Poll: Is Sexual Orientation Nurture or Nature?

[jockslap]

umm honestly i would have to say a little of column a and a little of column b, its like...both clearly play a role, but the resources and variables required to get an accurate percentage split would take enormous resources, not to mention theres no accounting for liars

 

[jockslap]

I need to introduce you to a fellow named Phantomgrift. He's exactly like you are - an egomaniac who wants to take over the world.

a) Believe it or not, I'm not an egomaniac, i'm just a poet/artist.
b) I already own the world.

That's literally impossible. I own 60% of the world, and I'm a privately owned company.

yes but you're my property - though i'm thinking of selling you, 'cause you gave me cheek.

If you own the world, who could you sell anything you own to? Aliens? No one on earth owns anything with which they could buy something from you...

stop this silliness right now, everyone knows that i own the world, in fact, the economic depression is only happening because lately ive been sick and i feel like spreading the love.

 

[goodman528]

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.

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.

Natural selection is a numbers game. With homosexuals, we have a case of whenever they decide to be homosexual, then their genes are not passed on. Because although we are not discriminating against gay people, nature is, gay people can not have offspring.

You think gene doesn't work like this. So I'm curious, how do you think natural selection works, if no genes are ever removed from the gene pool?

 

[Spacelord]

I hope this poll will end this thread streak definitively. I've grown weary of the debate.

I picked lotsa nurture, little bit nature. Pretty much the minority, here.

 

[ShadowPen]

I hope this poll will end this thread streak definitively. I've grown weary of the debate.

I picked lotsa nurture, little bit nature. Pretty much the minority, here.

The minority has more fun, because no one is around to make us stop partying. Its always majority v. majority, so LETS PARTY!

 

[imperator prime]

---> "Well because if there are to many of us the whole game breaks down and we all lose, so a few are sacrificed (about 1/10 I think) for the good of the species."
------> "We can see this, but nature doesn't use logic."

Not to disagree outright with that statement-- since we still don't have omniscient insight into the workings of nature-- but some recent studies I read about in a science magazine or two suggest that natural selection might not always exclusively favour individual specimens; I believe it's called "group selection" and it suggests that if a trait is present in enough (but not necessarily all) members of a group, then the trait may be 'selected-enough' to continue in the gene pool without necessarily becoming universal. So if, for instance, in one sample population there are a few (let's say 1 in 10) people who don't procreate themselves but instead contribute resources to the well-being of kin like nephews/nieces, cousins, etc then that group with the minority trait will be more successful (propagating said minority trait through recessive gene inheritance) than another group where every member is invested in offspring of their own. It reduces the competitive pressures within groups and so sets natural selection up to also take place between groups instead of just between individuals.

It sort of implies that on some level our compulsion to spread our genes around can still be satisfied by (and therefore doesn't eliminate through natural selection the predisposition for) some of us contributing to the reproductive success of those who share enough of our genes.

 

[imperator prime]

Alright you got me there. But if sexual orientation is by nature then it must be somehow related to our genes so my hypothesis number 2 is a mutation of some gene that controls it causes it. Now we just need to research and compare the genomes of a bunch of straights and gays and find it.

Just out of curiosity, *why* do we "need" to? "Need" sounds awfully urgent. We could do it to satisfy curiosity about one aspect of how genetics and natural selection works, for the sake of knowledge; but whereas there's no imminent threat to the survival of our species from a minority of the population not-breeding, I don't think we "need" to research it further.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Everything's Nurture, unless it's something hereditary.

Seriously, you weren't born gay or straight, you weren't born Christian or Athiest, and you weren't born with ideals right off the bat. It's the way you were raised and the environment around you that creates you, as a person.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Everything's Nurture, unless it's something hereditary.

Seriously, you weren't born gay or straight, you weren't born Christian or Athiest, and you weren't born with ideals right off the bat. It's the way you were raised and the environment around you that creates you, as a person.

I'd disagree with that. Whilst the environment is a huge factor in anything to do with psychology/the phenotype genetics has a huge role to play. Mental disorders such as depression, bi-polar and schizophrenia have all been shown to have genetic links as well as environmental causes - there is nothing to say that being gay doesn't also have something to do with genetics (whether it causes expression of different proteins in the brain or different concentrations of neurotransmitters or whatever)

Religion is more placed upon a child by the parents - but even that has a genetic cause. Studies have shown that women are more likely to attend religious services than men - a trend which holds true across all cultures and religions. That is a case of something which is obivously partly genetics and partly environmental.

My point is the phenotype is a complex mixture of genetics and the environment - saying it it just one misses the whole picture.

 

[imperator prime]

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

Well, since we are extremely genetically close to Monkeys, I would have to say it is equally nature and nurture.

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.

Um.. I think that's got to be thrown back. Anything that *happens* "in nature" without some kind of premeditated intervention is *necessarily* "natural." We don't own nature, we don't get to tell it what it "can and can't do," nature just IS. Recently astronomers witnessed an apparent supernova. But it occurred in a star that didn't fit what they understood to be the criteria for a star that *can* go supernova. It appeared to be "unnatural" because it was a fluke, a freak, a deviation from 'the norm,' it didn't happen the way things are "supposed to." But unless some advanced, intelligent agent CAUSED it to happen, then by definition it was in fact "natural" because whatever did cause it to happen was the result of natural processes.

