Poll: Is Sexual Orientation Nurture or Nature?

[confernal]

wow, that's a really nice looking graph we have here.

If we really believe it's more on the nature side, then if tolerant gay people, then after a few generations, they will die out all by themselves.

Suggesting there is a 'gay gene' is ridiculous, if this was the case then we wouldn't have homosexuals in society today (since they wouldn't have reproduced for obvious reasons and would have 'died out' or have been 'selected against' in terms of evolutionary theory).

The most logical cause of homosexuality is that some event happened during an individual's life which made them think 'I kinda like other guys/girls', just like any other major life choices like career, education, family etc.

I'm beginning to believe people aren't reading the thread. We already went over this several times -

Genetics do not work like that. Genes aren't shed because of natural selection in humans. Humans can carry genes that appear to have no effect on their physiology today that will show up in later generations. And then disappear again, and then show up again. This is the easiest way to explain it - we pass on genetic material whether it was beneficial or not.

Read a book about genetics before you start throwing out "but natural selection says we'd breed out homosexual genes." Because that's not true in the slightest. There are people who are straight who are sexually attracted to the same-sex in various strengths. They can still chose to be straight and reproduce with someone of the opposite sex. Their genes will be passed on to their offspring.

I would like to use the wolf boy anology for this... What I mean by this is that if a baby was taken at birth and was raised by wolfs/dogs(records of such an event does exist) that this child would be show wolf/dog like behavior and little to no human behavior... are to believe that this childs genes drove him to act animal like? no it was his enviorment and interactions that made him what he is today.

Yes, but wolf boy doesn't grow a tail and large ears and a thick coat of fur. Those are biological traits that wolves have that the human cannot pick up from his wolf parents. Sexual traits and urges are biologically inherited. Behavior-wise, he can learn to be a human again - all humans still possess the function of logic formation and self-conscious awareness. We humans do learn a lot from mimicking others - but it's not the end-all of the influence on human behavior.

But that is to assume that sexual prefrence is purely biological urge by a person, if that was true then urges to kill, steal, rape and other nastier human urges would no longer be the persons fault and merely the fault of their gentics, to say that those urges are only psychological would be no different then saying that sexual prefrence is simply psychological, they are both urges that dictate a persons behavior and are not easily if ever reversable.... Also if sexual prefrence is souly dicated by gentics then it would be possible to turn a straight man gay or vise versa since all gentics do is dictate the chemical reactions in our body and how our body handles them, it would simply take a specalized chemical cocktail for each person to change their biological chemicals(temporary) and hence change their sexual prefrence(temporary) since they then would be attracted to the same sex. Of course one could say that they wouldn't due to their experience and mind fighting against such effects but then that would mean it is indeed in your head after all.

 

[McClaud]

100 years ago children under the age of 15 who were gifted with incredible intelligence and the ability to excel beyond most people twice their age were considered abominations.

Sorry, to go off track, but that sounds made up. What are you basing that on?

I realized on my way to work that I'm no longer living in the 1900's. I cited a textbook of my college years in that.

I should have said around 300 years ago. That's more accurate.

In the 18th Century, children that possessed what was considered higher than normal intelligence were often considered possessed by spirits or abnormal. Most were ignored - the adults around them considered them "quaint" and "unnaturally curious." No real credit was given to their gift until they actually became an adult and then proved their abilities via University. Various religious groups in Europe tried to suppress their abilities, for traditional reasons (that is, it broke tradition, so try to herd the stray lamb back into the fold). It wasn't always malicious - society just didn't have tolerance for devergence.

People always say to me, "Well, what about Mozart? He was a genius back then." Mozart was indeed a brilliant child, but his skills were guided into music. He not only possessed great musical talent, but a strong intelligence for science. The science of accoustics enthralled him (and was one reason why he was so picky about where and how things were played). He was learning the math involved in sound, but his father forced him into concentrating on his musical talents. There was reputedly more fame, money and political influence to be gained in music at the time - especially in Austria - than there was in being a scientist. Mozart felt isolated for his gifts, because most people did hold unusually gifted children at arm's length - either out of fear or jealousy. Thus, Mozart ended up being an oddity that practiced some deviant behavior. Mostly out of frustration for being unable to socially express himself adequately.

