Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

[Dexiro]

...

Aha I think I've deciphered your viewpoint. Just to make sure, sexuality is governed by who an individual is attracted to. I've said it already but a gay guy can have sex with a female and he'll still be gay, and a straight guy can have sex with guys and still be straight. You can choose who you engage with but you can't choose who you're attracted too.

I just have to double check that you know that. Now you haven't told me your sexuality yet but I do know some bisexuals have trouble understanding that concept, by no fault of their own.

Now what you seem to be arguing is that everyone is bisexual and chooses who they sleep with based on social conditioning. The problem I have with this is that it doesn't seem consistent with what I know. Now being a homosexual I know quite a bit about them ~ you're explanation for homosexuality was something along the lines of homosexuals having some negative disposition towards sexual acts with females, and likewise for the reverse. And while I seem like I'm just going in circles here I'm still struggling to see how this fits in with the whole denial thing.

Their are gays out there that go to "conversion camps" to turn straight and these have never seen success no matter what the determination. This leads me to believe that a persons sexuality is cemented pretty firmly into their psychology and such, unless I'm misunderstanding you make it seem like any gay person could just wake up one day and be attracted to vaginas.

Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself at all but I'm just having trouble pulling bits together.

 

[funguy2121]

I know I know another sexuality thread, I dont know why But I find this "nature vs nurture" argument very interesting, not just in regard to gayness

So I guess the obvious question is: can your secual orientation be influenced by outside..um things, or are you just born that way?

personally I would lean towards the "nature" side of things, not saying that your upbringing cant have an effect but I mean you get people who come from traditional christain nuclear families who are gay, so how do you explain that?

They believe they have found the "gay gene," though I do believe that certain experiences can persuade a person to open up to parts of their sexual personality that are already there. Either way, I don't care. It's immaterial from both a civil rights standpoint and a parenting one. There is nothing you can do to affect the outcome of your child's sexual orientation (actual).

 

[BlueMage]

Your upbringing means precisely zip. Sexuality (ie, who you want to fuck) is determined pretty much pre-birth. Characterisation and mannerisms (ie, telling them you want to fuck) is what's influenced by upbringing.

Also, can those of you saying "well, we can't tell for sure." please stop. Do some research, practice your google-fu and educate yourself. There's no shame in saying "I don't know" but there's a shit-tonne in saying "and I don't want to either"

 

[CODE-D]

I think the whole "born this way" thing is bull.

 

[cobra_ky]

Both for sure, the metric I use is Cher's Son/Daughter/Thing. Genetics may have had something to do with it, but you can't deny that mommy and his/her/it's childhood had some kind of effect.

Please explain the supposedly undeniable effect being raised by Cher had on Chaz Bono's gender identity.

 

[JMeganSnow]

So I guess the obvious question is: can your secual orientation be influenced by outside..um things, or are you just born that way?

Yes.

This is a classic example of the wrong sort of question to be asking, because it makes an invalid assumption: that ANYTHING humans do is the direct, traceable result of either nature or nurture.

The truth is WAY more complex than this. If you have two identical twins and one develops schizophrenia, it's 50/50 whether the other twin will also develop schizophrenia. But isn't schizophrenia a physical disorder? They have the same nature and as close to the same nurture as is possible. So what gives?

Better questions to ask would be along the lines of:

Do people *consciously* choose to be gay? Or straight? From what I understand, the answer to this is an unmodified negative. The only part of your mind you have direct immediate control over is your conscious mind, and it is *incredibly* limited in scope and application. You can use your conscious mind to (eventually) exert control over the other parts of your mind in various ways, and even make changes over time (such as shedding habits or taking up new ones). In theory it might be possible for a very strong-willed person who was superb at introspection to gradually shift their desires one way or the other, but that's an incredible amount of work to go through to fix a *personality quirk* that, as far as I can tell, has no significance whatsoever.

Is it possible to "make" someone gay? Or straight? On purpose or by accident? Also an unqualified negative. If it was possible to make over someone else's personality in this way, I think people would be DOING it, and for far more purposes than getting someone to like penises instead of vaginas. Thus far all of my housemate's efforts to make me remember to take out the trash have been in vain, and trust me, that pisses him off far more than anyone's particular anatomy-rubbing practices.

Frankly, the only thing about the issue I find concerns me the least bit is why some people place such huge moral significance on other people's anatomy-rubbing practices. HONESTLY. It's like making a huge moral issue out of whether or not people trim their fingernails.

 

[smegmar]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue mage said:
Your upbringing means precisely zip. Sexuality (ie, who you want to fuck) is determined pretty much pre-birth. Characterisation and mannerisms (ie, telling them you want to fuck) is what's influenced by upbringing.

