Nature, Nurture, or Choice?


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

SLM
+1
#2
Love the video!

Folks do have a way of contradicting themselves when questions are flipped around on them don't they? Maybe if they just put a little thought into the question before giving an answer.
 
karrie
#3
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.
 
#juan
+2 / -2
#4
I think gays choose themselves. Gays are just one aspect of the inability to have what we like to call
"normal sexual relationships".
 
karrie
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I think gays choose themselves. Gays are just one aspect of the inability to have what we like to call
"normal sexual relationships".

So your response to the question the video poses would be?
 
#juan
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

So your response to the question the video poses would be?

None of the above.....
 
karrie
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

None of the above.....

So you didn't watch the video then?
 
SLM
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.

I hear you Karrie.

It's ridiculous to assume that our environment doesn't play a role in how we develop, of course it does. But essentially, in my pov, we are who we are.

Accepting ourselves and others is the most important part.imho
 
Johnnny
+4
#9
I think its a mixture. Ive heard that i was born like that.... I heard some say they were born like that, and ive heard one fella say that the kids picked on him and said he was gay to the point were he accepted the fact that he was gay. Which i thought of as weird. Id say its a mixture or different influences... Ive also known of some people who thought they were gay and then couldnt get it up when it came to game time.... Id say its how the person interprets their surroundings and how they want to fit in with the world around them... Id say mixture but my examples may point more to choice... I didnt watch the video, internet sucks where iam at...
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#10
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.
 
Goober
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

When Did You Choose to Be Straight? - YouTube!

We have heard over the last number of decades of a happily married man or woman - with teenagers suddenly come out. They were just repressing the way they are because of societies so called values at that time. I believe it is the way you were meant to be. God made you that way and who am I to argue with God, I do at times but not about this, and oh yes science as well has shown my point.
 
Nuggler
+3
#12
you left "how the hell should I know?" off the poll.
 
Tonington
#13
Mixture, but I'd say largely it's in our nature; like the colours we like, the flavours we like, etc. I say mixture because there are unfortunate circumstances, like boys who were sexually molested by male pedophiles and the tendency to associate this as their sexual norms.

The high concordance amongst monozygotic twins lends itself to nature...
 
karrie
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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.

I read a study which discusses the species benefit to non-breeding members of a community (ie., gay), and shows that they do actually serve an evolutionary benefit to the species. I'll have to go hunting and see if I can find it for you. The main point anyway was that non-breeding caregivers are a pretty common portion of primate populations, serve a species-wide function, and are therefore, not 'unnatural' just becausee we have a mistaken view of evolution occuring solely on an individual level and thus attribute procreative drive wrongly as applying to everyone.
 
Corduroy
+3
#15
I don't think the question is relevant. You could ask the same question to anybody who has a preference for anything. Me, for example, I like my coffee black with no sugar. Did I choose black? Did I sit down and decide I wasn't going to like cream and sugar? Nope, I just don't like them. I had black and didn't go back.
 
Dexter Sinister
+7
#16  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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.
 
Goober
+6
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

you left "how the hell should I know?" off the poll.

Or who cares. I look at the persons character, their sexual orientation is of no freaking concern to me
Last edited by Goober; Nov 29th, 2011 at 08:42 PM..
 
karrie
+1
#18
Okay, I don't need to go look, Dexter brought it up already. Lol
 
taxslave
+6
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I think gays choose themselves. Gays are just one aspect of the inability to have what we like to call
"normal sexual relationships".

When did you get to decide what is a normal sexual relationship? All the gays and lesbians I know consider their sexual relations to be normal.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+4
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

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.

Interesting study, but the conclusion you draw is somewhat subjective. This is where I'll draw all sorts of fire, not because of science, but because of activism so I'll preface it with a quick disclaimer. I believe that gay people should be afforded the same rights and protections as their straight counterparts. I have had a few gay friends in my lifetime and have educated my own kids not to be homophobic and accepting of others.

Okay, now that the disclaimer part is done I will say what I said before. The human body is essentially a machine that has a number of functions and needs. Taking God completely out of the context of this discussion I would say that it is fair to say that we are here to procreate. However, sometimes children are born with genital defects, sometimes with both male and female productive organs. Some children are born with learning disabilities and some develop mental disorders later in life. So, when you look at the male or female body and look at its design it is impossible to dispute that as a race we are here to procreate.

Those that are not equipped to procreate, those who are not wired to procreate, those who cannot do to genetics or other issues are not the norm. We can dress that up and say that it's perfectly natural, but it isn't. Just like cancer is not perfectly natural. Just like epilepsy is not perfectly natural or any other issue that deviates from the core of what the human body is designed for.

Now I can see all the hand wringers ready to pounce with the "how dare you'" and all I can say is take a look at paragraph one of this post and understand that I am simply stating a fact. We love to dress it up as perfectly natural, but it isn't. Many gay people struggle with it, some even end their lives over it. While we should always be inclusive and treat people with respect, we should not gloss over the truth to make people feel better.
 
TenPenny
+3
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post


Those that are not equipped to procreate, those who are not wired to procreate, those who cannot do to genetics or other issues are not the norm. We can dress that up and say that it's perfectly natural, but it isn't.

People who happen to be infertile are not natural.
 
Cliffy
#22
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.
 
petros
+3
#23
After watching my bro grow up, I know it wasn't nurture but nature.
 
Tonington
+2
#24
Abnormal behaviour is still expected...normal means conforming to a standard or the average. But populations aren't constrained by such foolish notions. Homosexuality is not the norm at the population level, but, it is natural. It does provide benefits, such as increased fecundity and reproductive success. It is expected...there's more to life than just what is normal.
 
JLM
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

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've heard when rats and rabbits get over populated they turn homo.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

It is expected...there's more to life than just what is normal.

With your last sentence I absolutely agree.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

People who happen to be infertile are not natural.

It is a defect.
 
Dexter Sinister
+5
#27
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.
 
JLM
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

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.

How about thinking of it this way? Homosexuality is abnormal in the individual but normal in the that there is a ratio of homosexuals found in an entire population.
 
gopher
+2
#29
When did I decide I was straight?

That's easy for me to remember even though it took place about 55 years ago ~ there was this gorgeous little girl named Maria in my kindergarten class. She had the most striking dark Spanish eyes! Though I have never seen her all these years i still remember how entranced I was when we were playmates!
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

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 you talk of morals because it is the only logical argument you can make against what I am saying. I don't find homosexuality immoral at all, I am not religious nor do I care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. The problem here is that people want to have a conversation, but they don't want to have an honest conversation.

Having sex with children is unnatural and immoral and disgusting, but there are plenty of people who will advocate for this behavior and claim that it is natural. The thing I love about these conversations is that it becomes a virtual minefield of accusations and innuendo. The next logical step would be to accuse me of comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, which I am not, but when comes down to brass tax there are different levels of deviation from what nature deems normal.
 

Similar Threads

11
Play for Nature
by selin | Apr 2nd, 2012
0
Nature and You
by china | Jul 26th, 2008
9
Nature Over Nurture
by Unforgiven | Aug 25th, 2007
13
The FALSE CHOICE is now the ONLY CHOICE
by jimmoyer | Apr 26th, 2006
18
Merkel Govt to Nurture German-U.S. ties
by Nascar_James | Nov 23rd, 2005
no new posts