NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all this spawned off the Transgender equality act thread. I asked forgottenlands a question. Here it follows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleecedom
Yo
Forgottenlands out of curiosity could you give me a link to something, preferably a ligitamite site, that shows homosexuality is a proven disorder? I dont think you ment disorder by the way, but i would like to see some evidence (either way dude im just curious) on this issue. I have heard form one camp that it is a documented case but i have never seen any actual evidence. Of course the other camp claims its mostly a factor of the environment you grew up in. I have seen evidence of that. Take a look at the aclu funded servey into children (adopted abviously) of same sex maraiges being more likely to become gay themsleves. Granted this isnt much of a suprise considering tha growing up in a riligious home will do the same thing. Still both those arguments seem to say its nurture not nature that matters. Still im willing to listen if you have new info. This issue dosnt hit close enough to home for me to get to excited about. Curiosity is a cat that likes attention though. Thanks

Fleecedom



Yeah - disorder was incorrect term - but I think you get the point. I'm trying to look for something (I admit, I've never read it, but a number of people who I tend to trust for giving me good info have stated it a few times before so....we'll see what crops up). That said, initial searches have been mostly discussions regarding the effects of the gay gene, the effects upon abortion, and a few studies claiming it wasn't found. There were two studies where they felt they found the gay gene, but they were saying that their results weren't conclusive. I'll get back to you (possibly via TG)

Edit: looks like I might not be the only one in this boat. Here's something from '97 (so a bit old so we'll see what's happened since)
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biolog...s97/Newman.html

People before posting a couple of guidlines.

1. Please do NOT simply give an opinion. If you have some form of evidence either way by all means post it. An argument or holes in someone elses evidence, again by all means.

2. This is not a gay bashing thread if you want to do that do it on your own time and preferably privatly.

3. I would advise you to go to the above link before posting but thats up to you.

4. Please be considerate, I dont know whitch way to believe on this issue and im sure that if you actaully think about it most of you wont either. This thread is hopefully a method of getting evidence and arguments out in the open with the hopefull consequence that people can maek an educated opinion (wouldn't that be a new one?).

That said have fun.

First of all this spawned off the Transgender equality act thread.
Where's this?

Here we go again.....

I was just talking on this subject today, I think I responded with
"I think love is unnatural, but homosexuality is natural to love. if that makes any sense."
Being that society has put a lot of emphasis on love being a natural part of humanity (thus creating it to become 'natural' by passing the ideals to the next generation) I suppose you could say that homosexuality can be considered natural if love is concidered natural.
To further explain this opinion, as you wish, I will add that by me saying "I think love is unnatural" I mean 'love' in terms of the general veiw of how we are raised to understand it in modern society... you must concider that love is not veiwed in the same way nor as the same thing that is was once percieved. The words meaning fluxuates depending on how it is percieved, and how it is percieved now is far more 'complicated' than it once was, in a time where marrige was based on survival rather than emotions, love could simply have ment two people working together to cover necessity (in a way 'looking out for' eachother).

Well I am gay. I like butt sex, cock sucking and begun masturbating over boys before I actually knew what gay was. Nature.

Mmm being blunt.

Well I am gay. I like butt sex, cock sucking and begun masturbating over boys before I actually knew what gay was. Nature.

Mmm being blunt.

Same here. Being blunt is hot.

And it is most definitely nature. I'm gay too.. and my boyfriend is hot. Love comes to me natural. I'm naturally gay, I was not raised to be gay.

but this topic: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

*pulls hair out*

Mostly nature, some nurture. I was born gay, but would be denying it now had my parents being right-wing repressed nutters.

Same here. Being blunt is hot.

And it is most definitely nature. I'm gay too.. and my boyfriend is hot. Love comes to me natural. I'm naturally gay, I was not raised to be gay.

but this topic: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

*pulls hair out*

Were you trying to see how many times you could say gay in one post haha.

why does it have to be one or the other exclusively?

Were you trying to see how many times you could say gay in one post haha.

You see how many times it comes out when I'm speaking.. I'm so fruity.. *smooch*

Mostly nature, some nurture. I was born gay, but would be denying it now had my parents being right-wing repressed nutters.
Naw my parents are right wing nutters lol and I just don’t tell THEM that I am atheist or bi lol

yeah is bisexuality nature or nurture? maybe my genes tell me to be gay but I was raised to like girls so now I can't help but crave both.

Here we go again.....
Yeah, this only makes what, 769173649236764890 threads now on this subject?

Yeah, this only makes what, 769173649236764890 threads now on this subject?

WRONG!

you left off one zero at the end! :p

I have no idea either. I can only nod emphatically along with Glinde Nessroe, all that stuff applies to me as well. As an interesting note, we were always told in school that the average male's resting heart rate is 72 and a girl's is 82. Mine has always been 82. And I'm a great big lug, 230 lbs and 6'4". *shrug*

Same here. Being blunt is hot.

And it is most definitely nature. I'm gay too.. and my boyfriend is hot. Love comes to me natural. I'm naturally gay, I was not raised to be gay.

but this topic: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

*pulls hair out*
Hey, just because you think (some) guys are hot doesn't mean you're gay!


That said, I think it's a bit of both. Nature in that some people are predisposed to being gay, nurture in that there is something that doesn't click right in the womb that leads to large psychological changes.


That said, no one chooses their orientation.

Yeah, this only makes what, 769173649236764890 threads now on this subject?
no the 6532655319 4060999469 7873338106 3171948173 5348955897 th thread

(and if you can figure out where that number came from I will give you a cookie)

Hey, just because you think (some) guys are hot doesn't mean you're gay!

I didn't say that. I'm just saying I think some guys are hot. I'm gay because I would do something with them (well in my case, my boyfriend).

i saw alexander just the other day, horrible movie, but that isnt the point.

anyway, alexander was a little confused about his sexuality as it appeared to me. he kept saying he loved this one guy b/c he was his really close friend and he could trust him. then he gets married to this persian lady and has rough sex with her. after that he goes to be with some guy they picked up in babylon. (that last boot knocking threw me a curve ball, it wasnt even the guy he was ranting about, but some random persian)

least to say he was probably bi considering how the movie portrayed him.

but my overall point is that certain people might be different than others. take alexander as the movie portrayed him:

Alexander A, based his attachments on his comradic love for the dude mentioned first, not on lust. he felt so close to him that i assume it was something of a strong brotherly relationship. however, maybe the fact that they werent related some how manipulated that feeling to translate into sexual attraction?

Alexander B: he slept with the persian guy and the persian girl; whatever that means. dominated via his great lust?

I didn't say that. I'm just saying I think some guys are hot. I'm gay because I would do something with them (well in my case, my boyfriend).
OH :D

CSW?

whats that acronym stand for?

i saw alexander just the other day, horrible movie, but that isnt the point.

anyway, alexander was a little confused about his sexuality as it appeared to me. he kept saying he loved this one guy b/c he was his really close friend and he could trust him. then he gets married to this persian lady and has rough sex with her. after that he goes to be with some guy they picked up in babylon. (that last boot knocking threw me a curve ball, it wasnt even the guy he was ranting about, but some random persian)

Alexander is a pretty good movie in my opinion.

And it is well known Alexander was infact bisexual.

no the 6532655319 4060999469 7873338106 3171948173 5348955897 th thread

(and if you can figure out where that number came from I will give you a cookie)
No cookie for me, I'm afraid, but that's okay, because I'm trying to lose weight. :D

You see how many times it comes out when I'm speaking.. I'm so fruity.. *smooch*

Yeah...So fruity...like fruit sald with cream....

I'm just gonna go grab my...a banana.

Yeah...So fruity...like fruit sald with cream....

I'm just gonna go grab my...a banana.

Heheh.. you're pretty hot too...

What's wrong with being a fruit? Fruits taste good.

