Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I had a discussion like this before. This is a very polarising subject.Vault101 said:
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
If you are ready to really challenge your opinion I suggest you read those links entirely. You may not like the conclusion of all this, considering your "nature" stance. But I'd welcome a smart discussion, after all there could be something that I and those studies overlooked.
Upbringing is a very deep subject. For instance there is a lot of sexual frustration in those "nuclear" christian families. What with all those same-sex school and zero porn, eh ?
There's something I've been wondering - people say homosexuality is genetic, but doesn't this disagree with evolution? My understanding of the topic is far from an expertise, but a gene that made it impossible for you to reproduce would be a prime target for natural selection, right?
being gay i often feel like i'm part of some kind of sick zoo exhibit of the straight world we live in. with straight people dissecting every inch of gayness to determine if it's natural, it's a sickness, if it's a disorder, an abomination, if there is someone to blame, if there is something to blame, should it be cured or punished, should we be considered equal or a freak show, is it contagious or just unfortunate, should we be allowed to get married and raise children, is it okay to be disgusted or should it be tolerated, should they be allowed to donate blood and organs, should we inform our children, should they be rescued, should we install the death penalty, should they be able to serve their country, are they a threat to out traditional family, i could probably go on for another hour or more like this. /rant
nature. most (i would say every but i guess there is always the exception) people are born straight, raised straight, until they realized that they are not.
nature. most (i would say every but i guess there is always the exception) people are born straight, raised straight, until they realized that they are not.
Well, not absolutely every trait our species occasionally expresses is useful in an evolutionary sense. Something like 1 in 6 000 or so babies are born with a sixth finger on one hand. As you said, homosexuality probably wouldn't be a genetic trait that has survived in an unbroken chain of heritage. More likely it is caused by a relatively common mutation of some other gene that does do something beneficial.savandicus said:
Mostly nurture.
Why?
Because I have read things, seen things, watched things, that have changed my outlook on all things, and I am 21 years old.
Imagine the effect such things could have, when someone could be 8, 10, or 12 years old.
When we are young, we want to be like our heroes.
I think that has the greatest effect on use as a human being, out of everything a person can experience, ever.
Why?
Because I have read things, seen things, watched things, that have changed my outlook on all things, and I am 21 years old.
Imagine the effect such things could have, when someone could be 8, 10, or 12 years old.
When we are young, we want to be like our heroes.
I think that has the greatest effect on use as a human being, out of everything a person can experience, ever.
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htmfeauxx said:
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
but I think it is not a disorder, nor an abomination, nor shameful, nor punishable. Still, upbringing is not just the parents. In our first twenty years of life we are exposed to an etreme variety of influences, most we don't realise. "he was raised in a traditional family and yet is gay" is a very weak argument.
If you feel like an animal in a zoo blame it on that whole "victorian mentality" on sexuality who made what had always been considered personal tastes before into deviances. Really, you should welcome articles like the ones I give here. They demistify what is being gay (part of that mistyfication coming from the gays themselves), so that you can stop feeling like a freak in a "straight world".
Nature.
I guess there could be some elements of nurture (although I doubt it), but even if so, really nothing at all impactful, and certainly nothing that's going to change your sexuality. That seems to be a big thing against gays adopting children, that they'll then be gay, but considering they've almost all been raised by straight parents and are gay, the idea's stupid.
I guess there could be some elements of nurture (although I doubt it), but even if so, really nothing at all impactful, and certainly nothing that's going to change your sexuality. That seems to be a big thing against gays adopting children, that they'll then be gay, but considering they've almost all been raised by straight parents and are gay, the idea's stupid.
It doesn't make it impossible for you to reproduce, just less likely if you follow what you actually want. The only impossibility would be if it rendered you sterile. But consider centuries of societal conditioning and social norms dictating that men need to be the head of a household and have children, and it's not hard to imagine that it survived by men choosing to obey what they believed they need to do rather than pursuing what they want to do.FateOrFatality said:
This also isn't considering the possibility that it's a fairly common mutation, as Nackl points out above. But I'm very hesitant to go down that road as it could very quickly lead to cries of "mutant" being uttered in a derogatory way against homosexuals.
