Homosexuality - Nature, Nurture or Both?
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
heretic888
Senior Master
People are still going on about the nature/nurture thing?? Man, that is so 30 years ago. :supcool:
The truth is, that "nature" and "nurture" can't really be rigidly teased apart as easily as both sides' proponents would have you believe. Environment don't do diddely-squat without a biological organism to spill its influences onto. Likewise, genes don't "contain" or "encode" anything without a species-typical environment (even if it is perinatal) to support it.
The system is bi-directional, guys. Flows both ways, in and out. All of our traits, behaviors, qualities, and even sexuality -- without exception --- is a product of "nature" and "nurture" interacting with one another.
Epigenesis, I think its called.
Regarding Mr. Freud, now, he's pretty much not all that looked up to in modern psychology. Virtually all the specifics of his system have been rejected. But, hey, Mr. Erikson's ideas are very well-supported, and he's a neo-Freudian. The psychoanalytic school is, as such, hardly "dead".
I voted "both", by the way.
Laterz.
The truth is, that "nature" and "nurture" can't really be rigidly teased apart as easily as both sides' proponents would have you believe. Environment don't do diddely-squat without a biological organism to spill its influences onto. Likewise, genes don't "contain" or "encode" anything without a species-typical environment (even if it is perinatal) to support it.
The system is bi-directional, guys. Flows both ways, in and out. All of our traits, behaviors, qualities, and even sexuality -- without exception --- is a product of "nature" and "nurture" interacting with one another.
Epigenesis, I think its called.
Regarding Mr. Freud, now, he's pretty much not all that looked up to in modern psychology. Virtually all the specifics of his system have been rejected. But, hey, Mr. Erikson's ideas are very well-supported, and he's a neo-Freudian. The psychoanalytic school is, as such, hardly "dead".
I voted "both", by the way.
Laterz.
Brother John
Senior Master
hardheadjarhead said:
These two parts seem to contradict one another don't they??? Or at least raise an eyebrow...even further...concerning their methodology.
110 sets of twins in America who have one of the two being homosexual...
yet in a Smaller country (more conservative country, I think) there are 5,000 twins (or is that 2,500 sets of twins?) with one of the two being homosexual.
Seems sorta fishy.
PLEASE undestand, though I've had no problems disagreeing w/yall here and there, I'm not really disagreeing here...not wanting to be argumentative (I just don't have a horse in this race), but I just wanted to point out this seeming flaw.
Thoughts?
your Brother
John
Corporal Hicks
Black Belt
Well, even with the twins, who says that they became homosexual from their genes?
The fact that if they may have been in contact with others, like them and posses the same traits i.e. behaving that way inclined, then it may have influenced them to become gay.
So you can just say that its nature but then again you can just say that its nurture. Ah, thats badly worded but never mind.
It may be the culture they have been brought up into. That experiment like others is going to have flaws in it. You cannot apply it universally because who says what works in one culture might not work in another. Cross cultural studies are needed for that. I.e. Germany has more insecure attatchments as children but this may be because they are removed from the parents at an early stage in life and so therefore never make a secure attachment. The fact they are told to taught to be more independant from their parents enforces this result. The finding of that study could not apply across the another culture like that of British culture where children here are more attached to their parents until later life, and generally have more secure attachments.
*Just as an example, that was!*
But applying that to cross culture, just because you do a study on homosexuality in Kenya or somewhere and its found to sway towards nature more, it doesnt mean that its the same say as in America.
In my view they may have a genetic pre-disposition, as in, they were 'more prone (not saying that its a weakness or something)' if you like to being that way inclined from birth! Not as a genetic defect but something maybe we dont understand yet.
Anyway, not that its revelant but my view is, that if they are gay, let them be, I dont have a problem with them and I hope the world turns that towards that view to. Its not our place to interfere or judge others personal lives. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean that its wrong. But sadly equality has not reached that way yet, and people still resist it because peeple dont like change. But hey Im not here to preach, so please dont take offence!
Its not like its a new subject brought to light either. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong that alot of the Greek society was gay when they had an empire. That women were generally there for the purpose of reproduction.
Anyway I better get back to this geography essay, errggh!
Kind Regards
Nick
The fact that if they may have been in contact with others, like them and posses the same traits i.e. behaving that way inclined, then it may have influenced them to become gay.
So you can just say that its nature but then again you can just say that its nurture. Ah, thats badly worded but never mind.
It may be the culture they have been brought up into. That experiment like others is going to have flaws in it. You cannot apply it universally because who says what works in one culture might not work in another. Cross cultural studies are needed for that. I.e. Germany has more insecure attatchments as children but this may be because they are removed from the parents at an early stage in life and so therefore never make a secure attachment. The fact they are told to taught to be more independant from their parents enforces this result. The finding of that study could not apply across the another culture like that of British culture where children here are more attached to their parents until later life, and generally have more secure attachments.