Heheh.. you're pretty hot too...

What's wrong with being a fruit? Fruits taste good.

Hey watch it, you have a boyfriend so be a good faithful banana!

Heheh.. you're pretty hot too...

What's wrong with being a fruit? Fruits taste good.

Wow this has gotten way off topic...time to bomb this thread with the truth.

Animals in nature are gay. Buffalo I believe carried a 10% chance of being homosexual. Now that anyone who looks into it can see that animals are gay have to know something about it not being nurtured, because their is no intelligent system to nurture that or be against it. Thus it can be assumed it is nature.

No cookie for me, I'm afraid, but that's okay, because I'm trying to lose weight. :D
it is the last digits of pi ending at the 10 milionth place (so the last 50 I believe)

Hey watch it, you have a boyfriend so be a good faithful banana!

Ya I know. But me and my bf typically rate how hot guys are (like celebrities). It is pretty funny.. heheheh. I would never cheat on him.. we just love each other too much.. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Ya I know. But me and my bf typically rate how hot guys are (like celebrities). It is pretty funny.. heheheh. I would never cheat on him.. we just love each other too much.. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
good boy, but your insane, i'm not hot, i just know what is a good light to stand under in photos lol

CSW?

whats that acronym stand for?
A very unimaginative night a few years ago :rolleyes:

good boy, but your insane, i'm not hot, i just know what is a good light to stand under in photos lol

Well I think you are. But you know who I think is really cute.. Fez from That's 70 Show.. he's cute.

Well I think you are. But you know who I think is really cute.. Fez from That's 70 Show.. he's cute.
Thanks....I just like Johnny Depp...mmm cream my pants goodness.

both hot celebs
Fez was a gay guy in party monster

both hot celebs
Fez was a gay guy in party monster

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/he/photo/movie_pix/mtv/mtv_movie_awards_2003_photos/wilmer_valderrama/mtv.jpg

Hot..

Sexuality cannot be reduced to either nature or nuture. Clearly humans have biological components that make sexual pleasure possible for instance, so there is little point arguing that sexuality is not related to biology, and thus not somehow 'coded for' in DNA. Also however humans are behaviourly complex. We have a huge capacity to behaviourly adapt depending on the environmental stimulus. To suggest that sexuality should be a unique behaviour immune to environmental feedback seems very far-fetched and so the assumption (i.e. until there is some evidence otherwise) is that the environment can effect the formation of an individual's sexuality.

First, How do you define what sex someone is?

Which of the following would be classified as male:

a) someone with XY chromosomes
b) someone born with a penis (regardless of chromosomes)
c) someone born without a penis, but who acquired one later
d) someone born with both sets of genitalia, but who elected to eliminate the female set.

First, How do you define what sex someone is?

Which of the following would be classified as male:

a) someone with XY chromosomes
b) someone born with a penis (regardless of chromosomes)
c) someone born without a penis, but who acquired one later
d) someone born with both sets of genitalia, but who elected to eliminate the female set.

Relevance to the topic? :confused:

Relevance to the topic? :confused:
About as relevent as playing "is fez hot" :D

First, How do you define what sex someone is?

Which of the following would be classified as male:

a) someone with XY chromosomes
b) someone born with a penis (regardless of chromosomes)
c) someone born without a penis, but who acquired one later
d) someone born with both sets of genitalia, but who elected to eliminate the female set.
The presence of a Y chromosome is considered in modern Western science to what determines that one is a male. Basically, if Y then male, if not Y then not male. The number of X chromosomes is not relevent, so for instance a person who is XXY would a male.

About as relevent as playing "is fez hot" :D

Gay thread + Gay boys talking about other gay (I wish) boys = Relevant

Relevance to the topic? :confused:


I would have thought that would have been glaringly obvious.

Or ar eyou really saying we don't have to determine how gender is defined before we even discuss what same gender love is and how it is determined? If we don't define gender, how can we possibly discuss what same gender attraction even is?

I would have thought that would have been glaringly obvious.

Or ar eyou really saying we don't have to determine how gender is defined before we even discuss what same gender love is and how it is determined? If we don't define gender, how can we possibly discuss what same gender attraction even is?

No. In fact I don't believe it is relevant at all. We were discussing the causes of homosexuality.

Ultimatly, it is nature. Now, what I will say next will sound rude, but I don't mean it to be. Don't take it the wrong way. Anyhow, I believe that homosexuality is an anomoly. The entire point of sex among animals is to reproduce. As gays have feelings towards the same sex, they cannot reproduce, which defies the rest of nature. This is not to say that homosexuality is inherently bad. It just shows that, if nature had her way, this wouldn't happen. The great question I have to ponder, therefore, is whether or not this shortcomming can be made up by an unrelated thing: love.

The presence of a Y chromosome is considered in modern Western science to what determines that one is a male. Basically, if Y then male, if not Y then not male. The number of X chromosomes is not relevent, so for instance a person who is XXY would a male.

So an XY individual born female genitalia amd no male genitalia would still be classified as male?

theres homosexuality in the animal kingdom too. Nature obviously designed us in a way that make some of us unable to reproduce.

No. In fact I don't believe it is relevant at all. We were discussing the causes of homosexuality.

What is homosexuality?

It just shows that, if nature had her way, this wouldn't happen. The great question I have to ponder, therefore, is whether or not this shortcomming can be made up by an unrelated thing: love.

Actually nature allows by allowing these traits where sexuality is determined to be recessive.

What is homosexuality?

One who holds an attraction to the same sex. If you want to define what is gender, please open up another thread.

One who holds an attraction to the same sex. If you want to define what is gender, please open up another thread.

What do you mean by same sex?

I would have thought that would have been glaringly obvious.

Or ar eyou really saying we don't have to determine how gender is defined before we even discuss what same gender love is and how it is determined? If we don't define gender, how can we possibly discuss what same gender attraction even is?
Gender?! Hang on, I thought you were asking about sex...er if you mean gender then scratch my last answer and replace with
Different cultures employ different paradigms with regards to gender, quite how a particular culture categorises gender and identifies who belongs to which gender is varible across cultures, there is no one definitive answer and determining the gender paradigm of a particular culture can be very difficult, most particularly because when we attempt to find out how people in another culture consider gender, we have our own gender ideas that can cause us to misinterpret and misunderstand what we are told and/or observe.

Gender?! Hang on, I thought you were asking about sex...er if you mean gender then scratch my last answer and replace with
Different cultures employ different paradigms with regards to gender, quite how a particular culture categorises gender and identifies who belongs to which gender is varible across cultures, there is no one definitive answer and determining the gender paradigm of a particular culture can be very difficult, most particularly because when we attempt to find out how people in another culture consider gender, we have our own gender ideas that can cause us to misinterpret and misunderstand what we are told and/or observe.

So then the definition of homosexuality is culture specific?

So an XY individual born female genitalia amd no male genitalia would still be classified as male?
That depends, do you mean 'male sex' or 'male gender'. To the earlier, yes, (or at least so far as Western science is concerned) to the later, depends who is categorising the person.

What do you mean by same sex?

Same gender.

Again if you continue thread hijacking, I will turn this over to the moderators.

So then the definition of homosexuality is culture specific?
Yes.

Oops, I misread your comments, it is not just the definition, but rather the entire concept of homosexuality that is culturally specific (in that it is not shared by all cultures).

That depends, do you mean 'male sex' or 'male gender'. To the earlier, yes, (or at least so far as Western science is concerned) to the later, depends who is categorising the person.

We seem to be using different definitions for gender. I am not using the definition of gender as it pertains to noun or pronoun usage, but the definition (according to the Oxford American Dictionary) "a person's sex".

Same gender.

Again if you continue thread hijacking, I will turn this over to the moderators.

