its entirely a choice, Just because some people cant look beyond the norms dosent make it genetic. Lets just say, some people are easily convinced that they are things. But no matter how much you are convinced in the long run it is still a choice.
Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Unless it was, as I suggested, a left over trait from originally being asexual (single cell organisms).Varya said:
Even if it were not, the gene to trigger homosexuality could still be passed on but not triggered; and it would still be passed on through hundreds of generations, occasionally triggering in some individuals, who, as you say, would not reproduce; but that does not mean the siblings of that same individual have not inherited the same gene (not trigger in their generation, but is still able to be triggered in future generations). Of course each time it triggers it will cause an evolutionary dead end but the gene will still be being passed on from the original source that caused it to be in the homosexual individual in the first place. Genes are not completely wiped clean in every generation.
my thoughts are that love is a natural feeling. Its something that develops with or without your control over it. You meet someone and it just clicks. Do I think that is limited by the other persons gender, or your own? Not really. I think that there is perhaps an inclination, for instance, I've never been in love with any of my male friends, even though I've been really good buddies with several. I've always loved females.
Do I think that just because of this clear inclination its impossible for me to love a male. No, I don't think so. If I developed those feelings I might be quite a bit less inclined to act on them, I'd have to figure some things out for myself first. But, its just a natural feeling, instinctual you would say. Perhaps we do grow into a way where we classify certain feelings into different emotional modes, where a deep relationship with any female is automatically placed into a romance or love category moreso than a friendship category.
I don't know. But I'm on the side of Nature. As far as the sexual act itself, I really think that has very little to do with it, unless the drive to reproduce is more active in some members of the human race than others, but that would probably belong in the nurturing side of the argument and another topic.
Do I think that just because of this clear inclination its impossible for me to love a male. No, I don't think so. If I developed those feelings I might be quite a bit less inclined to act on them, I'd have to figure some things out for myself first. But, its just a natural feeling, instinctual you would say. Perhaps we do grow into a way where we classify certain feelings into different emotional modes, where a deep relationship with any female is automatically placed into a romance or love category moreso than a friendship category.
I don't know. But I'm on the side of Nature. As far as the sexual act itself, I really think that has very little to do with it, unless the drive to reproduce is more active in some members of the human race than others, but that would probably belong in the nurturing side of the argument and another topic.
I'll tell you one thing I know for a fact: No amount of nurture could ever turn me gay. And because of that I believe the same to be true for those who are gay.Varya said:
Nature, I s'pose. Someone's sexuality is encoded in the genes and DNA. Although I don't beleive in people just suddenly turning gay out of nowhere - that way, to me, is the "unnatural" way. (i. e. Someone saying "I turned gay at ? years old", I hate it when people do that.) But I'm pretty sure if some else's gay in your family (And is a biological parent, or a brother or sister) then it's very possible that you may also be homosexual. I've just told you everything I know; I've not really much more to add.
This thing just ate my post... which was long and ranting a little on this matter.
Let me just put this down quickly: This has already been answered!
During the 1970s there was an experiment on two twins designed to answer this question. They where just babies when it begun, and continued right up till the experiment was dropped as it was not getting the results the 'scientists' wanted. This is a common problem with any biased view in the scientific community, they care not for the scientific method and will quickly drop any experiment that disproves their theory instead of re-thinking the theory part itself.
This experiment was simple: gender relocation on a baby!
After a medical mishap that left him without a penis, one of the twins was turned into a girl and was forced into the stereotype of a female. There is a lot of other messed up stuff that happened, including forced incest on a minor, but the outcome was one very messed up 'girl' who was still very much male in the sexuality department. I have included a link below that you can read for yourself the whole story and the tragic end of both twins.
Yes, both committed suicide over what had been done to them.
http://spiritrambler3.blogspot.com/2004/05/homenature-versus-nurture-i-of-twins.html
Now lets hope this doesn't 404 again...
Let me just put this down quickly: This has already been answered!
During the 1970s there was an experiment on two twins designed to answer this question. They where just babies when it begun, and continued right up till the experiment was dropped as it was not getting the results the 'scientists' wanted. This is a common problem with any biased view in the scientific community, they care not for the scientific method and will quickly drop any experiment that disproves their theory instead of re-thinking the theory part itself.
This experiment was simple: gender relocation on a baby!
After a medical mishap that left him without a penis, one of the twins was turned into a girl and was forced into the stereotype of a female. There is a lot of other messed up stuff that happened, including forced incest on a minor, but the outcome was one very messed up 'girl' who was still very much male in the sexuality department. I have included a link below that you can read for yourself the whole story and the tragic end of both twins.
Yes, both committed suicide over what had been done to them.
http://spiritrambler3.blogspot.com/2004/05/homenature-versus-nurture-i-of-twins.html
Now lets hope this doesn't 404 again...
If homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuals cannot reproduce and therefor cannot pass on their genes, then how are there still gay people around today? And more importantly, how are there still so MANY gay people?
I mean sure, it is possible that some great great great grandfathers were gay and mated with women under pressure and thus passed on their genes, but how are their still so many gays today? And why is the gay population RISING?
Yeah it could be because people aren't so pressured to be straight anymore, but that would still mean that the number should be falling because if gays embraced their sexuality then they would not breed or have any children to pass this gene onto.
So if sexuality is a gene, why haven't the homosexuals been "bred out"?
I mean sure, it is possible that some great great great grandfathers were gay and mated with women under pressure and thus passed on their genes, but how are their still so many gays today? And why is the gay population RISING?
Yeah it could be because people aren't so pressured to be straight anymore, but that would still mean that the number should be falling because if gays embraced their sexuality then they would not breed or have any children to pass this gene onto.
So if sexuality is a gene, why haven't the homosexuals been "bred out"?
So you are a fruit flyThe Stonker said:
Secondly what ? That's about all there is to it.floppylobster said:
Your argument doesn't contradict anything in this article. Show me a newborn, or just less than 1 year old baby that actively reject other babies from the opposite sex.
I have views, but if you read my posts in this thread, I have mostly debunked arguments that I find questionable, on both sides of the fence. What I believe is unimportant to most of my arguments.Pyro Paul said:
My examples, aren't meant to be proof, just to be a counterpoint to faulty arguments.
And about my ADD:It's a genetic condition that affects my personality, that was all I wanted to say. After you specifically said that that was an extreme case, when 3-5% of the population have may ADD/ADHD it was relevant.
If you don't read my arguments, I don't see why I should be scolded for not answering all of yours.
Anyhow, the penguin one. I don't know if you know this, but gender is also a genetic thing. Quite a lot of research shows that the sexual drive can work quite a lot different between males and females. This could be a factor. More than that I really can't say without expertise in penguin sexuality, and I don't have that. In all honesty, I can't debunk the argument better because I don't see it. You use one animal as an example when over 1500 species has shown different homosexual tendencies. And the fact that each species has different ways of approaching it, yet similar within their species, to me says that their sexuality is affected by their genes.
This, I feel, I need to return to. "It's impossible for sexuality to be influenced by genetics"... I missed this before, and while we're on the subject of debunking old arguments.Pyro Paul said:
This.. this is just wrong. Our genetics program us. We have instincts, they are in our genes. Psychology is very much a factor of genetics. We find some traits in females attractive because it's beneficial for us tho think so. Genetics determine our hormones, which very much affect our sexuality. I mean... I have argued with you on the basis that you knew that our genes are programmed to make us like to fuck. Are you seriously arguing that not only homosexuality is based on environment, but heterosexuality also? Because... no... it's in our genes, that's why we there's 7 billion of us...
I skimmed over most of this forum, I would like to express my own opinion rather than reiterate other peoples points. So, sorry if it has been brought up before.
But I honestly believe it is both, nature and nurture to cause someones sexual preference. I believe some people prefer a same sex partner, like how some people prefer cream and sugar in their coffee. I believe others are hard wired from birth with a hormone defect, more or less a male in a females body, or a female in a males body, creating an urge for a same sex relationship.
But it is a moot point really, I mean if it makes someone happy does it really matter what they prefer in bed? The bedroom is a private place, and more importantly, it really isn't no ones business what you enjoy in the privacy of your own home. I wish people could be more open minded and accepting.
To express why I am on both sides of the issue, by both nature and nurture I should be a very bad person, both sides of my family tree is littered with mentally unstable (form genetic defects) people. And my upbringing was not pleasant and more or less one many serial killers share. However I have no desire to hurt anyone, or see others be hurt. So why am I going against both nature and nurture to be the person I want to be? A good decent hard working person. The world may never know, so as long as it makes the person happy, why bother to debate the issue.
I mean it would be like finding a cure for craving chocolate? Would some people want to not love the taste of chocolate, I mean it would benefit hundreds, no more weight gain, a decrease in obesity, and many other benefits for not liking chocolate. But how many people would resist it, millions? Nature vs Nurture is a moot point. If it is nature then gay is genetic, and can be cured with a pill, or hormone therapy. If it's nurture you sit them in front of a psychiatrist until their mind changes.... it is a moot point in general.
But I honestly believe it is both, nature and nurture to cause someones sexual preference. I believe some people prefer a same sex partner, like how some people prefer cream and sugar in their coffee. I believe others are hard wired from birth with a hormone defect, more or less a male in a females body, or a female in a males body, creating an urge for a same sex relationship.