*Just as an example, that was!*
But applying that to cross culture, just because you do a study on homosexuality in Kenya or somewhere and its found to sway towards nature more, it doesnt mean that its the same say as in America.
In my view they may have a genetic pre-disposition, as in, they were 'more prone (not saying that its a weakness or something)' if you like to being that way inclined from birth! Not as a genetic defect but something maybe we dont understand yet.
Anyway, not that its revelant but my view is, that if they are gay, let them be, I dont have a problem with them and I hope the world turns that towards that view to. Its not our place to interfere or judge others personal lives. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean that its wrong. But sadly equality has not reached that way yet, and people still resist it because peeple dont like change. But hey Im not here to preach, so please dont take offence!
Its not like its a new subject brought to light either. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong that alot of the Greek society was gay when they had an empire. That women were generally there for the purpose of reproduction.
Anyway I better get back to this geography essay, errggh!
Kind Regards
Nick
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Kenpodoc said:
Indeed. One might conceivably lie about one's homosexuality, even in a study where confidentiality is assured. I seriously doubt too many say they were gay when they were not.
I was thinking about this thread this morning over coffee at Starbucks. A young man sat down next to me and I noted he was attractive...yet I wasn't attracted to him. Each heterosexual male can recognize attractiveness in another male. This is no doubt a product of our being able to recognize that which we would emulate and that which we by needs must compete with. I'd think this isn't so much socially ingrained as it is biologically inherent.
But there is a social factor of course. Had this youngster been dressed in fashions from the seventies, wearing his hair in that way...most people would find it odd and think, "Gee, he'd be a good looking guy if he didn't dress so weird." We do have a social standard for attractiveness that goes beyond mere features and extends to the realm of fashion. This is plastic and goes with the age we live in.
That said it seems like a very fine line from recognizing attractiveness and attraction of the sort we'd emulate to sexual attraction. Heterosexual males bond with attractive heterosexual males...we hang out with them, desire to work for them, employ them, introduce them to our sisters and daughters--but we don't want to have sex with them. There's the rub. What is it that makes a gay male eroticize that which we find merely attractive? By that token, how is it I can eroticize a woman...when another heterosexual woman and a gay male can not?
Sam Kinison asked that question, although in a vulgar fashion. Dan Savage said it in another way as well in his book "Skipping to Gommorah." And we ask it here. I find "choice" an insufficient answer.
Regards,
Steve
D
Deuce
Guest
What about a very attractive woman that used to be a man? If physically there was no evidence of ever being a male, do think a guy would pick up on the fact that she used to a man if he spent enough time with him/her?
What if he knew, and engaged in sexual activities, is it homosexual behavior? Does it make him gay?
Maybe this situation isn't relevant to the current discussion due to the extensive body modifications involved, but I was trying to find away to compare physical and natural preference or tendancies.
What if he knew, and engaged in sexual activities, is it homosexual behavior? Does it make him gay?
Maybe this situation isn't relevant to the current discussion due to the extensive body modifications involved, but I was trying to find away to compare physical and natural preference or tendancies.
Yo.heretic888 said:
Epigenesis was getting more focus about 5-10 years ago, I think, but with the advent of advanced genetics and molecular biology, sadly, people are being seduced by genetic explanations for all sorts of things.
Nice comment on the species-typical environments, BTW. Some reseach has been looking at environmental inheritance - i.e. what offspring inherit from their parents, in terms of their local environment(s). V. interesting.
Aside from that, I think some of the biggest proponents of the "homosexuality is (most, all, very) genetic" are gay rights fans, who are looking for an explanation that will get fundies off their backs. I can understand why that would happen.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Deuce said:
It is relevant because it helps us realize that sexuality isn't merely an issue of what equipment we're packing.
Years ago I saw a woman (once a man) appear on a talk show. This woman was a model, appeared in a James Bond movie, kissed Roger Moore in the movie, got a Penthouse gig...and was outed sometime after that. I have to say, she was beautiful and perfectly feminine...and a very sweet person. I honestly had to ask myself whether I could fall in love with someone like that. The answer was yes.
Feisty...some gays are VERY against the biological theories concerning homosexuality, feeling more empowered by the "choice" option. They're odd bedfellows with the Fundies themselves, who also think its an issue of choice.
Regards,
Steve
OUMoose
Trying to find my place
That's an interesting question. Is it homosexual? IMO, no. Does it make the other partner gay? no. Would there be an internal struggle in the other partner given the newfound information? You betcha, especially if the person was not totally open in the beginning with their partner, perhaps feeling a little shame/guilt for their ruse.Deuce said:
Now, would a guy spontaneously know that a girl used to be a guy? I doubt it as long as there were no outwards signs or mannerisms.
