Poll: Is Sexual Orientation Nurture or Nature?

[Alex_P]

Hmmm but just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean it's natural there's always outliers and deviants.For example a mother forsaking her young might occur in nature but that doesn't make in a natural behavior.
Just throwing that out there.

That definition of "natural" is a great formula for pushing your own normative principles as "natural" and everything else as deviant and corrupt.
It's pretty useless for actually describing something about nature, though.

-- Alex

 

[Craig FTW]

I think that it's mostly nature, but I guess some nurture too. If you're born gay and throughout your whole life are sheltered to be straight, that may influence a bit.
overall, you're born straight or gay, and if you're bi then nurture can influence.

I'm Christian but i have absolutely no problem with gays or bis. just to throw that out there.

 

[Monkey Ninja]

Im currently searching google wildly for an interesting article on a study into the makeup of the brain in Heterosexual and Homosexual people. If I find it Il link it later on.

If I remember right, the amount of connections branching from the corpus callosum can play some sort of role in deciding the sexual orientation. If there were more connections over to one side than the other it would cause more feminine/masculine behaviour.

Im afraid this is a fairly short cut of the information (I might have got some of it wrong also :S) but the general idea is that its strongly nature although without some serious testing you can't rule out the possibility of the childs upbringing.

EDIT: Quick note that Il post the link if I find it

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I'm puzzled by those who think it's genetic. It may have a biological cause, but why settle on genetics? By definition such a gene couldn't exist, because it wouldn't be passed on!

except that people suppress these being gay and breed all the time and even then it is possible for a such a gene to be recessive and get passed on for generations with out anyone actually being gay. Just because you have a gene doesn't mean it is active.

Richard Dawkins' book the selfish gene advocates that a gene seeks to replicate itself as much as possible. A 'gay gene' would be self-defeating. Anyway, your argument falls down easily, if it's inactive it does nothing and if it's active it can't pass on...

 

[the monopoly guy]

My 2 best friends are identical twins.
One is straight, one is gay.

 

[elemenetal150]

Call me a party pooper, but what scientific evidence is there for a gay gene or of homosexuality at all? Surely "nature" is a highly dubious was of phrasing "unexplained but I hope it's science". You can't use the non-sequiter that "it feels natural so it's science/biology". It feels natural to me to run at the sight of nazi skinheads with knives and chains, but this extends biologically to my having a working limbic system. What has imprinted that in my limbic system was nurture/experience that has leaked into memory. You cannot navigate around the fact that same sex couples cannot biologically recreate, which, via Darwinism/evolution renders homosexuals as either anomaly or a weaker type of human.

So, my answer: 95% nurture and the rest is quota for the unknown.

Of course, a homosexual will comment stating "I've been gay since birth", but the truth is, if you knew anything about basic/classical psychology, we gain memory capacity at the age of three, and some of the most formative and important experiences of our lives (the way we are shaped) shape us between birth and 3.

Similarly, you would be surprised to find that a great number of homosexuals have experienced what could be discribed as a sexual/power/social altercation with some significance in their life. Now, that's a generalisation, and I'm not resting my opinion on it, but it must be concidered in your own testimony or experience. Also, I don't believe you can formulate a recipe for homosexuality on a "nurture" front. Each human is a complex working and the sexual balance within us can quickly become uneven with little significant event.

Lastly, if you disagree with me don't try and accuse me of homophobia. I'm simply pointing out the obvious.

they found the "gay" gene not to long ago. It in itself does not make on gay but all gay people have it there is a number of factors and at the very least this gene makes you more likely to be gay and would be such a primary draw to being gay that it would in many ways be fighting your "nature"


Again with the Freud......when will you people learn that there is much more out there in psychology then Freud. birth to 3.....birth to 10.....birth to whenever it doesn't matter. I would have to say that I agree with the humanistic theories of psychology and say that we never stop developing. The most important and formative experiences of our life are happening right now and tomorrow. The past while important and birth to 3 while important to showing us at some basic level how the world works, have little to do in the large picture with who I am as a person today at 24. Modern day psychologist (except neo- Freudians) would have a hard time saying that the most formative and important period of your life is birth to 3 at all. How can they be when I am not able to fully appreciate, reason through, and learn from an experience when I am not mature enough, intelligent enough, or had enough experiences in my life to put it in perspective until I am older then 3.

