Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Homosexuality Nature V.S. Nurture

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
All,
I have generally beleived that Homosexuality has had to do more with genes than anything else. That is not to say that I was fixated on that belief though, it was just something I tended to believe more than anything. The concept that being gay was a choice seemed more foreign to me for some reason, and plus I had seen more research indicating the "Nature" explanation than anything else. I was having a discussion about this with someone I know who explained that he had listened to someone giving a speech who admitted that he was once Gay. Basically through a combination of factors such as abuse, and other things, he had made the choice to be gay at some point. Then at another point, he had discovered his problem, and changed, and is now straight. Any thoughts on the matter? Have you been convinced one way or another by something you have read or heard?

-P




posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
There's very little data to suggest that "deprogramming" works.
www.anythingbutstraight.com...

Think about it -- if you're hetero (I am) then what kind of pressure do you think would convince you to become homosexual? Do you think that brainwashing or torture would REALLY work? Under some conditions you might be able to force yourself to get away from abuse/rejection, but do you honestly think you could change?

Some of the things they go through are unbelievable -- electroshock, yes that, and shaming ("confessing your sins" to a group and everyone crowds around you and shouts at you that you're a filthy pervert) -- it's a wonder that more people don't commit suicide.

There's currently a rather large flap over the "Love In Action" ...ermm... the politest term for the program I can think of is "boot camp" though it seriously sounds more like a cross between a prison and a concentration camp.

Some details here:
www.mikeditto.com...

www.exgaywatch.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Personally, I believe being gay is not a choice, but how one is born (genes). From a religious standpoint, I think the sin factor kicks in at whether or not you choose to commit the act of intimacy, whatever that may be.

As a Christian, I think its fascinating that Jesus never mentioned it. He was far more preoccupied with the travesties of hypocrisy.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Hmmm, genes? I do not happen to believe that persons are born gay. I lean more toward some sort of social/family type thing. I certainly won't claim to have the answer but to imply that to be gay is a science would seem to imply that there is not a choice in the matter. I think people choose to be gay for reasons probably only known to them.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I think people are born gay.....when I say born gay I mean like it's
a chemical thing ya thing know? Thier mind responds to the same sex the same way that straight people minds respond to the opposite sex.

I also think that people can "become" gay over time. I think both.

Not all gays chose to be gay....it's just the way they are. And some gays chose it over a period of time.....a gradual acceptance.

However I have noticed that with females, especially the ones in HS and college......being gay is kind of like a social trend for some of them. Or being Bi or whatever. Not all females....just a good number of them...enough to notice the trend going on...that's all



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Saying people are "born gay" is like saying then that some are born rich, some poor, some snobby, some just plain silly (of course, that one may be true). I won't get too religious in this thread but I doubt when God created man that he added a "gay gene" that could turn on at any moment without free will. I don't buy it and will admit that my mind is not real open on this subject. But hey, at least I was born adorable!!!

PS: As for your women are gay trend comments........That would be a result of social influence thus I would probably tend to agree more with that one.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
In my humble opinion, it doesn't matter one way or the other. Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness is a constitutional guarantee in my country and if someone wants to be gay, it's no one else darn business.

They should be treated no differantly then anyone else. If they are cruising the parks for sex, arrest them. You'd arrest a hooker for the same darn thing. If they are breaking no laws then how they live their lives is no ones business but their own.

I'm more concerned about the perverts who go around snooping into other peoples private sex lives and condemning the things they don't like. Now THATS some seriously sick behaviour.

Ofcourse, this is mho.

Wupy



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   


That would be a result of social influence thus I would probably tend to agree more with that one.

Yup...it is. I think both are the case...born and enviormental.

I used to think only enviormental...but after reading some stuff and talking to my hot neighbor (ohhh if only she were straight) I think both now.

Im a chrisitan too. And sometimes it's like well....people are "animals" (let's not go there) and animals are not born gay.....so what makes humans different??? why are they "born" gay? if that is the case.

And my mother who used to teach said some of these 6 and 7 yr old boys are super fruity....I meant feminine. And thier households are liek redneck as ever....see my point?



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Im a chrisitan too. And sometimes it's like well....people are "animals" (let's not go there) and animals are not born gay.....so what makes humans different??? why are they "born" gay? if that is the case.



I beg to differ, there are many documented case of animals that are gay. Now whether they are born that way or have simply made a lifestyle choice is something I don't know, but gay animals do exist.

Here's some links:

www.salon.com...

rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com...

www.fyne.co.uk...

www.cockatiel.org...

www.tftb.com...

Hope that clears things up for you


Wupy



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   


I beg to differ, there are many documented case of animals that are gay. Now whether they are born that way or have simply made a lifestyle choice is something I don't know, but gay animals do exist.