Hmmm... Good question.
heretic888
Senior Master
Feisty Mouse said:
Yo. :supcool:
Feisty Mouse said:
Undoubtedly.
But, y'see, the problem with these "genetics-only" expanations is that if the gene (or genes) in question doesn't have a species-typical environment to "flow" itself into, it will be incapable of producing the trait associated with it.
Look at it this way: gene A only produces effect or trait B when supported by environment C. If, for example, I put gene A in environment D instead, a totally different effect could result --- including no effect at all (i.e., biological death). This is why the results of our particular genetics are explicitly rooted in evolution via natural selection, in which we have developed species-typical adaptations to counter species-typical environments (whether they be prenatal, perinatal, natal, postnatal, or social). That's just the way it is.
Likewise, the opposite is true: the information from environment C will have no significance unless there is gene A for it to "flow" into. If we were to hypothetically replace gene A with, say, gene B while in the same environment (C), a totally different interactionist result could emerge.
As I said before, the system is bi-directional. It flows both ways.
Feisty Mouse said:
Well, that's how the ideas were taught to me.
Feisty Mouse said:
This is understandable, of course.
However, as I once said to a friend, people really need to stop trying to collapse the science and morality issues here. They're two pretty damn distinct modes of inquiry (albeit there can be some interesting correlations here or there).
A particular trait (not even necessarily sexuality) could be 'natural' (as in, predisposed at birth). But, this does not necessarily mean it is 'right' or 'proper' (if you choose to accept such terminology) one way or another. Most forms of schizophrenia, for example, are genetically inherited.
Likewise, a particular trait could be 'nurtured' (as in, the result of environmental and/or social influences). But, this does not necessarily mean it is 'wrong' or 'unnatural', either. Most forms of what we would consider 'compassion', for example, are learned behaviors. Manners, at the very least, are learned behaviors.
So, as I said, the whole science and morality of the issue here don't really coincide at all. People need to stop trying to use science to 'prove' homosexuality is 'right' or 'wrong', either way. Its not what science is for.
Laterz.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
heretic888 said:
Not necessarily. There is currently an argument as to whether such things as compassion are heritable or not. The opposite of that, sociopathy, seems to have a genetic component to it. Both could be explained as being biologically advantageous traits. The one allows the individual to excel in a social group...the other allows an individual to predate upon others in a social group. Compassion is far more prevalent, yet sociopaths comprise a whopping four percent of the population.
Some believe that group selection and moral yardsticks such as compassion are intertwined, a sort of meta-Darwinism effecting tribes and larger social units. Others poo-poo this idea. It is quite a hot topic.
Arguments addressing this are found in Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil." It is an interesting book...but like Shermer's other books, he interjects himself to much into the text. Other than that, its worth flipping through.
Regards,
Steve
heretic888
Senior Master
Hrmmm... perhaps we should save that discussion for the Evolutionary Psychology thread. :supcool:
In any event, the point I was trying to make is that the science of this issue and the morality of this issue are two entirely different (albeit somewhat related) modes of inquiry. Both sides of the political spectrum need to stop using science to "prove" the morality of their position.
Of course, my thoughts are that this attempt to use natural sciences like biology and neurology to "prove" or "endorse" something like intersubjective morals or values is just yet another symptom of the pathological materialism that dominates Western culture.
Laterz.
In any event, the point I was trying to make is that the science of this issue and the morality of this issue are two entirely different (albeit somewhat related) modes of inquiry. Both sides of the political spectrum need to stop using science to "prove" the morality of their position.
Of course, my thoughts are that this attempt to use natural sciences like biology and neurology to "prove" or "endorse" something like intersubjective morals or values is just yet another symptom of the pathological materialism that dominates Western culture.
Laterz.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Hrmmm... perhaps we should save that discussion for the Evolutionary Psychology thread.
See if there are any takers...there's a ton of stuff there.
In any event, the point I was trying to make is that the science of this issue and the morality of this issue are two entirely different (albeit somewhat related) modes of inquiry. Both sides of the political spectrum need to stop using science to "prove" the morality of their position.
I'm not sure the Right has tried to use science to any extent in proving their position on this...other than pulling out an occasional physician with no background in research to debunk the studies (like Focus On The Family and NARTH has done). As for the left who turn to science, they're proposing a null hypothesis for the moral issue. If homosexuality is naturally derived, it isn't an issue of morality but of biology.
Of course, my thoughts are that this attempt to use natural sciences like biology and neurology to "prove" or "endorse" something like intersubjective morals or values is just yet another symptom of the pathological materialism that dominates Western culture.