My, testy aren't you. I am just trying to determine what you mean by homosexuality. How can we rationally discuss it until we come to a common understanding of the term? If that is what you deem to call "thread-hijacking", then please, do turn it over to the moderators! I welcome that.

So, same gender, is that as in two people with the same chromosomes, or two people with the same external equipment?

We seem to be using different definitions for gender. I am not using the definition of gender as it pertains to noun or pronoun usage, but the definition (according to the Oxford American Dictionary) "a person's sex".
Sex is biological, gender is social/cultural.

Yes.

Oops, I misread your comments, it is not just the definition, but rather the entire concept of homosexuality that is culturally specific (in that it is not shared by all cultures).

So, when we are discussing whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, which culturally specific concept are we actually discussing? The answer will vary depending on how we define homosexuality.

My, testy aren't you. I am just trying to determine what you mean by homosexuality. How can we rationally discuss it until we come to a common understanding of the term? If that is what you deem to call "thread-hijacking", then please, do turn it over to the moderators! I welcome that.

So, same gender, is that as in two people with the same chromosomes, or two people with the same external equipment?

First off, homosexuality is the attraction of one to the same gender. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I think. I'm to the point and precise. I'm gay, therefore I'm attracted to males.

You are thread hijacking because:

1) You are bringing up irrelevant topics

2) You are insulting my intelligence

For goodness sakes did you people reead the entro? THIS IS NOT a thread to display your bent and or preferances it is a debate over whether homosexuality is gene induced or circumstance induced please keep to the topic dont fill me in on your sex life. I couldnt care less. That covers 90% of these posts. In the future if you want to be a jackass go elsewhere.

So, when we are discussing whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, which culturally specific concept are we actually discussing? The answer will vary depending on how we define homosexuality.
I generally take it (unless I have some reason to believe otherwise) that people are referring (when they discuss homosexuality) to the modern Western concept, that is two person of the same sex engaging in sexual activities together.

For goodness sakes did you people reead the entro? THIS IS NOT a thread to display your bent and or preferances it is a debate over whether homosexuality is gene induced or circumstance induced please keep to the topic dont fill me in on your sex life. I couldnt care less. That covers 90% of these posts. In the future if you want to be a jackass go elsewhere.

And who are you talking to? I was trying to bring in some humor to this thread. Please don't use ad hominems.

Sex is biological, gender is social/cultural.

So that is your definition? If you need to stick by that and are not flexible, then please, in your mind change all of my uses of the word "gender' above to the word "sex" in your mind. As I've said, the dictionary I have indicates they are synonyms when refering to biology. (Here in the U.S. that is common usage.)

homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same sex, thats a pretty good general definition to work with.

I hate when people confuse "gender" with "sex" as well though so i can kind of understand.

I generally take it (unless I have some reason to believe otherwise) that people are referring (when they discuss homosexuality) to the modern Western concept, that is two person of the same sex engaging in sexual activities together.

So that would be two XY and XX? Or two people with the same external equipment?

Ok for all you idiots who have never had a phylosify class. Nature vs. Nurture refers to what one was born with as aposed to how one was brought up! NOT wether homosexuality is natural or wether it happens in nature. For the sake of this discussiont it dosnt matter jack if a wolf will go either way. I would like to know if thier is any proof that homosexuality and or transexuality is a chemical condition. If so is it heriditary or environment driven. And again i advised people to go to the link posted originally and actaully read the short essay.

So that would be two XY and XX? Or two people with the same external equipment?

you are just being annoying. Obviously no one will know if someone has XY or XX unless a test is done.

all sexual attraction can be a "physical thing"
A straight man can be attracted to another guy's ass if he doesnt know if the ass is male's or female's.

homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same sex, thats a pretty good general definition to work with.

I hate when people confuse "gender" with "sex" as well though so i can kind of understand.

Here in the U.S. it is not a confusion, as gender commonly is used to refer to which biological sex a person is.

Here in the U.S. it is not a confusion, as gender commonly is used to refer to which biological sex a person is.


Well , people dont get confused since most people share the same gender identities and sexes.

you are just being annoying. Obviously no one will know if someone has XY or XX unless a test is done.

Perhaps it annoying to you, but it is a key aspect of whether the sex is homosexual or heterosexual. I take it then that you would define a relationship between an AIS individual and a "normal" male as heterosexual until the AIS individual is genetically tested and discovered to be an XY "female", for instance?

So that is your definition? If you need to stick by that and are not flexible, then please, in your mind change all of my uses of the word "gender' above to the word "sex" in your mind. As I've said, the dictionary I have indicates they are synonyms when refering to biology. (Here in the U.S. that is common usage.)
It's not 'my definition', but rather a conventional definition when discussing issues where there might be some ambiguity if the two were not made distinct. I'm fairly certain I have replied to your comments with the information for either, but if I've missed something you'd like me to reply to, please just point it out and I'll do my best... ;)

well I just like to think we are all just sexual. I dont really like labels like homosexual or heterosexual to begin with.

For the purposes of dicussion to one of the few valid points in the forum so far. I think that just as much as a dog can learn buy getting petted for being good and swatted when bad. It dosnt necisarily follow that just because someone enjoys an action that they are chemically prone to that sort of thing. I have to disagree that casual sex is chemical. It is simply stimulation of the bodys pleasure centers. It dosnt follow that physical atraction and mental attraction are the same thing.

well I just like to think we are all just sexual. I dont really like labels like homosexual or heterosexual to begin with.

That is perfectly fine, but the title of the thread is "Homosexuality Nature or Nurture" so I have just been trying to pin down exactly what people are defining homosexuality to be, as that is key to the question.

I think the physical and mental are linked. I think people are physically aroused because they are mentally aroused.

For the purposes of dicussion to one of the few valid points in the forum so far. I think that just as much as a dog can learn buy getting petted for being good and swatted when bad. It dosnt necisarily follow that just because someone enjoys an action that they are chemically prone to that sort of thing. I have to disagree that casual sex is chemical. It is simply stimulation of the bodys pleasure centers. It dosnt follow that physical atraction and mental attraction are the same thing.

I guess you would have to explain to me how "stimulation of the body's pleasure centers" is anything but "chemical"?

That is perfectly fine, but the title of the thread is "Homosexuality Nature or Nurture" so I have just been trying to pin down exactly what people are defining homosexuality to be, as that is key to the question.


I would think a physical attraction to the same sex, excluding transgender people who have under gone SRS or is taking hormonal treatments.

Meanning that if a guy is attracted to a transgender woman with a XY chromosome, i would not call this said guy a homosexual.Nor would I call any guy who dates an Intersex individual a homosexual.

That is perfectly fine, but the title of the thread is "Homosexuality Nature or Nurture" so I have just been trying to pin down exactly what people are defining homosexuality to be, as that is key to the question.
While I can sympathise, I would also point out that it is often difficult to get people to explain what they believe they mean when they reckon with hegemonic concepts, the attempt can be very frustrating, most particularly for the person you are trying to illicit the definition from....the problem with hegemony is that it is often unrealised so people tend to assume that when someone questions a hegemonic concept that they are being facile or just being silly and 'taking the mickey'..

It may be more productive for you, to either offer the possible definitions and your own opinion of which you consider most robust, or to offer possible defininitions and which you consider to be nature, nuture or both.

I think the physical and mental are linked. I think people are physically aroused because they are mentally aroused.

Indeed, when we see something (or someone) the image is referred via the optic nerve to the lateral geniculate nucleus and then on to the fusiform gyrus and other centers where it is identified, and then a signal is sent to the amygdala which determines if it is something we want to run from, to eat, to make love to, etc.

Wow, 6 pages and no mention of religion! Color me impressed! :p

My personal belief is that is a combination of nature(genetic) and nurture(environmental) factors. I also belive that in every individual that percentages of nature and nurture would differ significantly. Finally, I don't believe scientific research is yet at a point where either theory can be proven or disproven conclusively.

