Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[esin]

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.

The great thing about this is that it concurs with the studies that show the more succesive male children a mother has, the more likely the latest one is to be gay. This is because just one pregnancy has a pretty big effect on a woman's immune and hormonal system and that effect ripples into the following pregnancies.

The hormone flooding theory seems to be a pretty consistent explanation. It explains why gays keep popping up without being a genetic trait and it explains it as not being a choice.

 

[Nimcha]

The most annoying thing is that this 'debate' is so utterly pointless. The problem is presented as a binary choice when that's clearly not the case.

People are neither blank slates nor slaves to their genes. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I think both are in play when it comes to sexuality in human societies.

Nature to begin with. Genetics and circumstance leading up to your birth, all outside of anyones control and both very much 'nature,' create a situation where you will be attracted to others of the same sex some time in your life. I, personally, feel that the vast majority of people swing both ways to some degree with pure homosexuality or heterosexuality being the odd ones out. Some people might never feel more then 'bromance' with other guys and will never explore this part of themselves past that one night in collage with a very close friend who you have since drifted away from*. Others will find themselves in triangle of relationships with men and woman at the same time, happily enjoying their sexuality... and I can tell you those are fun! Some, yes some will even be turned off so badly by the same/opposite sex attraction that they become some of these best comedians on the matter.

It is all nature that sets the building blocks of what your sexuality will be. So where does Nurture come into play?

How open you can be about your sexuality is a factor that will sway you strongly from one side or the other as well. I don't honestly believe there where less "gay" people during then 1930's, for example, just that more people kept quiet about that one time in college, their budding attraction to other men and what not. All because society would make it very difficult, even deadly, for them not to keep this stuff hidden. The higher number of openly gay people in todays society isn't because society is making people gay but because we no longer have to hide it.

Without the nurturing that says it is alright to explore your sexuality, regardless of what that is, one can suppress your nature. Not at all healthy, in fact it can be just as deadly as being open depending on what that nature is, but it can be done. Just ask those 60 something men with families who decide that they are sick and tired of living a lie and come out of the closet. It clearly wasn't nurture that turned them gay but it wasn't nature that made them hide it so long.

*Sorry, it is also in our nature to seek out multiple partners in our life time.

 

[lwm3398]

So if sexuality is a gene, why haven't the homosexuals been "bred out"?

Charles Darwin had about that same idea, saying that homosexuality was an evolutionary "hiccup," some kind of unnecessary mutation that would end up disappearing. He was wrong, as you can see, and somebody, somewhere probably has an idea about why.

I'd have to say it's a dormant gene that comes out occasionally in babies, just not always. If you are born with the gene, then you have the ability to naturally develop homosexuality. With help from your parents, I mean. Depending on the way you're raised, the gene may show externally in you at different times.

So I think it has to do with both. If you're born with the gene you might end up straight by choice or straight because you're too afraid, or gay by choice because you were raised to think that's okay. The different ways you're raised will definitely effect whether the gene comes out or not.

Hell, I'm straight, but might still have the gene in me. There's really no way of knowing.

As for bisexual people, I think that has to do only with nurture and what you were raised to think is okay. Probably starting as a straight person and then deciding that being gay is fine as well, so they're both.

 

[Valksy]

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"?

Recessive genes?

An example:

Take two parents. Both carry the dominant "Straight" gene (S) and the recessive "gay" gene (g).

So you have Sg + Sg

The outcome of this can be SS (straight), Sg (straight, recessive carrier), Sg (straight, recessive carrier) and gg (gay, recessive carrier).

We don't know that we are talking about a singe gene, so that is a simplified example. But in 3/4 of the outcomes of an Sg parent, the recessive gene survives (and anyone who tells you that GLBTQ people don't have their own children is a fecking idiot). So the concept of a genetic trait being "bred out" doesn't hold water.

This is pretty basic science that I was taught at age 12 or 13, more than twenty years ago.

 

[Nimcha]

Also, there is no 'homosexuality' gene. Genetics aren't that simple, we don't have one single gene determining our eye color, another one saying how intelligent we are etcetera.

