Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[incal11]

but if it is a study to say homosexuality is learned, then I'm sorry, but as far as I see it, there are many more studies saying it isn't, and my own experience tells me it isn't, and as I know very little of how the brain works, I need to go with the evidence, and there is more to say I was born gay.
But I will read that when I have the time free to sit through it all.

You mean those studies ?
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm
I am pleasantly surprised that you'd read it though, I wish more people would stop limiting themselves to only what their personal experience tells them.

Sexual orientation, whatever it may be, is not up to either the person or the culture short of horrific brain-washing, and even that often does not do it. It is genetic in all but extreme cases.

You missed the developments I had with others in this thread, i don't feel like going over it again.
Rams happen to like gay sex, but what happens when it's the reproductive season ?

 

[smegmar]

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
read it if there's a shred of honesty within you.

Brofist!!

Serious well done on this. Trying to bash some sense into these gays is about as easy as preaching Islam in the bible belt.

FYI I am an atheist.

 

[Nimcha]

Nature "deciding" was just a figure of speeech, and read my link.
The flamboyants merely convinced themselves, what experience made them so probably happen very early.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

Oooh, it even has twin studies!

I've read through that chapter and it seems quite obvious to me the writer is prone to drawing conclusions very quickly.

 

[zehydra]

Is there any evidence that sexuality is genetic? If so, send me it.

 

[The Heik]

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?

Well seeing as the highest percentage of homosexuality exists in bats, I would say that puts it very solidly in the nature category

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

There is so much I feel I should point out here.
1. Gene's decide if you are male or female, and we know very little of how they work.
2. Homosexuality is show in every other species capable of it to some degree, even ones that we say aren't able to think as we do, there for there is no nurturing for them.
3. We no very little of how our brains and gene's work and almost nothing about what some gene's decide.
4. I was brought up in a home, and school where I was always told and show being gay was wrong, and yet I am gay.
5. Everyone else I was around when growing up was straight, and I thought I was for a long time, but looking back it's clear I wasn't.

And lastly, saying it is caused by a gene doesn't mean it should show up in only one area, we all have most gene's that people have, it's whether or not they are active (or dominant). And even if it was passed on as you seem to think, we have spread across the whole world, ultimately everyone is related to a common ancestor at some point in the past.

So all experience's I have and all the evidence I have seen indicates it is something you are born with and your nurturing has very little to do with it.

1. NO, WE know quite a lot. YOU know very little of how they work. Also this doesn't work in your favour if you're relying on gene to be the cause of homosexuality

2. NO, we are the only animal in the world to exhibit lifelong homosexuality. All other animals might do it once or twice but go back to heterosexual relationships later on.

3. No, see answer 1

4. Congratulations here's a medal. I did say it isn't direct, and subtle influences that you might not consciously recognise were working subconsciencely to give you the orientation you have. (Side note I don't think there's anything wrong with being homosexual, just know your facts about it.)

5. Once again I did mention it's not direct and quite possible you just weren't show heterosexual influences rather then shown homosexual influences. Also I did mention you will develope you sexual orientation long before you start consciencely thinking about it.

P.S and a thank you to Vanity Girl.

I'll happily admit that I know little of this as is, but from other people's evidence (Which I was given to help me deal with my being gay) I was told as of yet we don't know much of how the brain works, the parts we do know we understand well, but there are many parts 'uncharted' as of yet.

And I can't think of anything that would have even subconsciously made me gay, I had never met another one before I was and I was always surrounded by people who were strongly against it, and at the time so was I.

And ultimately, I hope it isn't caused by our gene's because if it is then someone will find a way to alter them to stop people being gay, and I can for see a future where people are made to take this 'cure'.

But either way, your right, I know little of what does cause it, I'm simple relaying the information I was given and how I see it. But I am always open to learning more.

 

[Lt. Dragunov]

I say it's more on your genes, but there are also outside things that can influince your choices. So it's a combo of both with a little more of a lean towards nature.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
read it if there's a shred of honesty within you.

Brofist!!

Serious well done on this. Trying to bash some sense into these gays is about as easy as preaching Islam in the bible belt.

FYI I am an atheist.

I'd just like to say that works both ways, people who think it is nurturing are very reluctant to change either, but as said before I like to keep an open mind and I'm always open to learning

 

[Navvan]

To anyone who doesn't want to read the whole thing, I point to the third paragraph as my most important point (paragraphs start after this statement).

Its a fairly agreed upon concept that it is both. No geneticist will tell you that you're genes will completely control a part of you as complex as sexuality. This turns the question to which has a greater effect and while one is likely to have more of an effect than another the fact is we just don't know which yet.

The genetic effect is likely polychromatic, and like some other polychromatic traits like height I would predict it can be effected by what is dubbed "nurture". You can easily turn an organism that would normally be tall into an average or even below average height by giving it a specific environment.

I would also like to point out that nurture is a misnomer as it brings to mind only part of what it describes. Nurture does not just entail some narrow idea like "how your parents raised you" but everything that has ever happened to you after you were conceived. From what you eat, to who you talk to to everything you've experienced in your life. That is what is meant by nurture. To think that has no effect on who you are including sexuality is naive.

Lastly I would like to mention that this should only be of interest for academic reasons such as better understanding the human mind and what makes an individual who they are. It should not effect social policy at all. There is simply nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual beyond the limitations to reproduction thus why it occurs does not matter for society.

 

[smegmar]

ok Askara,

I have to say you have earned a lot of my respect by saying you might be wrong and keep your mind open,(almost unheard of in internet forums).

I too will keep an open mind and am always ready to change my opinion SHOULD good scientific evidence come out against what I have said. However at the moment all the scientific evidence I've seen shows it to be Nurture rather then nature.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Nature.