That is all - like many others, I'm sick to death of discussing this subject on this forum. Lets just say everyone has a right to be happy, and a right to have whatever gender of sexual/romantic partner they want to. ;)

P.S. Some of you might wanna tone down the "blue talk" (i.e. graphic sex act descriptions) - as the mods remind us, this is a G rated forum :p

I would think a physical attraction to the same sex, excluding transgender people who have under gone SRS or is taking hormonal treatments.

Meanning that if a guy is attracted to a transgender woman with a XY chromosome, i would not call this said guy a homosexual.Nor would I call any guy who dates an Intersex individual a homosexual.

OK, but what of the AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) individual I spoke of?

I would not consider a guy as a homosexual if he is attracted to anyone who doesnt fit all of the following criteria : 1 (sex chromosomes = XY) ---> 2 (gonads = testes) ---> 3 (external genitalia = male) ---- > No Secondary Sex Characteristics like Breasts.

If a guy is going out with a really feminine guy who identifies himself as a girl (but has not taken any female hormones or undergone a SRS) , I would call this a "heterogenderal" relationship. But both of them are still homosexuals. :)

I would not consider a guy as a homosexual if he is attracted to anyone who doesnt fit all of the following criteria : 1 (sex chromosomes = XY) ---> 2 (gonads = testes) ---> 3 (external genitalia = male) ---- > No Secondary Sex Characteristics like Breasts.

If a guy is going out with a really feminine guy who identifies himself as a girl, I would call this a "heterogender" relationship. But both of them are still homosexuals. :)

So a guy who is attracted to an XX male syndrome individual (fails your first criteria, meets the second two) would not be homosexual? (I just ask this because I find this to be an unexpected result, mostly because the general crude definition is a guy who likes someone with the same equipment he has).

Note: Some (but not all) XX male syndromes do in fact have the SRY gene - normally found on the Y chromosome - which is "necessary and sufficient" for male sex determination.

Thats just my opinon, I dont know. I dont think its relevant to this thread topic really. For the sake of argument, I will agree to whatever definition you have and than we can move on. =D

Thats just my opinon, I dont know. I dont think its relevant to this thread topic really.

It completely determines the lines of discussion. For instance, if someone defines "sex" as just referring to the "external" manifestation of genitalia and claims that is the only biological part, and defines that all other manifestations of a person's sexuality as being gender (as a separate characteristic from sex) which is determined by solely by society/culture, then they have already made the a priori assumption that sexual orientation is solely based on nuture rather than nature and the discussion would take one direction. And if one simply defines human sex as either being male or female, then we need to go into a discussion of the full spectrum of human sex manifestation that is actually observed. If one claims that there must be a "gay gene" for homosexuality to be caused by nature, we need to go into how DNA is just a blueprint of what the organism is to be, and that there are a multitude of processes for realizing that blueprint and that these processes are not perfect and can cause biological differences which are not strictly "genetic."

It all comes down to whether you want to have a scientific discussion based on evidence, or simply want to spend your time in metaphysical self-gratification.

For the sake of argument, I will agree to whatever definition you have and than we can move on. =D

A discussion to accurately cover all possible meanings of "Homosexuality: Nature or Nuture" would take thousands of pages, which is why I have been trying to shortcut that by determining a starting point.

However, I have gotten the impression (I suppose that many already know this) that NS General is not a place for deep meaningful discussions but more to throw around pop-psych references.

Alright, I'm straight, but I am extremely nerdy and keep up with science and news,so I'm still a pretty reliable source. Anyway, you wanted proof. Sadly, I can't acccess the articles, but I remember there was one relating to scents and how gay any straight men and women relate to them. When it came to lavendar, everyone responded the same way, autonomically activating the parts of their brains relating to smell. But when they tried male pharamones, if I recall correctly, the straight men and gay women activated the parts for smell, whereas the gay men and straight women activated the parts of the brain for romance. The same thing (but in reverse) happened when they tried female pharamones. This indicates that the brain is actually wired slightly differently between gay and straight people; when it comes to sensing pharamones, at least, gay people have the wiring of members of the opposite sex. This proves that it is actually a physiological difference, not a choice.

Additionally, there was a study involving getetically altered fruit flies (and keep in mind how genetically similar we actually are to them). Normal fruit flies, right arfter they are born, go off to find a mate of the opposite sex. In these fruit flies they altered one gene (just one) to somehow make them gay. When the fruit lflies were born. Instead of going out to find a mate of the opposite gender they quietly hung to the side with an eye on members of the same gender (If I recall correctly, they were too shy to approach, although I think some of them did anyway.). They may (I'm not completely sure if they did the next part.) have gone after one another when they realised that they were not alone in their feelings.

Additionally, there was a study involving getetically altered fruit flies (and keep in mind how genetically similar we actually are to them). Normal fruit flies, right arfter they are born, go off to find a mate of the opposite sex. In these fruit flies they altered one gene (just one) to somehow make them gay. When the fruit lflies were born. Instead of going out to find a mate of the opposite gender they quietly hung to the side with an eye on members of the same gender (If I recall correctly, they were too shy to approach, although I think some of them did anyway.). They may (I'm not completely sure if they did the next part.) have gone after one another when they realised that they were not alone in their feelings.
Care to provide us with this "study"?

Finally, I know a woman (who's gay, by the way) who grew up in one of those tiny, deeply conservative, still even racist (Jews and African-Americans were not allowed at many places) towns on the East Coast, where, if you get in trouble at school, everyone knows it by nightfall. There was no liberalism at all, nor any acceptance, let alone tolerance of gays. When she realised that she might be gay, she was terrified. She kept on dating men through college, always trying to find one that maybe she might like (always failing), and also trying to fool others. She was in denial for more than a decade. That's a long time to not even tell yourself who you are! Nobody likes to be the odd one out, and in a place like this town, she would have been completely shunned, been the victim of hate crimes, or maybe even gotten killed. She definately didn't chose to be gay.

To ask one question of you, where did this whole thing calling it a choice come from? By my guess, it was probobly started by either neoconservatives or deeply religious people so as to preserve the views they wanted (such as how some people are bon immoral, and marriage can only be for certain people), after all, all people are created eaqual; it is only our choices that can make us unequal. They needed to make it a choice so that they could the veiws they disagree with down. But this isn't a choice, so all people are still created equal.


To answer someone selse's comment (about how it must be a choice, because they don't say they're gay until about thirteen), no one (regardless of what you'd like to think) actually knows if they're gay or straight until pubrity, because that's when any sexual preferences can come to your attention.

Care to provide us with this "study"?

Actually it was an experiment (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/genesandbody/hg08f005.html).

Somebody asked if I can provide you with the study. If I recall corretly, I heard it on a local news station, but it ought to be in the paper, and probobly is. Sadly, my newspaper charges you to read online articles more than a week old (It's very authoritative, though, it's one of the three major newspapers of the western United States (I'd rather not specify which, though. (for security reasons)).), but you should be able to find it online somewhere else. Maybe google?

Actually it was an experiment (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/genesandbody/hg08f005.html).
Intresting thank you

Being gay IMHO is definitely not a choice - but back on topic, whether it's nature or nurture is another question

Sorry to ask this, but what does IMHO stand for?

My personal belief is that is a combination of nature(genetic) and nurture(environmental) factors. I also belive that in every individual that percentages of nature and nurture would differ significantly. Finally, I don't believe scientific research is yet at a point where either theory can be proven or disproven 100%.

LOL, well, when you consider that scientific research, by definition, can never prove anything "100%" and we simply can't exert the type of control necessary to disprove things in this context "100%", you're talking about a point that will never be reached.

My Views: You can't change biology through nurture. (as far as I know; tell me if I'm wrong)

Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Nov 7;271(1554):2217-21. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.

Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C.

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/9F52HY7NWG7XUL41EKDW/Contributions/R/D/D/9/RDD98TJ9A5BK1XLA.pdf

This study was widely reported on a while back. Although a larger-scale study may be necessary to show that the correlation is truly there, these researchers found that mothers and maternal aunts (but not paternal aunts) of homosexual men seemed to have a higher fecundity (have more children) than the mothers and maternal aunts of heterosexual men. This suggests that there is some genetic factor on the X chromosome that may increase fertility in women, while increasing the chance of homosexuality in men.

To my knowledge, no such correlation has been found (or even tested for) in lesbians.

Discuss.

Sorry to ask this, but what does IMHO stand for?
I believe In My Humble Opinion

I could be way off

Endocrinology. 2004 Feb;145(2):475-7.
Brain aromatase: dyed-in-the-wool homosexuality.

Morris JA, Gobrogge KL, Jordan CL, Breedlove SM.

A review of the effects of androgens, generally in utero, on sexuality.

http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/145/2/475

LOL! I post a couple of actual papers and the thread dies?

It is just that.. people are tired of talking about this topic... I mean live and let live... I don't see why we should continue arguing about the causes of homosexuality. Let me just say, we're here, we're queer... so get used to it. :)

I see a few bits on a 'gay gene'?
Homosexuality might be natural, but the chances of it being so due to a gene seems somewhat unreasonable.
The purpose of a gene is to pass on genetic information to the offspring of a male and a female (and will remain that way until we find alternate methods of combining genes for a homosexual couple to reproduce), in this way contributing homosexuality to genetics seems inpossible. (not saying it isn't natural, just that it isn't due to genetics)
For those not understanding what I am getting at (which is understandable seeing as I am having trouble wording it) ; what would be the point of a gene, thats purpose is to pass on information to offspring via reproduction (being that it is a gene...), which would not get passed on in reproduction (due to the present inablity of gay couples to reproduce)?
And further; how would one aquire this gene if neither parents were homosexual?

Homosexuality might be natural, but the chances of it being so due to a gene seems somewhat unreasonable.

Again, recessive traits. Determination of sexuality is found on several recessive traits. I provided a study that they pinpointed several chromosomes where sexuality is heavily influenced by.

I find it unsurprising how little people know about recessive traits. Remember, sexuality is influenced by several different parts of the genetic code. There is no one sexuality gene.

What do you mean by same sex?


Same gender.

Again if you continue thread hijacking, I will turn this over to the moderators.

In no way was Zedexia hi-jacking the thread. In fact, you and Glinde Nessroe (and Sumamba Buwhan in 1 case) hi-jacked the thread pretty severely:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452798&postcount=22
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452828&postcount=24
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452837&postcount=25
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452847&postcount=26
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452854&postcount=29
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452861&postcount=30
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452868&postcount=32
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452874&postcount=33
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452881&postcount=34
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452890&postcount=35

Do not use us moderators as a threat to other people, it isn't appreciated, especially when you hijacked the thread more than anyone else.

In no way was Zedexia hi-jacking the thread. In fact, you and Glinde Nessroe (and Sumamba Buwhan in 1 case) hi-jacked the thread pretty severely:
Do not use us moderators as a threat to other people, it isn't appreciated, especially when you hijacked the thread more than anyone else.

First off, I was trying to lighten up the mood a bit... for once in my posting time here instead of being cold and concise.

First off, I was trying to lighten up the mood a bit... for once in my posting time here instead of being cold and concise.

Then create a new thread, plain and simple. Don't take someone elses' thread and start a conversation with another player.

If it were your thread, then there would be a difference, but someone elses' thread? No.

LOL, well, when you consider that scientific research, by definition, can never prove anything "100%" and we simply can't exert the type of control necessary to disprove things in this context "100%", you're talking about a point that will never be reached.
*sigh* Lets quibble over semantics...

OK, ammend my statement to "prove it conclusively"...better? :p

I believe In My Humble Opinion

I could be way off
I've seen two interpretations - In My Humble Opinion, or In My Honest Opinion...either way, they mean pretty much the same thing...

I see a few bits on a 'gay gene'?
Homosexuality might be natural, but the chances of it being so due to a gene seems somewhat unreasonable.
The purpose of a gene is to pass on genetic information to the offspring of a male and a female (and will remain that way until we find alternate methods of combining genes for a homosexual couple to reproduce), in this way contributing homosexuality to genetics seems inpossible. (not saying it isn't natural, just that it isn't due to genetics)
Unless you can point to the designer of genes, it's a misnomer to suggest they have a 'purpose', rather than having the purpose of passing on genetic information, they function to pass on genetic information.

For those not understanding what I am getting at (which is understandable seeing as I am having trouble wording it) ; what would be the point of a gene, thats purpose is to pass on information to offspring via reproduction (being that it is a gene...), which would not get passed on in reproduction (due to the present inablity of gay couples to reproduce)?
And further; how would one aquire this gene if neither parents were homosexual?
The point about what is the point follows on from the mistaken premise that genes actually have a point (as opposed to genes 'functioning'). What is the 'point' of some people having an extra chromosome on at 9? There is not a point, which does not mean that people are not born with Down syndrome or that Down Syndrome is not a condition caused by chromosomes (ie a genetic condition).
With regards to how the gene is passed on, aside from recessive genes, there is the possibility of the gene being carried on the X chromosome, since females as a rule have one X chromosome switched off, it is easy to see that the gene could be passed on by those not effected by the gene. Further if the homosexuality were caused by genetics, it does not follow that there must be one gene, the effect may only manifest when a complex of genes are present...as you can see it is not necessarily true that homosexuality cannot be genetic due to the 'homosexuals dont breed' notion (even if the notion actually were accurate...homosexuals of course can breed and many do).

Endocrinology. 2004 Feb;145(2):475-7.
Brain aromatase: dyed-in-the-wool homosexuality.

Morris JA, Gobrogge KL, Jordan CL, Breedlove SM.

A review of the effects of androgens, generally in utero, on sexuality.

http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/145/2/475

From the site...
If aromatase activity in the POA is responsible for the size of the oSDN, and if oSDN size in turn is responsible for sexual preference, then it might be possible to interfere with hypothalamic aromatase in developing rams to reliably shrink the oSDN and produce male-oriented rams. Would it be possible to shift a female-oriented ram’s preference, even in adulthood, by reducing aromatase activity in the POA? Either of these demonstrations would be powerful proof of a causal relationship between steroid action, hypothalamic morphology, and sexual preference in sheep. Either demonstration would also, by extension, strengthen the notion that steroids affect the human hypothalamus to influence sexual orientation in adulthood. If the results pan out this way, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to condemn homosexuality as a lifestyle choice rather than an ingrained property of the human heart.

Oh my gosh, how is it that after analyzing all the way down that entire exercise in theory (very well done actually, I'm not attacking any part of it) that they would end up finishing with predicting the EXACT opposite of what will actually happen?

What will really happen if that turns out to be true is; every pregnant women in the world will be demanding the proper androgens be maintained in her system with the help of her obstetrician... there will be no more homosexuals born IF it turns out to be so easy to remedy as the thesis proposes.

The gay community would freak out in opposition but nobody would be able to stop the expectant mothers from maintaining a pre-natal hormonal balance via nutrition and that could only be deemed 'natural' preventative medicine and a healthy dietary requirement.

I'm surprised that this kind of study isn't being challenged as offensive before it is even completed. It’s only logical conclusion would lead directly to determining exactly what needs to be implemented into pre-natal vitamin combinations.

*ponders the possibilities*

I see a few bits on a 'gay gene'?
Homosexuality might be natural, but the chances of it being so due to a gene seems somewhat unreasonable.
The purpose of a gene is to pass on genetic information to the offspring of a male and a female (and will remain that way until we find alternate methods of combining genes for a homosexual couple to reproduce), in this way contributing homosexuality to genetics seems inpossible. (not saying it isn't natural, just that it isn't due to genetics)
For those not understanding what I am getting at (which is understandable seeing as I am having trouble wording it) ; what would be the point of a gene, thats purpose is to pass on information to offspring via reproduction (being that it is a gene...), which would not get passed on in reproduction (due to the present inablity of gay couples to reproduce)?
And further; how would one aquire this gene if neither parents were homosexual?

Seriously, it was on the same page. Is it that hard to read? As posted above, with study cited:

This study was widely reported on a while back. Although a larger-scale study may be necessary to show that the correlation is truly there, these researchers found that mothers and maternal aunts (but not paternal aunts) of homosexual men seemed to have a higher fecundity (have more children) than the mothers and maternal aunts of heterosexual men. This suggests that there is some genetic factor on the X chromosome that may increase fertility in women, while increasing the chance of homosexuality in men.

Do you not think that an increase in fertility in women is a enough of a help to keep such a gene around?

From the site...
If aromatase activity in the POA is responsible for the size of the oSDN, and if oSDN size in turn is responsible for sexual preference, then it might be possible to interfere with hypothalamic aromatase in developing rams to reliably shrink the oSDN and produce male-oriented rams. Would it be possible to shift a female-oriented ram’s preference, even in adulthood, by reducing aromatase activity in the POA? Either of these demonstrations would be powerful proof of a causal relationship between steroid action, hypothalamic morphology, and sexual preference in sheep. Either demonstration would also, by extension, strengthen the notion that steroids affect the human hypothalamus to influence sexual orientation in adulthood. If the results pan out this way, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to condemn homosexuality as a lifestyle choice rather than an ingrained property of the human heart.

Oh my gosh, how is it that after analyzing all the way down that entire exercise in theory (very well done actually, I'm not attacking any part of it) that they would end up finishing with predicting the EXACT opposite of what will actually happen?

They didn't. First off, you can't completely support your prediction. Secondly, your prediction is not incompatible with theirs. Knowing that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice would not keep bigots from attempting to eradicate it.

What will really happen if that turns out to be true is; every pregnant women in the world will be demanding the proper androgens be maintained in her system with the help of her obstetrician... there will be no more homosexuals born IF it turns out to be so easy to remedy as the thesis proposes.

What a lovely assumption. "All pregnant women are bigots opposed to natural pregnancy and the existence of homosexuals. Therefore, every woman would choose to alter her own body chemistry to make her child just how she wants him."

And then, of course, there is the simple fact of the incredible amounts of evidence that there are other factors involved in sexuality. Thus, even if we knew the exact androgen concentrations involved, altering them would only decrease the possibility of homosexuality, not wipe it out completely.

What a lovely assumption. "All pregnant women are bigots opposed to natural pregnancy and the existence of homosexuals. Therefore, every woman would choose to alter her own body chemistry to make her child just how she wants him."

Women aren't now, and wouldn't be then, bigots opposed to natural pregnancy simply because they would (and already do) take prenatal vitamins and regulate their diets to avoid toxins that are known to cause birth defects or other problems with pregnancy.

Avoiding smoking, alcohol and mercury in some types of fish (for example) is a given, but prenatal care calls for much more than just that, the avoidance of some things. It is also known that prenatal supplements/diets should contain high amounts of folic acid and other compounds like omega-3, iron and vitamin A, but too much vitamin A on the other hand, or more than 5,000 IU, would be a bad thing. Doing some of these things even from pre-conception, such as getting the right amount of folic acid in your regular daily diet can help prevent certain types of birth defects and other problems during pregnancy.

It is known that women should get immunizations from things like German measles or chickenpox (if they are not already immune) for example, simply because contacting the diseases during pregnancy could have a drastically adverse affect on the developing child. It is also know that women should avoid getting pregnant immediately after getting an immunization...

It is well established that the entire process of a healthy diet helps to ensure that the fetus has all the nutrients it needs to grow and develop normally. Maintaining a healthy diet and metabolic balance, both before and during pregnancy, helps to reduce the risk of some disorders of pregnancy. How can you say that they would need to be bigots for trying to maintain the best possible environment, including androgen levels, in their own system for their babies?

For instance, women on medications to treat various diseases and conditions can affect the growth and development of their fetus, and thus they need to be cut back or exchanged these drugs for less risky drugs. Some herbal supplements and high amounts of vitamins can also impact the fetus' health during pregnancy. Even being around certain materials like paint and pesticides can put the health of the fetus at risk. Changes in diet, medication or supplement use, and changes in environment would only be wise on the mother’s position, to prevent problems during pregnancy, and you would call these women bigots simply because they would choose to maintain their androgen levels as well as everything else? How could individualized nutrition programs, down even to the very matching of their child's sex/gender and number of fetuses etc., and development needs of their individual condition, ever be a bad thing or ever bigoted?

Sometimes I just don't understand you Dem, why would you say that they would need to be bigots to maintain their best possible health during pregnancy?


And then, of course, there is the simple fact of the incredible amounts of evidence that there are other factors involved in sexuality. Thus, even if we knew the exact androgen concentrations involved, altering them would only decrease the possibility of homosexuality, not wipe it out completely.

I didn't propose the theory submitted in the article, you’re brought it to the thread yourself, it asked the questions and I went with the 'what if's' that would occur IF their proposition (s) turns out to be correct... If homosexuality can be altered in the adult sheep and if the condition it is originally caused by the prenatal conditions, then I stand by my prediction. I don't see how that turns my prediction into a bigoted idea.

becauseIt is well established that the entire process of a healthy diet helps to ensure that the fetus has all the nutrients it needs to grow and develop normally. Maintaining a healthy diet and metabolic balance, both before and during pregnancy, helps to reduce the risk of some disorders of pregnancy. How can you say that they would need to be bigots for trying to maintain the best possible environment, including androgen levels, in their own system for their babies?

There is nothing in the article to suggest that a different level of androgens is harmful to the fetus, or that it is a defect in development. Only a bigot would think that being homosexual was a defect. Trying to regulate the sexuality of your child is not "maintaining the best possible environment," any more than trying to take vitamiins to make your child blonde would be.

Changes in diet, medication or supplement use, and changes in environment would only be wise on the mother’s position, to prevent problems during pregnancy, and you would call these women bigots simply because they would choose to maintain their androgen levels as well as everything else? How could individualized nutrition programs, down even to the very matching of their child's sex/gender and number of fetuses etc., and development needs of their individual condition, ever be a bad thing or ever bigoted?

In order to try and regulate your child's sexuality, you are automatically assuming that there is something wrong with being homosexual - thus being a bigot. We aren't talking about preventing problems during pregnancy, we are talking about preventing a perfectly natural trait. Again, it would be the same if we found out that certain vitamins encouraged blonde hair and blue eyes and you claimed that they were just trying to "be healthy".

Sometimes I just don't understand you Dem, why would you say that they would need to be bigots to maintain their best possible health during pregnancy?

I never said they would need to be bigots to maintain their best possible health during pregnancy. I said they would be bigots to try and change the natural course of their pregnancy to prevent homosexuality - which isn't a disorder. There is nothing in the article to suggest that a woman with different androgen levels, or a fetus that develops in said environment, are less healthy.

Perhaps it is a recessive gene, or genes, but again the patterns would be very noticible, and would not be found on a SINGLE gene. perhaps there is some correlation, but certainly would be unlikely for it to take ALL of the responsibility for sexuality.

