Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nurture, estrogen and testosterone levels govern some instincts, but homosexuality is a personality quirk, right or wrong. You're more likely to be homosexual in a homosexual family because of the upbringing, not because of the genes. You don't get your personality from your genes, you get it from your brain processing your surroundings and calculating what it thinks is the best reaction to your environment.
Well, my science teacher once told us a story about a boy who became gay out of spite for his father. In my opinion he is still heterosexual, the fact that he kisses and/or has sex with other man doesn't make him a homosexual, so I would say you are born with it.
I actually saw a documentary relatively recently, with John Barrowman (Jack Harkness of the new Doctor Who series), where he explored the science of homosexuality.
While I didn't agree with all of it (I've had it sort of beaten into me to question and criticise everything I see/read/hear), I did find it enlightening to see actual factual evidence that homosexuality is a purely physical thing, that starts at conception.
One of the most interesting ideas was that Homosexuality was tied to testosterone levels during a child's development in the womb (less testosterone, more likelihood a a male child being homosexual), and that it was possible for a woman to have less testosterone "available" as she gave birth to successive sons. Basically: They found a trend where there was a higher likelihood of male homosexuality for men with more older brothers (doesn't help to explain homosexuality as a whole for both men and women, but it's an intriguing and quite plausible theory nonetheless.
While I didn't agree with all of it (I've had it sort of beaten into me to question and criticise everything I see/read/hear), I did find it enlightening to see actual factual evidence that homosexuality is a purely physical thing, that starts at conception.
One of the most interesting ideas was that Homosexuality was tied to testosterone levels during a child's development in the womb (less testosterone, more likelihood a a male child being homosexual), and that it was possible for a woman to have less testosterone "available" as she gave birth to successive sons. Basically: They found a trend where there was a higher likelihood of male homosexuality for men with more older brothers (doesn't help to explain homosexuality as a whole for both men and women, but it's an intriguing and quite plausible theory nonetheless.
Well considering that a cheif majority of the General Science Community doesn't see Same Sex relationships occuring outside of conditional psychological responces except with in sheep, which has raised its own discussion and debate (primarly about husbandry and selective breeding), i will echo the sentiments of science... There is no genetic predisposition to homosexuality found anywhere in the animal kingdom.Verp said:
the bisexuality of dolphins, birds, primates, and even elephants have all seen a sort of psychological reason involved, although debate has also spawned from this as it involves the discussion of 'emotions' in non-human species.
i will ask...
what does that video try to even prove?
his classes speaks upon the ties between biology and psychology.
depression, neuropathology, joy, etc.
now while you can argue a that a certain duality exists, and i understand that there are extreme conditionals which can prove this wrong... but from a casual and normal stand point i will stand by the statement that genetics don't truely influence psycholgical behavior.
As far as I can understand it, the sheep preferred to mate with other males, so while their acceptance is a domestication issue, the sexual orientation is not. However, you speak as if you are more read up on this than me, and as the trusting person I am, I choose to believe you know more in this than me. (I also must admit that any genetics displayed in domesticated animals might be a bad example, since we control breeding so hard)Pyro Paul said:
But I still thing you arrive at the wrong conclusions.
Also, your last statement is wrong. As someone with ADD, coming from a family with a history of ADD, ADHD, Aspegers and similar handicaps, I know this for a fact. This is also kid of my point. ADHD has some great evolutionary benefits, but they can also become a great hindrance, especially if they are extreme cases. How is it impossible for this to apply to homosexuality as well? Having, let's call it "the Gay Gene" might be a great thing. Let's just make shit up and say it makes you more likely to engage in male bonding. This is essential for survival, as the pack is more likely to defend you, hunt with you and support you. However, sometimes, the gene is dominant and that makes one gay. No matter, the gene is still beneficial, as most people with it won't be gay, just better at keeping the group whole
You state your views as fact, and that kind of nags at me. Yes, you MIGHT be right, but there is no conclusive evidence for this. Saying that homosexuality definitively is a "nurture" thing is wrong, it's not definitive at all. I do not know if you are a geneticist or not, but even if you are, the facts aren't in yet, so please at least acknowledge that you are stating your views.
