Poll: Is Sexual Orientation Nurture or Nature?

[Cowabungaa]

Since shitloads of animals can be gay, including a large number of animals who are not self-aware, it's nature.

The concept that you've both used to refute my thoughts on the subject are both on the subject of religion having to come from somewhere. What if religion is just like every other man-made thing on the earth - an idea?

Um, what if it isn't? The first idea had to come from somewhere.

So you're saying that it's impossible for someone to make thinks like that up, or get hallucinations, dreams or whatever all sprouting out certain subconcious fears and desires.

 

[Inverse Skies]

The concept that you've both used to refute my thoughts on the subject are both on the subject of religion having to come from somewhere. What if religion is just like every other man-made thing on the earth - an idea?

The thing is, back in those times, that in order for humanity to be civilised, they need rules and a concept of who they are and why they're there. In my opinion, religion was formed to supplement this, and is still used today (even when modern law has essentially taken over for it).

Another idea is that religion is some form of well-written and elaborate con made by someone influential and cunning, or just that many people back then were pretty gullible.

The final idea is that there is a god, and everything in The Bible/Kuran/etc. is real.

In any case, they are all concepts of nurture, an aspect caused by the people's environment, not who they were born as.

Yes but even if it is an idea - it had to start somewhere. Scientology started with Hubble - that's considered a religion.

 

[maximilian]

Maybe you're not an evangelical Christian, then. Maybe you're like those Catholics who only call themselves Christian--just because they *say* they are Christian doesn't mean they actually *are* Christian, right? So just because you *say* you're an evangelical Christian doesn't mean you don't see yourself as superior.

I'm an evangelical Christian.
However, your last statement is true. I do see myself superior to people, especially when they say idiotic things, or I beat them in a running race, or whatever. But these are based on actual measurable things. It's still a pride I shouldn't possess, but it's a pride with base. Just like I see myself as superior to homophobes and racists.

Why is that hitting below the belt? Why do you assume I think fetishes are bad? How do you know my problem isn't that you want to engage in a fetish, but that you are tricking people into participating in it without their informed consent?

Superfluous, ridiculous but it aint sublime. You seem to appear to possess a fetish for being whipped by me in arguments. So stop tricking me into participating in it without my informed consent?

The fact that I don't have an article doesn't make it stupid Notice how I didn't call your theory stupid by saying 'show me an article that supports it': I did so by showing your articles *that undercut what you were saying* Why when I say something I need an article if I'm to even mention it, but you can mention anything you want with hardly anything to back up what you say beyond an ironic mention of Darwin, and the burden is on the rest of us to show how it's stupid by assembling sources to the contrary?

Okay, how about I reply with: "because that assumes that the base preference is a bisexuality".
Then you say "you're wrong because of this: ARTICLE".
And I reply "fair enough, I'll rethink myself".
Similarly, I'm talking about psychological understanding that are pinned and presented through the social discourse/paradigm (OEDIPUS ISSUES OEDIPUS ISSUES etc etc), whereas you are talking about frontier, recent scientific discovery. They are two different things.

You aren't actually answering any of my other quotes, just cutting the ones where you think you can reply.

I'm cutting to the ones that are essential and summarize the others. If there is something I did not address that I cut out, please--feel free to bring it up again.

Second, things you consider "blatantly wrong" and 'personal views that are a product of your dogma as opposed to your reason' are not necessarily different.

And here was I thinking you loved empiricism.

I don't. I seek to answer empirical questions with empiricism. There's a difference.

I don't think I've ever accused you of "a lack of empiricism, dogma, or unscientific, unacademic reasoning" in assessing my motives.

No, but you're happy to claim it about anything else I say. Shall I do a quote trawl perhaps? Is that really necessary?

I never claimed that my estimation of your motives was of scientific or academic certainty.[/quote]

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Since shitloads of animals can be gay, including a large number of animals who are not self-aware, it's nature.

You contradict yourself, if they aren't self aware how can they choose a sexual orientation?

It's part of an animals nature to want to pro-create and they are hard wired into finding a mate, which is most often female. Animals in heat aren't picky though so other males, trees and peoples legs sometime start to become incredibly attractive during this time.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Since shitloads of animals can be gay, including a large number of animals who are not self-aware, it's nature.

You contradict yourself, if they aren't self aware how can they choose a sexual orientation?

It's part of an animals nature to want to pro-create and they are hard wired into finding a mate, which is most often female. Animals in heat aren't picky though so other males, trees and peoples legs sometime start to become incredibly attractive during this time.

Ehhh, it would've been my point if I would've sad nurture, but I didn't It was exactly my point: they don't choose. Both self-aware and non-self-aware animals can be gay.

 

[Gamine]

Nature---->Hetero

Nurture----->Homo, Auto, Bestiality and every other perversion.

So its goes both ways.

 

[Erana]

In the lab, my sister made fruit flies be born homosexual.

