| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Nature or Nurture |
| Just Nature |
|
18% |
[ 11 ] |
| Just Nurture |
|
5% |
[ 3 ] |
| Both - but more nature |
|
32% |
[ 19 ] |
| Both - but more nurture |
|
28% |
[ 17 ] |
| Equally Both |
|
15% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 59 |
|
| Author |
Message |
fuji
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Post Count: 7067
Location: North Sparrow Pass
9643133 Potch
16500 Soldiers
100 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
Behaviour psychologists believe your personality and behaviour patterns are formed in the first 5 years of your life. If you accept that as the truth then most kids would know (if they can accept it) at a very young age.
However, I wouldn't rule out nature. There may be a chemical difference or something that current day science cannot describe. I wouldn't put anything past nature.
_________________
______ "We're still flying"
___ "That's not much"
"It's enough" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Earthquake923
SB90's Mechanized Monsters
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Post Count: 1982
Location: Terana Plains
179201 Potch
0 Soldiers
778121 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't really think it's something genetically inherited, because if you're parents are gay, you're probably adopted </JOKE IN BAD TASTE>
|
Actually it's not in bad taste. It's a good fact. Most of the children of gay couples are adopted. And I am sure Wataru, Deloseth, and I aren't the only gay people on the board. As far as I can remeber I was attracted to the same sex, but didn't understand why until I understood what sex was. And on a side note a pair of penguins were known homosexuals also.
_________________
If anybody asks about the avatar, I did it for Jess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcana
The Engineers
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2035
Location: Lion's Maw
190546 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So far, there hasn't been any indication that geneticists have found a "gay gene", meaning that if homosexuality is entirely "nature", there's evidence about differing brain patterns between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Still, back in the 1930's, as many as 30% of men reported that they had a sexual orgasm with a person of the same sex. That's a lot of experimentation, there.
Even if homosexuality is "nature", the fact that many people are willing to explore relationships with people of the same sex appears to be more of a socially-driven thing.
Below I've quoted an article that is relevant to the topic.
| http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html wrote: |
AllPsych Journal
Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture
Ryan D. Johnson
April 30, 2003
In recent decades, many hotly debated topics have come under the scrutiny of sociobiologists, trying to determine their causation and origins. One such topic is homosexuality. Originally thought by the American Psychological Association (hereafter referred to as APA) to be a mental disorder, research into its causes, origins, and development have consequently led to its removal by the APA from its list of diagnoses and disorders [1]. Many different theories can be found regarding the root of homosexuality, as far back historically as Ancient Greece. The current debate is whether or not homosexuality is a result of nature: a person's environment and surroundings, or of his biology and genetics. The debate endures because both sides have the ability to create a scientific environment to support their cause. For example, biological theorists may argue that a monkey and human child, reared in the same setting, will develop with vastly different outcomes, while social theorists may argue that monozygotic twins, one reared normally and the other raised in seclusion for 18 years, will also develop with vastly different results, but different even more from the first scenario [4].
In debating sexual orientation, much is unknown; according to Charles Darwin, "...we do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality. The whole subject is hidden in darkness." [2]. Although the APA currently states that sexual orientation is not a choice, rather that "...it emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience"[1], social theorists argue that an individual's upbringing can directly influence this [sexual orientation]. Also tied in with many of these debates is the morality of homosexuality. But the purpose of this examination is not to prove whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, but rather to establish a thorough understanding of the biological and social theories surrounding the cause of homosexuality.
Let us first look at the biological debate. 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 [9]. 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 [7]. 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.
Karen Hooker executed the first psychological test done to test for biological determinism in 1957, on a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health [2]. The study was meant to explore the relationship between homosexuality and psychological development and illness. Hooker studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Both groups were matched for age, intelligence quotient (IQ) and education level, and were then subjected to three psychological tests. These three tests, the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and the Make-A-Picture-Story Test (MAPS), were then analyzed by psychologists, and the results were tabulated. The results of Hooker's experiment yielded no significant differences in answers on any of the three tests. Because both groups' answers scored very similarly, she concluded a zero correlation between social determinism of sexuality.