Studies show that gayness it tied to the hormones mothers secrete during pregnancy.

 

[Dexiro]

Why would it decide straight and bi but not gay? That's just being silly.
(...)I like to think that flamboyant gay people were born gay, while non-flamboyant gay people such as myself were nurtured towards being gay.

Nature "deciding" was just a figure of speeech, and read my link.
The flamboyants merely convinced themselves, what experience made them so probably happen very early.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

I say common Brad! Suck his cock! You might like it!
Then he tries a little bit then he says, I fucking love it.
Now that just doesn't happen, you just don't think one day, yep, I like it up the ass now.
Also, denying that genetics has nothing to do with it is... .
Fake&gay.

first read the link in this post. I wasn't calling you stupid, just explaining my reasoning, it's a debate after all. This discussion is interesting, though I still think "pure" homosexuality is only a cultural product I am now convinced "nature" has it's role. Though maybe not the role the "pro gay-born" think of.
And yes, I know personally some who just one day decided they wanted to try, and not because they were "bi-curious". Another stupid label.
Also there are Brads in the worlds, but of course I don't approve of coercion.

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

I was fairly convinced of your argument at first but the more you tell me the more I'm thinking that nothing you say reflects reality.

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.

~

For example you see a guy who you regard as 100% straight who one day decided to try gay sex, and behold they actually liked it! Therefore you make the conclusion that any straight guy can be attracted to other guys if they remove these negative inhibitions and such.

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.

 

[Catie Caraco]

My two cents, for all its worth: I don't think there is a single cause for it, and that for each person it develops differently. Human sexuality is a very powerful force, and sometimes works in mysterious ways. For example, there was a supermodel from some Eastern European country who was a lesbian and got a sex change. After she became a male she became gay for men. How can that be explained? Not really sure, and I'm fine with not knowing. I think the more important issue is to go: Hey, there is a sexuality spectrum and some people end up on one end, some on the other, some at some middle point, and I don't really care where someone falls on it as long as they are happy there.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

ok Askara,

I have to say you have earned a lot of my respect by saying you might be wrong and keep your mind open,(almost unheard of in internet forums).

I too will keep an open mind and am always ready to change my opinion SHOULD good scientific evidence come out against what I have said. However at the moment all the scientific evidence I've seen shows it to be Nurture rather then nature.

Thank you. I'll admit, from the evidence I have seen here I am starting to understand the stance that it is somehow affected by both. (While personally I can't see any nurturing that affected me to being gay, I can understand the idea of how it would).
Personally, I fell I may never definitely know the ultimate answer to many things, all I can know is how I currently feel and the evidence I am given at the time, so I will always keep and open mind to anything.

Also, I sometimes feel I need to point that last part out to a lot of people in these discussions as it always comes down to people claiming that those who are part of the larger majority (Whatever side that may be) are attacking the other view for disagreeing with them. When it is never meant as such.

But again, thank you for you respect and for trying to keep an open mind to things, you have my up most respect as well

 

[Nimcha]

ok Askara,

I have to say you have earned a lot of my respect by saying you might be wrong and keep your mind open,(almost unheard of in internet forums).

I too will keep an open mind and am always ready to change my opinion SHOULD good scientific evidence come out against what I have said. However at the moment all the scientific evidence I've seen shows it to be Nurture rather then nature.

Actually, no. It's both. Haven't you been reading the thread?

 

[incal11]

I too will keep an open mind and am always ready to change my opinion SHOULD good scientific evidence come out against what I have said. However at the moment all the scientific evidence I've seen shows it to be Nurture rather then nature.

I'd just like to say that works both ways, people who think it is nurturing are very reluctant to change either, but as said before I like to keep an open mind and I'm always open to learning

Just for that I'd add you to my friends, the other 3 outcasts I met who think like that in the span of 4 years. Despite this being the internet. Smegmar too if he's interested.
My opinion did change a bit toward the "nature" side since I entered the discussion, just a bit though.

 

[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.

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.

 

[SD-Fiend]

both in my opinion

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

I too will keep an open mind and am always ready to change my opinion SHOULD good scientific evidence come out against what I have said. However at the moment all the scientific evidence I've seen shows it to be Nurture rather then nature.

I'd just like to say that works both ways, people who think it is nurturing are very reluctant to change either, but as said before I like to keep an open mind and I'm always open to learning

Just for that I'd add you to my friends, the other 3 outcasts I met who think like that in the span of 4 years. Despite this being the internet. Smegmar too if he's interested.
My opinion did change a bit toward the "nature" side since I entered the discussion, just a bit though.

Thank you, as I said in my last post, I'm beginning to understand how nurturing can affect some people in these matters, even if I can't see how it affected me. So for the moment, I'm of the stance that it is a combination of both and ultimately is different for each person.

 

[intheweeds]

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?

If you find this so interesting, why not look up the findings of the multitude of professionals who actually have something worthwhile to say about the matter rather than asking the opinions of a bunch of gamers? This isn't really someone can have an opinion on per se anyway. One can have a hypothesis (an 'educated guess'), but that implies some kind of educated understanding of the current research.

There is a definitive answer out there, i believe, the professionals just don't know what it is yet, but being that they research it full time, they are the people who's hypotheses matter.

Edit: I cannot believe i just posted in another thread like this. I promise it will never happen again. Would people please stop making threads like this asking this community about things that there exist professionals for? It just gives an excuse for uneducated people to make silly claims about things they know nothing about. Threads like this might as well read: "The World - round or flat? your opinion" (in the 1400's). There is always a bunch of people who will claim "duh, its obviously flat, just look at it". There are people who actually study this as a science. It is not up for opinion.