 

[Fearzone]

You cannot transform a heterosexual to homosexual, or the reverse, so it is nature.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Nature. An astounding number of species have been found to have homosexual tendencies. We are no exception. I don't think nurture has anything to do with it other than encourage it, or discourage it. But at the end of the day, it's still there.

 

[Varya]

It's absolutely nature (look at the gay fruit flies - are you going to tell me they were nurtured?).

However nurture can cause a human to repress their feelings and 'make them straight' despite what turns them on (I know some gay married men).

On the other hand peer pressure may make someone extremely weak willed 'experiment' with another sex, but if it doesn't work for them, they're going to have a hard time pretending to get off to it.

If anything 'nurture' is what stops some gay people from being themselves.

Just because there are examples of "genetic homosexuality" doesn't mean it's true for humans, or all humans. It's proven fetishes can be triggered by our experiences, why couldn't you develop a "gay-fetish" Also, if you read the discussion here, you'll see that homosexuality in animals isn't proof of genetic homosexuality.

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.

You assume it's a matter of trying to raise you to be gay. Subconsciously we gain a lot of input that change our view of the world. You probably won't "turn gay" all of a sudden, but your upbringing can have a vital influence over your subconscious, that shape your personality and even your sexuality. And we're not talking "gay parents raise gay kids" or vice-versa. I do not know what the factors might be, but they can probably be unrelated to sexuality as a whole.

 

[wogi1000]

The most annoying thing is that this 'debate' is so utterly pointless. The problem is presented as a binary choice when that's clearly not the case.

People are neither blank slates nor slaves to their genes. Why is that so hard to accept?

Technically, you are a slave to your genes. It's not a pleasant thought, but your genes are your total make up. They are you. Change one gene and your entire life would be different. Genetic anomalies and mutation are responsible for many of the "syndromes" that develop early on. Downs syndrome, Asperger's (autism), Huntington's disease... the list goes on and on. Not to mention the myriad of genetic disorders that develop later in life.


You are right though, it is not a binary choice. Sexuality is composed of many shades of gray, with no one really being entirely black or white.

 

[Nimcha]

The most annoying thing is that this 'debate' is so utterly pointless. The problem is presented as a binary choice when that's clearly not the case.

People are neither blank slates nor slaves to their genes. Why is that so hard to accept?

Technically, you are a slave to your genes. It's not a pleasant thought, but your genes are your total make up. They are you. Change one gene and your entire life would be different. Genetic anomalies and mutation are responsible for many of the "syndromes" that develop early on. Downs syndrome, Asperger's (autism), Huntington's disease... the list goes on and on. Not to mention the myriad of genetic disorders that develop later in life.

You know I didn't mean it that way.

 

[Red Rum]

It's my belief that humans, like all animals, are born with this subconscious need to survive long enough to mate and have offspring, a need that may not be written out of our genetics by evolution for a very long time.

I've been muddling over this for a while when it regards the homosexual community and it came to this: my original thinking was that not wanting to do it with the opposite sex was a mutation in our genes, since same gender + same gender = no kids, until I realized that there were gay couples in the world who do in-vitro fertilization to have kids (or at least adopt). Then it dawned on me: Maybe its NOT WANTING KIDS is the genetic mutation, not the want of porking another guy/gal.

Whether gayness is nature or nurture is still up to debate for me, but it's more likely that not wanting offspring at all (or perhaps being born sterile) is a genetic disorder in an individual's evolutionary code.

 

[wogi1000]

It's absolutely nature (look at the gay fruit flies - are you going to tell me they were nurtured?).

However nurture can cause a human to repress their feelings and 'make them straight' despite what turns them on (I know some gay married men).

On the other hand peer pressure may make someone extremely weak willed 'experiment' with another sex, but if it doesn't work for them, they're going to have a hard time pretending to get off to it.

If anything 'nurture' is what stops some gay people from being themselves.

Just because there are examples of "genetic homosexuality" doesn't mean it's true for humans, or all humans. It's proven fetishes can be triggered by our experiences, why couldn't you develop a "gay-fetish" Also, if you read the discussion here, you'll see that homosexuality in animals isn't proof of genetic homosexuality.

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.