As a result of Hooker's finding, the APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA finally stated, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality" [2].
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 [2].
At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind.
Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of the human brain in 1991. LeVay, like Swaab and Allen also did a post-mortem examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses. He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of 38.2, 16 presumed heterosexual men, with a mean age of 42.8, and 6 presumed heterosexual women, with a mean age of 41.2 [3]. LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon. LeVay concluded the "homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior", and like Allen and Swaab, agreed that this difference in anatomy was no product of upbringing or environment, but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation [2].
Another line of testing done to support the biological perspective are neuroendocrine studies. The neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures [7]. If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7].
A popular route of experimentation in general psychology also did not elude the biological argument. Twin studies have become a highly debated area of experimentation. Ernest Kallman conducted the earliest twin study. He found a 100% concordance between monozygotic (or identical) twins (MZ), and only a 12% concordance for dizygotic (or fraternal) twins (DZ). Although discredited with methodological problems, the early experiment paved the way for a much-publicized team to conduct their twin studies.
J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies. Later experimenters found similar evidence in females. One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage. He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. He found that there was a 'remarkable concordance' for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28 [2].
Hamer hypothesized upon examining the family trees of the same men that on each subject's mother's side, there were markedly larger numbers of homosexual men, all stemming through the maternal lineages. This observation, along with his startling discovery on Xq28, led his findings to be dubbed the "gay gene study". The statistical probability of the 5 genetic markers on Xq28 to have matched randomly was calculated to be 1/100,000 [2], lending even more support to his findings.
This finding of a possible 'gay gene' prompts a look into two evolutionary concepts, and how they are affected. The Superior Heterozygote Theory states the phenotypic (actual) expression of homosexuality is the result of homozygosity for recessive (non-expressed but present) genes [11]. In simplification, if the person's genetic code is heterozygotic (one homosexual gene and one heterosexual gene), if the homosexual allele (half of the genetic code) is the allele passed on to the next generation, it will become the phenotype. Heterozygotes are only capable of being passed through to the next generation by mothers (as the Y-chromosome is incapable of heterozygosity), this again links homosexuality to X-linkage.
While all of this scientific experimentation and conclusion seems evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced. This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors, not biological ones. Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality. Often they examine childhood play patterns, early peer interactions and relations, differences in parental behavior toward male and female children, and the role of gender constancy in the household [9].
The social argument for homosexuality dates back to the ancient Greeks. Aristophanes, in his Symposium investigates homosexuality, although not termed as such, as a desire by men to share a long-term fulfillment of the soul. He believed that two souls are longing to be together, and the sexual desire alone is not strong enough to create homosexuality, but that the cultural environment allows or forbids the relationship to occur [10]. In Greece is it well known that many men engaged in same-sex relationships, however, these were not equal relationships, they were older men to young boys going through the transition to adulthood. Two instances where the culture is a causative agent of homosexual expression are in New Guinea and Crete. In some tribes in New Guinea, young boys ages 8-15 are inseminated daily by the young male warriors of the tribe. In Crete, every adolescent boy undertook a homosexual relationship as a rite of passage into manhood [10]. In these two instances, the homosexuality is accepted; however, it can be argued that it is also forced, not a natural expression.
Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole. 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 [7].
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 [9]. 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 [5]. 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 [9].
Two predominant social theorists on homosexuality are David Halperin and Jean Foucault. Although both social theorists, both have largely contrasting ideas on the environmental contributions to the formation of an individual's homosexuality. Halperin believed in Planophysical theory. This theory believes that homosexuality is a freak of nature, an error. His theory follows in the tradition of psychological theory on this subject. Halperin was a Freudian psychologist, and places stock in Freud's idea that homosexuality is derived from a failure to resolve Oedipal issues [10]. Although Halperin has a large following from interest groups such as Christian coalitions, his theory is largely disrespected by the psychological community at large, as it provides only a result, not a cause. He fails to produce any scientific evidence. He does, however, provide examples. He postulates that a weak father and strong mother, with an unresolved Oedipus complex will lead to a weak, and then homosexual, son, because the mother has too strong of an image, compared to the weak state of the father. Psychologists argue that this same arrangement would also possibly lead to a stronger son, striving for compensation of his father's weakness.
