Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

Recommended Videos

Varya

Elvish Ambassador
Nov 23, 2009
457
0
0
floppylobster said:
Varya said:
rapidoud said:
Apparently in can be an evolutionary reaction to perceiving your environment as overpopulated.

So there you go...
Source? This seems... strange, since while it would be a beneficial gene, how could it survive? You cannot have a "failsafe" gene, designed not to get reproduced, it would die out in a generation.
Perhaps it's the first step toward becoming, or a left over trait from being, asexual? And that is certainly beneficial.
Evolution does not think, so there are no "first steps" just random mutations.
Also, asexual people are less likely to, you know, have sex, so they probably won't reproduce. It might be beneficial for the individual, or even the society, but the gene still wouldn't survive to the next generation unless we start "breeding" humans. Even if we bred asexual humans, the horny ones would still reproduce and dominate, since that actually makes you want to reproduce.
 

The Stonker

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,557
0
0
incal11 said:
floppylobster said:
It's absolutely nature (look at the gay fruit flies - are you going to tell me they were nurtured?).
To begin they are fruit flies, not humans.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

esin said:
Can't make any bold statements, but it does give me pause for thought that I had a complicated birth and my mother has always been in semi-fragile health with an overactive immune system which I've read can have hormonal causes.
It only make people "more likely" to have certain behaviors though.
My riposte is.
So?
 

floppylobster

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,528
0
0
incal11 said:
floppylobster said:
It's absolutely nature (look at the gay fruit flies - are you going to tell me they were nurtured?).
To begin they are fruit flies, not humans.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
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.
 

Pearwood

New member
Mar 24, 2010
1,929
0
0
Both. Just like everything else about us except our physical attributes our environment and our genetics play a part. I'm more inclined to believe it's mostly influenced by social experiences but I'm a little biased because I'm bisexual myself and I'm not sure I like the idea that I'm only like that because of a mutation.

Keith K said:
I am not homosexual and am therefore unqualified to comment.
You can't really be qualified, geneticists have been looking for the gene responsible for sexual orientation without much success so even if you're a homosexual with a doctorate in genetics it's all guesswork really.

esin said:
Speaking of mannerisms. I find it curious how many gays lisp.
Yeah that is weird, it's really disproportionate. I've got a bit of a stutter myself.
 

esin

New member
Feb 17, 2010
92
0
0
The Stonker said:
Nature but some of the ticks that some homosexuals have *cough,cough* flamboyancy, is nurture.
I've seen some manly gay guys and some femine gay girls so *shrug* I guess that is nurture and society but homosexuality is genetic in every sense.
Speaking of mannerisms. I find it curious how many gays lisp. Yes I know there are a few straight men who have them too, but there seems an overwhelming amount of gays with some degree of lisp. I even caught it in myself listening to my voice recorded. And I don't even like the sound of a lisp.
 

Varya

Elvish Ambassador
Nov 23, 2009
457
0
0
floppylobster said:
It's absolutely nature (look at the gay fruit flies - are you going to tell me they were nurtured?).

However nurture can cause a human to repress their feelings and 'make them straight' despite what turns them on (I know some gay married men).

On the other hand peer pressure may make someone extremely weak willed 'experiment' with another sex, but if it doesn't work for them, they're going to have a hard time pretending to get off to it.

If anything 'nurture' is what stops some gay people from being themselves.
Just because there are examples of "genetic homosexuality" doesn't mean it's true for humans, or all humans. It's proven fetishes can be triggered by our experiences, why couldn't you develop a "gay-fetish" Also, if you read the discussion here, you'll see that homosexuality in animals isn't proof of genetic homosexuality.
 

Pyro Paul

New member
Dec 7, 2007
842
0
0
Varya said:
Also, your last statement is wrong. As someone with ADD, coming from a family with a history of ADD, ADHD, Aspegers and similar handicaps, I know this for a fact.
This is when i stopped reading that entire point.

You're comparing a physical condition to a psychological standing...
you don't see the flaw in that comparison?

this is like comparing Apples to the year 1933...

