| View Poll Results: Do you feel homosexuality is an issue of nature, or nurture, or of choice? | |||
| Nature |
|
17 | 58.62% |
| Nurture |
|
1 | 3.45% |
| Choice |
|
0 | 0% |
| A mixture of influences |
|
9 | 31.03% |
| None of the above |
|
2 | 6.90% |
| Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll | |||

I thought it was a neat video too. The only issue I had with it is that it seems to confuse 'nurture' with 'choice' a bit. Or perhaps that was only my perception.

Being gay is not a choice, but it's also not natural. There are mitigating factors which cause an individual to stray from their natural path to procreation. I know that will piss off the activists, but pretending it isn't true doesn't make it untrue.

Oh, I dunno about that. I searched with Google for "evolution and homosexuality," got over 6.5 million hits, and a quick scan of the first few pages turned up this as the most interesting to me, though there's a lot of other references that seem to be making pretty much the same point: The evolution of homosexuality: Gender bending | The Economist
The essential point is that for homosexuality to continue to exist, against the ruthless pruning of natural selection operating on differential reproductive success, it must confer some survival advantages, not necessarily to the people who are gay themselves, but to people with many of the same genes. That's really where natural selection operates, it's about the differential survival of alleles. In other words, being gay is as natural as being straight.

We are just replicating DNA just like all other organisms on the planet. But, a beaver living in over crowded conditions, will eat pine bark to abort a pregnancy so as not to make the situation worse. This is not a conscious choice, it is instinct, something that seems to be built into most species. The human race has never lived in such huge crowded cities as we have today in all the rest of its time on this planet. Cities, like Toronto, and Montreal, are, for all intents and purposes, unnaturally overcrowded. Perhaps male/female sexual preferences are the norm in nature, but cities, being as they are, tend to produce humans with a variety of sexual preferences possibly in an attempt to control the over population. In a natural, open setting you may not see so many infertile couples as you do in the city.
Any way, I don't think that under the conditions of city life, homosexuality is any more unnatural than living in such overcrowding. I think nature and our DNA have built in mechanisms to balance these situations, so I don't think sexual orientation is a choice, but has a lot to do with environmental conditions.

I think trying to draw a line between natural and unnatural is a mug's game. I really have a hard time grasping how anything that happens in nature at all could be anything but natural. To call homosexuality unnatural seems to me a moral judgment based on a certain set of human values, which while also natural in the same sense are highly variable across cultures; not all cultures would agree that homosexuality is "unnatural." Only humans have developed ethical and moral codes, and we use them to make judgments about the way we think things ought to be, which won't necessarily have much to do with the way things are.

I think trying to draw a line between natural and unnatural is a mug's game. I really have a hard time grasping how anything that happens in nature at all could be anything but natural. To call homosexuality unnatural seems to me a moral judgment based on a certain set of human values, which while also natural in the same sense are highly variable across cultures; not all cultures would agree that homosexuality is "unnatural." Only humans have developed ethical and moral codes, and we use them to make judgments about the way we think things ought to be, which won't necessarily have much to do with the way things are.