What is the 'point' of some people having an extra chromosome on at 9? There is not a point, which does not mean that people are not born with Down syndrome or that Down Syndrome is not a condition caused by chromosomes (ie a genetic condition).
DS is caused by genetics, but it is not hereditary, it doesn't pass on from parent to child in the information (the gene), but rather something that happens to the information (gene) .

homosexuals of course can breed and many do.
Though not with homosexuals of the same gender. if they did breed by other means then we would have homosexuals with atleast one homosexual parent or other direct relative... and that doesn't seem to occur proportionally.

There is nothing in the article to suggest that a different level of androgens is harmful to the fetus, or that it is a defect in development. Only a bigot would think that being homosexual was a defect. Trying to regulate the sexuality of your child is not "maintaining the best possible environment," any more than trying to take vitamiins to make your child blonde would be.



Sure it did, it said:
In mammalian models, a testicular hormonal signal—androgen—masculinizes the developing genitalia and also masculinizes the developing brain. For a wide variety of behaviors, we can arrange for an animal to display either typically male-like or typically female-like behaviors, or something in between, just by manipulating androgen levels at the right time in development. For most behaviors, a single exposure to androgen early in life will masculinize the animal’s brain and behavior forever (8). The rat SDN-POA conformed to this notion beautifully: males deprived of androgen early in life display a small SDN-POA in adulthood, whereas females exposed to androgen during the perinatal period display a large SDN-POA. So might there be a similar process at work in humans? Do the fetal androgens that provide a baby boy with his penis also masculinize his brain, perhaps even the POA, so that 10 yr later he starts fantasizing about Britney Spears, kicking off a lifelong fascination with women?

It seems quite obvious that once the sex is determined by the chromosomes that the brain blue print would be determined to be of the same sex, and then thereafter if the level of androgen is not sufficient or is saturated with too much androgen, the developing brain would be adversely affected. This is not suggestive of a design-gene, it is a nutritional or hormonal issue. In much the same way that a lack of omega-3 can cause a developing brain to starve and be stunted from reaching it full potential from the lack of a required nutrient, the brain would not fully develop as intended.

If the male and female fetus nutritional requirements are slightly different, I would not be at all surprised.

EDIT: And no one is trying to regulate the sex of the child by providing the proper nutrients for the gender of the fetus, this is nothing whatsoever like suggesting designer babies.

Nature or Nuture? Well its a loaded question that if you answer one way or the other everyone thinks you mean x or y accordingly.

My belief is that the root of homosexuality will ultimatly be found in the nurture camp. But then that is because i am convinced that homosexuality doesn't really exist in the strictest sence of the word. Its a behaviour, not a diesese, condition or mutation, one largely born of and defined by society. The Greeks happily took partners of both genders, i believe because they could see that sexual relations for *pleasure* need not be confined to one gender or the other.

However sexual relationships for reproduction necessarily have to be hetrosexual. And this is the primary driver for sex, pleasure is a secondary concern. People like to cite that animals often show homosexual behaviour as proof that its is normal - but all it really proves is that animals also like to get thier rocks off now and again. Call it practice, call it social bonding, it does not mean that the individual animal is actually *exclusively* attracted to the same sex. This is something found only in humans, who will be determined to maintain their homosexual behaviour even when the stronger natural urge to procreate emerges.

Nurture, you must consider, covers a wide gamut from hormones recieved in the womb to experiences in life and upbringing. Most of which could be covered by the term nature in its wider sence anyway, so you could say its both but that would over simplify. I dont believe gay people "choose" to be gay, neither would i suggest that it can be unlearnt or "cured".

Homosexuality just *is*. Get over it everyone.

Sure it did, it said:
In mammalian models, a testicular hormonal signal—androgen—masculinizes the developing genitalia and also masculinizes the developing brain. For a wide variety of behaviors, we can arrange for an animal to display either typically male-like or typically female-like behaviors, or something in between, just by manipulating androgen levels at the right time in development. For most behaviors, a single exposure to androgen early in life will masculinize the animal’s brain and behavior forever (8). The rat SDN-POA conformed to this notion beautifully: males deprived of androgen early in life display a small SDN-POA in adulthood, whereas females exposed to androgen during the perinatal period display a large SDN-POA. So might there be a similar process at work in humans? Do the fetal androgens that provide a baby boy with his penis also masculinize his brain, perhaps even the POA, so that 10 yr later he starts fantasizing about Britney Spears, kicking off a lifelong fascination with women?

*looks*

*looks again*

Still doesn't see anything in there to suggest that the range of sexuality is a defect. A heterosexual boy may receive different androgens than a homosexual boy, but that doesn't make either one of them "defective".

It seems quite obvious that once the sex is determined by the chromosomes that the brain blue print would be determined to be of the same sex, and then thereafter if the level of androgen is not sufficient or is saturated with too much androgen, the developing brain would be adversely affected.

Of course it does, to someone who thinks that any sexuality other than their own is a defect.

EDIT: And no one is trying to regulate the sex of the child by providing the proper nutrients for the gender of the fetus, this is nothing whatsoever like suggesting designer babies.

Actually, it is exactly the same. In order to do this, you would be declaring a trait of a human being - their sexuality - to be defective unless it is exactly as you want it, despite the fact that there is no harm or loss of potential involved with a homosexual/bisexual/etc. human being. This is exactly like determining that your baby must have blue eyes, because all other colors are defective, and doing whatever is necessary to alter the natural development of that child to have blue eyes.

Meanwhile, we have derailed the thread. The OP did not want debate on homosexuality itself, but on the evidence of the various contributors to homosexuality. I provided links to studies that suggest genetics and environmental factors. The intent of the thread was that the merits of the evidence presented be debated.

My belief is that the root of homosexuality will ultimatly be found in the nurture camp. But then that is because i am convinced that homosexuality doesn't really exist in the strictest sence of the word. Its a behaviour, not a diesese, condition or mutation, one largely born of and defined by society.

Physical attraction is not a behavior.

However sexual relationships for reproduction necessarily have to be hetrosexual. And this is the primary driver for sex, pleasure is a secondary concern.

This is opinion stated as fact.

People like to cite that animals often show homosexual behaviour as proof that its is normal - but all it really proves is that animals also like to get thier rocks off now and again. Call it practice, call it social bonding, it does not mean that the individual animal is actually *exclusively* attracted to the same sex. This is something found only in humans, who will be determined to maintain their homosexual behaviour even when the stronger natural urge to procreate emerges.

Actually, this is patently untrue. There are several species in which a creature will exhibit exclusive sexual behavior with members of the same sex. It has been observed in sheep, species of birds, whiptail lizards (of course, they are only female), some rodents, and others.

In experiments, scientists have forcibly tried to displace homosexual pair-bonds, only to have the animal form another. Male birds who court other male birds, in some species, actually have a completely different ritual for it than those courting females. In bighorn sheep, even aspects of sexuality such as transsexuality - an animal that, despite being physically male, acts completely and totally as a female - have been observed. Exclusivity is not a strictly human trait, although it is rare.

In some birds, females in same-sex pair bonds only actually mate when a male forcibly mates with them. The female then raises her young with her female partner. Males in same-sex pair bonds will sometimes run off a female from her nest and raise her offspring as their own.

You are essentially arguing that if a woman is androgen deficient during pregnancy that you would argue that it is a bigoted point of view for a doctor to assist her balance her hormones simply because the child ‘might’ be born with homosexual tendencies because of her androgen deficiency?

This has nothing to do with acceptance of homosexuals and entirely whether or not the physical well being of the mother during pregnancy might actually cause the fetus to develop without the benefit of a mother who is hormonally balanced… I’m a at a loss to understand your fixation with the idea that the mother would have to be a bigot to be concerned with her androgen balance and overall health.

