Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[Antwerp Caveman]

From what I learned in my Psych class, Homosexuality is based off genetics mainly. He actually said very clearly that it's not really contested in the psychiatric world. It's more just an accepted fact. Of course, it's up to each person to choose if they go with the feelings their bodies give them, and that does work both ways. Straight people can force themselves to be homosexual just like homosexual people can force themselves to be straight. But, it really boils down to genetics in terms of what gender your body is naturally attracted to.

So that means the gay gene(s) have been identified?
I believe that people in different circumstances will respond differently. 1 choice here and there can expose a person to different things, including sexuality.

 

[Sleekgiant]

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

Besides, a straight couple raised the first gay person.

Also if you hang around tall people, you will become tall yourself.

OT: Its nature, you don't make gay, its part of a persons mind when they are born.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The more interesting question for me has recently become: What does it matter? What difference does it make if it is genetical, cultural or both?

 

[MorsePacific]

Absolutely nature. It might not be brought out without outside influences, but I've always felt that people are born the way they are.

 

[incal11]

I'm sorry what? Flamboyants just convinced themselves that they liked men are you saying?

No. What did I type wrong? They convinced themselves they were born that way is what I said, what those people say isn't proof despite their high standing in the gay community.

From looking at your arguments as a whole you seem to be saying it how you see it, judging from outside observation, without any knowledge of the thought processes behind these things.

I know more than you think, but I am reluctant to talk of my personal life on the web. Make of that what you will.

However what you haven't recognised is that this isn't consistent with all straight males, based on this you have my viewpoint. What I see is a male that has bisexual tendencies but is unaware of it, and becomes aware of this tendency as his inhibitions towards bi/homosexuality increases.
Based on this you can easily explain how guy A can try gay sex and be ok with it, while guy B tries gay sex and decides it's not for him.

What I was trying to say is that we all have bisexual tendancies to begin with. These tendancies are regulated by what could be seen as a more or less dominant inhibition, just working from my own humble theory.
So guy A and guy B have their own preferences, it doesn't prove they were born that way and does not go against my theory either.

 

[Dragonclaw]

I think it can certainly be a mix of both, but I think in the long run nature is the most powerful with nurture being the force that can screw nature up.

My ex-wife has a lot of confusion because her moms desperately wanted her to be a lesbian. Spewed tons of the sterotypical man-hating rhetoric that is just as harmful as any parent spewing anti-gay hate speach to try and coax a child into being straight. They never approved of any of the boys she brought home and constantly pressured her to find a nice girl and settle down. It didn't happen and she felt a ton of issues because she was / is straight. The end result though is that she has never been able to sustain a long term relationship in no small part because of all the damage her moms did to her psyche.

 

[Nimcha]

This is where boys and girls need good role models for their gender. To teach them Men are masculine and Women are feminine.

Gender is entirely a social construct. It has no genetic meaning, it was not programmed into people. WE, humans, invented it, and are bound by it. In short, it's all bullshit. The BEST way to raise children, as I've learned in many psychology and sociology classes, is gender neutral and androgynous. Let me explain. It means that Daddy isn't the only one who can mow a lawn and Mommy isn't the only one who can make a boo-boo feel better with a kiss. Daddy isn't the only one who can go out and earn money to support the family and Mommy isn't the only one who can run a vacuum.

That's all fine but the problem with this approach is that it's very tempting to take it way too far. Like that story about a mother who didn't acknowledge her child's gender but wanted it to choose for itself. Such ridiculousness can come from good intentions.

Also, gender is not useless or bullshit. Or entirely a social construct. Gender roles evolved naturally into society. There is a reason the gender stereotypes became stereotypes. Now for the nuance, everybody should be free to choose whether to confrom to these roles or not. But there is no need to completely abolish them. Some people don't need that much freedom.

I wish people would stop saying these things, it's really annoying.

 

[OctoH]

Both, I suppose. I would probably tell you that I was born this way, but I also grew up with mostly female influences. Would not really be able to tell you if that was significant or not, though.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

I think it can certainly be a mix of both, but I think in the long run nature is the most powerful with nurture being the force that can screw nature up.

