The origin of gay

smegmar

Recently alot of prominent people, both in Ireland and international have spoken for gay rights and gay marriage. That's fine, but then they go on to say that people are born gay and it's in your DNA. I'm sorry but I don't buy it. No human behaviour can be genetic, instincts that guide behaviour but nothing the predetermines it.

So I want to be fair and balanced, what do you think of the origin of homosexuality. Is it nature or nurture. Explain your answer in detail.

Sonics2k

I think it doesn't bloody matter what the origin of any sexuality is.

I've no intention of ruffling feathers here with anyone, but on both sides of the fence I'm growing tired of people fighting and arguing so much and so hard about sexuality when it really and truly has no direct impact on the people we are.

The only difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual is they have a different physical/emotional attraction.

yawha

What's the point in arguing over something which hasn't been conclusively understood yet? This is something which will be understood more and more as more studies are done etc. It's not really something to be debated or philosophized about.

And ultimately, why does it matter whether it's nature or nurture anyway?

The more important question is why you're asking this.

OneArt

smegmar wrote: »

Recently alot of prominent people, both in Ireland and international have spoken for gay rights and gay marriage. That's fine, but then they go on to say that people are born gay and it's in your DNA. I'm sorry but I don't buy it. No human behaviour can be genetic, instincts that guide behaviour but nothing the predetermines it.

So I want to be fair and balanced, what do you think of the origin of homosexuality. Is it nature or nurture. Explain your answer in detail.

You're probably right, I don't think behaviour can be genetic. However being gay/lesbian/bisexual is also a sexual PREFERENCE. One can still be gay but not engage in the behaviour.

jaffacakesyum

I agree that it's probably not genetic. I don't think people are born gay so much as I don't think they're born straight

But to echo the posters above, who cares? Why does it matter if it's nature or nurture? I think a lot of gay people stress that they're 'born this way' so that they have an arguement for equal rights. They shouldn't need to be born gay to have that arguement!!!! Equally, I think a lot of homophobic people use the theory that it's nurture rather than nature, as an excuse to deny equal rights.

floggg

The fact that you are boiling this down to a behavioural issue shows you don't really have any appreciation of the issue.

Behaviour can (in most cases) be learned, developed or changed, consciously or subconsciously. Sexual orientation can't.

Same goes for the poster talking about a preference. Preference implies choice.

I will assume it's just a lack of understanding on your parts, but please do not present opinions or theories as fact. Scientists don't know, why should you or I.

And as the others have said, why should you care?

cgcsb

smegmar wrote: »

Recently alot of prominent people, both in Ireland and international have spoken for gay rights and gay marriage. That's fine, but then they go on to say that people are born gay and it's in your DNA. I'm sorry but I don't buy it. No human behaviour can be genetic, instincts that guide behaviour but nothing the predetermines it.

So I want to be fair and balanced, what do you think of the origin of homosexuality. Is it nature or nurture. Explain your answer in detail.

lots of human behaviour is genetic. :rolleyes: ever hear of left handedness.

LandL84

Firstly, homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality are not behaviour, it is sexual orientation. If you are attracted to a man or a woman you feel it in your body, in your brain, you just can't control it, because they are FEELINGS aren't they?. Behaviour, however, is controllable, but it can't change what you are, it's just a surface visible to everyone. If you feel you are gay and behave as a straight it doesn't make you straight, does it?

Defining behaviour as genetic it's only an excuse letting people to justify their own weaknesses like anger issues for instance. Behaviour is learned, it is nurture, it can be changed and is changing. Sexual orientation can't be changed and you can't call it behaviour.

jasper11

honest to god this argument mystifies me. growin up i hated who i was as i was not viewed to been actin normal n hence why closet door was laways hut. but back then if i had a choice to be straight i would av taken it all day long. so for me its no way a choice and it is genetic completly. now i dont care what people think to much and happy with who i am but surely others have felt the same as me.

Buddhapadge

I know what the origin of homosexuality is: being born gay.

Chuchoter

Its stupid to even discuss, you'll only end up peddling half proven, poorly conducted pseudeoscience. I don't know what causes it. I don't know if it matters enough to even put money into finding out, but until we do find out its not a constructive discussion

Killer Pigeon

smegmar wrote: »

No human behaviour can be genetic, instincts that guide behaviour but nothing the predetermines it.

Instincts. That's exactly what one's sexuality is.

/thread

Beruthiel

smegmar wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't buy it. No human behaviour can be genetic, instincts that guide behaviour but nothing the predetermines it.

Does it really matter?

I presume you are a sexual being, what lead you to be the way you are?