Also while classical psychologist have an easy time categorizing things in little groups (psychoanalytical, behaviorist, humanist, cognitive) most modern day psychologist and other professions with at least some psychological background and experience know that to truly have a picture of what people are you need to borrow from many different schools of thought which is why there are so many different things you must know to be a psychologist.

 

[Alex_P]

Richard Dawkins' book the selfish gene advocates that a gene seeks to replicate itself as much as possible. A 'gay gene' would be self-defeating. Anyway, your argument falls down easily, if it's inactive it does nothing and if it's active it can't pass on...

That's only if you assume that there's a single gene and it triggers absolute and total homosexuality. At which point you're working with a model of genetics that has little basis in reality.

-- Alex

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Of course, a homosexual will comment stating "I've been gay since birth", but the truth is, if you knew anything about basic/classical psychology, we gain memory capacity at the age of three, and some of the most formative and important experiences of our lives (the way we are shaped) shape us between birth and 3.

actually there is good evidence to prove that incorrect that what you are attracted to sexually is wired into your brain. however what IS formed when you are in that age range and going up to the time when you sexually mature is what things you find attractive or any fetishes that may arise.

there is a certain optical illusion you can show young kids and they will not see any both images, they will only see the safe for work one, however if you show adults or sexually maturing people the same picture, they pick out the naked women right off the bat

they only see that once sexual maturity starts, before that they don't know about sex or are uninterested in it.

oh and there's more than one little boy who had an older sister, who dressed him up or treated him "girly" when he was younger and they're rather straight

Similarly, you would be surprised to find that a great number of homosexuals have experienced what could be discribed as a sexual/power/social altercation with some significance in their life. Now, that's a generalisation, and I'm not resting my opinion on it, but it must be concidered in your own testimony or experience. Also, I don't believe you can formulate a recipe for homosexuality on a "nurture" front. Each human is a complex working and the sexual balance within us can quickly become uneven with little significant event.

you'd be surprised to know that MOST ppl have had a sexual/power/social altercation with some significance in their lives. i mean there's a whole freaking subculture revolving around this, it's called BDSM look it up some time

the thing is you can try and spread homophobic and frankly ignorant things about homosexuals but every single thing you list can easily be applied to straights as well

 

[Grape_Garden]

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

That is one of the stupidest damn things I have ever read. Homosexuality dates back to the dawn of Man.

To add some substance to this post, though, I'd just like to comment that physical differences have been discovered between heterosexual and homosexual people, between the way their hair grows, to how they respond to smells, and the internal chemistry of their brains.

The idea that someone can be raised gay is stupid.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

Richard Dawkins' book the selfish gene advocates that a gene seeks to replicate itself as much as possible. A 'gay gene' would be self-defeating. Anyway, your argument falls down easily, if it's inactive it does nothing and if it's active it can't pass on...

That's only if you assume that there's a single gene and it triggers absolute and total homosexuality. At which point you're working with a model of genetics that has little basis in reality.

-- Alex

That doesn't really explain why you would have them though, what benefit it would bring and allow for them to passed on to suggestive generations for centuries? why would several genes together increase the chances of homosexuality? what would they do individually?

 

[Alex_P]

That doesn't really explain why you would have them though, what benefit it would bring and allow for them to passed on to suggestive generations for centuries? why would several genes together increase the chances of homosexuality? what would they do individually?

Here's one scenario:
A set of genes that make men more likely to be exclusively homosexual might make females with the same genes more attractive or more fertile.

Here's another:
Imagine that there is a single "sexual orientation gene" for absolute and exclusive homosexuality and it's recessive, meaning that only people who get it from both parents will be exclusively homosexual (just imagine -- I doubt this is really how it works). If the presence of a few homosexual members is beneficial for the group as a whole for whatever reason, then that gene will survive and propagate because the people who don't themselves reproduce assist their kin, many of whom will be heterozygous for the gene, in reproducing.

