TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture

I hadn't really formed an opinion on the issue until I read an article a while ago about the ability to manipulate a fruit fly's sexual orientation by changing temperature.

quote:

When flies get fruity Males courting each other form a chain Scientists can turn the homosexual tendencies of laboratory flies on and off at the flick of a switch. Researchers introduced a mutant gene into the fruit flies that is sensitive to temperature. When the insects were warmed above 30 Celsius, communication between a particular set of nerve cells was disrupted. This made the mutant males less interested in courting female flies and open to the advances of other males. New knowledge The flies reverted back to heterosexual courtship behaviours at cooler temperatures. The study by Toshihiro Kitamoto, of the Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope, California, US, is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Previous research has suggested that fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) sexual orientation is genetically determined, although the neuronal pathways important for controlling sexual preference are unclear. Dr Kitamoto sought to explore these issues through the introduction of the mutant gene called shibire into the midst of the fruit fly's neurons. Inactivated system The normal gene plays an important role in the secretions of a chemical signal. The results showed that relations between males are suppressed by the action of neurons whose role could be to detect or to interpret the signals of anti-aphrodisiac hormones, Dr Kitamoto said. The neurons affected by the mutant gene include nerves sensitive to taste, located in the head and legs. The role of these neurons could be to halt the attraction between male fruit flies by detecting or interpreting aphrodisiac pheromones produced by other males. Dr Kitamoto told the BBC: "My interpretation is that male-male courtship is somehow inhibited by certain systems in the fly nervous system and using my method I think I inactivated those inhibitory systems so male courtship is induced." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2266135.stm

Yes humans are significantly more complex than a fruit fly, but the experiment does pose the question: is our sexual orientation simply the result of chemical reactions in the brain? What do all of you think?

i think that homo sexuality can be an acquired preference or innate.

chemically there have been many species where homo sexuality has been exhibited, most species lack the social structure that humans have so learning from one's peers is out of the question. however, sexuality can also be acquired, because there are also bi-sexuals.

it depends on the person, and you can never generalize, each person is different and subject to different cirucumstances.

Being a psychologist in training, and through experience, it is wise to note that both nature and nurture have effects on almost everything. Genes and biological makeup leave you predisposed to certain conditions when you are born. How you are raised may effect how far from this "starting point" you wander through your life. But the farther you end up from this starting point, the harder the path is, and subsequently, the less people can make the journey.

Psychological reaserch in this area is mixed and inconclusive, and is just beginning to form a relevant database of information. Journal articles contradict articles that contradict each other. Every finding has been debased by someone else. My conclusion is that it has to do alot with biological makeup, but the environment a human is raised in can either enhance or detract from these predispositions.

quote:

Originally posted by cougar23 Being a psychologist in training, and through experience, it is wise to note that both nature and nurture have effects on almost everything. Genes and biological makeup leave you predisposed to certain conditions when you are born. How you are raised may effect how far from this "starting point" you wander through your life. But the farther you end up from this starting point, the harder the path is, and subsequently, the less people can make the journey. Psychological reaserch in this area is mixed and inconclusive, and is just beginning to form a relevant database of information. Journal articles contradict articles that contradict each other. Every finding has been debased by someone else. My conclusion is that it has to do alot with biological makeup, but the environment a human is raised in can either enhance or detract from these predispositions.

Ok, good argument. Let's speak in absolute terms however. Is our innate sexuality something that we grow into or is it something that we are born with? For example, let's say that my upbringing has resulted in me being homosexual. Will I feel any innate instinctual urge to be attracted to females? Let's say you raise a child from birth under the disposition that homosexuality is the norm. He is culturally taught that the male body is something to admired and that societal acceptance is based upon homosexual relations. However, if that male still instinctually lusts for females isn't that an indication that sexuality is ultimately determined through genetics? That any kind of sexual orientation achieved through upbringing is a mistake?

in reagrds to occriders comments i think that there is a genetic factor that may determine your sexuality, but with anything, the environment you grow up in hugely influences what you become.
i was watching a documentary one time about the origins of homosexuality and it was noted that women who were pregenant during wartime were predisposed to have homosexual offspring. what they were getting at was that these women were under extreme stress, and it may have been this stress that influenced the sexuality of their children. interesting

yep, it's true too, society does exhibit major pressure on individuals (peerps, media whatever).

it's like the 2 kids (one male and one female) on a desert island, would they grow up loving each other as brother and sister or as mates?

life is like plinko! u can't get the same results more than once!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok, good argument. Let's speak in absolute terms however. Is our innate sexuality something that we grow into or is it something that we are born with?

I was actually debating this in a different forum about a week ago, and I found a good study that suggests that hormonal levels in the mother during pregnancy effect sexual orientation. (Now I can't find my old post or the citation I used, dammit.) I have never found any evidence suggesting that it is genetic, but that does not mean it is not biological. Hormonal levels effect the way the brain develops in the womb, which, in turn, may alter sexual orientation. Of course, there is lukewarm support for this study, but there is no really conclusive evidence out there to begin with.

quote:

For example, let's say that my upbringing has resulted in me being homosexual. Will I feel any innate instinctual urge to be attracted to females?

Probably not. Aside from that first study, there are a handful of other ones that suggest late birth order is correlated with homosexuality. There is only speculation as to why this happens, but apparently it is biological, since birth order occurs before any "nurture" can take place.

quote:

Let's say you raise a child from birth under the disposition that homosexuality is the norm. He is culturally taught that the male body is something to admired and that societal acceptance is based upon homosexual relations. However, if that male still instinctually lusts for females isn't that an indication that sexuality is ultimately determined through genetics?