Physiological and pathological processes may result in androgen deficiency compared with levels in other young healthy women. Whether relative androgen deficiency results in increased fat mass, decreased libido, and diminished quality of life, or in fetus development during pregnancy has not been established, we are only talking about the possible connection of an ailment that is already being researched for post-menopausal women to pregnancy conditions. However preliminary the discussion may be research in post-menopausal women studies suggest that physiological androgen replacement therapy, which involves substantially lower doses than those used in men, may result in increased bone mineral density, increased libido, and improved quality of life for them.

I’m not pretending that androgen therapy for women, and especially for pregnant women is right around the corner, but for you to suggest that only a bigot would consider androgen balance during pregnancy is preposterous.

You are essentially arguing that if a woman is androgen deficient during pregnancy that you would argue that it is a bigoted point of view for a doctor to assist her balance her hormones simply because the child ‘might’ be born with homosexual tendencies because of her androgen deficiency?

Again, we aren't talking about a deficiency. I am not talking about a woman who is androgen deficient. I am talking about a woman who has levels of androgen that will produce a perfectly healthy fetus that happens to develop into a homosexual person.

This has nothing to do with acceptance of homosexuals and entirely whether or not the physical well being of the mother during pregnancy might actually cause the fetus to develop without the benefit of a mother who is hormonally balanced… I’m a at a loss to understand your fixation with the idea that the mother would have to be a bigot to be concerned with her androgen balance and overall health.

Again, we aren't talking about a woman with a hormone imbalance. The only way to consider it a hormone imbalance - a defective level, as it were - is to assume that homosexuality is a defect.

I’m not pretending that androgen therapy for women, and especially for pregnant women is right around the corner, but for you to suggest that only a bigot would consider androgen balance during pregnancy is preposterous.

We aren't talking about pathological hormone imbalances. We are specifically talking about a possible difference in androgen levels that might result in heterosexuality or homosexuality. If we were talking about an infant being born unhealthy, or a woman being unhealthy, that would be a different matter. It is not, however, what we are talking about.

You stated that, if androgen levels were shown to cause homosexuality, that every woman would demand that her androgen levels be kept at the "proper" level. In other words, you said that all women would demand that they have the level that wouldn't lead to homosexuality.

I think I heard an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality, the thrust of which was that in certain envirnoments it made sense to have either a higher percentage of guys or girls in the extended family unit and those genes were correspondingly selected for. Obviously since the gay gene wasn't going to pass from the actual gay person (at least in the case of the guys - not like women always get to sleep with their person of choice) it'd have to be latent in a nephew or whatever, but the maths worked out when I heard it.

No that that actually proves anything, but it does at least shut up the "Can't be genetic - it's selected against really pretty strongly" crowd.

TearTheSkyOut:

Perhaps it is a recessive gene, or genes, but again the patterns would be very noticible, and would not be found on a SINGLE gene. perhaps there is some correlation, but certainly would be unlikely for it to take ALL of the responsibility for sexuality.


The patterns could ultimately be very small. The people advocating that genetics is the primary cause (myself) have never it was on one gene. We said it is on several chromosomes.

Its a behaviour, not a diesese, condition or mutation, one largely born of and defined by society. The Greeks happily took partners of both genders, i believe because they could see that sexual relations for *pleasure* need not be confined to one gender or the other.

Behavior? Meaning it can be changed? There has been extensive study into the fact that sexual orientation cannot be changed.

People like to cite that animals often show homosexual behaviour as proof that its is normal - but all it really proves is that animals also like to get thier rocks off now and again. Call it practice, call it social bonding, it does not mean that the individual animal is actually *exclusively* attracted to the same sex.

Actually there are significant amount of evidence in the animal kingdom showing pairings of two male animal, and this most certainly indicates attraction between the two.

This is something found only in humans, who will be determined to maintain their homosexual behaviour even when the stronger natural urge to procreate emerges.

Um no. Some of us are exclusively homosexual, myself included.

it is the last digits of pi ending at the 10 milionth place (so the last 50 I believe)

There are no last digits of pi, it has infinite digits.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

^_^ That site i linked to mentions that homosexuality is found in animals, quitte commonly in fact.

Does this mean homosexuality is a part of Nature exclusively?

Of course not, silly mooses ^_^ How can something so complicated be the result of a single factor? Silly, silly mooses, it's both. Although I personally assume that it's more nature, then nuture ^_^ I've read things in my psychology book as well saying that twins are almost always both gays (whether raised together or apart in different familys), while non identical siblings have a less likely chance if raised together, and an even LESS likely chance if raised apart. See? It's both ^_^
Edit: Twins are always of the same sexual orientation, not always gay -.-;; heh-heh

"However sexual relationships for reproduction necessarily have to be hetrosexual. And this is the primary driver for sex, pleasure is a secondary concern."

This is opinion stated as fact.


Eh? what could possibly not be factual about that? There is no natural method for mammals to reproduce in non hetrosexual manner. Sure we can use IVF etc now but that is unnatural and not much use for gay men. Wheather its the primary driver or not may be open to a little debate, one that i suppose is rather central to this issue. But its a fair comment that most would accept and not consider to be "opinion". Maybe i should have said primary reason rather than driver.


As for same sex bonding in the rest of the animal kingdom, i haven't found the wealth of studies you have. From what i have picked up and read, there is little conclusive evidence that it exists. Studying the life time bonding behaviour of animals is obviously difficult. I find your example of male birds pushing out a female from the nest bizarre as it does not actually benefit the male in any way (not his genes) so why waste time and trouble? The example of the female is more interesting though.


"determined to maintain their homosexual behaviour even when the stronger natural urge to procreate emerges."

Um no. Some of us are exclusively homosexual, myself included.

yes, thats what i said. But then down the line in their 30's, Lesbians will go to the NHS (in the UK) demanding to have artificial insemination or Gays will knock on the door of the adoption agencies because its their "right" to still have children.

yes, thats what i said. But then down the line in their 30's, Lesbians will go to the NHS (in the UK) demanding to have artificial insemination or Gays will knock on the door of the adoption agencies because its their "right" to still have children.

So will infertile and fertile couples, single heterosexual females, etc. and since when do gays and lesbians instinctively want kids after 30. LOL!

*is pushing 40 and prefers his children parboiled* :D

Eh? what could possibly not be factual about that? There is no natural method for mammals to reproduce in non hetrosexual manner. Sure we can use IVF etc now but that is unnatural and not much use for gay men. Wheather its the primary driver or not may be open to a little debate, one that i suppose is rather central to this issue. But its a fair comment that most would accept and not consider to be "opinion". Maybe i should have said primary reason rather than driver.

Why answer your own question?

Meanwhile, saying primary reason would have been even more off. In many social species (including human beings), reproduction can hardly factually be said to be the primary reason for sexual relations. If we were talking about insects, which have sex only for mating, and only during a specified mating period, then you might have a point. However, we are talking about social mammals, in which most sex has nothing at all to do with reproduction.

As for same sex bonding in the rest of the animal kingdom, i haven't found the wealth of studies you have. From what i have picked up and read, there is little conclusive evidence that it exists.

I recommend a book: Biological Exuberance by Bruce Baghemil.

Studying the life time bonding behaviour of animals is obviously difficult.

Obviously, but not impossible.

I find your example of male birds pushing out a female from the nest bizarre as it does not actually benefit the male in any way (not his genes) so why waste time and trouble?

Obviously, the drive to raise offspring is stronger in these animals than the drive to have their own. There are also cases in which males in same-sex pair bonds will mate with a female just to get offspring, then chase her off as soon as she lays eggs - which I suppose would make a little more sense to you. Some just chase off a random female, however.

yes, thats what i said. But then down the line in their 30's, Lesbians will go to the NHS (in the UK) demanding to have artificial insemination or Gays will knock on the door of the adoption agencies because its their "right" to still have children.

The wish to have children doesn't make you any less "exclusively gay". These people are still only sexually attracted to members of the same sex. They simply want to have children, sort of like the birds described above, eh?