Homosexuality - Nature, Nurture or Both?

[rmcrobertson]

1. On at least one level--who cares if it's nature or nurture? Ain't nobody's bidness but one's own.

2. On another level--once again, the very question presupposes that heterosexuality is the normal state, the, "zero degree," against which some aberration of either biology or choice is to be measured.

3. On a still 'nother level--once in a while, I'd like to see the question asked: is the swaggering display, cock-of-the-walk arrogance, and narcissism that all too often passes for "normal," masculinity a matter of nature, nurture or both?

 

[Kane]

I think for the most part homosexuality is nurture, considering many people even start out straight and turn gay. Some gays that I have seen are actually very masculine when they were young, but later in life become very feminine. There are however some people who feel homosexual at birth. I think there is a way to explain that. I 99% sure it has nothing to do with genes. I think there is a chemical imbalance in the mother's womb that causes some homosexuals to feel attracted to the same gender. There was a case not too long ago that I saw on 20/20 about two identical twin girls that were very different. One was a transgender and the other was a normal girl. The case stunned scientists because identical twins are supposed to act almost exactly alike in a set circumstance. Here is a link to the story by the way;

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=174855&page=1

Anyway, some scientists suggested that this was caused by a chemical imbalance in the womb. The mother was in a car crash and she nearly escaped death from the accident. Surprisingly the twins survived as well but the impact might of raised a chemical imbalance in the brain of the one of the twins, making her think like a guy thus becoming a transgender.

So there it might have to with some activities in the womb, at least for those who say they have felt homosexual their whole life. However most homosexuals I know say they became gay more later in life, and some even say they were straight at a time. Or homosexuality could be a fetish, which millions of people have. Either way homosexuality seems to be mostly nurture, but I think on occasion it can be a chemical imbalance in the womb.

 

[Makalakumu]

1. On at least one level--who cares if it's nature or nurture? Ain't nobody's bidness but one's own.

I understand this sentiment, but nobody is trying to pry into anyones private life.

2. On another level--once again, the very question presupposes that heterosexuality is the normal state, the, "zero degree," against which some aberration of either biology or choice is to be measured.

I don't think so. The question could very well be a fill in the blank question and it could ask the same thing of any orientation. You may be reading in the intent you suggest. Oh well.

3. On a still 'nother level--once in a while, I'd like to see the question asked: is the swaggering display, cock-of-the-walk arrogance, and narcissism that all too often passes for "normal," masculinity a matter of nature, nurture or both?

Considering that sexual selection pressures are the root of such behaviors, I too would be very interested in that question. See this thread.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, those last two posts were a complete distortion of the science.

First off, no, "identical twins raised apart," are NOT supposed, "to act exactly alike." That's mythology, not science. Twin studies suggest that one inherits a certain predisposition, a "talent," if you like, and then environmental questions kick in.

Second, it is scientifically inaccurate to claim that ANY aspect of our evolution and biology is articulated directly in our behavior. Certainly, behaviors as complex as the manifestation of gender roles represent an extraordinary cultural translation of underlying biology.

Third, the remarkable thing is that the last two posters, with very different political persuasions, fundamentally agree. This derives from the nature of the question posed, as I noted.

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, those last two posts were a complete distortion of the science.

First off, no, "identical twins raised apart," are NOT supposed, "to act exactly alike." That's mythology, not science. Twin studies suggest that one inherits a certain predisposition, a "talent," if you like, and then environmental questions kick in.

Second, it is scientifically inaccurate to claim that ANY aspect of our evolution and biology is articulated directly in our behavior. Certainly, behaviors as complex as the manifestation of gender roles represent an extraordinary cultural translation of underlying biology.

Third, the remarkable thing is that the last two posters, with very different political persuasions, fundamentally agree. This derives from the nature of the question posed, as I noted.

Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of sexual selection. This concept can affect morphologic change and behavioral/cultural change. There is nothing distorted about it.

The statement that it is scientifically inaccurate to claim that ANY aspect of our evolution and biology is articulated directly in our behaviors is woefully ignorant of the theory of evolution as it stand today. It is pregnant with the latent humanism that distorts the behavioral sciences...preventing any sort of unifying theory from taking hold. The paradigm shift, in my opinion, is riding with Evolutionary Psychology and as soon as they ditch the gene centered, Ultra-Darwinian, approach they will begin to eat alot of other people's lunches.