My ex-wife has a lot of confusion because her moms desperately wanted her to be a lesbian. Spewed tons of the sterotypical man-hating rhetoric that is just as harmful as any parent spewing anti-gay hate speach to try and coax a child into being straight. They never approved of any of the boys she brought home and constantly pressured her to find a nice girl and settle down. It didn't happen and she felt a ton of issues because she was / is straight. The end result though is that she has never been able to sustain a long term relationship in no small part because of all the damage her moms did to her psyche.

I'm very sorry to hear about her she has my deepest sympathy, and I hate that her parents where/are like that, it is people like that that give many gay people a bad name, but we can be thankful they are the minority of the group.

 

[Catie Caraco]

This is where boys and girls need good role models for their gender. To teach them Men are masculine and Women are feminine.

Gender is entirely a social construct. It has no genetic meaning, it was not programmed into people. WE, humans, invented it, and are bound by it. In short, it's all bullshit. The BEST way to raise children, as I've learned in many psychology and sociology classes, is gender neutral and androgynous. Let me explain. It means that Daddy isn't the only one who can mow a lawn and Mommy isn't the only one who can make a boo-boo feel better with a kiss. Daddy isn't the only one who can go out and earn money to support the family and Mommy isn't the only one who can run a vacuum.

That's all fine but the problem with this approach is that it's very tempting to take it way too far. Like that story about a mother who didn't acknowledge her child's gender but wanted it to choose for itself. Such ridiculousness can come from good intentions.

Also, gender is not useless or bullshit. Or entirely a social construct. Gender roles evolved naturally into society. There is a reason the gender stereotypes became stereotypes. Now for the nuance, everybody should be free to choose whether to confrom to these roles or not. But there is no need to completely abolish them. Some people don't need that much freedom.

I wish people would stop saying these things, it's really annoying.

Gender and sex are not the same thing. Ignoring a child's sex and letting them act as they like is not right. There are physical differences which need to be addressed. The problem with gender roles is people people take them way too far and as if they are set in stone. They are not. I don't want to go into it in super detail because it goes off topic, but Gender IS entirely a social construct. Sex is not. Sex and gender are not the same thing, at least not in the fields of psychology and sociology.

 

[Navvan]

I was horribly disgusted with the first page of this thread. It's all dolts screaming Nature without a dam clue.

Firstly how the "frunk" would genes know the difference between men and women? They're just genes. All they can do is release chemicals into body. Things like puberty, fertility and the occasional growth disorder that's it. Remember they're operating blind. They have no idea what the outside world looks like. They can't tell you to like anything. Genes can make you more sexually active but the target of that feeling is up to Nurture.

Secondly if homosexuality were genetic it would be localised to an ethnic group or region. It's not. Homosexuality is too far spread to be genetic. If sexual inclination was genetic chimpanzees, that share 97% of our genetic code, wouldn't want to "frunk" with other chimpanzees only sexy humans. Also if Homosexuality is Nature it would have a gene that could be identified and like all others turned on and off. That just isn't going to happen.

So I've made my points that it's not Nature, so why is it Nurture.
Imagine a baby, it came into the world knowing nothing. What's gravity? how do I control my bowels? are my feet tasty? What is sexy...Men? Women? Dogs? I don't know I'M A BABY!

All infants have to learn the difference between male and female, associate themselves with one and learn what is correct action from others of their gender. All this is done before the child is 5. Believe it or not everyone picks up what is correct for them to be sexually attracted to long before they become sexually active. This is why so many claim "I've always felt gay". Well obviously you didn't think about it when you were 7!! This is where boys and girls need good role models for their gender. To teach them Men are masculine and Women are feminine.

It's not right to say you learn to be gay, but rather that you don't learn to be straight. On failing to pick up a sexual orientation an individual will most likely go for what ever they see others of their peer group doing later in sexual development. Commonly taking a homosexual or bisexual sexual preference.

As I mentioned earlier we associate with figures around us in our formative years and without realising it pick up their behaviours. This does not have to be direct and often very subtle influences will drastically change a persons development. An example would be the predisposition of those abused as children that will do so to their children later in life. Or children of alcoholics having higher tendencies to problems with alcohol. Even if you consciencely don't like the influence you may adopt that behaviour.

I could go on and I might continue this post later, but everyone hates a wall of text.

TLDR It's NURTURE NOT NATURE FOOL!!

You seem to have a misunderstanding when it comes genes and their impact on our life. All those things are directly understood to be a result of genes, and while I don't have my hand on actual literature simply because I don't want to invest the time in looking it up I'll explain why in each case.

Those genes that release chemicals in our body do more than initiate puberty, they are responsible for construction of all your organs including your brains. They are responsible for the amount of neurotransmitters that are released for a given stimulus and how to change that amount given certain conditions. Not all genes tell the whole tail for a trait. Most aren't even linked, and those for some things like height are polychromatic (on multiple chromosomes). Thus turning a trait "on" and "off" simply isn't feasible for many many genes. Even when it is one gene that codes for the trait when turning them "on" and "off" is talked about its actually either removing the gene, adding a gene, or turning the expression way down/up.

This occurs naturally as well.A gene isn't always on or doing something either. This is why babies aren't born and have already gone through puberty. Genes and the process they perform are regulated in our body, and that is why a baby comes out not sexually developed not because they haven't had somebody to teach them to be attracted through imitation. When geneticists talk about nurture, they are talking about how the environment effects these processes.

Our genes are a direct product of natural selection, and that is by definition. Natural selection is something that directly supports mating with members of the opposite sex and members of the same species as it provides the least waste of energy for highest fitness. One would then predict any mutation that benefits this behavior to be more productive and become fixed in the population. The genes certainly don't have a will or anything like that, but to say that they aren't going to have an effect on your choice of mate goes against the idea of natural selection and thus evolution. I site everything from fly mating behavior (very species specific even among closely related species) to various mating preferences/rituals in species that are believed not to have great cognitive function. Like fish and insects.

As for genes being restricted to an region or ethnic group, not true. Very few of our genes are restricted to an ethnic group/region. That gene that tells your hand to be placed where it is, fairly conserved throughout human population and animals in general. The "homosexuality genes" if they exist are likely more of an activation or inactivation of genes that exist in everyone but simply are/are not expressed the same due to the very very complex biochemistry that goes on in our bodies. Something that happens a lot

 

[Dan Steele]

Nature, they tested this with monkeys. Homosexuality is literaly a genetic counter measure against overpopulation.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Considering you're 500% more likely to be homosexual if anyone in your family is homosexual, I'd say mostly nature.

Really? What's that based on? My understanding was that adopted children of gay couples had no increased chance of being homosexual link.

By family I mean genetically. And it was the Atheist Experience quite some months ago.

Nature, they tested this with monkeys. Homosexuality is literaly a genetic counter measure against overpopulation.

How come families with homosexuals in them have more children on average than "normal" families?

 

[Kapol]

From what I learned in my Psych class, Homosexuality is based off genetics mainly. He actually said very clearly that it's not really contested in the psychiatric world. It's more just an accepted fact. Of course, it's up to each person to choose if they go with the feelings their bodies give them, and that does work both ways. Straight people can force themselves to be homosexual just like homosexual people can force themselves to be straight. But, it really boils down to genetics in terms of what gender your body is naturally attracted to.

So that means the gay gene(s) have been identified?
I believe that people in different circumstances will respond differently. 1 choice here and there can expose a person to different things, including sexuality.

I'm not quite sure on the details to be honest. I was really quoting from my Psych teacher. It was never really discussed more then that little bit in class. I also think you're right about reacting differently. But in the end, we can't really choose who our bodies lust after. So while different circumstances may dictate how we respond, I don't think that they'll decide how we feel in the first place.

 

[Dexiro]

I'm sorry what? Flamboyants just convinced themselves that they liked men are you saying?

No. What did I type wrong? They convinced themselves they were born that way is what I said, what those people say isn't proof despite their high standing in the gay community.

Bah, I might have to leave this argument here because I'm having trouble articulating an explanation. I do have a fairly clear viewpoint but I'm having trouble arguing it without feeling the need to write a huge essay every time you pull up a counter argument, and it's making my brain switch off a bit.