DaVinci was also a brilliant child. Treated like a leper at a young age for being too smart for his own good, and his talents were also steered towards art for a time to keep him out of "trouble." Same with Michaelangelo. Many of our ancient artistic geniuses of the time were vastly intelligent to most of their peers and some of their elders. Almost all of them had an affinity to some sort of science as well as their art. But since rudimentary education kept art and science separated because art is art and science is science - with the exception of DaVinci - most of them let their intelligence be molded into artistic venues. It was more acceptable to be artistically gifted as a child than overly intelligent and scientifically motivated as a child. Today, we shed that since we see the art in science and the science in art.

Many genius children prior to the 20th century were always treated as something other than normal people with a divergent gift. Most of them were isolated, rebuked and treated along the lines of alien to their own kind. Tolerance for differences in the norms set by society eventually grew, so now these children are more accepted into the natural order. We don't consider their gifts to be the product of the devil, or of abnormal pyschology, or gross mutations of the species. Unfortunately, we still treat them somewhat differently - in regards to their upbringing - so some still develop with a misaligned sense of self worth and acceptance.

As science proves the factors of how we develop as human beings both physically and mentally, sexual orientation will be less of a concern in things outside religion. Religion may hold to no tolerance for homosexual activity, but the people who aren't overly religious will eventually grow accustomed to it. It's already happening now. Tolerance will continue to grow as our exposure to facts grow.

But that is to assume that sexual prefrence is purely biological urge by a person, if that was true then urges to kill, steal, rape and other nastier human urges would no longer be the persons fault and merely the fault of their gentics, to say that those urges are only psychological would be no different then saying that sexual prefrence is simply psychological, they are both urges that dictate a persons behavior and are not easily if ever reversable.... Also if sexual prefrence is souly dicated by gentics then it would be possible to turn a straight man gay or vise versa since all gentics do is dictate the chemical reactions in our body and how our body handles them, it would simply take a specalized chemical cocktail for each person to change their biological chemicals(temporary) and hence change their sexual prefrence(temporary) since they then would be attracted to the same sex. Of course one could say that they wouldn't due to their experience and mind fighting against such effects but then that would mean it is indeed in your head after all.

You misinterpret my meaning.

There are genetic causes to some people being overly violent, depressed and socially deviant. There are also psychological causes to some people being violent, depressed and socially deviant. This is why we evaluate each person guilty of murder, theft, rape and other nastier behavior on a case-by-case basis. Nothing can be taken at face value.

I voted that both nurture and nature are equally responsible for a person engaging in homosexual behavior. If there was no drive, there would be no behavior. If there was no thought, it would be purely biological. Of course, there are cases where it's going to be more nurture than nature, and vice-versa. However, since most people are a combination of their life experience/development over time and their biological make-up, most people who participate in homosexual behavior are going to be equally influenced.

There is a choice. The choice to either obey or ignore the information your body relays to you. Of course, you can override that information - sometimes at your own risk. But that does not absolve the fact that the physiology of some people is more attracted to members of the same-sex. It happens a lot to most people who choose to engage in homosexual activity. However, groups in our society try to twist that information and/or ignore it to meet their own ends. Often educating others incorrectly.

I agree that gay people who blurt out, "But I was born this way!" are trying to deflect blame for their actions away from themselves. If they educated themselves more thoroughly, they'd more likely say, "Well, I have the desire for the same-sex, and I chose to follow my desires." That is a more correct answer. And we as a society should be more tolerant of it, and understand it before trying to "correct" or "judge" it.

 

[Alex_P]

I think Alex is referring to issues like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

More or less. I was thinking of ambiguous genitalia and body types specifically.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

As has been shown over and over in various scientific studies, being gay is not a choice and is 100% nature. Sorry, anyone who voted otherwise is wrong.

Pretending not to be gay might be a cultural thing but that doesn't change the fact that you either are straight or gay by nature.

From your post, I'm not sure you understand the difference between "nurture" and "choice". The two are not equivalent. "This can't be consciously changed" is very different from "Oh, yeah, it's all in my genes".

...

You're just nitpicking. I think it was obvious to anyone with have a brain that my position is that sexual orientation is inherently biological.