What we are looking at is sex decoupled from reproduction. Sex for its own sake. Sex to have sex, to control, to trade, to bond, to pacify...an entire sex life separate from reproductive and economic needs. There are other animals that do this and it really is nothing new. In species where you have this triangle, guess what? Homosexuality is common and expected, it is part of a normal and healthy sex life along with heterosexuality and masturbation.

Orientation, in my opinion, is both nature and nuture. We do not have sex solely for reproduction. We have sex for many other reasons and these other reasons evolved just like any other characteristics. Yet, it is incorrect to say that our sexual practices are uninformed by our culture through the use of mores and taboo. If a "heterosexual" refuses to have sex with someone of the same sex even though there could be many good economic or sexual reason to have sex with that person, we are seeing the effects of behavior intervening in something biological. Orientation is the complex interaction of genes and learned behavior. The simple fact that there are so many exceptions to all one or the other screams that this is so.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Kane]

Well, those last two posts were a complete distortion of the science.

First off, no, "identical twins raised apart," are NOT supposed, "to act exactly alike." That's mythology, not science. Twin studies suggest that one inherits a certain predisposition, a "talent," if you like, and then environmental questions kick in.

Second, it is scientifically inaccurate to claim that ANY aspect of our evolution and biology is articulated directly in our behavior. Certainly, behaviors as complex as the manifestation of gender roles represent an extraordinary cultural translation of underlying biology.

Third, the remarkable thing is that the last two posters, with very different political persuasions, fundamentally agree. This derives from the nature of the question posed, as I noted.

Actually Rmcrobertson, identical twins are supposed to act almost alike in a given circumstance. Of course there are also factors of environment that effect the situation. However if the two twins similar lives together most likely they will make the right decisions. For example if a teenage identical twin was pressured to take drugs and she does, 95% of the time the identical twin will make the same decision and takes the drug. Of course this as well goes back to the whole nature vs nurture question, as you will find if you search the the topic on google but I think nature does play a role with the similarities of identical twins, which maybe an exception with the nurture vs nature.

Anyway my point is that there maybe some chemical imbalances during pregnancy that can effect the child. Just like if a mother smokes while she is pregnant the baby might have lung troubles, or in the case of identical twins a sudden impact might have turned one of the twins into a transgender. Similarly there might be an event a mother does while pregnant that effects the way the child thinks. We are only now discovering what happens in the womb.

But again, this only applies to those very few that have felt gay their whole life. The majority of gays I know become gay later in life and some even turn from straight to gay. So it is probably 80% nurture, but 20% nature for those who have always felt gay. I am almost 100% certain though that it has nothing to do with genetics.

 

[Brother John]

As when you try to find any "ROOT" source of any one thing, I don't think the 'reasons' are so cut & dried, black & white.

Your Brother
John

 

[Makalakumu]

As when you try to find any "ROOT" source of any one thing, I don't think the 'reasons' are so cut & dried, black & white.

Your Brother
John

I think that our sex lives, being separate from our reproductive and economic lives, can have a broad spectrum of behavior. We are capable of having sex for a great many reasons and THIS is hardwired into our biology. Sex is socialized though. We learn a lot of about sexual behavior through culture.

How does this translate into the concept of orientation? My thought is that the diversity of the reasons for having sex directly mirror the diversity that can exist in morphology. Humans do not all look alike nor should be be expected to act alike. Different people are going to have different tendancies hardwired and these predelictions will inform our reaction towards cultural learning regarding sex.

 

[elder999]

One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did.

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Institute of Health in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality. Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified. Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual. In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful. The work is also controversial because of implications to various segments of the population, and some researchers inability to duplicate Hamer’s results.

Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a 52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men. These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and Pillard’s by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a person’s sexual orientation.

It seems to me, being from New York and knowing , growing up with, and continuing to have friendships with a number of homosexuals, as well as having a gay uncle and cousin, and based on conversations with all of them, that they truly “always felt different,” without any coercion, exposure or molestation incidents, as well as the predominant medical theories, that there is a genetic component to sexual inclination. It also seems to me, based on other conversations (not having any experience in this regard myself) that as humans we are capable of overcoming how we are hardwired in terms of sexual orientation, as exemplified by a friend who first became a practicing lesbian after a college pregnancy scare, and is now bi-sexual, or, as I call her, omnisexual…..