DazMarz

Just my 2c worth... I think the character of Mark Renton from Trainspotting hit the nail firmly on the head, and this is something I believe too. Maybe it is a bit simplistic and it might cause offence to some here, and for that I apologise, but I think it is a valid point:

"Sexuality is f--k all to do with morality or anything like that; it's all to do with aesthetics and looks. It's just a question of who you fancy."

Basically, I think it is just that; if you prefer the look of a man/woman to someone of the opposite sex, that's what it is. And so what? If it makes someone happy to be in a relationship with someone of the same sex, why should it bother anyone else? Once they're happy and once nothing illegal is going on, it shouldn't bother anyone else.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

If we assume homosexuality is genetic then it is a serious disadvantage.

Life is meant to reproduce, homosexuality counters that, therefore, if it is genetic, it should technically be treated as a genetic deviancy. The gay rights movement put a stop to that though.

I think homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and so on and so forth are social constructs rather than genetic ones. For example, with transsexuality, how can your DNA know what advanced human society defines as male characteristics and female characteristics?

mcmoustache

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

If we assume homosexuality is genetic then it is a serious disadvantage.

Life is meant to reproduce, homosexuality counters that, therefore, if it is genetic, it should technically be treated as a genetic deviancy. The gay rights movement put a stop to that though.

I think homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and so on and so forth are social constructs rather than genetic ones. For example, with transsexuality, how can your DNA know what advanced human society defines as male characteristics and female characteristics?

There is so much wrong with that post that I'm not sure where to begin.

If homosexuality is genetic, there have been reasons put forward as to how the characteristic survives such as the generous gay uncle idea. As for transsexuality, there is ample biological evidence to show that this manifests itself before birth. As for the "deviancy" remark, there aren't enough facepalm memes to adequadely express myself.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

mcmoustache wrote: »

There is so much wrong with that post that I'm not sure where to begin.

If homosexuality is genetic, there have been reasons put forward as to how the characteristic survives such as the generous gay uncle idea. As for transsexuality, there is ample biological evidence to show that this manifests itself before birth. As for the "deviancy" remark, there aren't enough facepalm memes to adequadely express myself.

Deviancy was not meant as an offensive statement, I suppose I'm just too used to it being used in this context by others, again, I did not mean offense.

Anyway, the characteristic surviving does not mean it's a strong one, mental dissabilities have been passed on through genes for example and no, I did not mean to compare homosexuality with mental disability.
Feel free to explain that uncle idea though.

In regards to transsexuality, your genes can not be aware of what is deemed male and what is deemed female by society, that idea just makes no sense to me.

mcmoustache

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

Deviancy was not meant as an offensive statement, I suppose I'm just too used to it being used in this context by others, again, I did not mean offense.

Anyway, the characteristic surviving does not mean it's a strong one, mental dissabilities have been passed on through genes for example and no, I did not mean to compare homosexuality with mental disability.
Feel free to explain that uncle idea though.

The uncle idea is that a homosexual uncle without a family to support might provide support to his nephews and nieces in older societies. These provisions would be advantageous to the recipients and could give them an evolutionary edge. I don't really know enough about it to go into detail.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

In regards to transsexuality, your genes can not be aware of what is deemed male and what is deemed female by society, that idea just makes no sense to me.

Genes don't need to be. People are assigned male or female genetalia before they are born and depending on the type, we traditionally call the posessors of such genetalia either male or female. These days, scientists know that it is a bit more complicated than that and people can have the characteristics of members of the opposite sex such as brain chemistry. A real world example of this would be a person with male genetalia and a female brain. While this makes defining male and female a bit trickier outside of the bell curve, it doesn't change the fact that people are born whatever way that they are and the society in which they develop doesn't change that. Again, this is something that I don't know all that much about so i apologise for the simplistic explanation.

I think I'll bow out and leave the question it someone who knows what they're talking about.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

mcmoustache wrote: »

The uncle idea is that a homosexual uncle without a family to support might provide support to his nephews and nieces in older societies. These provisions would be advantageous to the recipients and could give them an evolutionary edge. I don't really know enough about it to go into detail.

That is not advantageous to the uncle though as he is less likely to pass on his genes through reproduction.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Genes don't need to be. People are assigned male or female genetalia before they are born and depending on the type, we traditionally call the posessors of such genetalia either male or female. These days, scientists know that it is a bit more complicated than that and people can have the characteristics of members of the opposite sex such as brain chemistry. A real world example of this would be a person with male genetalia and a female brain. While this makes defining male and female a bit trickier outside of the bell curve, it doesn't change the fact that people are born whatever way that they are and the society in which they develop doesn't change that. Again, this is something that I don't know all that much about so i apologise for the simplistic explanation.

I think I'll bow out and leave the question it someone who knows what they're talking about.