Sure, there's some nurture, but after running into the second pair of gay ducks, (of the three pairs I've seen so far this year) there has to be something genetic.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Nature---->Hetero

Nurture----->Homo, Auto, Bestiality and every other perversion.

So its goes both ways.

So how does one get nurtured into being gay? Are all kids raised by gay people gay as well then? Why do female hedgehogs like having oral sex with eachother, how did they get nurtured into being bi-sexual?

 

[Ionami]

Then why weren't there any gay people 20 hunderd years ago, when being with the same sex was unthinkable?

Do some research pal. Homosexuality has always been around. I suggest reading up on ancient Rome?

We now know that there are people who are born gay, and people who, through trauma or sexual abuse in childhood, become gay.

I would venture to say however, that the vast majority of homosexuals in the world are born gay, and the rest are "turned gay".

Don't confuse what I'm saying though. I am in no way saying that sexual orientation is a "choice".

You are what you are, and it's all fine. The only difference is the path in which you got there.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Since shitloads of animals can be gay, including a large number of animals who are not self-aware, it's nature.

You contradict yourself, if they aren't self aware how can they choose a sexual orientation?

It's part of an animals nature to want to pro-create and they are hard wired into finding a mate, which is most often female. Animals in heat aren't picky though so other males, trees and peoples legs sometime start to become incredibly attractive during this time.

Ehhh, it would've been my point if I would've sad nurture, but I didn't It was exactly my point: they don't choose. Both self-aware and non-self-aware animals can be gay.

They don't choose a sexual orientation because they don't have one, so it's totally up to nature.

However you can't make a direct comparison between animals and humans as they are a bit more complex than basic primal instict even if it doesn't seem like it.

 

[Gamine]

Since shitloads of animals can be gay, including a large number of animals who are not self-aware, it's nature.

This ARG is too weak, people should stop spewing it.

 

[Erana]

Since shitloads of animals can be gay, including a large number of animals who are not self-aware, it's nature.

This ARG is too weak, people should stop spewing it.

Well, why?
I mean, we're animals too.


And where do the fake homosexual people fit in? You know, the ones who say they're gay because they're desperate?

 

[Cowabungaa]

They don't choose a sexual orientation because they don't have one, so it's totally up to nature.

However you can't make a direct comparison between animals and humans as they are a bit more complex than basic primal instict even if it doesn't seem like it.

Hmm good point, "gay" and "hetero" are indeed human-made labels for sexuality. But ofcourse, the acts still stand, even without the label: some animals screw the same sex and don't screw the opposite sex, we're 1 of those animals. How would those feelings be nurtured then, is there a common non-biological factor between all gay people?

Anyway, yes it's true that we humans are concious and have more then just primal instincts, we still have those primal instincts. Afterall, we're still animals.

Since shitloads of animals can be gay, including a large number of animals who are not self-aware, it's nature.

This ARG is too weak, people should stop spewing it.

As Erana sad: why? Humans are animals as well, we still have primal instincts apart from our self-awareness.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Hmm good point, "gay" and "hetero" are indeed human-made labels for sexuality. But ofcourse, the acts still stand, even without the label: some animals screw the same sex and don't screw the opposite sex, we're 1 of those animals. How would those feelings be nurtured then, is there a common non-biological factor between all gay people?

Anyway, yes it's true that we humans are concious and have more then just primal instincts, we still have those primal instincts. Afterall, we're still animals.

Animals don't pick a sexual orientation as I've said before, they don't just choose one sex, a possible explanation could be they mistake other males for breeding partners, but they don't intentionally think to themselves I like male animals.

Also we are definitely not one of those animals because there are people who are bisexual as well. I can't see any legitimate comparison between animal gender attraction and ours, an animal might choose another animal because it looks like a good breeding partner, whereas a human thinks about so much more when considering a partner.

I don't believe at all babies have a sexual orientation from birth.

 

[Gamine]

They don't choose a sexual orientation because they don't have one, so it's totally up to nature.

However you can't make a direct comparison between animals and humans as they are a bit more complex than basic primal instict even if it doesn't seem like it.

Hmm good point, "gay" and "hetero" are indeed human-made labels for sexuality. But ofcourse, the acts still stand, even without the label: some animals screw the same sex and don't screw the opposite sex, we're 1 of those animals. How would those feelings be nurtured then, is there a common non-biological factor between all gay people?

Anyway, yes it's true that we humans are concious and have more then just primal instincts, we still have those primal instincts. Afterall, we're still animals.

Since shitloads of animals can be gay, including a large number of animals who are not self-aware, it's nature.

This ARG is too weak, people should stop spewing it.

As Erana sad: why? Humans are animals as well, we still have primal instincts apart from our self-awareness.

Oh if you are on the same level as a goat..good for you

So because animals engage in incest, my dogs hump objects and themselves all the time, it also means its natural for Humans to hump lampposts, your father, your mother, brother and sister.

Until someone shows me the genetic code for homosexuality, i still stand that it isnt natural, and even while being unnatural doesn't make it right or wrong, its left for people to judge for themselves.