-- Alex

 

[Sigmastrain]

I personally think the "homosexuality gene" is a load of crap. first, if it existed, mankind would have went extinct years ago, second i think its purely choice. something about the person makes them want to be gay, and thats there choice, stop trying to make it seem this is scientifically possible. if this gene existed, why does it only show up in humans? wouldnt there be that kind of gene in animals say monkeys perhaps? (if the evolution theory stands that is) to my knowledge there is not a record of it in any species but humans, thus saying it is choice, pure and simple.

 

[Flap Jack452]

Richard Dawkins' book the selfish gene advocates that a gene seeks to replicate itself as much as possible. A 'gay gene' would be self-defeating. Anyway, your argument falls down easily, if it's inactive it does nothing and if it's active it can't pass on...

That's only if you assume that there's a single gene and it triggers absolute and total homosexuality. At which point you're working with a model of genetics that has little basis in reality.

-- Alex

There is actually a condition called "Klinefelter Syndrome" in which the person receives two X genes and one Y. This could be the "gay" gene or condition or whatever you want to call it. This syndrome, however, is extremely rare, so over 95% of the gay population would not have it. This is one of the few ways homosexuality can be explained scientifically.

 

[Alex_P]

I personally think the "homosexuality gene" is a load of crap. first, if it existed, mankind would have went extinct years ago, second i think its purely choice. something about the person makes them want to be gay, and thats there choice, stop trying to make it seem this is scientifically possible. if this gene existed, why does it only show up in humans? wouldnt there be that kind of gene in animals say monkeys perhaps? (if the evolution theory stands that is) to my knowledge there is not a record of it in any species but humans, thus saying it is choice, pure and simple.

Umm, all kinds of animals have homosexual sex all the time. Bonobos (one of our closest primate cousins) especially.

-- Alex

 

[Kuropan]

Umm, all kinds of animals have homosexual sex all the time. Bonobos (one of our closest primate cousins) especially.

-- Alex

Exactly.

And there IS a gene, apparently... one that, in women, makes them have more children and bigger families.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20080420-000003.html

Check that out.

 

[Monkey Ninja]

I personally think the "homosexuality gene" is a load of crap. first, if it existed, mankind would have went extinct years ago, second i think its purely choice. something about the person makes them want to be gay, and thats there choice, stop trying to make it seem this is scientifically possible. if this gene existed, why does it only show up in humans? wouldnt there be that kind of gene in animals say monkeys perhaps? (if the evolution theory stands that is) to my knowledge there is not a record of it in any species but humans, thus saying it is choice, pure and simple.

Umm, all kinds of animals have homosexual sex all the time. Bonobos (one of our closest primate cousins) especially.

-- Alex

Reminds me!

There have been cases in other members of the animal kingdom where two males partner together. Its been known to happen with swans as an example.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I personally think the "homosexuality gene" is a load of crap. first, if it existed, mankind would have went extinct years ago, second i think its purely choice. something about the person makes them want to be gay, and thats there choice, stop trying to make it seem this is scientifically possible. if this gene existed, why does it only show up in humans? wouldnt there be that kind of gene in animals say monkeys perhaps? (if the evolution theory stands that is) to my knowledge there is not a record of it in any species but humans, thus saying it is choice, pure and simple.

Umm, all kinds of animals have homosexual sex all the time. Bonobos (one of our closest primate cousins) especially.

-- Alex

Bonobos use sex as form of social interaction, equivalent to grooming, as a greeting or conflict resolution. So it's different from have a set sexual preference...

 

[Yukichin]

Wow, I actually finally registered to reply to this. I've been meaning to register...

My opinion is that it's nature, and nature only. Trying to think of the nurture arguments I've heard...
-I had a good relationship with my father when I was younger
-My parents have always insisted I'd have a girlfriend, as did the rest of my family; not obsessively so, but the typical "Oh, well when you grow up and have a wife and kids..." sort of thing; hell, my dad even mentioned years ago he didn't want gay marriage because "Gays would want rights".
-I've not been abused
-I have no older brothers
-As far as I can tell, I have a decent amount of testosterone (I'm not athletic, but body shape/hair-wise)

I don't think I've missed anything. But yet... I'm still emotionally and physically attracted to men, while being male myself. Soo... yeah, I really think it's nature only.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Call me a party pooper, but what scientific evidence is there for a gay gene or of homosexuality at all? Surely "nature" is a highly dubious was of phrasing "unexplained but I hope it's science". You can't use the non-sequiter that "it feels natural so it's science/biology". It feels natural to me to run at the sight of nazi skinheads with knives and chains, but this extends biologically to my having a working limbic system. What has imprinted that in my limbic system was nurture/experience that has leaked into memory. You cannot navigate around the fact that same sex couples cannot biologically recreate, which, via Darwinism/evolution renders homosexuals as either anomaly or a weaker type of human.

So, my answer: 95% nurture and the rest is quota for the unknown.

Of course, a homosexual will comment stating "I've been gay since birth", but the truth is, if you knew anything about basic/classical psychology, we gain memory capacity at the age of three, and some of the most formative and important experiences of our lives (the way we are shaped) shape us between birth and 3.

Similarly, you would be surprised to find that a great number of homosexuals have experienced what could be discribed as a sexual/power/social altercation with some significance in their life. Now, that's a generalisation, and I'm not resting my opinion on it, but it must be concidered in your own testimony or experience. Also, I don't believe you can formulate a recipe for homosexuality on a "nurture" front. Each human is a complex working and the sexual balance within us can quickly become uneven with little significant event.

Lastly, if you disagree with me don't try and accuse me of homophobia. I'm simply pointing out the obvious.

Except it's not all "obvious." Calling homosexuals an anomaly or weaker type ignores a lot of genetic understanding.
1) We have multiple genes that control any number of things. A simple example: Skin color is controlled by at least 7 different genes. That's just the ones we know about. It's absolutely possible that sexual orientation is controlled by 2, or 15, or 20.
2) Everything, or at least damn near everything about us that relates to our biology it influenced one way or another by our genes. Your functioning limbic system that keeps you from taking on too many skinheads at once has a genetic component. As my dad (PhD in biochemistry, brilliant physician, etc. etc.) used to tell me: even racism has a genetic component. Doesn't make racism a good idea once you get to the choice stage, but we can deal with it better if we understand it better. Given this reality, how the heck does one make the argument that orientation, something so closely related to our biology, has little or no genetic component? I mean really.
3) There are some excellent biological reasons for having the species be attracted to either/same gender relating to socialization, family building, this list goes on but my family is needing my attention. Quick example: Members of the family that don't procreate have more energy to spend helping the members that do, therefore ensuring better odds for next generation, something vitally important in a species that doesn't breed like rabbits or spiders.
4) Offering opinions is great. Saying no one else could have an answer is good for some things. Doing one's homework before calling one's own opinion "obvious" would be helpful especially in an arena where we have LOTS of information. Just because we haven't isolated the gene for orientation doesn't mean we don't have PLENTY of indicators that it exists.

 

[Jinjiro]

To attempt to be as neutral as possible, without trying to provide scientific proof, I would suggest this; that nature gifts us with paradigms for reproduction, a set of genetic blueprints that are embedded within our brains as instinct, as primal urge. This knowledge drives our sexuality, influences our choice of sexual partners, etc etc. Evolutionary stuff, you know?

Now, I'm going to assume that since these blueprints are essentially the result of millions of unique chemical reactions, DNA, recessive genes and whatnot flying around, that at some point, a 'line of code' somewhere is going to produce a gene or a reaction that creates 'variable results' in the aspect of humanity that we call sexuality.

The question is, whether or not you are born with predispositions towards a certain sexuality because of the biological reactions that make up 'You', will these tendencies manifest themselves in adult You?

We've learned from scientists that study the mind how certain amounts of emotion, like stress, anger, joy or what-have-you can produce biochemical reactions in the brain. The most immediate case I can think of is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Isn't it likely that if stress can tip the chemical balance of the brain, other events during our lives might impede on DIFFERENT aspects of our mind? Those 'sexuality blueprints' for example?

My view is that Nature and Nurture are essentially one and the same, the procedure of 'Nurture' becoming a psychological cooking-pot for our reactive brains. While predispositions do exist, there is no 100% correlation of any given gene and any given sexuality, simply because Nature happens THROUGH and DURING Nurture, not BEFORE it exclusively. It's harder to measure which portion of our body's biochemistry has a stronger effect on our sexuality, simply because it's slightly like trying to measure life. What we can agree on, perhaps, is that no-one is the same, whatever their genes might be, or whatever events in their lives have changed the way they think and react.