Please improve your reading comprehension skills before flying off the handle next time.

I'm not nitpicking. I'm attacking your position that sexual orientation is inherently and exclusively ("100%") biological. Because the idea that sexual orientation is "100%" biological is not what has been "shown over and over in various scientific studies". Perhaps you would like to borrow a cup of reading comprehension and actually look at what scientists and social researchers say about the nuanced, multi-faceted nature of human sexual orientation and identity?

-- Alex

 

[Talendra]

I think it is pretty much nature, but can sometimes take a little bit of nurture to be open about your sexuality.

 

[Alex_P]

So what are your thoughts on my thoughts, if you're cool with me asking?

I always thought homosexuality in nature was not a sexual preference but a sexual desire being catered to in what ever form possible. But even if sexual preference occurs in nature it isn?t evidence against it occurring due to nurture which personally to me seems plausible if you think about the things people can be influenced into. I?m going to go with: both are individually and cooperatively plausible.

To be honest, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say there.

-- Alex

 

[McClaud]

As has been shown over and over in various scientific studies, being gay is not a choice and is 100% nature. Sorry, anyone who voted otherwise is wrong.

Pretending not to be gay might be a cultural thing but that doesn't change the fact that you either are straight or gay by nature.

From your post, I'm not sure you understand the difference between "nurture" and "choice". The two are not equivalent. "This can't be consciously changed" is very different from "Oh, yeah, it's all in my genes".

...

You're just nitpicking. I think it was obvious to anyone with have a brain that my position is that sexual orientation is inherently biological.

Please improve your reading comprehension skills before flying off the handle next time.

I'm not nitpicking. I'm attacking your position that sexual orientation is inherently and exclusively ("100%") biological. Because the idea that sexual orientation is "100%" biological is not what has been "shown over and over in various scientific studies". Perhaps you would like to borrow a cup of reading comprehension and actually look at what scientists and social researchers say about the nuanced, multi-faceted nature of human sexual orientation and identity?

-- Alex

I sense a great disturbance in the Force. We are - for once - both arguing on the same side of an issue.

While somewhat unusual, it actually is nice to see we agree.

 

[sokka14]

yeah it's nurture.
what?

 

[Alex_P]

I sense a great disturbance in the Force. We are - for once - both arguing on the same side of an issue.

While somewhat unusual, it actually is nice to see we agree.

We were more or less arguing the same side of an issue, too, last time. You just kinda misunderstood what I play and how I play it and I honestly was rather rude about not explaining it better because, well, I was content to mentally pigeonhole you into the stereotype of "a guy who doesn't get it" instead of actually explaining stuff in more detail, even though in retrospect it probably wouldn't've taken that much to get through to you since you do seem to mostly get it. Sorry. >.>

-- Alex

 

[Yukichin]

I saw that someone mentioned that it's a choice to act upon homosexual urges.

I definitely agree. That being said, isn't it mentally unhealthy to deny that part of who you are?

 

[elemenetal150]

wow, that's a really nice looking graph we have here.

If we really believe it's more on the nature side, then if tolerant gay people, then after a few generations, they will die out all by themselves.

Suggesting there is a 'gay gene' is ridiculous, if this was the case then we wouldn't have homosexuals in society today (since they wouldn't have reproduced for obvious reasons and would have 'died out' or have been 'selected against' in terms of evolutionary theory).

The most logical cause of homosexuality is that some event happened during an individual's life which made them think 'I kinda like other guys/girls', just like any other major life choices like career, education, family etc.

I'm beginning to believe people aren't reading the thread. We already went over this several times -

Genetics do not work like that. Genes aren't shed because of natural selection in humans. Humans can carry genes that appear to have no effect on their physiology today that will show up in later generations. And then disappear again, and then show up again. This is the easiest way to explain it - we pass on genetic material whether it was beneficial or not.

Read a book about genetics before you start throwing out "but natural selection says we'd breed out homosexual genes." Because that's not true in the slightest. There are people who are straight who are sexually attracted to the same-sex in various strengths. They can still chose to be straight and reproduce with someone of the opposite sex. Their genes will be passed on to their offspring.