Jean Foucault argues, "...homosexuality became because we made it so" [11]. Foucault says that the category of homosexuality itself was only created a mere one hundred years ago, after a German neologism coined some twenty years later. Foucault gives root to the social derivation of homosexuality believing that homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality, only "after it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul" [10]. The theorists believe that the homosexual had been an aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself with a new word.
Although both theorists represent the major ideas of the socioenviromental belief, there are three differences in the two theories. The first is based on the depth of desire. Foucault believed that the depth of desire is only sexual preference, that it is nothing more than superficial tastes and preferences. Halperin contrasts this with saying that homosexuality does go deeper than superficial tastes, and that homosexuality is a psychological condition, with much deeper roots than mere sexual preference. The second major difference is that Foucault did not divide people into categories. Halperin acknowledged that there are three general categories of people in respect to sexuality: heterosexual, gay men, and lesbians. Foucault groups gay men and lesbians into the all-inclusive term of homosexual. The third difference is that Halperin see homosexuality as a symmetrical and equal relationship, Foucault believes that historically, as far back as the Greeks, before the term was coined, homosexuality has always been unequal, differences in race, age, education and social status influencing the 'superficial' tastes and preferences of the men influenced.
We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. Some believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the Holy Grail of homosexuality research, the elusive 'gay gene'. Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin. Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.
WORKS CITED
[1] APA Online. "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality". Online. 11 April 2003. Available http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html.
[2] "Biological Basis for Homosexuality." Online. 8 April 2003. Available
http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html
[3] Bull, James J. and Pease, Craig M. "Biological Correlates of Being Gay" Online. 11 April 2003. Available http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Gay/Text.html.
[4] Fujita, Frank. "The Nature-Nurture Controversy." Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://www.iusb.edu/~ffujita/Documents/nn.html
[5] Hoback, Wyatt. "Lecture 21. Sociality." Online. 11 April 2003. Available http://www.unk.edu/acad/biology/hoback/2002bio470/470lecture21.htm.
[6] Moberly, Elizabeth R. Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. James Clarke and Co.; Cambridge, MA, 1983.
[7] Pillard, Richard. "NPR Letters on the Biological Basis of Homosexuality." Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/ npr_letters_on_the_biological_ba.htm
[8] Sullivan, Andrew. Virtually Normal: an Argument about Homosexuality. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY, 1995.
[9] Thompson and Devine. "Homosexuality: Biologically or Environmentally Constructed?" Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/ HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html
[10] Thorp, John. "The Social Construction of Homosexuality." Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html
[11] Taylor, Tim. "Current Theories on the Genesis of Homosexuality." Online. 11 April 2003. Available http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/ papers/twin_studies/theories.html.
The information provided on this site is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient, site visitor, or student and his/her existing psychologist, mental health provider or college instructor.
Copyright © 1999-2003, AllPsych and Heffner Media Group, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Last Updated April 28, 2004
Site Meter visitors since September 23, 2002
|
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Earthquake923
SB90's Mechanized Monsters
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Post Count: 1982
Location: Terana Plains
179201 Potch
0 Soldiers
778121 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So far, there hasn't been any indication that geneticists have found a "gay gene", meaning that if homosexuality is entirely "nature", there's evidence about differing brain patterns between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
|
I do know that a part of the brain has a differnt size in homosexuals. So it could be a way, or amount of certin chemicals are released into the body.
_________________
If anybody asks about the avatar, I did it for Jess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vincent Chase
1st H.A.C - Spread Your Love
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2608
Location: Crystal Valley
314554 Potch
0 Soldiers
400 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I voted for Both, but mostly nature.
First of all, I'll talk about why I voted both. Using a friend of mine form high school as an example, he found the environment very harsh and socially competitive. He came out to me and a few people and I supported him, but he still asked that we not tell anyone. Someone who wasn't me let it slip, and then HS worked like it does; He had a week at the school where he was the hot topic and everyone made a comment, but then a week later exactly, something else happened to someone else and everybody forgot. When it was out of the way, he was fine to be himself because he was a popular guy, friends with almost everyone (I think he's in the Advertising business now and doing really well). Sure, a comment was heard here and there, but he didn't care, and though I'm sure they got to him, they were the exception rather than the rule.
The point of the story? If a person is gay (and I use that term to cover both genders), they will be much more compelled to come out in an environment that they think is welcoming, because we're all t he same. All we want is to be accepted. This covers the nurture aspect of the equation.
Trevoke says:
| Quote: |
There is observed behavior of homosexual behavior in sheep and in.. what was that other creature.. sea lions? I forget, I always forget the other name.. And that's just what's been observed so far.
Oh, I forgot that homosexuality has also been observed in the human. |
Actually, it's been observed in many animals including (but not limited to): Bottlenose Dolphins, Walruses, Bison, Bonobos and some species of Penguins. This nicely leads into...
Good old nature. I agree that people don't become gay. If you're born gay, you'll probably know and understand from a really young age (like Wataru14 said). I'm not even going to suggest that gay people are genetically different, because it's not true, but it's some cognitive thing that controls the drive. Or, like Blasphemy said, it could be the realization of your personality at a young, age, which is very true, because it reflects largely on the conditions of nature (your personality) and slightly less on nurture (you're ability to realize and accept your thoughts about it).
That's the reason I voted for Both, but mostly nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevoke
The missing liberty
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Post Count: 1924
Location: Madra
25000 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
because it reflects largely on the conditions of nature (your personality) and slightly less on nurture (you're ability to realize and accept your thoughts about it).
I think it's important to define both nature and nurture... It looks like everyone has a good grasp on nature.
Nurture is the society that surrounds you from your infancy on. Parents, siblings, neighbors, friends of the family, relatives... Nurture is "outside" of you, nature is "inside" of you.
_________________
There are weapons you cannot hold in your hand.
You can only hold them in your mind.
-- Bene Gesserit Teaching |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Demon King's Ambition
Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Post Count: 2201
Location: Roble Viviente
41 Potch
1150 Soldiers
25 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I grew up in a semi-religious home with no homosexual influence. I was nerver abused as a child. I was always told te natural way to go about life is to marry a woman and have kids.
Yet I'm homosexual.
I truly doubt that the environment has very little, if anything to do with sexual orientation. Simply put, I was never into girls. When other guys started to go on about how good looking one was, or how they want her babies, It never clicked. When I was little, I always knew something was making me feel akward around my freinds, but I never quite new what it was. Puberty hit, and I understood just what was so different.
I mean, how many people would willinly choose to live a lifestyle that a good chunk of older people think is disgusting? One where all the Women get sterotyped into an ugly overly butch chick, and all men are Namby pampy fancy pants afraid of breaking their freshly trimmed nails.
Sure, with some people environment may have some kind of standing, but I genuinly do not think that's the case for the vast majority.
_________________
To relive those Halcyon days of youth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camus the Noble
Les Renés
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My vote was cast for "Both -- but more Nature."
It is my opinion that everyone has a "natural" sexual orientation (or lack thereof; people can be asexual). That said, the environment in which a person grows up can have a profound effect on that person's behavior, and there's no good reason why sexuality should be excluded from that rule. If things happen to you at a young age that cause you to associate heterosexuality or homosexuality with "good" or "bad," you may be averse to or be attracted to a certain orientation.
For example, back in the Middle Ages, homosexual behavior was, in all likelihood, much less common than it is today, because it was less accepted. However, to say that no one was attracted to members of the same gender as themselves is just misinformed. More likely, people weren't actively homosexual because they knew it could get them sawed in half.
One recent example of the effect of stigma is the movie "Brokeback Mountain." For those of you not familiar with the film, it chronicles the love affair of two men, cowboys, who meet in the 1950s atop the mountain for which the movie is named. The men, because society does not accept homosexuality, are at first reluctant to give into their desires. The more reluctant of the two, it is later revealed, grew up in a town where a gay man was murdered in a truly horrifying fashion.
Of course, "Brokeback Mountain" is a work of fiction. But is there any doubt that similar situations have happened in the past and, sadly, will continue to happen?
Still, I believe that Nature is the primary ingredient in a person's sexual orientation. Homosexuals can love just as heterosexuals can. And I do believe that love is something rooted deeply in human Nature. Of course, there are Freud's theories that love does not exist at all, that it's simply lust, but I reject that. I think love is something more, whatever form it comes in.
By the way: I realize that this topic isn't explicitly about hetero- and homosexual equality, but this is something I've been thinking about that does pertain to this topic. Those against gay rights say that it's because homosexuality is a "choice," and the reasoning goes that it is the wrong "choice." However, even if homosexuality is a choice, does that make it right to discriminate against homosexuals? It's certainly not right to discriminate on the basis of religion, even though religious affiliation is a choice (or at least, it can be). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcana
The Engineers
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2035
Location: Lion's Maw
190546 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Earthquake923 wrote: |
| Quote: |
So far, there hasn't been any indication that geneticists have found a "gay gene", meaning that if homosexuality is entirely "nature", there's evidence about differing brain patterns between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
|
I do know that a part of the brain has a differnt size in homosexuals. So it could be a way, or amount of certin chemicals are released into the body. |
Ugh, I realised that I didn't say my original post correctly. It should have been more like, "... there's no gay gene, but there's evidence that brain patterns between homosexuals and heterosexuals are different, suggesting that there is a physiological difference between the two."
In any case, although there are probably the same amount of homosexual people now as previously in history, it should be noted that homosexual behaviour is both more common and is more accepted, and that many people who have same-sex encounters are not in fact gay.
A lot of people like to say that they're lesbian because it's a cool, rebellious thing to do, or because "they can't find a man to satisfy them". And then, two years later, they're suddenly dating guys again and end up marrying a man, or something like that. There are a lot of fakers out there.
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wataru
The Light Fantastic
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Post Count: 2105
59113 Potch
0 Soldiers
515589 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I started having attraction to men at the age when most people are presexual. I had the first erection of my life after seeing a shirtless man on TV and this is before I knew anything about sex at all.
I don't think that children of gay parents turn out gay more often, I just think they're more likely to be open about it. If you have 1 million gay couples and 1 million straight couples, the amount of gay children on each side would be equal, although more on the "straight" side would be in the closet.
However, my roommate Nailo says that in my case, homosexuality is brought on by a lack of positive female role models and I think he may be on to something. A sort of "Color Purple" in reverse. In case anyone has never read that book, Celie ends up becoming a lesbian at the end after living a life horribly abused and oppressed by men. Nearly every man she ever met was cruel and domineering over her and as a result she found solace in women. To a much lesser degree, I empathize with her. I have not had very many positive experiences with women in my young life and that, subconsciously, may have had a factor in my sexuality. I would hardly call myself misogynistic, but I strongly prefer the company of men to women. I have no close female friends and only a very few casual female friends. I tend to avoid women as a rule. I also tend to avoid friendships with other gay men, especially the more feminine ones. The overwhelming majority of my friends are straight men. I have never had, nor do I ever want to have, a "hag."