Uh... I think scientists would disagree with that.Varya said:
Malnutrition, disease etc. effect height, as well as other factors that may or may not.
Not really. Homosexuality is a biological factor (not a genetic one, as some ppl have siad on this thread), and being brought up in a homosexual/heterosexual home has no impact on your won sexuality.Slick Samurai said:
Please watch a video of a straight man, who was raised by two homosexual women,and grew up to be a straight guy
Ok, purely might be an exaggeration, but the fact that identical twins are you know, largely identical, kind of makes my point. We have a height decided by our genes, it CAN be affected, but it's not the same as personality. Yes, our genes give us a few guidelines, but it's shaped and defined by our experiences. But this kind of makes my point stronger, if we can be manipulated enough by the environment to change our height, why couldn't our sexual preferences be affected.SeanSeanston said:
I've always considered it as a strange fetish like those people that like children, having hot wax dribbled across themselves and being whipped, furries or machines... It may not be the most politically correct way to look at it, but it's better than one of my friends who thinks of it as a mental disorder like schizophrenia or Attention Deficit Disorder.
Wikipedia say "Sexual orientation, for example, is no longer considered a sexual preference." In fact, the sexual orientation page linked there is a good starting place for the current thinking on the matter.Snowy Rainbow said:
I still maintain that we retain the ability to change our orientation to some degree or another- even if it comes to mucking around with genes and hormones and restructuring our own brains (if not now, sooner or later). This goes for pretty much anything- so ultimately choice should be able to overcome anything nature OR nurture. As previously stated, this passes the buck on to whether choice itself is nature or nurture (if it exists at all).
The sci-fi ideal of the ultimate sexuality being pansexuality is based on the ideal that sexuality stops being necessarily about the flesh and is instead about the persona, or perhaps for the more religious, the soul- that you are intimate with who, not what, or how. I think it's more pragmatic to accept that that preferences will always exist, but that they will become more malleable and less crucial.
If I remember correctly in nature animals aren't homosexual, they're bisexual.
But yeah, going by the term of finding sexual attraction in the same gender then it is natural even if it is a bit of a human oddity to not have the same attraction in the opposite gender.
But yeah, going by the term of finding sexual attraction in the same gender then it is natural even if it is a bit of a human oddity to not have the same attraction in the opposite gender.
This also makes sense as a reason why humans seem to have this oddity.rapidoud said:
Because their upbringing is archconservative and they grow a deep psychological need to be different from their parents. You hear about pastors' kids being rebellious all the time, a famous case being Alice Cooper. In my case, I simply had no idea there was a difference between genders until long after my stepfather started taking his own masculinity issues out on me. I hated him so much I wished I was a girl instead, and tried to be one. Somehow that affected me in my early teens even though he was long gone by then.Vault101 said:
From my personal experience I just can't put much stock into nurture. People forget the major push in psychology to act as if everything was nurture and that parents were at fault for virtually every minutiae of a child's existence.
People loove weave narratives/myths to preemptively explain what they have no facts to prove. I am gay and no, I've never had 'Daddy' issues and I can't say my parents were particularly abusive, nor coddling. And for whatever my account is worth, my feeling of attraction towards other men is the farthest thing I've felt from being anything like a 'choice'. I can see masculine traits as beautiful and arousing. I can see the feminine as beautiful but never once felt the slightest hint of physical arousal toward a woman.
People loove weave narratives/myths to preemptively explain what they have no facts to prove. I am gay and no, I've never had 'Daddy' issues and I can't say my parents were particularly abusive, nor coddling. And for whatever my account is worth, my feeling of attraction towards other men is the farthest thing I've felt from being anything like a 'choice'. I can see masculine traits as beautiful and arousing. I can see the feminine as beautiful but never once felt the slightest hint of physical arousal toward a woman.