I would like to use the wolf boy anology for this... What I mean by this is that if a baby was taken at birth and was raised by wolfs/dogs(records of such an event does exist) that this child would be show wolf/dog like behavior and little to no human behavior... are to believe that this childs genes drove him to act animal like? no it was his enviorment and interactions that made him what he is today.

Yes, but wolf boy doesn't grow a tail and large ears and a thick coat of fur. Those are biological traits that wolves have that the human cannot pick up from his wolf parents. Sexual traits and urges are biologically inherited. Behavior-wise, he can learn to be a human again - all humans still possess the function of logic formation and self-conscious awareness. We humans do learn a lot from mimicking others - but it's not the end-all of the influence on human behavior.

@ Maximillian defending Freud

Dude, it's okay. Yes, Freud was a genius who changed the way that people view psychology. But Freud's main focus in life was to define all abnormal psychology under one premise - that your mother or father (or mother/father figures) are the cause of all your problems. That sexual repression causes you to become a homicidal maniac. That cocaine is the cure for all that ails people.

Most psychiatry moved away from the strict Freudian interpretation of psychological formation back in the 60's. There's Jung, for example, who was his star pupil who turned around and largely modified all of Freud's work. He began to even point out a nature/nurture combination in the way people develop in life.

Also, behaviorists are far removed from Freud. BF Skinner is considered the grandfather of behaviorism, and he absolutely detested Freud. They believe that your behavior is the effect of all stimuli - your environment, illness, people, physiology, etc. They believe that people are programmed by interaction, and the subconscious (which is not the Id - it's merely a part of your mind that directs instinctual behavior not necessarily throwing back to primitive or animal-like behavior) is a backseat driver. If I give you a cookie every time you are polite and shock you when you aren't, you will slowly become unconsciously polite (that's a really loose example and not the best one, but the simplest way I can think of to demonstrate behaviorism).

I much prefer my sexual orientation because it's my choice, not because I was born that way. I'm straight, and I find nothing wrong with homosexuals, it's curious though that a lot of them hide behind 'nature made me this way.'

...

Yeah there's prejudice in the world, yes they suck. But I'd rather my orientation be my choice and not God's or Mother Earth's.

Well, your sexual urges are biological, but your choice to act upon them is. There are plenty of people who have attractions to the same-sex, but go on to be purely straight by choice. Most of us can control our sexual desires (those that don't often turn out being the ones in trouble with the law or judged harshly).

What strikes me as funny as that most of the psychological community (even the religious people in the profession) don't find it to be socially deviant. Most open-minded people realize that these people have been around in most civilizations that go as far back as proto-human interaction. What most people calls "deviance" is not what psychologists call deviance (there are variable levels of deviance, and what the layman considers as deviant usually leads to physical or mental harm). Sexually DIVERGENT, sure.

100 years ago children under the age of 15 who were gifted with incredible intelligence and the ability to excel beyond most people twice their age were considered abominations. Most of Western society didn't start looking at these kids as normal with intellectual divergence until the late 1950's. Sexual divergence will become more widely excepted with an expansion to scientific pursuits and education in Western societies. It just takes time.

you know psychology more then most on the people in these forums who seem to use wikipedia. you put what I said in a much more rounded argument while expanding on points I made....you are awesome

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

wow, that's a really nice looking graph we have here.

If we really believe it's more on the nature side, then if tolerant gay people, then after a few generations, they will die out all by themselves.

Suggesting there is a 'gay gene' is ridiculous, if this was the case then we wouldn't have homosexuals in society today (since they wouldn't have reproduced for obvious reasons and would have 'died out' or have been 'selected against' in terms of evolutionary theory).

The most logical cause of homosexuality is that some event happened during an individual's life which made them think 'I kinda like other guys/girls', just like any other major life choices like career, education, family etc.

I'm beginning to believe people aren't reading the thread. We already went over this several times -

Genetics do not work like that. Genes aren't shed because of natural selection in humans. Humans can carry genes that appear to have no effect on their physiology today that will show up in later generations. And then disappear again, and then show up again. This is the easiest way to explain it - we pass on genetic material whether it was beneficial or not.

