Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[MortarTeam]

Scientist have no consensus on the matter, and, unless Escapist is full of geneticists, behavioral scientist and sociologists I don't think this thread will bring us any closer to understanding causes of homosexuality.
Also, why does nobody ask, for example, sadomasochism, nature or nurture? Homosexuality is but one deviant sexual behavior, why is everybody so locked on it?

 

[Vault101]

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?

Based on my knowledge of genetics and psychology, it's both. There must be something different about them to make them feel that way (not discrimanatory. It's an observation. Like saying that black people have higher levels of melanine in their skin)
Off topic, why do you have dog from footrot flats as your avatar if you are an aussie?

Because footrot flats is Fucking Awsome

 

[Balaxe]

Mostly nature but someone's upbringing does have a huge impact on who they are as a person.

 

[Thundero13]

You're born that way, the idea of it being how you're raised just seems silly, also a lot of gay people know that they're gay all their life, apparently even before they find out what sexuality is, they just know somehow...
Personally I had gay fantasies all my life so yeah, I hardly think it's to do with 'nurture'

 

[MrFluffy-X]

I would say both; however, I believe we are simply 'shells' to pass on our DNA. Now, I know I?m going to be hated for this, but it is logical. If we are simply shells to pass DNA then if a minority are born homosexual it?s a 'fault' of Nature.

Please don?t hate me, I have nothing against homosexuality.

 

[slippereend]

It's a scientificically proven fact that people and other animals are born straight, gay, a-sexual and everything in between.
You can reed about it in Dick Swaabs book 'we are our brain' and probably other books as well written by other neuroscientists who research this.

 

[Mischa87]

Now, having run a successful LGBTQA support group in my town (And one online) I've heard just about every rhyme and reason for anything and everything queer. First things first, for the people who think that not acting in non-heterosexual activities, makes the person still straight, you may want to consider people who are raped, and people who experiment. So, let's say you're a straight virgin guy (As probably most of the users here are, maybe not so much the virgin part, but hear me out) and Mike Tyson decides he wants to get funky with your ass, and assuming said ass funkiness occurs, does that make you gay? you've never had sex with a woman, and you've only done it with a guy, consensual or not. By some of your logic, that would mean you'd be gayer than Liberace's anus. Obviously, that's flawed as fuck...

Now, what about someone who's curious about their orientation? Maybe the same hypothetical person from above has been with women, but is curious about doing the deed with people of the same sex, so, he tries just that, and let's say he's not into it at all after trying, does that make him bi because he tried? nuh-uh

It's all about attraction, or as I like to put it "It's not WHO you do, it's WHY" Look at gay-for-pay porn stars, sure, they engage in gay sex, but only for pay, and wouldn't do it elsewhere, because they're not attracted to men. Look at all the women in the 90's who jumped on the trend that it was "cool" to be bisexual (Both my sisters have actually done that) Years later, when the fad died down, most the women stopped doing that, what are they? I'd say they're straight

Now, for causes there's been proof (I'm sure you can find it, I CBA to do it this early in the morning, haven't even had breakie) That bisexuality, homosexuality, pansexuality, asexuality, and just about anything to do with orientation AS WELL as transgenderism, comes down to a set of hormonal bathes we receive in the womb. Basically, if one set of these bathes messes up, you're bi, if another specific set messes up, you're homosexual, if another does, you're bi/pansexual, if another messes up, you're transgendered, in the sense of being gender queer/fluid/transvestism, if another set messes up, you're transsexual (Like my awesome self) There's a bath for asexual people as well. Now all of this is caused by stress in the mother while carrying the young. This has been proven in animals other than humans (Yes, we're animals too) In labs, you can actually create queer animals from inducing stress in the mother at different points in development, this is actually much easier in animals that are naturally fidgety and stressed, like rats and dogs (They're actually the most likely to be transsexual out of all animals, in fact, you've probably seen a few transsexual dogs, female dogs who lift a leg to pee, and male dogs who squat) This is the strongest argument I've seen for nature being the cause of anything queer