Just because we *think* we know how a given 'system' works inside and out doesn't mean that we've somehow copyrighted something as vast and variable as nature itself. Things we don't yet understand do happen, and will happen, and that doesn't represent some unnatural 'problem' with the universe, it demonstrates that there are things we still don't know. Any any claim otherwise is a batsh*t-crazy delusion.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Everything's Nurture, unless it's something hereditary.

Seriously, you weren't born gay or straight, you weren't born Christian or Athiest, and you weren't born with ideals right off the bat. It's the way you were raised and the environment around you that creates you, as a person.

I'd disagree with that. Whilst the environment is a huge factor in anything to do with psychology/the phenotype genetics has a huge role to play. Mental disorders such as depression, bi-polar and schizophrenia have all been shown to have genetic links as well as environmental causes - there is nothing to say that being gay doesn't also have something to do with genetics (whether it causes expression of different proteins in the brain or different concentrations of neurotransmitters or whatever)

Religion is more placed upon a child by the parents - but even that has a genetic cause. Studies have shown that women are more likely to attend religious services than men - a trend which holds true across all cultures and religions. That is a case of something which is obivously partly genetics and partly environmental.

My point is the phenotype is a complex mixture of genetics and the environment - saying it it just one misses the whole picture.

The thing is, while I understand that your skin colour and mental disorders (but nowadays they're handing them out like they're going out of fashion), it still boils down to Nurture at the end of the day.

Let's say that you were born in a post-apocolyptic world, with no humans in it and no culture remaining. Would the baby grow up to become religious if there was no-one to influence them? Would they be psychotic killers if there is no one to kill? What would be your sexuality if you had no idea of the concept of gender?

Biology (Nature) does fit into the equation, but it can only be applied when there is Nurture factored in.

 

[Inverse Skies]

The thing is, while I understand that your skin colour and mental disorders (but nowadays they're handing them out like they're going out of fashion), it still boils down to Nurture at the end of the day.

Let's say that you were born in a post-apocolyptic world, with no humans in it and no culture remaining. Would the baby grow up to become religious if there was no-one to influence them? Would they be psychotic killers if there is no one to kill? What would be your sexuality if you had no idea of the concept of gender?

Biology (Nature) does fit into the equation, but it can only be applied when there is Nurture factored in.

The fact that so many different cultures have come up with the idea of religion probably speaks volumes for the idea of religion being more than a nuturing idea. Believe them or refute them if you want - they had to come from somewhere. Seeing as it's such a universal experience I would argue spirtuality comes from something more than just nuturing - but I could be wrong.

Even if you were born into a post apocalyptic world if you survived to puberty the hormonal changes would probably be enough to give you an idea of your sexuality despite never being introduced to the concept - animals go after the opposite sex without having their sexuality defined to them - it's a biological instinct.

Not to sure about the killers thing - the psychology of serial killers is woefully understood at best and it would be stupid of me to speculate on that idea.

 

[Grimm91]

I think thats it is a choice that the person makes. They may be influenced by their upbringing and they may naturally have thoughts to act in a homosexual manner. However in the end they choose to be gay. I apologize if I offend.

 

[Spacelord]

The minority has more fun, because no one is around to make us stop partying. Its always majority v. majority, so LETS PARTY!

You know, I've never really thought about it that way.

PARTY ON!!

 

[Lord Krunk]

The thing is, while I understand that your skin colour and mental disorders (but nowadays they're handing them out like they're going out of fashion), it still boils down to Nurture at the end of the day.

Let's say that you were born in a post-apocolyptic world, with no humans in it and no culture remaining. Would the baby grow up to become religious if there was no-one to influence them? Would they be psychotic killers if there is no one to kill? What would be your sexuality if you had no idea of the concept of gender?

Biology (Nature) does fit into the equation, but it can only be applied when there is Nurture factored in.

The fact that so many different cultures have come up with the idea of religion probably speaks volumes for the idea of religion being more than a nuturing idea. Believe them or refute them if you want - they had to come from somewhere. Seeing as it's such a universal experience I would argue spirtuality comes from something more than just nuturing - but I could be wrong.

Even if you were born into a post apocalyptic world if you survived to puberty the hormonal changes would probably be enough to give you an idea of your sexuality despite never being introduced to the concept - animals go after the opposite sex without having their sexuality defined to them - it's a biological instinct.

Not to sure about the killers thing - the psychology of serial killers is woefully understood at best and it would be stupid of me to speculate on that idea.

Let's say that you were born in a post-apocolyptic world, with no humans in it and no culture remaining. Would the baby grow up to become religious if there was no-one to influence them?

Some baby somewhere must have grown up to become religious without anyone to influence them, unless religion was some divine being that came down from the sky and talked to some ancient human.

Would they be psychotic killers if there is no one to kill? What would be your sexuality if you had no idea of the concept of gender?

Are humans even capable of not forming a concept of gender?

The problem with saying that "Everything's Nurture, unless it's something hereditary" is that somewhere along the line you run into the first human to have some 'thing' be it religion or a concept of gender etc. that you then have to explain if you rule out a burning bush as a cause.

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.

 

[Steve Dark]

I'm gunna go with mostly nurture, with a little nature. I knew a family with several kids, and most of them grew up as your average kid does. One of them however chose to spend his childhood watching fashion TV and reading all that celebrity crap, and he was the one that turned out gay. Go figure.