Read a book about genetics before you start throwing out "but natural selection says we'd breed out homosexual genes." Because that's not true in the slightest. There are people who are straight who are sexually attracted to the same-sex in various strengths. They can still chose to be straight and reproduce with someone of the opposite sex. Their genes will be passed on to their offspring.

I would like to use the wolf boy anology for this... What I mean by this is that if a baby was taken at birth and was raised by wolfs/dogs(records of such an event does exist) that this child would be show wolf/dog like behavior and little to no human behavior... are to believe that this childs genes drove him to act animal like? no it was his enviorment and interactions that made him what he is today.

Yes, but wolf boy doesn't grow a tail and large ears and a thick coat of fur. Those are biological traits that wolves have that the human cannot pick up from his wolf parents. Sexual traits and urges are biologically inherited. Behavior-wise, he can learn to be a human again - all humans still possess the function of logic formation and self-conscious awareness. We humans do learn a lot from mimicking others - but it's not the end-all of the influence on human behavior.

@ Maximillian defending Freud

Dude, it's okay. Yes, Freud was a genius who changed the way that people view psychology. But Freud's main focus in life was to define all abnormal psychology under one premise - that your mother or father (or mother/father figures) are the cause of all your problems. That sexual repression causes you to become a homicidal maniac. That cocaine is the cure for all that ails people.

Most psychiatry moved away from the strict Freudian interpretation of psychological formation back in the 60's. There's Jung, for example, who was his star pupil who turned around and largely modified all of Freud's work. He began to even point out a nature/nurture combination in the way people develop in life.

Also, behaviorists are far removed from Freud. BF Skinner is considered the grandfather of behaviorism, and he absolutely detested Freud. They believe that your behavior is the effect of all stimuli - your environment, illness, people, physiology, etc. They believe that people are programmed by interaction, and the subconscious (which is not the Id - it's merely a part of your mind that directs instinctual behavior not necessarily throwing back to primitive or animal-like behavior) is a backseat driver. If I give you a cookie every time you are polite and shock you when you aren't, you will slowly become unconsciously polite (that's a really loose example and not the best one, but the simplest way I can think of to demonstrate behaviorism).

I much prefer my sexual orientation because it's my choice, not because I was born that way. I'm straight, and I find nothing wrong with homosexuals, it's curious though that a lot of them hide behind 'nature made me this way.'

...

Yeah there's prejudice in the world, yes they suck. But I'd rather my orientation be my choice and not God's or Mother Earth's.

Well, your sexual urges are biological, but your choice to act upon them is. There are plenty of people who have attractions to the same-sex, but go on to be purely straight by choice. Most of us can control our sexual desires (those that don't often turn out being the ones in trouble with the law or judged harshly).

What strikes me as funny as that most of the psychological community (even the religious people in the profession) don't find it to be socially deviant. Most open-minded people realize that these people have been around in most civilizations that go as far back as proto-human interaction. What most people calls "deviance" is not what psychologists call deviance (there are variable levels of deviance, and what the layman considers as deviant usually leads to physical or mental harm). Sexually DIVERGENT, sure.

100 years ago children under the age of 15 who were gifted with incredible intelligence and the ability to excel beyond most people twice their age were considered abominations. Most of Western society didn't start looking at these kids as normal with intellectual divergence until the late 1950's. Sexual divergence will become more widely excepted with an expansion to scientific pursuits and education in Western societies. It just takes time.

High Five for level headed thinking!

 

[TheEvilDuck]

Totally nature, you are born however you are born and can't change that fact. Homosexuality exists in every species that has sex. So, yeah, I'd say it's biological and totally natural.

 

[Seekster]

Totally nature, you are born however you are born and can't change that fact. Homosexuality exists in every species that has sex. So, yeah, I'd say it's biological and totally natural.

Look I know everyone has the right to be wrong but you are really pushing it.

 

[TheEvilDuck]

Totally nature, you are born however you are born and can't change that fact. Homosexuality exists in every species that has sex. So, yeah, I'd say it's biological and totally natural.

Look I know everyone has the right to be wrong but you are really pushing it.

But it has. I've read studies. Take the two penguins at the central park zoo who adopted an egg. Or what about the tests run by scientists in the '70's I believe on a pair of gay sheep, concluding that neither showed an interest in female sheep even when they were in heat.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I saw that someone mentioned that it's a choice to act upon homosexual urges.

