Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[Brandon237]

Nature decides your sexuality, nurture decides how you will express it, if at all.

I'd say this is probably the best way to word it. Thank you for this.

Only a pleasure

 

[Joey Wonton]

"I did it, lol" - Aphrodite, Greek god of sexuality.

But I would put my feelings towards nature, unless I've been conditioned to give that resoponse, then ARGH!

 

[incal11]

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.

 

[Brandon237]

Nature decides your sexuality, nurture decides how you will express it, if at all.

Yes, nature "decides" that you are straigh, or more probably bi. But not gay, which is a cultural trait.

uhh....
Considering that about a fifth of rams are gay, not bi, gay, I call bull on that idea.
Considering the way genetics work, and brain chemistry works, That makes NO sense, your sexual orientation can be greatly varied purely by genetics, there is no reason it will stop someone from being gay if you have a genetic variation from the norm based around your sexual preferences. And culture actually encourages people NOT to be gay.
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. I is genetic in all but extreme cases.

 

[DracoSuave]

The evidence science currently has says it's a little of column A and a little of column B.

 

[smegmar]

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.

 

[jebussaves88]

I've never really bought into that whole "It's in the genes" argument, and I therefore believe that sexuality, along with all aspects of a persons personality, is created by the environment. However, I don't want to sound homophobic. I don't believe that it would de-legitimise it as a lifestyle if it were, as such, a "choice".

 

[mrdude2010]

nature. otherwise no son/daughter whose parents are strongly against homosexuality would ever be gay. since this happens all the time, it has to be something in the person themselves, rather than an outside influence

 

[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.