Additionally, one could equate, on some level at least, homosexuality and it’s practice with various and sundry fetishes and kinks. How does one come to equate latex, rubber, bondage or anything with sexual excitement. As humans, our sexual behavior is not merely tied to reproduction and genetics, as it appears to be with so many other mammals; we have sex for a variety of reasons, not in the least because of pure desire, and our minds find ways to “spice it up,” whether because of socialization or other experiences-many such idiosyncrasies being associated with early childhood experiences that we may come to equate with being loved, such as the smell of peanut butter, or rubber….say.-these are in some way learned, and thus nurtured behaviors.



So I voted “both,”which is what I believe, but, being decidedly heterosexual myself......:idunno:

 

[Cryozombie]

I think if it was 100% genetic, we would see a decline in the population of people who are homosexual.

IN THEORY, In the same way that you breed dogs for specific traits, the lower rates of homosexulas reproducing as opposed to heterosexuals, would see the homosexual genetics "bred out" of the population...

Based on that thinking I have to be inclined to believe its probably more likley to be nurture as opposed to nature.

 

[elder999]

I think if it was 100% genetic, we would see a decline in the population of people who are homosexual.

IN THEORY, In the same way that you breed dogs for specific traits, the lower rates of homosexulas reproducing as opposed to heterosexuals, would see the homosexual genetics "bred out" of the population...

Based on that thinking I have to be inclined to believe its probably more likley to be nurture as opposed to nature.

This common misconception fails to take into account the way recessive genes are passed on; if one applied your same theory to, say, hemophilia, one would think that it too would have been bred out long ago, given that eventually the mortality rate would surpass the gene being passed on, but this is not the case.

Or, that since male pattern baldness is a recessive trait passed on from the mother (i.e., if your mom's dad was bald, you might just wind up that way), it too would eventually die out.My mom's dad was bald; I am not, and my brother was bald at 27. My son probably won't be, as his mother's dad wasn't, but that doesn't mean that my daughter's son-should she ever have one-might not be, and ditto for any male children of my female grandchildren, should that occur. The same could well be true-since the data indicate that the theoretical gene arises from the mother-for homosexuality.

See here for a far better explanation of recessive gene inheritance than I'm capable of.

 

[rmcrobertson]

My goodness. I see that my little comments immediately drove two of very different politics to attempt hyper-intellectualizing their discourse.

Yes, yes, yes, "woefully ignorant." I suggest you look up Robert Plomin's work. I was one of his students, back about 1978-79. "Elder" describes reality far more accurately, as does BroJo: biology is expressed in human beings only in indirect, circuitous ways. You might also want to go back and read Lacan on the deconstruction of the drives, or Freud's early and indeed premature analysis of the parts instincts play in human life.

There are two problems with the opposed explanations: if you say it's all choice and culture, then WE CAN STAMP OUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!. If you say it's all biology, then all we have to do is to find the gay gene, and WE CAN STAMP OUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!

For the third time: the problem with these arguments is that they assume heterosexuality to me normative, a pure expression of good biology and decent culture. Well, fahgeddaboutit--for every Michael Jackson, there are fifteen child-molesting, sick and twisted priests and grandpas.

 

[ninhito]

Yes, there's a difference between choosing how one is and how one acts.

Have you ever thought when you were young, "I dont like the way i am" and then did something about it. You still made a choice to change, did you not. Like a person took an oath of silence for a month because he did not like how he liked to hear his own voice.
Nurture might be a cause because I know someone who turned homosexual after being around nothing but sisters and his mom for his early life.

 

[Cryozombie]

This common misconception fails to take into account the way recessive genes are passed on; if one applied your same theory to, say, hemophilia, one would think that it too would have been bred out long ago, given that eventually the mortality rate would surpass the gene being passed on, but this is not the case.

Or, that since male pattern baldness is a recessive trait passed on from the mother (i.e., if your mom's dad was bald, you might just wind up that way), it too would eventually die out.My mom's dad was bald; I am not, and my brother was bald at 27. My son probably won't be, as his mother's dad wasn't, but that doesn't mean that my daughter's son-should she ever have one-might not be, and ditto for any male children of my female grandchildren, should that occur. The same could well be true-since the data indicate that the theoretical gene arises from the mother-for homosexuality.