You assume it's a matter of trying to raise you to be gay. Subconsciously we gain a lot of input that change our view of the world. You probably won't "turn gay" all of a sudden, but your upbringing can have a vital influence over your subconscious, that shape your personality and even your sexuality. And we're not talking "gay parents raise gay kids" or vice-versa. I do not know what the factors might be, but they can probably be unrelated to sexuality as a whole.

That's not quite the case. Yes, much of our world view is influenced by factors from childhood, and many of the choices we make are determinate on those factors. However, sexuality is itself not a choice. Again, using food as an example, while your upbringing may have a strong influence on the type of food you eat most, your preference for foods will remain unchanged. A large factor of taste is determined by what your body deems it needs most. For example, Gatorade always tastes best when you are approaching dehydration. However, when well hydrated, Gatorade tastes something like cold sweat. Sexual preference is going to fall under the taste category.

 

[Frost_King]

I just cannot help myself.

Technically, you are a slave to your genes. It's not a pleasant thought, but your genes are your total make up. They are you.

Someone has never seen Repo! The Genetic Opera! Have they.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

To those who say if it is genetics then why have they not died out:

Genetics is never, and has never been, simply passing down of genes from two parents to a child but about hortatory traits going back multiple generations, many times so far back you don't even know it is in the blood line at all. If this was not the case, and your 'they would of breed themselves to death' argument was true, we would also have no blonds, no blue eyes and no genetic diseases, no mental illnesses and a huge number of other traits believed to be genetic that still are very common unless the trait is apparent in the parent as well.

This is not the case due to something known as regressive genes.

What really happens when you see these characteristics suddenly emerge is you have actually stumbled across a regressive gene pair. These genes have been passed on through generations, laying dormant and letting the other genes do all the work until suddenly it had the chance to take control. This occurs when it is suddenly paired with a regressive gene on conception, and is no longer being over-written by more dominating characteristics.

Lets move away from sexuality for a moment and focus on something we know is genetics just to prove this point:

Regressive genes are the reason why my mother is 'black,' yet the rest of us are all white. Because aboriginal genes runs through our blood, but are regressive in this case, there is the possibility of a 'throw back.' Personally, I hate that term but it works to describe what is happening. Throw backs occur when genetics align in such a way it brings forth characteristics not seen in the blood line for generations. Many of the modern genetic diseases are believed to be such throw backs, suddenly becoming apparent as we breed more and more outside of our 'traditional' blood lines but likely there in our genes for centuries.

Skin colour is more noticeable as it is multiple genes that control it, which is why we have so many shades and why I am using it as the example here. Because the stars where perfectly aligned when my mother was conceived she happened to throw back to this aboriginal tone even though both her parents are white. Because it is regressive on this one gene pair, and she mated with my father who was white, all her children are pale as ghosts without any showing of these traits. It was just random chance that brought forth this genetic 'throw back' to the point she could easily get aboriginal assistance from the government based on looks alone if she wanted to abuse that system.

So it doesn't matter if gay people have children or not, there will always be gay people born to straight parents, possibly due to genetics.

Damn it, I learned this crap in high school... why didn't you?!

(personally, I think focusing on genes when it comes to homosexuality is mis-leading and it is more likely a combination of external factors while still in the womb and genetics controlling how well we deal with those factors)

Caption: ietardi rim ... remember, never be tardi to rim!

 

[fundayz]

Depends on the person. Some are nature, more are nurture.

 

[DrOswald]

Saying just nature or just nurture is oversimplifying the issue. I think it is far more complex than that, and also depends on a case by case basis. for example, as any competent geneticist will tell you, the level of expression of a given gene depends on a great deal on environmental factors. For all we know the mother's diet while pregnant could effect the expression of said gene at key points in the development of the child's brain, which would greatly effect the orientation of the individual many years in the future. What would that be? Nature or Nurture? The genes were present, so that is a point for nature, but they were only expressed due to an environmental stimulus, so that is a point for nurture.

In addition, we have to take into account the actual orientation of the individual. The binary gay or strait question is inadequate in describing the range of sexual orientation, and adding bi in there barely scratches the surface. For example, is a gay person attracted to the same sex with feminine traits, masculine traits, or either? How much more do they prefer the same sex rather than the opposite? Do they find the prospect of heterosexual intercourse disgusting or just less desirable than homosexual intercourse? Is there attraction to the same sex highly sexual or less sexual? How are all these things related to inherent traits and environmental stimulus?