Also, can those of you saying "well, we can't tell for sure." please stop. Do some research, practice your google-fu and educate yourself. There's no shame in saying "I don't know" but there's a shit-tonne in saying "and I don't want to either"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I still have a dodgey quote button


you couldn't be more wrong. How can genetics select a target for sexual attraction? genes don't know what a man looks like. How can they program you to like something they don't know. Also read my previous posts. Are you are saying that I have no free thoughts of my own and everything I will think is programmed from birth? If you believe sexual attraction is solely controlled by genetics then you agree that pedophiles, rapist, bestialists and scatists are just acting by genetics and have no power over it. You're one sick puppy.

As for research and google-fu
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm

you'll find that real science supports the Nurture side of the argument.

 

[Shycte]

2-5% nature, rest nurture.

Have you seen in sweden how they're using a word between "he" and "she" for every child?

Yeah, don't let's discriminate, and sexually confuse everyone in the process >.>

Didn't you make a thread about that? You really are mad about this aren't you?

Anway, I'd say it is a combination of both. I mean, as far as I've understood it, it was common to have male lovers back in the days. Like, before Jesus and all that. It mostly became a "thing" with Christianity. Before that you'd just fuck whatever was fuckable.

As I've understood it.

 

[DannibalG36]

You know what's also naturally encoded in DNA? Genes that inspire alcoholism, kleptomania, and serial killings. Or so various scientists have at one point or another declared. This is why science is not to be trusted absolutely.

The problem is, the factors governing sexuality are fucking myriad, if you look at the problem from a rational or scientific viewpoint.

It's much tidier to say that God made the person that way, which is where the Christians have a leg up in the debate surrounding homosexuals.

But it boggles my mind why evolution would let a biologically useless urge survive in DNA. Then again, DNA also provides for other biologically useless functions, such as the WBC urge to picket - they are so asking to have their genetic line wiped off the face of the earth.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

2-5% nature, rest nurture.

Have you seen in sweden how they're using a word between "he" and "she" for every child?

Yeah, don't let's discriminate, and sexually confuse everyone in the process >.>

Didn't you make a thread about that? You really are mad about this aren't you?

Anway, I'd say it is a combination of both. I mean, as far as I've understood it, it was common to have male lovers back in the days. Like, before Jesus and all that. It mostly became a "thing" with Christianity. Before that you'd just fuck whatever was fuckable.

As I've understood it.

Unless I was extremely drunk, I don't think so... I've made a thread about matlabing the age rule a while ago, and that's about it unless you have a really good memory.

I could have posted in a thread like that though *shrug*

I don't think anyone denies it's a combination any more.

 

[t3h br0th3r]

2-5% nature, rest nurture.

Have you seen in sweden how they're using a word between "he" and "she" for every child?

Yeah, don't let's discriminate, and sexually confuse everyone in the process >.>

Didn't you make a thread about that? You really are mad about this aren't you?

Anway, I'd say it is a combination of both. I mean, as far as I've understood it, it was common to have male lovers back in the days. Like, before Jesus and all that. It mostly became a "thing" with Christianity. Before that you'd just fuck whatever was fuckable.

As I've understood it.

Unless I was extremely drunk, I don't think so... I've made a thread about matlabing the age rule a while ago, and that's about it unless you have a really good memory.

I could have posted in a thread like that though *shrug*

I don't think anyone denies it's a combination any more.

I think we are confusing sexuality as whom a person was predisposed at birth to feel romanticly attracted to with sexuality in terms of who a person dates/has sex with. Its not Nature vs Nurture, its Nature vs(or in concordance with) What the person wants. what the person wants in heavily influenced by the times they grow up in (nurturing and such).

I think that even though we are born being naturally straight, Gay, Bi, ect, its possible for us to will ourselves into unnatural actions, hince how you get gay people in straight relationships or straight people seeming to go bi.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

Nature, but your prefrences that you have in regards to looks, fetishes, kinks, and whatnot are probably based in nurture. When I was a psychology major, I wanted to do research into this kind of thing.

Also, there was actually a scientist back in the 90s I think that did research on homosexual men's brains and found that they actually had an underdeveloped part of the brain. I think it was the hypothalamus gland, but it's been a while since I read about it, so I might be wrong. The point is that he seemed to believe that it was a physiological thing. Sadly, because he was homosexual, and was doing the research on brains because his partner had died of a massive stroke or tumor or something, it was largely discredited from what I understand.

 

[p3t3r]

Well, are tall people tall because of the way they were raised?