Then too there is the drive to push back the constraints of propriety of conservatives so that science can be done. Time and again sex research studies (not just homosexual) are thwarted by lack of funding due to prudery. If we can dispense with the issue of morality, maybe we can get down to finding out what the Hell drives us.
Thus liberated of the constraints of morality I want science to tell us certain things. I for one want to know why men want to be tied up by invective screaming leather-clad women and beaten with rubber hoses. I want to know if it is harmful. I want to know if any of the women here on MT have ever done that. And then I want them to call me.
Regards,
Steve
See if there are any takers...there's a ton of stuff there.
In any event, the point I was trying to make is that the science of this issue and the morality of this issue are two entirely different (albeit somewhat related) modes of inquiry. Both sides of the political spectrum need to stop using science to "prove" the morality of their position.
I'm not sure the Right has tried to use science to any extent in proving their position on this...other than pulling out an occasional physician with no background in research to debunk the studies (like Focus On The Family and NARTH has done). As for the left who turn to science, they're proposing a null hypothesis for the moral issue. If homosexuality is naturally derived, it isn't an issue of morality but of biology.
Of course, my thoughts are that this attempt to use natural sciences like biology and neurology to "prove" or "endorse" something like intersubjective morals or values is just yet another symptom of the pathological materialism that dominates Western culture.
Then too there is the drive to push back the constraints of propriety of conservatives so that science can be done. Time and again sex research studies (not just homosexual) are thwarted by lack of funding due to prudery. If we can dispense with the issue of morality, maybe we can get down to finding out what the Hell drives us.
Thus liberated of the constraints of morality I want science to tell us certain things. I for one want to know why men want to be tied up by invective screaming leather-clad women and beaten with rubber hoses. I want to know if it is harmful. I want to know if any of the women here on MT have ever done that. And then I want them to call me.
Regards,
Steve
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
I think, as a control, they should also call me.hardheadjarhead said:
:rofl: Phone number please?hardheadjarhead said:
Seriously, it could be argued that partaking in the submissive male role takes a man's power away and thus returns him to boyhood where he had no control and no responsibilities and none of the stressors of "being a man" - it also assigns qualities they may subconsciously assign as masculine to that which he seeks to control, the female, so the onus is no longer on him - relief. The invective screaming and all the violence assigned on that which he thinks is weak allows him to worship and justify his own actions and the whipping with a hose is metaphoric of throwing one's >ahem< *weight* around.
As to the leather ... it's just plain sexy, darnit!
Harmful? Depends. I think multiple levels are going on here - worship of the behavior they need relief from, self-justification and assigning punishment for doing what they worship. Is that harmful?
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
And how, ahem, did you learn so much about this, Shesulsa? Grad school or OJT?
Back to the topic...Dennis Miller was on "The Daily Show" this week and told John Stewart he'd love to see Bush and the Pope back off the homosexuality issue. Miller said, "Hey, if you're 'fireman calendar on the fridge' Gay, nothing is going to change that, okay?"
There are times I like Dennis Miller. This was one of them.
Regards,
Steve
Back to the topic...Dennis Miller was on "The Daily Show" this week and told John Stewart he'd love to see Bush and the Pope back off the homosexuality issue. Miller said, "Hey, if you're 'fireman calendar on the fridge' Gay, nothing is going to change that, okay?"
There are times I like Dennis Miller. This was one of them.
Regards,
Steve
Corporal Hicks
Black Belt
Yeah good post! I thought fetishes could be genetic too, is or that because of the fact that it could be culturally or experiencedly passed on?!Ray said:
Corporal Hicks
Black Belt
Mmmmm I'm beginning to think that Freud has a point somewhere along the line..............shesulsa said::rofl: Phone number please?
Seriously, it could be argued that partaking in the submissive male role takes a man's power away and thus returns him to boyhood where he had no control and no responsibilities and none of the stressors of "being a man" - it also assigns qualities they may subconsciously assign as masculine to that which he seeks to control, the female, so the onus is no longer on him - relief. The invective screaming and all the violence assigned on that which he thinks is weak allows him to worship and justify his own actions and the whipping with a hose is metaphoric of throwing one's >ahem< *weight* around.
As to the leather ... it's just plain sexy, darnit!
Harmful? Depends. I think multiple levels are going on here - worship of the behavior they need relief from, self-justification and assigning punishment for doing what they worship. Is that harmful?
heretic888
Senior Master
Corporal Hicks said:
Personally, I'd prefer to see some actual peer-reviewed research on the subject matter (preferably from several sources) before accepting the notion that something like fetishism is "genetic".
But, that's just me.
