Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[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?

 

[Crazy_Bird]

obligatory viewing regarding this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m27Awmlgi38

 

[Raregolddragon]

Homosexuality is just a fad if you ask me. Its the cool or hip or fashionable thing to be or do right now so a lot of weak willed humans fallow it. Kinda of like with diet crazes.

Just like disco and Communism.

It will blow out in a another decade or so.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

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.

I think it is time to pull this out:
http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Audio/Audio.htm

Go to the parents link and listen as it sums this post up so greatly.

 

[EvilRoy]

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?

Sorry to just jump in here, but I feel obligated to mention the view of homosexuality 50-150 years ago. In general people were aware of it, but it was condemned by the church on moral and spiritual grounds (meant alot more back then) and was usually deemed an offence by police. Meaning that you could be socially ruined (once again, meant alot more back then) AND damned to hell AND sent to juliet if you got caught in the arms of another of the same gender.
In spite of this there was still a number of men (you never hear about this with women, don't know why) who actively participated in certain social clubs that forgave the indiscretions of its members. Based on the intense social stigma attached to homosexuality at the time, as well as the real legal ramifications of taking part in it, I honestly have a hard time believing that any amount of nurture would be involved in an individuals sexual preference.

 

[Sparrow]

I don't know.

What? Atleast I'm being honest. I have no clue, it could be either. I'm usually more on the nuture side of things, but with sexuality I can honestly say I have no idea. As a straight male who has a pretty average kind of life, I suppose I could say life would have been different if I'd have grown up in a gay bar. That's just a guess, though.

 

[kikon9]

Speaking as a homosexual, I have to say it seemed more like something I developed over time than something I was born with.

Also, I just doubt that a "gay gene" exists, if only because such a gene would rarely get passed on.

 

[Varya]

Sorry to just jump in here, but I feel obligated to mention the view of homosexuality 50-150 years ago. In general people were aware of it, but it was condemned by the church on moral and spiritual grounds (meant alot more back then) and was usually deemed an offence by police. Meaning that you could be socially ruined (once again, meant alot more back then) AND damned to hell AND sent to juliet if you got caught in the arms of another of the same gender.
In spite of this there was still a number of men (you never hear about this with women, don't know why) who actively participated in certain social clubs that forgave the indiscretions of its members. Based on the intense social stigma attached to homosexuality at the time, as well as the real legal ramifications of taking part in it, I honestly have a hard time believing that any amount of nurture would be involved in an individuals sexual preference.

I think you are confusing what I mean with "being nurtured" It's not necessarily positive things that shape our sexuality. It doesn't even have to have any thing to do with sex. An experience can subconsciously influence you and make you associate some things with emotions. This can later evolve in to sexual preferences.
Now I believe that homosexuality is mostly a genetic thing, but I believe it doesn't have to be, or isn't always. Sometimes an event can "trigger" a latent homosexuality, sometimes it can be totally artificially created, and sometimes it's pure genes. In the end, it's emotions, and they are real no matter how we acquired them

 

[Dexiro]

Eep double post, ignore this.

 

[Varya]

Homosexuality is just a fad if you ask me. Its the cool or hip or fashionable thing to be or do right now so a lot of weak willed humans fallow it. Kinda of like with diet crazes.

Just like disco and Communism.

It will blow out in a another decade or so.

Oh God I so hope you are trolling...It's been around for millennia, and people have been killed for standing up for themselves. Lots of people kill themselves every year because they hate what they are. People get bullied, hated, pushed out of their families because they are weak willed?
I'm so disgusted I have to keep myself in check not to pull a warning in my ass, and even if I'd got one, it might be worth it.

 

[Dexiro]

It's both. Nature and nurture, with nature being the most important aspect. And either way your sexuality isn't a choice, the closer you get to puberty the more your sexuality is set in stone.

This forum needs a "sexuality" section >.>

 

[bombadilillo]

Speaking as a homosexual, I have to say it seemed more like something I developed over time than something I was born with.

Also, I just doubt that a "gay gene" exists, if only because such a gene would rarely get passed on.

This is a common arguement and a false one. Gay men tend to have female relatives that produce a lot of offspring. So the "gay genes" (most traits are not one gene but a combo of many different ones) is passed on through relatives.

So gay men may be a side affect of strong fertility in a female line. It is unnessesary to pass you genes on themselves for them to live on.

 

[Trololo Punk]

Nature with nurture being an influence of how "open" they are to others and such.

 

[randomrob]

Both, mostly nature though. Otherwise it would be "treatable".


Disclaimer: the inverted commas are there for a reason, I have no problem with homosexuality and am in fact bisexual.

 

[LikeDustInTheWind]

A mix of both, but mostly nature. Homosexuality occurs naturally in animals, if that doesn't say something nothing does.

 

[Zukhramm]

I don't know enough about genetics to actually say something on this subject and I suspect most people who do say something also lack the knowledge to do so. Most of all I do not see how it's relevant to anything.

 

[DrOswald]

Speaking as a homosexual, I have to say it seemed more like something I developed over time than something I was born with.

Also, I just doubt that a "gay gene" exists, if only because such a gene would rarely get passed on.

Actually, while a gay gene from a reproductive competitiveness point of view seems unlikely, it would most likely be recessive (requires 2 copies to be expressed) as that would allow carriers (people with only 1 copy) to pass the gene to their children. Alternatively, having 1 copy of the "gay gene" might have a competitive advantage of some sort. To give an example of how this works, there is a genetic illness know as sickle cell anemia. A recessive illness, it requires 2 copies of the gene to express. It causes several problems, some of which can be lethal. It is certainly a competitive disadvantage. We would therefore predict that it's frequency in a population would decrease. However, the gene survives and thrives in Africa. This is because having even one copy of the gene grants immunity to malaria, an extremely deadly disease. Where ever there is malaria, the sickle cell anemia gene is an advantage.

Furthermore, the gay gene may only be expressed under certain environmental stimulus, further complicating the issue.

Also, as is the case with most attributes, there are likely many genes that contribute to sexual orientation, all of which may have their own expression conditions and effects.

Genetics is a really complicated subject.

 

[Varya]

I don't know enough about genetics to actually say something on this subject and I suspect most people who do say something also lack the knowledge to do so. Most of all I do not see how it's relevant to anything.

I think you just summarized the internet.

 

[Versago]

Speaking as a gay man and a follower of science: Its probably a combo of both, but science 'has better things to do than find out'.

Although I did hear that to protect their unborn children, pregnant mother's wombs secrete estrogen over the child - making it more 'like the mother' and not a foreign object that antibodies will attack. The more times the mother becomes pregnant, the more ready to do this her body is, and therefor the more estrogen the child gets doused in.
Therefore from a biological standpoint the more children a woman has, the more likely the girls are to be 'pretty' (apparently an effect brought on by high estrogen levels), and the more likely the boys are to be feminine and perhaps gay?

Also, I hang out with a biologist and a forensic-psychologist so that's where this stuff comes from.

My personal answer is "I'm here, I'm queer, and you're in my way - please pray for my soul somewhere else"

 

[DrOswald]

Both, mostly nature though. Otherwise it would be "treatable".


Disclaimer: the inverted commas are there for a reason, I have no problem with homosexuality and am in fact bisexual.

Not necessarily. If the something that went "wrong" was caused by environment it may equally untreatable. It's like if a child accidentally lost an arm when they were very young. That is certainly an environmental factor, but is equally untreatable as being born without an arm.

Same disclaimer, except I am strait.