm proud of him for that. Although it weirds me out a little if he hits on me when he drinks, I'm fine with him as a friend.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I know I know another sexuality thread, I dont know why But I find this "nature vs nurture" argument very interesting, not just in regard to gayness

So I guess the obvious question is: can your secual orientation be influenced by outside..um things, or are you just born that way?

personally I would lean towards the "nature" side of things, not saying that your upbringing cant have an effect but I mean you get people who come from traditional christain nuclear families who are gay, so how do you explain that?

I don't really think it's either, I mean you can ask where any preference came from really the same way. Do you like chocolate or vanilla, rock or rap, comedy or tragedy, dick or pussy?

I have a friend who's a lesbian and her mom(s) are lesbians, I also have a gay friend who's parents are conservative as hell.

Between the two of them I've met a myriad of gay people bi people and lesbian people and they have nothing in common in the upbringing department. and some of them have strait siblings or strait parents so I don't think it can be put into either category.

 

[Varya]

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

A few reasons. If we know why, can we then choose if we wan't to be gay or not? If we can, should we?
Also, when discussing sexuality people throw around phrases like "I was born this way" or "it's not natural". When we have the facts, we can debunk arguments that are based on false assumptions. It still makes no importance to the phenomenon, but facts are important, otherwise people build "views" and use them as facts
Lastly, We're human, so we're naturally curious. We need to know everything, its' just who we are. Good for us.

I think his arguement was, that it is NOT a choice, so weither it is caused by genes or enviroment is irrelevent.

Not an arguement against the discussion.

He did not provide how we know its not a choice however, so it sounds weird.

I just don't see how it's irrelevant. Yes, it's irrelevant (to me, at least) in whether it's OK or not. But all facts about human nature is relevant to my interests. If we can learn it, we should. The discussion itself is rather irrelevant. What we believe does not change the facts.

 

[Dexiro]

As with pretty much every argument of this type, the answer is that it's a little bit of nature and a little bit of nurture.

Yay! I wish everyone would realise this because it's pretty obvious when you think about it.

If homosexuality was entirely nurture then how come it occurs naturally in other animals too? And if it's entirely nature then how come we have cases such as identical twins not having matching sexualities.

With me I think it was mostly nurture because my mum obsesses over gay people, she pretty much wanted me to be gay, though it could be a coincidence. But obviously that doesn't apply to other gay people that have homophobic parents.

 

[bombadilillo]

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

A few reasons. If we know why, can we then choose if we wan't to be gay or not? If we can, should we?
Also, when discussing sexuality people throw around phrases like "I was born this way" or "it's not natural". When we have the facts, we can debunk arguments that are based on false assumptions. It still makes no importance to the phenomenon, but facts are important, otherwise people build "views" and use them as facts
Lastly, We're human, so we're naturally curious. We need to know everything, its' just who we are. Good for us.

I think his arguement was, that it is NOT a choice, so weither it is caused by genes or enviroment is irrelevent.

Not an arguement against the discussion.

He did not provide how we know its not a choice however, so it sounds weird.

I just don't see how it's irrelevant. Yes, it's irrelevant (to me, at least) in whether it's OK or not. But all facts about human nature is relevant to my interests. If we can learn it, we should. The discussion itself is rather irrelevant. What we believe does not change the facts.

I agree with you. You just didnt understand his agruement and responded oddly. He was still wrong.

 

[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?

A few reasons. If we know why, can we then choose if we wan't to be gay or not? If we can, should we?
Also, when discussing sexuality people throw around phrases like "I was born this way" or "it's not natural". When we have the facts, we can debunk arguments that are based on false assumptions. It still makes no importance to the phenomenon, but facts are important, otherwise people build "views" and use them as facts
Lastly, We're human, so we're naturally curious. We need to know everything, its' just who we are. Good for us.

I think his arguement was, that it is NOT a choice, so weither it is caused by genes or enviroment is irrelevent.

Not an arguement against the discussion.

He did not provide how we know its not a choice however, so it sounds weird.

I just don't see how it's irrelevant. Yes, it's irrelevant (to me, at least) in whether it's OK or not. But all facts about human nature is relevant to my interests. If we can learn it, we should. The discussion itself is rather irrelevant. What we believe does not change the facts.