The fact that homosexual activity has been observed in multiple species other than humans alone makes me think that it's far from an unnatural thing, or something that relies purely on nurture.
And as for the OP: the nature/nurture topic according to most scientists is that it's the interaction between the two rather than one over the other. So both play a major role, and the notion that one wins out over the other or that it's a "vs" argument is outdated.
Exactly. It's too easy to point at a single thing and cite it as the sole cause for something complicated and difficult to understand.incal11 said:
Havent you heard?, there are no Homosexuals at all in Iran...avouleance2nd said:
No but seriously, my guess as a non-psychiatrist would be its Nature, otherwise homosexuality wouldnt exist in the animal kingdom, which it does.
But as others have pointed out before, nurture can probably effect how much it shows/how early it is "detected" (not that its a bad thing, just didnt think of another word).
I read a study once that concluded that if your mother smokes a lot during pregnancy your chances of being gay later are increased, if you are a boy. Something to do with brain development and nicotin. This doesnt mean you have a 50%+ chance of being gay when your mom smoked during pregnancy or anything, but there was a significant increase.
This would be nurture, because it has nothing to do with DNA.
This would be nurture, because it has nothing to do with DNA.
i don't feel like a freak, i feel perfectly natural thank you.incal11 said:
that is the point, there is nothing wrong with me so why do so many straight people fuss over what i am? i read your first link and yeah, that disproves/points out flaws in a few scientific claims about homosexuality, but it doesn't mean it can't be found there eventually, if at all. it just don't see why it matters, and why so many (mostly?) straight people are so focused on find a 'cause', no matter what their believes are.
I think (and hope) that it's nurture. That doesn't make it any less legitimate, or make it a "choice", but I have a hard time believing that there is a genetic mutation that makes you like people of the same sex, especially due to the difficulty of that gene being passed on. As for the hope portion of my opinion, that's due to the fact that if they do find a gay gene, then you will have all the hardcore homophobes claiming that it's a disease, just like Downs Syndrome or something, and that the only humane thing to do, would be to cure them by genetic manipulation.
Being gay might not be good for your genes, but it IS good for the genes of the "family". Say you are a male and have 3 brothers, 1 of which is the alpha male. The alpha fucks around and has plenty of children. Your other 2 brothers try to show who's boss and fail. They either die in the fight or get kicked out. You, the gay guy, are no threat and are allowed to hang out with the ladies and the offspring to help take care of them while the alpha male hunts for food.FateOrFatality said:
Well it's both we have proved that a mutation in the xx / xy paring can be a major factor in homosexual relations, although of course not the only factor but I have personally known straight people that have gone to bat for the other side because of traumatic experiences in their past. One person even kept a same sex partner for several years before coming to the conclusion that she was totally straight.
How a person is raised or treated by others can have a huge impact on their personality especially if they feel they are homosexual but are taught to fear and be repulsed by homosexual behaviour, the doubt and self loathing caused by such a situation can cause lasting harm including depression and erratic and harmful sexual behaviour. Nature is our blue print for how we should be but nurture teaches us how to behave and view ourselves. If these two life factors are not in harmony it can lead to a damaged and miserable life.
Well that's how I feel about it any way
How a person is raised or treated by others can have a huge impact on their personality especially if they feel they are homosexual but are taught to fear and be repulsed by homosexual behaviour, the doubt and self loathing caused by such a situation can cause lasting harm including depression and erratic and harmful sexual behaviour. Nature is our blue print for how we should be but nurture teaches us how to behave and view ourselves. If these two life factors are not in harmony it can lead to a damaged and miserable life.
Well that's how I feel about it any way