The only person im inclined to believe is a true homosexual is a Lesbian (i kinda met) who doesn't believe homosexuals should have children, in her words "if it takes a Man and a Woman to actually make a child, doesn't it follow that they should be the ones to raise them, that there's actually a need for the both of them in the child's life. if not you reduce a Whole human with a phenomenal brain and thinking faculty and billions of cells into just a sperm/egg. .not nice at all and selfish too"

 

[Matronadena]

this is the fun debate of the era is it not?

okay; biologically It's more common for a male to be born with a predisposition to be gay, as when an fetus is first developing it is Female up until a certain point, after which time it shifts to male... biologically in ALL sexual species male is in a generic term a modified female. while in development certain genes don't " click"

while this CAN happen with Females, genetically it's alittle more rare.

mind you theses studies are not final, but last I checked the most current on the issue of it being "genetic"


When it comes to males, I do think that it is more genetically linked... but with females it seems to be more emotionally, and mentally driven.

before I get too indepth let me get my background out of the way;

I am a woman who does not see gender..I am as attracted to a male, as I am a female...I do not consider myself Bi as my view is actually removed from sexuality and placed on the individuals attributes.

In my life when I was with women, they often asked " so why do you like girls? And I reply with pretty much what I said above... however their answers to the questions were almost always
" I'm sick of men and all their shit..", " Every guy I dated was just a freak show ",

this replies to my friends who are also lesbian, or bi.... so the general consensus from actually living in that " world" taught me that with women many go the way of the lady love out of spite, or disillusion over failed relationships " now Im not going to suggest it's any one persons fault, some cases they could have dated a good guy who was really a douche, could be that she was attracted to trash and never learned to stay away from pain"

and as a twist, many I knew then as lovers or friends have aged, and about half have actually settled down with men and are having happy healthy families and are quite content..

there also comes another factor though with women, as we are more prone to seek out companionship in a myriad forms... One suggests that it's a hold over of our ancient primate roots, where our troop or clan is mostly female, with one or two alpha males... to this day, females are more geared to physically communicating with other females through touch, and it's far far more natural for a female to " experiment" with another girl though remain perfectly straight. On the same note some girls may decide after a time that sex or contact in general with another woman " feels better"

so there really is no direct answer, and there never will be...

to some it's biological to another its an escape, for others it's a fad, to some it's just simply a preference.


as for how I self-diagnose myself....I call it a philosophical choice
( and for the record yes I AM married and a mother and happily so, but do not call myself straight or anything else, I see it as...I met someone who happened to be a perfect fit for me mentally, emotionally, " dare I say spiritually in some ways of thinking about it" the fact that mate I chose was one gender over another is more a matter of chance rather than a conscious choice.

 

[axelmaxima]

got to go with nurture.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Animals don't pick a sexual orientation as I've said before, they don't just choose one sex, a possible explanation could be they mistake other males for breeding partners, but they don't intentionally think to themselves I like male animals.

But they feel that way, or they have instincts that way. Or in other words: the drive to actually have sex with a male. Yes they lack that self-reflection, but they still have that drive.

Also we are definitely not one of those animals because there are people who are bisexual as well. I can't see any legitimate comparison between animal gender attraction and ours, an animal might choose another animal because it looks like a good breeding partner, whereas a human thinks about so much more when considering a partner.

O really, do we ;-)

Oh if you are on the same level as a goat..good for you

O no, not on the same level, all animals are different obviously. But I do see no reason why I would be not equal worthy to a goat. Would be pretty selfish and arrogant.

So because animals engage in incest, my dogs hump objects and themselves all the time, it also means its natural for Humans to hump lampposts, your father, your mother, brother and sister.

I'm afraid that is indeed natural yes. Does natural equal 'correct' or good? No ofcourse not. Cancer is also natural, but we can still die from it. Cyanide is natural, but I won't swallow it if I were you.

Until someone shows me the genetic code for homosexuality, i still stand that it isnt natural, and even while being unnatural doesn't make it right or wrong, its left for people to judge for themselves.

Not saying that the work is done, and that the answer is 100% given, but here [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4215427.stm] is an interesting story about it. Our genetic code is pretty messy.

The only person im inclined to believe is a true homosexual is a Lesbian (i kinda met) who doesn't believe homosexuals should have children, in her words "if it takes a Man and a Woman to actually make a child, doesn't it follow that they should be the ones to raise them, that there's actually a need for the both of them in the child's life. if not you reduce a Whole human with a phenomenal brain and thinking faculty and billions of cells into just a sperm/egg. .not nice at all and selfish too"

So where are the studies that shows she's right? That kids raised by gay couples are somehow worse off then kids raised by straight couples.

 

[SnowCold]

Then why weren't there any gay people 20 hunderd years ago, when being with the same sex was unthinkable?

Well, Ironicly, since my opinion was DIFERENT, I am flamed by the iteir forum like I'm the most stupied and evil person avlive, stop queting this post and stop raping my inbox.

Also, I mean 2 hunder years ago, it was a fucking typo.