It's irrelevant in the whole "is it ok to be gay?" type argument because all that matters is that it's not a choice. If people didn't choose to be gay then sexuality should be placed along the same lines as race and gender and such.

The discussion as a whole isn't irrelevant though. It would be nice to know the solid facts just for the hell of it. I think there's pretty clear evidence of it being both nature and nurture, but I'd like to be able to give a more technical explanation.

 

[Sejs Cube]

A bit of both, influencing factors and all that, but mostly nurture. But, and here's the important bit, we're talking so deeply ingrained, formative-level nurture stuff that it may as well be nature anyway.

I find the idea that sexual orientation is genetic frankly kind of fucked up. I understand and approve of the statement that someone's sexuality is part of who they are, that it isn't just a choice they made at some point, and that it's a facet simply to be accepted. Completely down with that. But saying it's genetic has other connotations. Like that it's a trait that's passed on from generation to generation. Or that it's something that could be screened for with a DNA test. Or that in theory it's something that could be potentially 'corrected' with yet-to-be-developed medical procedures. Just no. That shit's wrong on many levels.

 

[Varya]

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

A few reasons. If we know why, can we then choose if we wan't to be gay or not? If we can, should we?
Also, when discussing sexuality people throw around phrases like "I was born this way" or "it's not natural". When we have the facts, we can debunk arguments that are based on false assumptions. It still makes no importance to the phenomenon, but facts are important, otherwise people build "views" and use them as facts
Lastly, We're human, so we're naturally curious. We need to know everything, its' just who we are. Good for us.

I think his arguement was, that it is NOT a choice, so weither it is caused by genes or enviroment is irrelevent.

Not an arguement against the discussion.

He did not provide how we know its not a choice however, so it sounds weird.

I just don't see how it's irrelevant. Yes, it's irrelevant (to me, at least) in whether it's OK or not. But all facts about human nature is relevant to my interests. If we can learn it, we should. The discussion itself is rather irrelevant. What we believe does not change the facts.

It's irrelevant in the whole "is it ok to be gay?" type argument because all that matters is that it's not a choice. If people didn't choose to be gay then sexuality should be placed along the same lines as race and gender and such.

The discussion as a whole isn't irrelevant though. It would be nice to know the solid facts just for the hell of it. I think there's pretty clear evidence of it being both nature and nurture, but I'd like to be able to give a more technical explanation.

Well, if you look around, you'll see that a lot of people would agree that it's not that clear (but I agree with you there)
The debate is relevant in that I think it's a good thing that people discuss their theories, and that we exchange theories, and in some cases, debunk arguments, even if I agree with the viewpoint. But on the whole, the facts aren't changed by our discussion, and neither are we getting any answers, just viewpoints.

 

[Bek359]

We already know this. It's genetic. I wish people would stop acting like this is something that is up for debate.

 

[incal11]

The discussion as a whole isn't irrelevant though. It would be nice to know the solid facts just for the hell of it. I think there's pretty clear evidence of it being both nature and nurture, but I'd like to be able to give a more technical explanation.

Because of this whole discussion I had this idea:
"apparently (fruit flies) are "turned" by alcohol (lol).
http://sexuality.about.com/b/2008/01/07/gay-drunk-fruit-flies.htm
Reminds me of some behaviors we know, right ?
An hypothesis is: if some of us can be gay while drunk it could mean we are actually inhibited, not pushed, against homosexuality. Which would make sense for encouraging reproductive behavior, extremely sensible topic for most gays but a real aspect of the issue. So maybe some are "born" gays in the sense that their natural inhibition is weaker. It does not explain all cases of homosexuality, but some who may be due to a hormonal imbalance in the mother as some have said here. In conclusion, this would mean that there is really actually no "gay", only a set of rules that normally pushes us to a reproductive behavior.
It doesn't mean it is a crippling condition, a weaker inhibition toward homosexuality has it's role for social bonding in mammals, including humans (until the church came along)."

and more seriously:
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

We already know this. It's genetic. I wish people would stop acting like this is something that is up for debate.

no, read my link.

 

[theultimateend]

Both, but usually nature. I would say genetics only, but I also don't think there's much of a limit to how a person's upbringing, good or bad, can shape who they become.

Not both.

Always nature.

http://fora.tv/2010/04/19/Glenn_Wilson_Born_Gay_The_Origins_of_Sexual_Orientation

There is no scientific evidence to support the "nurture" argument.