See here for a far better explanation of recessive gene inheritance than I'm capable of.

Assuming of course that homosexuality is a recessive gene...

I understand that side of the argument as well, but nature has taught us that selective breeding can produce specific, predictable results.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hommage a billiard-ball causality... in two parts.

part 1: It's the wimmen's fault!

part 2: Meat machines! we're just meat machines!! Alas, to paraphrase Dr. FRANKenstein (long, "a"), hearts and kidneys are TINKERTOYS!! I'm talking about the CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM!!

Human behaviors are never the direct expression of underlying genetic material; for that matter, behavior isn't the pure expression for what lies beneath in any of the hominids, canines, dolphins or whales.

What really demands interrogation isn't homosexuality, but its "opposite." And opposites attract, we all know from MTV--funny, the obsession of the straight with the bent.

 

[Makalakumu]

My goodness. I see that my little comments immediately drove two of very different politics to attempt hyper-intellectualizing their discourse.

Or it is possible that I may have done a lot of reading on this subject and wish to discuss some of the ideas that I've been mulling over...I seem to remember someone mentioning the ROOT cause of something not being black and white...

Yes, yes, yes, "woefully ignorant." I suggest you look up Robert Plomin's work. I was one of his students, back about 1978-79.

Wow! That is really cool. Dr. Plomin's work is fantastic. Here is a little of his most recent stuff in which I've seen (and hopefully understood :idunno: )...

'Behavioral Genetics in the Postgenomic Era' is edited by Robert Plomin and his colleagues describes where we are and where we are going in genetic research on behaviour in the postgenomic era when all genes and all DNA variations will be known.

'Behavioral Genetics' is the classic textbook in the field. It introduces both quantitative genetic and molecular genetic research designs and findings in the major areas of behavioural research including neurogenetics, cognitive abilities and disabilities, psychopathology, personality, health psychology, ageing, evolution, and the interface between nature and nurture.

One note I would like to make is that Plomin's work is weighted heavily toward the genetic aspects of our behavior. In a way, he seems to be echoing folks like Richard Dawkins and the Ultra Darwinian chorus.

"Elder" describes reality far more accurately, as does BroJo:

I think that Elder makes a good case for genetic basis and he provides some good research that is very interesting. Yet, Brother John's post is a good observation...one that I happen agree with. This root isn't black or white. It's not one or the other. There is some of both. Now what does this mean???

Biology is expressed in human beings only in indirect, circuitous ways

This is absolutely false. In terms of behavior, our biology provides us with the paint. Our environment dictates how we paint. I'll use a less controversial example...My wife has mammary glands that swelled with milk after the recent birth of our son (she is nursing him right now like a good mammal). Her body is attuned to the needs of our son. As he grows, her milk changes to best provide for his needs. The bottom line is that her breastmilk is the best food for our son.

We could choose to give our son formula. We are homo sapiens that happen to live in an area where it is available. And lots of others make this choice (no matter how disturbingly ignorant). Yet, if this choice is removed and the environment is changed, her biology will dicate her behavior. She will follow the piper of her genetics or our son will not survive.

There is absolutely nothing circuitous about this.

You might also want to go back and read Lacan on the deconstruction of the drives, or Freud's early and indeed premature analysis of the parts instincts play in human life.

Psychoanalysis is a dead end. The more I read and the more I learn about biology, the more firmly convinced I am that Freud and all of his contemporaries will go the way of the pterodactyl. I don't see language like "Phallocentric Obscurantism" as actually describing anything biologically real. Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny. It's a fundamental rule in biology and we are fundamentally biologic organisms. We cannot escape that...as much as humanists would like us to believe.

There are two problems with the opposed explanations: if you say it's all choice and culture, then WE CAN STAMP OUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!. If you say it's all biology, then all we have to do is to find the gay gene, and WE CAN STAMP OUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!

I'm not saying that our sexuality is one OR the other. I'm saying that it is both. I'm saying that our biology has decoupled sex from reproduction and the implications of this are staggering. We have a reproductive life. We have an economic life. We have a sex life. This sex life can take many forms and can include reproduction and economics, but it can also include a lot of other social aspects. THIS is our biology. Our culture informs this and has the same power that the availability of formula has on child bearing women.