Furthermore, there has never really been much study into the possibility of choice in the matter of sexual orientation. Can some people change their orientation over time if they work hard enough at it? I know people who claim they chose to be gay. Others say they have no choice in the matter. It is probably true that both are telling the truth. How do we factor this into the equation?

 

[wogi1000]

It's my belief that humans, like all animals, are born with this subconscious need to survive long enough to mate and have offspring, a need that may not be written out of our genetics by evolution for a very long time.

I've been muddling over this for a while when it regards the homosexual community and it came to this: my original thinking was that not wanting to do it with the opposite sex was a mutation in our genes, since same gender + same gender = no kids, until I realized that there were gay couples in the world who do in-vitro fertilization to have kids (or at least adopt). Then it dawned on me: Maybe its NOT WANTING KIDS is the genetic mutation, not the want of porking another guy/gal.

Whether gayness is nature or nurture is still up to debate for me, but it's more likely that not wanting offspring at all (or perhaps being born sterile) is a genetic disorder in an individual's evolutionary code.

Also, not quite. Yes, instinctually people should desire children, otherwise a species wont survive. However, many same sex couples want children just as much as every other household. And it's not just a maternal instinct, just as many male same sex couples adopt as female same sex couples. The female couples are more likely to have children, only due to the option of actually carrying the child.

Also, keep in mind that not all same sex couples have always been that way. Many same sex couples were in healthy relationships with members of the opposite sex, and have children as a result. There are so many cases like this that if you don't know a family that has been affected by this, then you know someone who does.

 

[Jake the Snake]

It's almost definitely nature. Think about it, with all the shit they get for it, and being unable to have kids (which I know some people wouldn't want to have anyway, but I'm guessing a majority of adults do), why would anyone in their right mind CHOOSE to be gay? Now that being said, I know being under extremely traumatic situations or settings in childhood can lead to some weird sexuality issues, but I think those are mostly psychological, and at best are only slightly connected to a person's actual sexuality.

 

[Varya]

It's absolutely nature (look at the gay fruit flies - are you going to tell me they were nurtured?).

However nurture can cause a human to repress their feelings and 'make them straight' despite what turns them on (I know some gay married men).

On the other hand peer pressure may make someone extremely weak willed 'experiment' with another sex, but if it doesn't work for them, they're going to have a hard time pretending to get off to it.

If anything 'nurture' is what stops some gay people from being themselves.

Just because there are examples of "genetic homosexuality" doesn't mean it's true for humans, or all humans. It's proven fetishes can be triggered by our experiences, why couldn't you develop a "gay-fetish" Also, if you read the discussion here, you'll see that homosexuality in animals isn't proof of genetic homosexuality.

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.

You assume it's a matter of trying to raise you to be gay. Subconsciously we gain a lot of input that change our view of the world. You probably won't "turn gay" all of a sudden, but your upbringing can have a vital influence over your subconscious, that shape your personality and even your sexuality. And we're not talking "gay parents raise gay kids" or vice-versa. I do not know what the factors might be, but they can probably be unrelated to sexuality as a whole.

That's not quite the case. Yes, much of our world view is influenced by factors from childhood, and many of the choices we make are determinate on those factors. However, sexuality is itself not a choice. Again, using food as an example, while your upbringing may have a strong influence on the type of food you eat most, your preference for foods will remain unchanged. A large factor of taste is determined by what your body deems it needs most. For example, Gatorade always tastes best when you are approaching dehydration. However, when well hydrated, Gatorade tastes something like cold sweat. Sexual preference is going to fall under the taste category.

Not saying sexuality is a choice, just that it might not purely be genetic. I don't think our choices affect a single thing in our life. Our choices are based on circumstances and genetics, so the choice is only acting on the most logical path available at the moment. However that's another debate.
What I mean is, as with our taste, certain events will change what we like forever. We might be born with preferences, but that doesn't mean it can't be affected. It's true for taste, fashion, and a lot of other things, why not sexuality?