Now, there's also another theory (I say theory, because I've yet to see proof, but it does hold water) And that's that we're all actually pansexual to start with, yep, that's right, you're attracted to everyone, regardless of gender, or sex, BUT the attraction may be SO small, it never comes up. Let's take our hypothetical forum-goer from earlier, he identifies as being straight, alright, with this theory, he actually does like men, women, intersexed people, transsexual people, the whole nine-yards of humanity. BUT the attraction to every one but females is SO little, that it may never, ever come up (Ie, he may never become attracted to anyone other than women) But, maybe he's got a man-crush on Jason Statham (Yeah, I watched Death Race last night, so shoot me) He may find something particularly attractive about Mr Statham there that it actually overpowers the lack of interest in men, and appear as like I said, a "man-crush" You actually can see this all the time on Youtube, but I'm willing to bet most of those "I'd go gay/lesbian for him/her" Are just for attention, some are probably real.

Also, another thing to note, is that sexual orientation is NOT trinary, it's not just hetero/bi/homosexual, it's a continuum, a sliding scale if you wish

That's my tw-- *looks up at the size of the post* That's my five cents on all of that

TLDR, Nature people, nature, and you're all as queer as a 3-dollar bill ^_^

Oh, also a neat fact, giraffe's are the gayest animal ever, 95% of recorded couplings are male and male, 1% is female and female, so, 96% of recorded couplings are homosexual... interesting, no?

 

[Pyro Paul]

I think people are getting a little confused on the Nature Vrs. Nurture argument.

Nature: It is encoded into your genome. You have no choice, it just Happens.
Nurture: Through influncing outside factors it occurs.

now for a complex argument.

it is impossible to BE homosexual in normal conditions with 'nature'. you are not born homosexual and there are no gene's, genetics, hereditary traits, or influcing factors biologically to make a person homosexual. Your body is Designed from the ground up for the sole purpouse of reproduction, to find some one of the opposit sex and procreate.

the idea of 'Homosexuality' is purely a psychological one, or 'nurture' in this case. It is some ones choice to be homosexual or not. However, it is not as simple as 'i choose to be gay' or 'i choose to be straight'... Several psychological things and trama alter your prefrences, choices, and desires so that your choice and options shift.

Instead of asking ones self 'am i gay/straight?' they may ask themselves 'Should i be happy?' in which happiness is relations with some one of the same sex. Their feelings on the matter may be so very strong that, although the choice exists, they do not see it. Instead they identify with the choice that best suits them 'i am gay/straight'.


my stand point on the thing...
It is impossible to be Homosexual.
your body is designed to procreate and the body influences the mind.

It is impossible to be Hetrosexual.
Your mind finds sexual attraction in any features regardless of sex.

we are all varying degrees of Bi-sexual.

 

[Varya]

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

Besides, a straight couple raised the first gay person.

None of your arguments hold up I'm afraid. The first one is kind of obvious, height is purely based on genetics, no argument, sexuality is a behavior or a preference, something we know can be affected. Not saying you are wrong, just that it's a dumb argument.
Also, Being gay because of your upbringing isn't the same as "raised by gay". Again, not saying you are wrong, just that your arguments dont hold up.
Personally I believe it's mostly nature, but not only that. We know for a fact peoples sexual preferences and fetishes is often strongly based in childhood. If you can gain an "artificial"* liking for ex; sex with fat people, old people, BDSM sex foot fetishes etc, what is to say you can't get an artificial liking for the same sex?
But yeah, still 90% nature I'd say

*I don't mean artificial as in wrong/ not real, just not born with.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

Well, homosexuals have moved away from the "default".

I'd say it's similar to all the endless blather about "girl gamers". I mean, you'd think that they'd be more or less the same as "default" gamers, but being part of that bizarre group of female creatures that happen to make up slightly more than half the population apparently makes them incomprehensibly alien. And so, constant discussions about how we'd like to see more of them, how we'd be open and tolerant, how we'd like to take them home and fuck them, how we wish they'd stop ruining our fun and how we don't see why they aren't more impressed with us.

It's loads of fun, and a great bonding tool to find someone nominally different and "other" them, for some reason,

 

[orangeban]

Well I find it hard to believe that being gay could possibly exsist in the genetic code purely because it makes it far less likely that your going to have offspring and therefore pass on your genetic code if you are and therefore it would've died out. Which makes me want to say that its entirely nurture. However having several homosexual friends they all think that it wasnt a choice that they made and their upbringings vary wildy.

Theory says all nurture, practise says all nature. I'm going to say its neither and actually being gay is decided entirely by whether or not you like peanuts.

Well, remember that many homosexuals would have surpressed it or had heterosexual sex because being gay was frowned on/they had to take on for the tribe, if you see what I mean. It also strikes me that homosexuality is a rather common mutation (using mutation in the purely scientific meaning, as in a deviation of the genetic code) which would explain it's presence in all areas of civilization and in animals.

 

[Servallier]

Bisexuals get hate from both sides of the fence, so they have much reason to hide. Homophobic communities treat known bis as gays who steal from the straights, and gay communities regard them as traitors to the cause. Both sides presume that bis are indecisive sluts who are incapable of being monogamous. None of this is fair or necessarily true, of course

As a bisexual myself, i can definitely attest to this. The most common label levelled at me is "Greedy" which is a little unfair, I have a hard time picking up people on either side of the chromosome pool. The 'straights' can keep themselves, straight girls tend to view us with suspicion because we could be staring at them or their boyfriend, and aren't 'safe' like a gay person would be. And the last gay who mentioned the whole "Traitor to the cause" thing to me i gave a verbal battering to. It's not some club or political movement. I've never been to a pride event, good on the people that do, but it's not my thing.

And i have instructed friends to kill me if i ever use the word "Fabulous" in context

And i'm going to go with primarily nature, with a certain amount of nurture. I'm guessing that there is a biologically sound reason -for- homosexuality, if only to give the others something to do while the alpha pair are fucking, what it is i don't know, not being a biologist/ geneticist. I know there's various studies out there which label people like me as the most statistically likely to like others of my own gender (youngest child, strong father/brother figure etc).

Personally what i will say is that i don't really consider myself bisexual, straight OR gay. I really couldn't care less what the plumbing is, just that the person's nice and i find them attractive ^^

 

[lotrfanatic1]

i know everyone is saying that homosexuality is down to nature, however, i myself am gay & reflecting back on events in my life & the way i was raised i think i can safely say it was down to nurture

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

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

Besides, a straight couple raised the first gay person.

None of your arguments hold up I'm afraid. The first one is kind of obvious, height is purely based on genetics, no argument, sexuality is a behavior or a preference, something we know can be affected. Not saying you are wrong, just that it's a dumb argument.
Also, Being gay because of your upbringing isn't the same as "raised by gay". Again, not saying you are wrong, just that your arguments dont hold up.
Personally I believe it's mostly nature, but not only that. We know for a fact peoples sexual preferences and fetishes is often strongly based in childhood. If you can gain an "artificial"* liking for ex; sex with fat people, old people, BDSM sex foot fetishes etc, what is to say you can't get an artificial liking for the same sex?
But yeah, still 90% nature I'd say

*I don't mean artificial as in wrong/ not real, just not born with.

I say they do. Your hair color, eye colour, weight, height and sexuality are all apart of who you are. Besides the hair colour (and to a degree the weight) you have no control over any of them and are born with all of them coded into you. Foot fetishes are also (so far as I can tell) caused by our genetic makeup, as the area of your brain responsible for controling your feet is directly next to the area that regulates your genitals. Doctors theorize a 'crossed connection' makes one's brain associate genitals with feet. This is why some people enjoy things like footjobs.

But it's all opinion. Maybe one day someone will be able to prove one way or the other.

 

[feauxx]

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.

Well, homosexuals have moved away from the "default".

I'd say it's similar to all the endless blather about "girl gamers". I mean, you'd think that they'd be more or less the same as "default" gamers, but being part of that bizarre group of female creatures that happen to make up slightly more than half the population apparently makes them incomprehensibly alien. And so, constant discussions about how we'd like to see more of them, how we'd be open and tolerant, how we'd like to take them home and fuck them, how we wish they'd stop ruining our fun and how we don't see why they aren't more impressed with us.

It's loads of fun, and a great bonding tool to find someone nominally different and "other" them, for some reason,

yeah i think you have a point.. lol. oh the fun of being both! :')

 

[Varya]

I think people are getting a little confused on the Nature Vrs. Nurture argument.

Nature: It is encoded into your genome. You have no choice, it just Happens.
Nurture: Through influncing outside factors it occurs.

now for a complex argument.

it is impossible to BE homosexual in normal conditions with 'nature'. you are not born homosexual and there are no gene's, genetics, hereditary traits, or influcing factors biologically to make a person homosexual. Your body is Designed from the ground up for the sole purpouse of reproduction, to find some one of the opposit sex and procreate.

the idea of 'Homosexuality' is purely a psychological one, or 'nurture' in this case. It is some ones choice to be homosexual or not. However, it is not as simple as 'i choose to be gay' or 'i choose to be straight'... Several psychological things and trama alter your prefrences, choices, and desires so that your choice and options shift.

Instead of asking ones self 'am i gay/straight?' they may ask themselves 'Should i be happy?' in which happiness is relations with some one of the same sex. Their feelings on the matter may be so very strong that, although the choice exists, they do not see it. Instead they identify with the choice that best suits them 'i am gay/straight'.


my stand point on the thing...
It is impossible to be Homosexual.
your body is designed to procreate and the body influences the mind.

It is impossible to be Hetrosexual.
Your mind finds sexual attraction in any features regardless of sex.

we are all varying degrees of Bi-sexual.

This doesn't hold up I'm afraid, since homosexuality is a common occurrence in nature. I can't leave a source, but I'm pretty certain I've read they have proven that homosexuality is in fact genetic.
Of course, being homosexual doesn't allow for you genes to survive evolution, but there is quite a possibility that the same gene that can cause you to become homosexual is beneficial in another way. So having the gene is beneficial, however only a few will actually become homosexual, when the gene is dominant. Not saying I know what that benefit is, just that there is a possibility.

 

[Flatfrog]

The best argument for nature that I have heard is that because more then just humans exhibit homosexuality at a some what stable rate of the believed 8-10%, it is a natural population growth curve to prevent the over consumption of natural resources by cutting the amount of any species that actively engage in reproduction.

Obviously no proof for any theory but this one made the most sense of any I have heard. Though being possessed by demons is also a cool prospect.

This definitely can't be the explanation as it makes no Darwinian sense - there are no mutations that would work that way as natural selection is always about individual survival (or individual gene fitness, if we're being technical).

The most believable explanations I've seen are to do with kin selection (homosexual individuals help nurture siblings or other relatives); it also wouldn't surprise me if male and female homosexuality had different genetic factors and selection pressures - it seems to me that it takes a lot less of a switch to get male homosexuality, given the basic 'hump anything that moves' drive that is the basis of the male libido. Female homosexuality, on the other hand, would seem more of an extension of the harem model - women bearing children in groups and then cooperating to raise them would certainly have an advantage if they could co-opt the innate process of sexual pair-bonding.

And one more note - as with all genetic discussions, this is always about what gives a reproductive advantage in the long term, it doesn't in any way suggest that the feelings aren't 'real' - any more than the fact that caring for children is genetically advantageous makes parental love less real.

 

[Verp]

Every human is bisexual.

Nurture depends on which side you prefer.

But... I don't desire either side at all and I'm hardly the only one.

 

[MassiveGeek]

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.

Yeah, I also vote both, as a human being you're under constant change as long as there are hormones in your body, so while I do believe "nature" plays the biggest part, of course outside influence can also play a key role.