Yup, that clears up the animal thing...thanks



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I am Christian but I really never thought of humans as animals in that context. I understand the girly issue in guys is sometimes odd in some familys or social settings but I still don't think they are born that way. If I were to start believe in the born gay theory then I would have to think that men are born to like sports and thus born gay as they do seem awfully friendly to each other when playing sports.........


I am not too concerned what people do in the privacy of their own home and as consenting adults but gay or not, I did not go to the park for a porn show and parents should not have to worry about their kids be molested by nuts and yes, even priests.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
There's very little data to suggest that "deprogramming" works.
www.anythingbutstraight.com...

www.mikeditto.com...

www.exgaywatch.com...



Hey Byrd, those links were enormously informative, thank you. I keep coming back to a particular sentiment, tha since there is no way for me to know what it is like to truly be gay (since I am not) there is no way for me to walk in the other's shoes. Therefore, I find it increasingly difficult to decide one way or another, since there is really no way to test it. To make matters worse, I see points on both sides of the matter. I am really interested in people's insights though . . .

-P



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I love when this topic comes up. The pro-gay people want you believe that being gay is natural. But they tend not to have the same view that humans are part of nature. If humans make a few species of animals go extinct, wouldn't that be natural too? Humans have to natural ability of invention, if one of them inventions destroy the planet (impossible, but what if?) wouldn't that be natural also?



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Humans are a strange animal. We are an amalgam of our parents’ genes. We get our blue eyes from our mother and our nose from our father. But where do we get our preferences from? How do we form our likes and dislikes in today’s society? I think that Kimberly Powell, a professional genealogist, Internet consultant, Web developer, and proud mother of three children, asks this question best: “While it's clear that physical characteristics are hereditary, the genetic waters get a bit more murky when it comes to an individual's behavior, intelligence, and personality. Ultimately, the old argument of nature vs. nurture has never really been won. We do not yet know how much of what we are is determined by our DNA and how much by our life experience. But we do know that both play a part.” I couldn’t agree more. Mrs. Powel goes on to say in her essay:” Some scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behavior.” A very accurate description.

We are a product of many things. Our process of personality formation cannot be narrowed down to just one or two things. We are a conglomerate of our parents as well as our surroundings. Every action we are involved in leaves an impression on us. These impressions are lessons that we either learn from or ignore. Ryan Johnson of the AllPsych Journal explored the result of Homosexuality and looked at both sides of the issue with a nonbiased stance. His exploration of both sides of the debate revealed many interesting things: “Biological theorists have found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument. Experiments in biological research date back as far as the late 1930's, beginning with the pioneering research of Alfred Kinsey (for the University of Indiana) on human sexuality. Kinsey had two goals for his tests: 1) to find out how many adult males engaged in homosexual behavior, and 2) to suggest theories about it came to be . When asked if they had engaged in homosexual sexual relations, a large percent of the population tested answered "no", however when asked if they had engaged in same-sex sexual relations, the percentage answering "yes" nearly doubled. The experiment yielded that 30% of males had experienced at least orgasm in a homosexual act. The results of this research became the widely popularized Kinsey Scale of Sexuality. This scale rates all individuals on a spectrum of sexuality, ranging from 100% heterosexual to 100% homosexual, and everything in between. While establishing that as many as 10% of adult males reported having sexual relations with a same-sex partner, this research did little more than to put the word homosexual into common language.[snip] D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart.” A very in-depth analysis of the nature aspect and the studies done to support this theory.

In Mr. Johnson’s writings about the nurture aspect, it is made clear that genetics is not the only decisive element to forming ones personality: “Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children. Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome. While it is agreed that an element of gender ID is based on the decision made by parents on how to raise the child, the other element is formed with the development of language skills, naming of sexual behaviors and the naming process related to these behaviors. Gender ID is learned over time, and other contributions include the frequency of parental interactions, tolerance of aggression levels, and the vigor of play during childhood. In this, another theory is acknowledged, the Parental Manipulation Theory. This theory is that one or both parents are able to neuter and control offspring to promote their (the parent's) evolutionary fitness, ensuring the passage of genes into the next generation. By selecting only heterosexual practices as acceptable, the parents are attempting to promote their passage of genes . However the Kin-Selection Theory contrasts this. This theory states that it doesn't matter how the genes are passed to the next generation, so long as they are passed along. For example, regardless of a homosexual outcome, the very similar genetic makeup of siblings will still allow for the passage of the family genetics along to the next generation.”
When it comes to the process of our likes and dislikes, even our sexual orientation, we must take into account both nature and nurture. It is really simple mathematics. 1+1=2. Nature + Nurture = personality.