But it is a moot point really, I mean if it makes someone happy does it really matter what they prefer in bed? The bedroom is a private place, and more importantly, it really isn't no ones business what you enjoy in the privacy of your own home. I wish people could be more open minded and accepting.
To express why I am on both sides of the issue, by both nature and nurture I should be a very bad person, both sides of my family tree is littered with mentally unstable (form genetic defects) people. And my upbringing was not pleasant and more or less one many serial killers share. However I have no desire to hurt anyone, or see others be hurt. So why am I going against both nature and nurture to be the person I want to be? A good decent hard working person. The world may never know, so as long as it makes the person happy, why bother to debate the issue.
I mean it would be like finding a cure for craving chocolate? Would some people want to not love the taste of chocolate, I mean it would benefit hundreds, no more weight gain, a decrease in obesity, and many other benefits for not liking chocolate. But how many people would resist it, millions? Nature vs Nurture is a moot point. If it is nature then gay is genetic, and can be cured with a pill, or hormone therapy. If it's nurture you sit them in front of a psychiatrist until their mind changes.... it is a moot point in general.
Homosexuality is most likely caused by factors in the womb. Not necessarily genetics, because a lgbt child can be born to an entire line of straight parents and ancestors. Also to note, same sex couples are naturally less likely to reproduce, meaning the number of same sex couples should decrease, this is not the case. In fact, the number of openly lgbt people is increasing steadily.
However, we can say with certainty that nurture certainly has nothing to do with it whatsoever. You cannot force a person to like or accept anything they would not naturally like otherwise. The easiest way to visualize this is with celery. If a child does not like celery, no amount of nurturing, no amount of enthusiasm or reward for eating celery is going to change that. Celery will always be unpleasant. When the child grows old enough to decide for themselves, even if you've gotten them to at least eat celery in the past, they will cease to do so.
However, we have seen that the amount of testosterone a child receives in utero can affect how the child develops later in life. While there is no direct coloration between testosterone levels and sexual preference, indicating that other factors may still apply, it is at least a hint at a larger picture where there was none before.
However, we can say with certainty that nurture certainly has nothing to do with it whatsoever. You cannot force a person to like or accept anything they would not naturally like otherwise. The easiest way to visualize this is with celery. If a child does not like celery, no amount of nurturing, no amount of enthusiasm or reward for eating celery is going to change that. Celery will always be unpleasant. When the child grows old enough to decide for themselves, even if you've gotten them to at least eat celery in the past, they will cease to do so.
However, we have seen that the amount of testosterone a child receives in utero can affect how the child develops later in life. While there is no direct coloration between testosterone levels and sexual preference, indicating that other factors may still apply, it is at least a hint at a larger picture where there was none before.
1. What evidence do you have that the gay population is rising? For all you know there are simply more closeted gay's coming out.Anti Nudist Cupcake said:
2 This is why I'm leaning towards it being some sort of semirare fetal defect encouraged by something like prenatal hormones.
It's not-so-clearly both.
From personal experience, my little brother turned out to be gay (Though clearly a dominant one, not to mention masculine), and our parents hardly payed attention to the boy. I turned out straight (Yet hesitantly effeminate), and my mother used to SMOTHER me until my late teens.
Of course, THAT depends on how ours minds choose to handle such attention I'd immagine, but we can never be too sure. It CAN be something mentally forced upon someone, after all it is possible to make humans mentally break-down. With enough time, effort, and trauma, you could make anyone be anyway you'd like. The human mind is vast and complex, but nigh indestructable. People have their limits.
On the OTHER hand, I find it awfully hard to believe it's something one can just decide on. Especially with the way society handles such people, it's no wonder most of them hide in their closets. Human nature is hard to fight against, which is a shame since it's been slowly developing into something quite revolting.
From personal experience, my little brother turned out to be gay (Though clearly a dominant one, not to mention masculine), and our parents hardly payed attention to the boy. I turned out straight (Yet hesitantly effeminate), and my mother used to SMOTHER me until my late teens.
Of course, THAT depends on how ours minds choose to handle such attention I'd immagine, but we can never be too sure. It CAN be something mentally forced upon someone, after all it is possible to make humans mentally break-down. With enough time, effort, and trauma, you could make anyone be anyway you'd like. The human mind is vast and complex, but nigh indestructable. People have their limits.
On the OTHER hand, I find it awfully hard to believe it's something one can just decide on. Especially with the way society handles such people, it's no wonder most of them hide in their closets. Human nature is hard to fight against, which is a shame since it's been slowly developing into something quite revolting.
I highly doubt that it's a leftover from our single cell days. But your other theory might be correct, as I've said previously. It's possible it has some beneficial traits, as long as it's not triggered, that has made it survive through the agesfloppylobster said: