Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[Kevin7557]

All three actually. There is a Gay gene so it is possible to be naturally gay. A good portion of others actually suffer from Gender dissociation disorder and some have retarded parents like those raising their kids genderless. Look it up it is as wrong and criminally negligent as it sounds.

 

[jesseetc]

Hey guys,

if a twin is gay, the other twin has a 70% chance of also being gay

therefore, genetics play a strong role.

 

[Pyramid Head]

Your sexuality is beyond your control. The only thing societal factors involved are whether or not you'll acknowledge said sexuality and come out of the closet like Harvey Milk or whether or not you'll go into deep denial and be driven fucking insane like Fred Phelps. That might sound like a cheap shot but believe me, the claim that the most violent homophobes are homosexuals in denial is genuine.

 

[let's rock]

I think that the gay gene may increase the chanses of being gay, but I don't think that it means you will be gay indefenetly, and vise versa, nurture still plays a part in it, at least how I see it. Every family member I have hates homosexuality, Yet I'm gay. So if nobody else in my familt is gay, and as a matter of fact hate it, it can't be genetic. So I belive in a combination where eigther can be true.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

Bit of both. I believe it's a natural occurence but you're not BORN that way. I believe you develop it into your psyche over experience.

 

[dashiz94]

Well I find it hard to believe that being gay could possibly exsist in the genetic code purely because it makes it far less likely that your going to have offspring and therefore pass on your genetic code if you are and therefore it would've died out. Which makes me want to say that its entirely nurture. However having several homosexual friends they all think that it wasnt a choice that they made and their upbringings vary wildy.

Theory says all nurture, practise says all nature. I'm going to say its neither and actually being gay is decided entirely by whether or not you like peanuts.

Because genetics is so black and white like that it can't possibly be that the genetic code can't make mistakes, right? By that logic there wouldn't be any instances of birth defects or strange behavorial anomalies like, say, schizophrenia, right?

Genetics is so incredibly complex and the human brain is such an oddball organism that to apply a high school level scientific concept to either of them is just plain dumb.

 

[boosh-boosh]

Indeed, you're right. About 1% of the population exhibits no sexual attraction whatsoever [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality], though I wouldn't be able to say how often this is intrinsic. Asexuality (or hyposexuality) are both symptoms that sometimes emerge from child sexual abuse, and victims of violent sex crime, much of which has only in the modern era begun to be regularly reported. In fact, I'm surprised at the 1% statistic.

Things get complicated once one introduces all the genderqueer possibilities, but this is not to say they are to be disregarded. Part of the complexity comes from the delineation between gender (psycho-social sexual identity) and sex (the physiological sexual identity), both of which can be aligned, counteraligned, misaligned, third-polar, bi-faceted, polyfaceted, neutral, fluid and so on. And this is independent of sexual orientation. And then there are sexual orientations towards all of these. The debate continues as to whether they are merely fetishes or minutial paraphilic categories, or require consideration all their own. It's like ordering a customized coffee-based beverage from Starbucks.

238U.

Well, that was a lovely response
I like the thought of human sexuality being analogous of Starbucks' menu.
But myself being asexual i would like to clarify that a lack of interest in sex doesn't necessarily have to stem from abuse, be it sexual or otherwise.
It can just be a lack of interest!

 

[Artina89]

I would think that it would be nature that largely determines sexuality. Nurture will probably play some part of it, but it probably doesn't have that large a role in the person's sexuality.

 

[DrOswald]

We already know this. It's genetic. I wish people would stop acting like this is something that is up for debate.

Can you point me to the study where this was proven?

Will this do?

http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

I don't mean to be rude, but this article you linked actually doesn't say anything at all about genetics as the source of sexual orientation, it is not a study, it doesn't come to any conclusions about the origination of sexual orientation, and even says that there is not real evidence for or against the idea that sexual orientation can't be changed. To quote the article, "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person?s sexual orientation."

Are you sure you linked the right article?

 

[Elfgore]

My cat is barely older than this thread. Check dem dates, people!