Varya said:
You state your views as fact, and that kind of nags at me. Yes, you MIGHT be right, but there is no conclusive evidence for this. Saying that homosexuality definitively is a "nurture" thing is wrong, it's not definitive at all. I do not know if you are a geneticist or not, but even if you are, the facts aren't in yet, so please at least acknowledge that you are stating your views.

to borrow incal11 link:
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm

outside that.
i've raised several arguments which you have failed to adress which fundimentally prove you wrong.

cheif among them-
If there are Homosexual male penguins, and this is caused by a hereditary trait... then why is there no doccumentation of Homosexual Female penguins?

i state my views as logical conclusions based on the evidence i have seen and know.
unlike you which have only provided knee jerk reactions wielding your point of view like it has some merit simply because you believe it so.
 

ImperialSunlight

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,269
0
0
I believe it's nature because of what I've heard from gay people and my personal experience as nothing in my life would have made me gay that I know of. But I think whether a person actually can identify with that and accept it is influenced by society's views.

Edit: Also, flamboyacy and feminine traits are completely unrelated.
 

EmperorSubcutaneous

New member
Dec 22, 2010
857
0
0
My question for everyone who says it's genetic: what's your evidence?

Since there is currently no evidence for it either way, I tend toward believing that it's the same as all your other preferences and aspects of your personality: almost entirely nurture.

Keep in mind two things from this point on:
1. I AM NOT SAYING THAT ANY SEXUALITY IS WORSE, OR LESS, THAN ANY OTHER. Love is love, and love is good. (Obviously I'm talking about mutually consenting love here.)
2. I am also not saying that it's a choice, or that it's simply a matter of "My parents told me not to be gay, so I grew up straight! Simple as." Stuff doesn't work that way. It's subconscious.

Your sexual orientation is like your favorite color. You can't one day wake up and say "I think I will choose to feel that red is the prettiest color." Nor can your opinion be swayed just by your parents telling you that you must believe that red is the prettiest. You feel what you feel, and that's that. However, you're not born with a favorite color; you develop one as a result of your experiences. It's also possible for it to change over time, though it doesn't have to. Then there are some people who would rather not have a favorite, they just treat everything as situational ("I like this green, but usually I like yellow best.").

In this discussion you'll hear a lot of people saying "But my family hates gay people! How could I be gay if what you say is true?" Obviously humans aren't robots. We don't get receive simple, straightforward programming and continue on with simple, straightforward lives. It's much more subtle than that. For one thing, constant pressure to not feel a certain way often leads you to feel that way even stronger. (Example: Victorians finding ankles arousing.) Also, what your parents say to you means very little in the grand scheme of things.

Here are three examples from real life (all friends of mine):
1. A woman is raped. She is not too keen on penises from then on, and so she decides to seek out women only from that point.
2. A boy grows up with very low self-esteem. Soon, he starts paying attention to other boys whom he admires and wishes to be like. At a certain point, this admiration becomes sexual attraction.
3. A woman is going about her life, contentedly dating only men, when suddenly she meets another woman and unexpectedly falls completely head over heels for her. They get married and live happily ever after (for ten years so far).

These examples are all pretty straightforward, though. It's much more complicated for the majority of other people, and you will most likely have no idea why your sexuality is the way it is. Either it happened before you were conscious of what was going on around you, or it happened so gradually that you couldn't possibly trace it all back to its various different sources.

Another important thing to mention is that no one can force anyone to change their feelings about anything unless they really, truly want to change themselves (in which case they probably already have). Unless you brainwash them, which is pretty much evil. All that nonsense about camps trying to turn people straight is just that: nonsense. Same with the belief that growing up in a culture that accepts homosexuality will turn you gay.

However, people like to believe that they are who they are, and they always have been and always will be. This is not true. Pretty much everything you consider to be "you" is something that could very easily be different if you had grown up differently. Your personality is not you. Accept this and you will be a happier person.

I have to mention this because many people find that their sexuality does change, and they usually react pretty poorly. They figure that if their sexuality has changed, it means that they must have been wrong about themselves all along and that they should reevaluate their entire lives up until that point. It doesn't mean that you're a different person, it doesn't mean that you're a traitor, and it doesn't mean that anything is wrong with you in any way. It's just life.
 

Pyro Paul

New member
Dec 7, 2007
842
0
0
Saippua said:
Its genetic. I've read about a study that claimed that its caused by hormones while in the uterus.
if it is caused by hormones in the uterus... then it wouldn't be genetic would it?
 