Besides, a straight couple raised the first gay person.

well people in developed countries are taller than people in non-developed countries due to an increase in nutrition in there diets. so a taller person can be tall based on the way they were raised.

i would say there is a bit a both it isn't entirely one way or another.

 

[Pyro Paul]

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.
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...

what? again... are you just saying stupid stuff to taunt me or do you truely belive the lies you spout?

Instincts are learned. they are not hereditary artifacts of genetics...
If you believe instinct is genetic... then why are you not doing exactly what your great great grandfather did for a living?

you're just trying to troll now because you have no idea what you're talking about and only providing counter points with out adding anything to the discussion. You have yet to provide any real input and are just circle jerking around issues that you can't disprove.

just a simple question
if we are genetically ingrained to be sexual...
explain celibacy.

 

[DarkenedWolfEye]

just a simple question
if we are genetically ingrained to be sexual...
explain celibacy.

Celibacy is a forced behavior of unhealthy repression. It is to deny natural urges coded into our subconscious; the sexual urge exists to stop the human race from dying out. Even if you lived in a world where no one talked about sex or even acknowledged its existence (and there was such a time when that was the societal norm) you would still, on some level, be aware of sex and still crave the experience.
Now, answer me this simple question:
If sexual behavior, and therefore sexual orientation, is strictly a learned behavior (and I reinforce that it don't believe that's true) explain how children raised by straight parents and siblings grow up to be homosexual.

 

[Olrod]

I knew I was gay since the age of about 4 years old, so anyone who says nature has nothing to do with it has just been proven wrong.

 

[Wintermoot]

Nature some homosexual,s grew up in homophobic environment,s so why should they become gay by that?

 

[Dan Steele]

Considering you're 500% more likely to be homosexual if anyone in your family is homosexual, I'd say mostly nature.

Really? What's that based on? My understanding was that adopted children of gay couples had no increased chance of being homosexual link.

By family I mean genetically. And it was the Atheist Experience quite some months ago.

Nature, they tested this with monkeys. Homosexuality is literaly a genetic counter measure against overpopulation.

How come families with homosexuals in them have more children on average than "normal" families?

Because they adopt?

 

[Pegghead]

While I'd say it's undeniable that the attraction stems from nature it's how people act regarding it that stems from nurture.

I mean let's face it, if somebody with an attraction to their sex grew up in an extremely conservative environment then they probably wouldn't be very open about it. Take that same person and plant them in the middle of Mardis Gras (The Sydney kind) and they're probably going to act alot differently.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

1) This is a relatively pointless thing to discuss since the answer isn't dependent on personal feelings, it's dependent on facts. This is like asking "do you personally feel that the Higgs boson exists?"

2) The facts right now are pretty inconclusive. Saying that it's "undeniable" or "obvious" is completely ludicrous. We have no idea.

3) The whole thing gets incredibly more complicated when you consider that any experiences you have (nurture) are mediated by your pre-existing structure (nature). It becomes really hard to even know what the question is asking at that point.

4) Twin studies suggest some sort of link, but this goes back to #3: separated twins are more likely than average to share sexuality, but it's effectively impossible to know why. Maybe they both end up homosexual because there's some societal pressure on people who look that way to end up homosexual. Tastes show a similar pattern for separated twins, so maybe there's some social pressure we never noticed toward people who like certain foods to be homosexual. It's pretty unknowable.

5) The "gay gene" research is very nearly as fraught with peril. Genes don't come with little stickers on them. It may even be the case that 100% of gay people possess a certain gene that 100% of straight people lack, but you still have no idea if that's the gene that leads people to like a particular shade of orange that just so happens to lead to the kind of experiences that make someone gay.

Most importantly: why on earth do we care so much? Why is our best argument for accepting homosexuality that homosexuals were born that way and "can't help it"? I understand that this is potentially persuasive to the fucking assholes who continue to have a problem with these things, but why do we spend so much time pandering to them? Imagine if the main argument against racism were "I know you think black people are inferior, but it's genetic and they can't help it, so it would be nice if you would just tolerate them". Even if the nurture people end up right (assuming we find some version of the question where it's even possible to say what being right would mean), are we going to ostracise people who wear glasses because we think poor eyesight is a negative quality and they weren't born with glasses?

It blows my fucking mind that people think they're being progressive by supporting these genetic arguments. What you're really doing is prolonging the fight by making it about something completely inconclusive when the fact of the matter is that the best argument for accepting homosexuality is the simplest: why not? The only argument against it is that some guy told you it's bad. Instead of leveraging our absurd argumentative advantage, we constantly shoot ourselves in the feet trying to find some other question to argue about because we know that, in reality, everyone on both sides knows how bad the arguments against it are.