"Homosexuality" is normal in other species where sex is decoupled from reproduction. Our perception changes with the environment. In fact, I believe, that given the right environment (In the same sense as taking away formula), even the most strident "hetero" will submit to the "will" of his or her biology.

You can't "stamp out" "homosexuality". It can be the result of every human beings sex life, given the right environment for exhibition.

For the third time: the problem with these arguments is that they assume heterosexuality to me normative, a pure expression of good biology and decent culture. Well, fahgeddaboutit--for every Michael Jackson, there are fifteen child-molesting, sick and twisted priests and grandpas.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from a little better now.

 

[rmcrobertson]

In other words, I'm wrong--but actually, I'm right.

Let me share with you a point that I heard Dr. Plomin make again and again, both in lectures and in personal conversation: our genetics never appear unmediated in our biology. Not only are they transformed by culture, but genes interact in extraordinarily complex fashions. It is a common, simplistic error to think that genes determine our behavior.

Fact is, even something as apparently-obvious as inheriting the genes for red hair is translated, and translated radically, by what "red hair," means in out culture. Your wife's pregnancy, delivery, and subseuqent behavior all comes through our perceptions of women, of motherhood, and an almost-endless list of cultural, historical and lingusitic forces.

Many people think that the psychoanalytic tradition is transcended by their superior knowledge. Mostly, it's people who have done any serious reading in Freud, or in Lacan, his great prankster. it's also people who have a vision of a squeaky-clean future--one in which "heterosexuality," is in no way an anaclisis of very different impulses.

 

[Shaolinwind]

Is Homosexuality something that is determined by genetics (nature), something that is learned (nuture), or a combination of both?

I am interested in what people think. If you want to comment further on your vote, feel free.

I'm going into lurk mode to see how this poll plays out.

upnorthkyosa

I am going to duck and cover on this one. Someone tell me when the smoke clears.

 

[Simon Curran]

Is Homosexuality something that is determined by genetics (nature), something that is learned (nuture), or a combination of both?

I am interested in what people think. If you want to comment further on your vote, feel free.

I'm going into lurk mode to see how this poll plays out.

upnorthkyosa

I'm going with nurture and leaving it at that do avoid conflict with the mods

 

[Makalakumu]

In other words, I'm wrong--but actually, I'm right.

Let me share with you a point that I heard Dr. Plomin make again and again, both in lectures and in personal conversation: our genetics never appear unmediated in our biology. Not only are they transformed by culture, but genes interact in extraordinarily complex fashions. It is a common, simplistic error to think that genes determine our behavior.

Fact is, even something as apparently-obvious as inheriting the genes for red hair is translated, and translated radically, by what "red hair," means in out culture. Your wife's pregnancy, delivery, and subseuqent behavior all comes through our perceptions of women, of motherhood, and an almost-endless list of cultural, historical and lingusitic forces.

Many people think that the psychoanalytic tradition is transcended by their superior knowledge. Mostly, it's people who have done any serious reading in Freud, or in Lacan, his great prankster. it's also people who have a vision of a squeaky-clean future--one in which "heterosexuality," is in no way an anaclisis of very different impulses.

I can see where you are coming from. I think that you are downplaying the role of biology in our lives, though. And I think that this undermines a lot of our thinking regarding behavior. It seems as if we have two extremes. From a biologic perspective, the Evolutionary Psychology people reflect a Gene centered approach first formulated by folks like Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson. Then we have a behavioral approach that you have been talking about. They both talk about nature vs nuture, but they give lip service to the other and focus strongly on one IMO.

I'm trying to point out the nature side, not to advocate it fully, but to balance some of what you are saying. So, in a way, you are right in pointing out that our behavior is far to complex to be soley determined by genes. And I am correct in pointing out that our biology and how we evolved influences our behavior also. We have not transcended our biology, never can and never will.

I haven't studied psychoanalysis as much as you have and I am willing to defer to this difference in experience. It is entirely possible, that I don't fully understand the things that I have been taught. However, I can see that the language used by Frued and his contemporaries lacks some of the basic ways that biology views phylogeny and ontogeny. To me, this comes off as archaic, sort of a throwback to a day when people believed that humans were somehow separate from nature.

Regarding homosexuality, I hope that you can see what I believe from what I write. I think that all sexuality is both and I am willing to say the things that this means and face the music. I'm curious as to what you believe about this???