Pyrokinesis

New member
Dec 3, 2007
185
0
0
its entirely a choice, Just because some people cant look beyond the norms dosent make it genetic. Lets just say, some people are easily convinced that they are things. But no matter how much you are convinced in the long run it is still a choice.
 

floppylobster

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,528
0
0
Varya said:
floppylobster said:
Varya said:
rapidoud said:
Apparently in can be an evolutionary reaction to perceiving your environment as overpopulated.

So there you go...
Source? This seems... strange, since while it would be a beneficial gene, how could it survive? You cannot have a "failsafe" gene, designed not to get reproduced, it would die out in a generation.
Perhaps it's the first step toward becoming, or a left over trait from being, asexual? And that is certainly beneficial.
Evolution does not think, so there are no "first steps" just random mutations.

Also, asexual people are less likely to, you know, have sex, so they probably won't reproduce. It might be beneficial for the individual, or even the society, but the gene still wouldn't survive to the next generation unless we start "breeding" humans. Even if we bred asexual humans, the horny ones would still reproduce and dominate, since that actually makes you want to reproduce.
Unless it was, as I suggested, a left over trait from originally being asexual (single cell organisms).

Even if it were not, the gene to trigger homosexuality could still be passed on but not triggered; and it would still be passed on through hundreds of generations, occasionally triggering in some individuals, who, as you say, would not reproduce; but that does not mean the siblings of that same individual have not inherited the same gene (not trigger in their generation, but is still able to be triggered in future generations). Of course each time it triggers it will cause an evolutionary dead end but the gene will still be being passed on from the original source that caused it to be in the homosexual individual in the first place. Genes are not completely wiped clean in every generation.
 

Flare_Dragon123

New member
Aug 26, 2010
58
0
0
my thoughts are that love is a natural feeling. Its something that develops with or without your control over it. You meet someone and it just clicks. Do I think that is limited by the other persons gender, or your own? Not really. I think that there is perhaps an inclination, for instance, I've never been in love with any of my male friends, even though I've been really good buddies with several. I've always loved females.

Do I think that just because of this clear inclination its impossible for me to love a male. No, I don't think so. If I developed those feelings I might be quite a bit less inclined to act on them, I'd have to figure some things out for myself first. But, its just a natural feeling, instinctual you would say. Perhaps we do grow into a way where we classify certain feelings into different emotional modes, where a deep relationship with any female is automatically placed into a romance or love category moreso than a friendship category.

I don't know. But I'm on the side of Nature. As far as the sexual act itself, I really think that has very little to do with it, unless the drive to reproduce is more active in some members of the human race than others, but that would probably belong in the nurturing side of the argument and another topic.
 

floppylobster

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,528
0
0
Varya said:
floppylobster said:
It's absolutely nature (look at the gay fruit flies - are you going to tell me they were nurtured?).

However nurture can cause a human to repress their feelings and 'make them straight' despite what turns them on (I know some gay married men).

On the other hand peer pressure may make someone extremely weak willed 'experiment' with another sex, but if it doesn't work for them, they're going to have a hard time pretending to get off to it.

If anything 'nurture' is what stops some gay people from being themselves.
Just because there are examples of "genetic homosexuality" doesn't mean it's true for humans, or all humans. It's proven fetishes can be triggered by our experiences, why couldn't you develop a "gay-fetish" Also, if you read the discussion here, you'll see that homosexuality in animals isn't proof of genetic homosexuality.
I'll tell you one thing I know for a fact: No amount of nurture could ever turn me gay. And because of that I believe the same to be true for those who are gay.
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
Nature, I s'pose. Someone's sexuality is encoded in the genes and DNA. Although I don't beleive in people just suddenly turning gay out of nowhere - that way, to me, is the "unnatural" way. (i. e. Someone saying "I turned gay at ? years old", I hate it when people do that.) But I'm pretty sure if some else's gay in your family (And is a biological parent, or a brother or sister) then it's very possible that you may also be homosexual. I've just told you everything I know; I've not really much more to add.
 

Nimcha

New member
Dec 6, 2010
2,383
0
0
Fledge said:
90% nature.
Seems to be the best answer. The answer is pretty damn complicated because of the huge variety in human genes and external stimuli.

In any case, it's not 50-50 or anything like that.