References

Ryan D. Johnson: Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture, allpsych.com...

Kimberly Powell. “Are We Really Born That Way?” Online.
genealogy.about.com...


Thompson and Devine. “Homosexuality: Biologically or Environmentally Constructed?” Online.
jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu...


Hoback, Wyatt. “Lecture 21. Sociality.” Online.
www.unk.edu...



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Memorialday1999
I won't get too religious in this thread but I doubt when God created man that he added a "gay gene" that could turn on at any moment without free will.


Really??? Because I honestly do not remember at what point in my life it was that I "chose, of my own free will" to be hetrosexual. As I recall, I've just always been sexually attracted to women instead of men. But how could that be if it was some sort of "Free Will" option for me to decide???

Oh yah, BTW, did you know that they discovered a sexual preference gene within fruit flies that does in fact change their sexual behavior. www.msnbc.msn.com...

Now obviously we are different genetically than fruit flies, but that possibility of humans also having some genetic predisposition to certain sexual behaviors is extremely likely.


When it comes to the process of our likes and dislikes, even our sexual orientation, we must take into account both nature and nurture. It is really simple mathematics. 1+1=2. Nature + Nurture = personality.


I'll go along with that!! Imagine that, BOTH sides are correct at the same time. It's like saying "Reality is neither Black nor White, but different shades of Gray." Or that the duality of life is an illusion of the One True Thing.

[edit on 12-6-2005 by mOjOm]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
When it comes to the process of our likes and dislikes, even our sexual orientation, we must take into account both nature and nurture. It is really simple mathematics. 1+1=2. Nature + Nurture = personality.


Kidfinger, this was HIGHLY informative. Thank you very much for your contribution to this thread. You have given me much to study, and think about.

-P



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
For anyone who thinks being gay is not genetic, check out this site:

www.healthyplace.com...


Makes you go hmm..



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   
The pheremone link is pretty persuasive. I think there is a perfectly logical reason to adapt to be attracted to the same sex. In populations where there are many men, or many women, or a social construction that limits your access to members of the opposite sex, homosexuality can lead to tangible benefits in safety, gifts, and acceptance.

Humans are animals, complicated animals certainly, but animals none the less.

Homosexuals, historically, do have children some of the time. Bisexuality likely came first and is overexpressed in some individuals. Bisexuality is a very good adaptation for a male if you need to survive in a competetive environment with a lot of other males. If you adapted an anger response to male pheremones, you would not last very long, unless you were Hercules.

Long term, the system worked itself out and we developed a setting for that behavior, because it was occasionally advantageous historically.

So in the end, I think Nature initially, but certainly not in every modern case. There are cases where psychological trauma or personal decision, or any number of other factors contribute to a desire to seek the company of members of the same sex.

I don't see any reason why society should object to it. How does it effect us, what others do in the privacy of their homes? I think the civilized thing to do is say "to each his own" and leave it at that.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by postings


Kidfinger, this was HIGHLY informative. Thank you very much for your contribution to this thread. You have given me much to study, and think about.

-P


You are quite welcome. This is actually an abridged version of a thesis I wrote about a month ago for a Comp class. I thought it would be relavant so I reworked it to shorten the length. It was originally 14 pages


I am glad that I could stimulate your mind



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by postings
Hey Byrd, those links were enormously informative, thank you. I keep coming back to a particular sentiment, tha since there is no way for me to know what it is like to truly be gay (since I am not) there is no way for me to walk in the other's shoes. Therefore, I find it increasingly difficult to decide one way or another, since there is really no way to test it. To make matters worse, I see points on both sides of the matter. I am really interested in people's insights though . . .


Well, you could, actually.

If sexuality is nurture (and not nature) than you and I and everyone else could change who they were attracted to simply by "reprogramming."

In other words, you and I could be (through whatever process) made to become gay.

If sexuality is nature, then no amount of programming could turn us into people interested in the same sex.

I'm all for the "nature" explaination, personally. I can't imagine any amount of training that would get another woman to smell pleasant/attractive to me (I am on the VERY Far end of the Kensey sexuality scale... so far there, that I simply can't tell if a woman is attractive or not. Now, guys... Ohyeah! But women... I have as little interest in them as I do a fishing lure.)

I do believe there's an overlap (just like there's a range of heights), but that unless the person is completely bisexual, no amount of motivation can get them to change their sexuality. I have known bisexuals who went into longterm heterosexual relationships and I've known them to be in longterm homosexual relationships.

But for someone with a non-bisexual orientation (homosexual or heterosexual) I don't think they can be completely and permanently converted.






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join