You claim to not know what you're talking about and then make a snide comment about me not knowing what I am talking about? Well done.

If I am just going to be on the receiving end of insults then I am done with you.

Meesared

Sorry but your posts are highly insulting, and factually incorrect.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Meesared wrote: »

Sorry but your posts are highly insulting, and factually incorrect.

How so?

Do you know for a fact that homosexuality is genetic? Or do you just believe it because that's the socially acceptable thing to believe? Where's your facts?

I take no issue with homosexuals, no problem with them what-so-ever, I will not believe things just to suit them though.

I simply think it's more of a social construct than a genetic one, it could also have something to do with chemical or hormonal imbalance, still not genetics though.

The OP asked the question about where homosexuality comes from, I gave my opinion, get over it.

Meesared

There is the insulting remarks again, you make it sound like there is something wrong with being gay.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Meesared wrote: »

There is the insulting remarks again, you make it sound like there is something wrong with being gay.

I do not think it's wrong, I do not think it's right either, it merely is as it is.
Homosexuals are people too, as I said I have no issue with them, I believe we were discussing where homosexuality comes from, not homosexuals themselves.

Meesared

And im calling you out for pseudo homophobic remarks.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Meesared wrote: »

And im calling you out for pseudo homophobic remarks.

What remarks?

Meesared

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

What remarks?

Saying that being gay is "caused" by a hormonal or chemical imbalance.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Meesared wrote: »

Saying that being gay is "caused" by a hormonal or chemical imbalance.

That is a possibility and that was a discussion on homosexuality, not homosexuals.

Meesared

Sorry what?

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Meesared wrote: »

Sorry what?

Would you regard a discussion as to why people are heterosexual as hetero-phobic?

Meesared

Sorry you are making no sense at all.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Meesared wrote: »

Sorry you are making no sense at all.

We were discussing homosexuality, not homosexuals. Yet you claimed my comments were homophobic.

Therefore, I posed the following question to you:
Would you regard a discussion as to why people are heterosexual as hetero-phobic?

To put it even more simply, I do not understand how discussing what the causes of homosexuality are is in anyway homophobic.

rainbow kirby

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

I do not understand how discussing what the causes of homosexuality are is in anyway homophobic.

It isn't, but when you start throwing words like "deviancy" around that's when we start having problems.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It isn't, but when you start throwing words like "deviancy" around that's when we start having problems.

I stated that I meant no offence by that.

Meesared

If you said heterosexuality was caused by a chemical or hormonal imbalance, that would be heterophobic, and if you said such a thing, youd be damn right I'd call you on it.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Meesared wrote: »

If you said heterosexuality was caused by a chemical or hormonal imbalance, that would be heterophobic, and if you said such a thing, youd be damn right I'd call you on it.

Seriously?

If we try to explain where homosexuality comes from with biology, considering heterosexuality is the norm it seems to me that a chemical or hormonal imbalance would be a logical theory.

Meesared

If heterosexuality wasnt the norm, and someone said that there was something wrong with you, wouldn't you be offended?

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Meesared wrote: »

If heterosexuality wasnt the norm, and someone said that there was something wrong with you, wouldn't you be offended?

If heterosexuality wasn't the norm then there would be something wrong with our species, we'd end up extinct.

Meesared

You are well aware i am speaking hypothetically, so please answer my question.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Meesared wrote: »

You are well aware i am speaking hypothetically, so please answer my question.

Nobody likes being told something they do not want to hear.

RiseToMe

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

considering heterosexuality is the norm it seems to me that a chemical or hormonal imbalance would be a logical theory.

so if I like marmite, for example, but the majority of people don't like it, I have a chemical or hormonal imbalance? Please.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Well, it seems the moderators regard offering a dissenting opinion as trolling so I'll abide and leave this sub-forum.

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

RiseToMe wrote: »

so if I like marmite, for example, but the majority of people don't like it, I have a chemical or hormonal imbalance? Please.

Comparing sexuality issues to food preferences is hardly an argument worth considering.

Anyway, as I said in my previous post, I'll be gone.

Meesared

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

Nobody likes being told something they do not want to hear.

Oooook...

hell I give up, this is pointless.

RiseToMe

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

RiseToMe wrote: »

so if I like marmite, for example, but the majority of people don't like it, I have a chemical or hormonal imbalance? Please.

Comparing sexuality issues to food preferences is hardly an argument worth considering.

Anyway, as I said in my previous post, I'll be gone.

And comparing sexuality to a chemical imbalance is offensive and tbh incitement to hatred.

jaffacakesyum

Oh come on, why do people get offended so easily :rolleyes:

Nobody knows the origins of homosexuality. Personally, I believe it not to be genetic as there isn't sufficient evidence to support that theory.