I definitely agree. That being said, isn't it mentally unhealthy to deny that part of who you are?

In many cases, yes it's very unhealthy.

 

[Seekster]

First of all EvilDuck let me just say that Maya from Phoenix Wright kicked ass.

Now the less pleasant part:

There really should be more studies done on the subject of homosexuality particularly from a psychological standpoint but thats not likely to happen after the American Psychiatric Association banned any studies of that sort, not based on any real science but on outside pressures. Dont get the wrong idea, I am certainly NOT saying homosexuality is some sort of mental disorder as it was once classified (and wrongly so). Instead I am of the opinion that homosexuality is brought about by a variety of stimuli and personal experience (ie. growing up with only a parent of the opposite sex, almost exclusively being around people of the same gender). Obviously many many people are in such scenarios and only a very small handful become homosexual or act on their homosexual tendencies.

Therefore it is reasonably possible that some people are born MORE LIKELY THAN OTHERS to be prone to homosexual acts but the fact that cases of homosexuality are relatively rare (in terms of percentage of the population, even assuming that some or even many people who believe they are homosexual do not identify themselves as such) simply means that it is most abnormal and irregular and should not be considered "natural". Most people have a natural ability to know right from wrong (emphasis on the word "most") and the fact that homosexuality has long been stigmatized and looked down upon in most cultures even prior to Christianity lends weight to that argument.

All things considered however, what two adults do in private is their own business and I do not want to know about it. They have the freedom if they wish to do what they want in private however that does not mean other people have to accept what they are doing as totally acceptable, normal, and natural.

 

[oktalist]

Mostly genes that dictate how the brain turns out. Probably it is helped along by nurture, or by such things as the mother's diet during pregnancy. Just speculation, albeit from someone who reads a fair bit of scientific literature.

The "evolution should weed out non-heterosexuals" argument ignores the subtleties of the genetic system. It is likely that genes that lead to homosexuality in men could have evolutionarily beneficial effects when expressed in women, and vice versa.

This reminds me of my favorite anti-homosexuality argument. "Being gay isn't natural, animals don't do it." *Cough Bonobo and Dolphin*cough*

And the Mallard [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallard#Breeding_behavior], being the only species which scientists have filmed indulging in homosexual necrophilia.

 

[JBarracudaL]

A combination of the two, I don't get the rational behind black and white perspectives. Multiple factors can influence and alter how the human brain, and subsequently human sexuality, operates.

 

[maximilian]

What is it with some Christians being so willing to hop into bed with science when it backs up their religious dogma?

What are you talking about? If you knew anything about me at all, or Christianity, you'd know that it makes no difference to faith either way. Gah.

It probably was. There should also be a choice for 'whatever metaphysical reason makes straight people straight'. Essential nature beyond biological nature, like if God makes some souls gay and some straight the same way he makes some male and some female.

Yep.

You can not only navigate around it, you can do so like you're a third-stage Guild navigator:

Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.

The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html


The most consistent biodemographic correlate of sexual orientation in men is the number of older brothers (fraternal birth order). The mechanism underlying this effect remains unknown.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.abstract

That's brilliant. Thank you for the source. In the same light, it doesn't mean that a guy can become pregnant after sleeping with another guy or a woman become pregnant after sleeping with another woman.
In quoting that darwinistic assumption, I was merely instating a hyperbolic point. I'm glad that you've provided those articles.

No, we're accusing you of homophobia for being willing to allow Darwin moral authority when his theories happen to correspond to your religious dogma.

Also for only being interested in science only to the degree it can help you make your religious dogma seem more 'natural' and not because you have an actual interest in science.

You're still cheezed (haha - get it?) off about the two other discussions we've had aren't you? However, you'll take care to note that no religious dogma is here in any shape or form. You're jumping to a conclusion that you believe will give you some inherent "rightness". Just prove you're right with articles and scientific research, not claiming I'm all about the dogma.
Similarly, while I don't actually only read science surrounding my beliefs, it is bizarre to assume that the only people who read science are in fact no way interested in the subject. To be interested in any subject is to have an inherent discourse - no matter how scant.