While I believe nature is the primary cause, maybe nurture cannot be completely discounted.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mafioso
Guest
moss2
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I do believe you are born a certain way wether gay or straight. It is a process too accept it I am sure...but God makes you a certain way for a reason. I doubt it has anything to do with how you were brought up seeing as how I know straight girls who were brought up by lesbian mothers. So pretty much I vote for nature, because I believe its something that is in you from the day you are born. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hawk Thanatos
Radical Dreamers
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Post Count: 3656
Location: Guardia Kingdom
167582 Potch
43 Soldiers
1337 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll post some of the things my psych book says:
Nature and/or Nurture:
| Quote: |
| ...all cultures have in all times predominantly heterosexual (Bullough, 1990). Whether a culture condemns or accepts homosexuality, heterosexuality prevails and homosexuality survives. |
Nurture:
| Quote: |
| So, what then does determine sexual orientation? One theory proposes that people develop same-sex erotic attachments if segregated by gender at the time their sex drive matures (Storms, 1981). Indeed, gay men tend to recall going through puberty somewhat earlier, when peers are more likely to be all males (Bogaert & others, 2002). But even in a tribal culture in which homosexual behaviour is expected of all boys before marriage, heterosexuality prevails (Money, 1987). (As this illustrates, homosexual behaviour does not always indicate a homosexual orientation.) Another theory proposes the opposite: that people develop romantic attachments to those who differ from, and thus are more fascinating than, the peers they associated with while growing up (Bell, 1982; Bem, 1996). |
Nature:
- Hypothalmic cell cluster is larger in straight men than in women and gay men; same difference is found in male sheep displaying other-sex versus same-sex attraction. The (gay) scientist who found this said, "Gay men simply don't have the brain cells to be attracted to women."
- What Earthquake said: The anterior commissure (fibres connecting right and left brain hemispheres) is larger in gay men than in women or straight men.
- Sexual attraction in male fruit flys can be genetically manipulated.
Now this isn't an exhaustive list and I'll post more later if people want me to but this should give people something to consider. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keo
JutsuNinjas
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Post Count: 129
Location: KonohagureVillage
1161 Potch
4 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Im not all sure what side to go with so ill stay middle. :roll: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noot
Faithers of the Defend
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Post Count: 3748
Location: The Holy Kingdom of Harmonia
186551 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a question: doesn't it seem errant to believe that homosexuality is genetic? Genetics, like almost everything else in science, is tied to evolution. Evolution is about natural selection which requires successful reproduction and propogation of a species. But homosexuals can't reproduce by definition (not that they're physically unable to, but they've chosen to seek out partners that would not lead to chidlren). So doesn't that defy evolution, if this is the case? It seems unrealistic that nature would design all living creatures with the instinct to reproduce, but then take a part of the population and purposefully make them resistant to the idea of reproduction.
Don't mean to offend anyone, just trying to be logical. (And it's after 1 am, so I don't know how logical I am sounding at this hour. I'll probably read this post again later and then proceed to slam my head on the desk.)
I always cringe at "nature vs. nurture" arguments because, honestly, I don't see an argument. They're both equally important to the development of a person. It's like a rectangle: which is more important, the height or the width? It's foolish, really, to say that one is more important that the other, since both are needed to create the rectangle.
Just thought I'd throw a little geometry into the discussion. ;)
| Blasphemy wrote: |
| Behaviour psychologists believe your personality and behaviour patterns are formed in the first 5 years of your life. If you accept that as the truth then most kids would know (if they can accept it) at a very young age. |
I'm a psych major who subscribes to Behaviorism. And what I believe is that everyone has the basic biological hardware (DNA, organs, etc) to grow into an adult, but the path to becoming an adult is shaped primarily through our experiences. But I can't tell you which is more important between nature and nurture, like I said up top, because I think that argument is useless.
_________________
~~Harmonian Tenhei Star~~
It's hard to bargle naudle zauss with all these marbles in my mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Earthquake923
SB90's Mechanized Monsters
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Post Count: 1982
Location: Terana Plains
179201 Potch
0 Soldiers
778121 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I have a question: doesn't it seem errant to believe that homosexuality is genetic? Genetics, like almost everything else in science, is tied to evolution. Evolution is about natural selection which requires successful reproduction and propogation of a species. But homosexuals can't reproduce by definition (not that they're physically unable to, but they've chosen to seek out partners that would not lead to chidlren). So doesn't that defy evolution, if this is the case? It seems unrealistic that nature would design all living creatures with the instinct to reproduce, but then take a part of the population and purposefully make them resistant to the idea of reproduction.
|
It would be true if heterosexual parents did have homosexual offspring. The fact that homosexuality has been around probably since the beginning of time sorta invalidates that theory.
_________________
If anybody asks about the avatar, I did it for Jess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