The theory that it is caused by chemical imbalances or hormone changes isn't homphobia. Nor is it inciting hate :rolleyes: However, I would like to see if there is any evidence behind it. It could well be an interesting theory and I wonder if any studies have been done about it?

apache

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Oh come on, why do people get offended so easily :rolleyes:

Nobody knows the origins of homosexuality. Personally, I believe it not to be genetic as there isn't sufficient evidence to support that theory.

The theory that it is caused by chemical imbalances or hormone changes isn't homphobia. Nor is it inciting hate :rolleyes: However, I would like to see if there is any evidence behind it. It could well be an interesting theory and I wonder if any studies have been done about it?

i actually agree with you. it was an opinion. no need to get offended. and the fact is true re procreation etc.

apache

Stocking Drinks Whiskey wrote: »

If heterosexuality wasn't the norm then there would be something wrong with our species, we'd end up extinct.

thats the crux of it. thank god for the heterosexuals

DogsyBlanch

Well I am certain that I was born gay. no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

I did have some questions about WHY someone might be born gay...is it by design? Accident?

I found the book 'Born Gay' by Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman answered by questions and left me confident that nature made me the way I am by design.

smegmar

This is hilarious, I started this thread as a genuine question and dialogue starter, I didn't envisage the flame war that it is now.

To clear things up I believe "Stocking drinks Whiskey" is making logical sound points while Meesared is just looking for something to take offense to.

Yes we can debate what homosexuality is without passing any judgement on any actual homosexuals. Why a person thinks the way they think has no weight on if that is good or not. In the same why that why a combustion engine works has no relevance to if cars are a good thing or not.

So I came here with the view that Homosexuality is a distinct part of your personality, but is a learned characteristic from a very young age. So far I have found no point to challange that. I don't except the uncle argument, there is no logic that a homosexual uncle cares more for his nieces and nephews then a heterosexual uncle would.

I submit my belief to you here, please know it contains no judgement on homosexual persons.....

As a infant is developing, their brain is absorbing the fundamental truths of the environment they are in. Such as gravity, the sound of parents language, even actions of others are studied and copied by mirror neurons in the brain. However before the age of 4 a baby's brain is lacking the conscience recall part of the brain, as it has not developed yet (to allow the baby's head to pass through the birth canal).

This can be seen as no people have memory of the time before the age of 4. However a more basic part of the brain is trying to understand the self, copying actions of those it observes. If the brain associates with a left handed environment in this time, the baby will be left handed. If the brain associates with a female sexual perspective, the baby will be sexually attracted to men etc etc.

As all this happens before recall memory can develope it is logical for a person to believe this learned traits were always present since birth. Take the example of eye focus. You eyes will automatically focus on the target of you attention with no conscious effort, as far as you can remember they always have. There was however a period of time when you could not control the focus of your eyes and had to learn that action, but no one can remember doing this.


This is an incomplete and summorised extract of my view. If you find it flawed of offensive please PM me and politely ask for clarification before wildly accusing me of ignorance or such.

MJRS

Don't worry about it man, the internet is a horrible place for reasoned discussion! Not your fault.

I reckon the refusal to accept the possibility of sexuality being a result of nurture is because it sort of (often unintentionally) "cheapens" and invalidates their feelings and lifestyle. It almost implies that something went wrong during their development and they ended up a deviant. I personally haven't a clue why I'm gay, it certainly feels like it's always been this way, I mean, there's always been something different about the way I'd look at men in comparison to women. I tend to lean away from the nurture side because I can't think of anything in my life that would have pushed me towards being gay; my dad was the typical dad, my mam was the typical mother, I had no massive proportion or difficulty with friends of either gender, I didn't have have any particularly girlie inclinations as a kid, none of the standard stuff people guess could "make" me gay.

What nurture factors do you think contribute to being gay?

baby and crumble

smegmar wrote: »

This can be seen as no people have memory of the time before the age of 4. However a more basic part of the brain is trying to understand the self, copying actions of those it observes. If the brain associates with a left handed environment in this time, the baby will be left handed. If the brain associates with a female sexual perspective, the baby will be sexually attracted to men etc etc.

Lots of people have memories before the age of 4. I do.

Really? Left-handedness is learned behaviour? Does that mean right handed-ness is, too?

My Dad is left-handed, my Mum is right handed, yet all of us kids are right handed. What happened there? My best friend and her husband all all their family are right handed. Her son is left handed. What happened there?

My parents were equally present during my childhood. I'm a lesbian, my brothers are straight.

Quite honestly, from a psychological and psychoanalytic point of view, your statements of child development are frankly flawed. Read pretty much ANY child psychology and developmental book and you'll see.