Hmm simply put I'm struggling to understand your viewpoint because what you're saying doesn't match anything I've witnessed in real life. Your theory makes sense at parts but it seems like a bit of a long-shot, and bits of it just don't seem consistent at all.

Your reluctance to talk about your personal experiences isn't helping much either ~

 

[theultimateend]

Nature, they tested this with monkeys. Homosexuality is literaly a genetic counter measure against overpopulation.

But that conflicts with my conservative views about how the world works .

I don't like things that don't conform with how I think things work.

*wags finger*

 

[smegmar]

some more points I'd like to interject. From my point of view I've never seen the curvature of the earth, and nor has anyone I know. Does that mean that the world is flat...? sometimes perception can be misleading and we need more understanding of something we cannot experience in day to day life.


I want to quote Sleek giant but the quote button is acting up for me...

"Also if you hang around tall people, you will become tall yourself.

OT: Its nature, you don't make gay, its part of a persons mind when they are born."

Some people have tall genetics, they got it from their parents or immediate family which is clearly visible. Other then that a good diet and correct posture and other NURTURE factors have a huge role.

But height is a physical feature, which is completely different for an attraction with is purely mental. If a person can be attracted, Sexually or otherwise, to specific targets by genes where does it stop.

Do I like pasta because of my genes? What about the simpsons, Do I find that sort of humor funny because of genes?? and sexually do you say all pedophiles, zoophiles and acrotomophilies are caused by genetics??

it's just ridiculous.

 

[KingKamor]

I took a Human Sexuality class in college and we watched a very sobering and to-the-point documentary. It was about the baby son of a nice family getting his penis burned off in circumcision surgery(don't ask how) only a few months after he was born. The solution to their problem came in the form of a psychologist, whom the mother had seen on TV. So they basically gave the baby a sex change operation and raised as a girl instead of a boy. Jump forward twelve lovingly girlish years later or so, and "she" starts exhibiting severe depression, confusion, and rebellion. She dressed as a boy, cut her hair, and did boy things. She didn't want to play with dolls anymore, she wanted to play sports.

It was only later that she found out that she was in fact a boy all along. This pissed her off more than anything else in the world ever could have. Later in her life, she had penis reconstruction surgery, took out the womanly parts, and lived as a man again. Due to all of the stress put on his mind and life from this change in sexuality, however, the depression did not go away, and the lost childhood did not come back.

TL;DR: Nurture has very little to do with the cards we're born with. You can try to paint over an Ace of Clubs and say it's an Ace of Hearts, but that won't change the original card underneath.

Not saying that nurture isn't important, but people of all sexualities are born that way because that is simply how their brains work, and no amount of "nurture" can change it.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

This is where boys and girls need good role models for their gender. To teach them Men are masculine and Women are feminine.

Gender is entirely a social construct. It has no genetic meaning, it was not programmed into people. WE, humans, invented it, and are bound by it. In short, it's all bullshit. The BEST way to raise children, as I've learned in many psychology and sociology classes, is gender neutral and androgynous. Let me explain. It means that Daddy isn't the only one who can mow a lawn and Mommy isn't the only one who can make a boo-boo feel better with a kiss. Daddy isn't the only one who can go out and earn money to support the family and Mommy isn't the only one who can run a vacuum.

This isn't to say that the creation of gender roles was a bad thing for it's time. Early men went out to hunt and early women stayed home to raise the babies because it was a jungle out there, and without claws and fangs humans were squishy. But that's just not necessary any more. Now that we're the top of the totem pole we should just let people do what they are best at and most comfortable doing, gender be damned. If my future five year old daughter wants to play with Tonka trucks and her brother likes dolls, then I'm fine with that. And screw pink nurseries for girls and blue for boys. This nonsense is man made and it's about time man unmade it.

How come the experiments in the 70's showed that unconditioned children still chose gender "specific" toys for the most part if they could freely choose?

 

[Matthew Kjonaas]

nature because if a straight person can not be turned on by a member of the same sex the a gay person can not be turned on by a member of the opposite sex.