It would be. This is what homosexuals are taught, only with the opposite sex. Males are taught to admire the female body (I don't know a homosexual who was actually encouraged to be gay). But there are many ways of attributing deviance from the norm that are not genetic/biological. I think sexual orientation has alot to do with self-perception, as well, and that is completely learned. Certain events can have different effects on people with different biological makeup. If one is biologically predisposed (lets say through hormonal imbalances in the womb) towards the homosexual side, then the abscence of a father figure in life might
tip the balance, and he could easily become homosexual. Without this biological predisposition, though, abscence of a father will almost never lead to homosexuality.

It also may be interesting to note that neither sex nor sexual orientation are black and white things. There can be, and there is "in betweens." There are cases of genetic females being born with male genitalia, and vice versa. While genes have something to do with biological aspects of sex, so do hormones. Hormones stimulate (or retard) growth of certain areas of the brain and genitalia. If this hormonal imbalance occurs early enough, it can change the entire sex phenotype of the fetus. If it occurs later, it can change just the sexual orientation of the brain, as the brain develops later. Of course in life, tendencies can either be encouraged or repressed by parents, peers, and society.

In conclusion, though, it is a very complex matter. It is not simply a "choice" as some asshole put it on another forum. Nor is it simply a difference in genotype. Genotype is good at predicting simple biological matters like eye color, etc., but when it comes to complex things like sexual orientation, which is heavily controlled by hormones, social learning, etc., it starts to break down. Sexual orientation is not just a switch that can be flipped on and off in the brain. It is more like a multi-dimentional crossfader, with a bunch of other volume and gain knobs in the same circuit.

THey must all repent of their sins or they shall face eternal damnation!!!!!!1




I mean...err...nature.

Why would someone consciously choose to be faced with that kind of discrimination?????

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz THey must all repent of their sins or they shall face eternal damnation!!!!!!1 I mean...err...nature. Why would someone consciously choose to be faced with that kind of discrimination?????

...because being true to themselves is worth more than social acceptance....

I think its more nurture than nature... based on things I've seen.

- Well, I think it's nurture more then nature, its probably the fews who I can say nature.
People become gay for various reasons. They've had too many womans and would like to experiment something new (it's true!!!! ) or, when they were small, parents who would've liked to have had a girl, treat the kid as a girl, becoming gay. Or, they've been abused in some way or were introduced to things such as prostitution at early age. Most of this things play a role so.. that's why I think it's not nature.

I'm going to agree with cougar23 for the most part on this one. In a sense, sexual orientation is a lot more like height - obviously it is significantly influenced by genetic factors. However, environmental factors can almost certainly accentuate or counteract innate predispositions. Like cougar23 I've also read about the possible effects of the mother's hormone levels on the future sexual orientation of the fetus.

Were homosexuality attributable to simply one thing - a gene, for instance, it is highly likely science would have already established this beyond any doubt. It is because this characteristic arises from a variety of innate and external circumstances that science has been unable to definitively pinpoint the source of human sexuaul orientation.

Of course, the many individuals out there who view homosexuality as some sort of active choice ("Hey, I think I'm going to be gay from now on.") are always those who have absolutely no concept of the biological and social factors which give rise to homosexual behavior.

I think we have to be careful not to describe nature and nurture as two mutually exclusive, dichotemic concepts.

For instance, what we may normally describe as our "natural" innate biological make-up is affected in some way by our environment. The onset of puberty and the timing and quantity of hormones released into our system (particularly important in the case of estrogen/testosterone) at any given time can be demonstrated to be largely affected by the environment we live in. Similarly, the way we interpret the environment we live in can be affected by our biological composition. Two men can have the same up-bringing yet end up with different sexual-orientations, merely because their biological make-up has some say in how these experiences are "interpreted".

If we could point to one gene that all homosexuals have that heterosexuals don't then I think it's a slightly different issue, but like Arbiter, I don't think that sexuality is just one thing we can point to on a strand of DNA, but rather an entire world-view that is shaped by several psychological and biological factors (that partially affect and determine each other in turn). Besides, how would a genetic theory of homosexuality account for, say, homosexual behaviour in otherwise heterosexually oriented prison-mates?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I think we have to be careful not to describe nature and nurture as two mutually exclusive, dichotemic concepts. For instance, what we may normally describe as our "natural" innate biological make-up is affected in some way by our environment. The onset of puberty and the timing and quantity of hormones released into our system (particularly important in the case of estrogen/testosterone) at any given time can be demonstrated to be largely affected by the environment we live in. Similarly, the way we interpret the environment we live in can be affected by our biological composition. Two men can have the same up-bringing yet end up with different sexual-orientations, merely because their biological make-up has some say in how these experiences are "interpreted". If we could point to one gene that all homosexuals have that heterosexuals don't then I think it's a slightly different issue, but like Arbiter, I don't think that sexuality is just one thing we can point to on a strand of DNA, but rather an entire world-view that is shaped by several psychological and biological factors (that partially affect and determine each other in turn). Besides, how would a genetic theory of homosexuality account for, say, homosexual behaviour in otherwise heterosexually oriented prison-mates?

Ok I think that most people would say it's a combination of the two. But when you say that we shouldn't regard nature and nurture as being mutually exclusive, do you think that there are ever instances where they could be regarded as mutually exclusive? If not, then would you say that everyone is born straight with varying levels of predilection towards becoming gay and then the environment takes over from there?

Additionally, what kind of "nurture" is most conducive to homosexuality? Would you say that homosexuality is predominantly induced by physical or mental trauma (abuse, neglect, etc.)? Or would you say that it is mysteriously cultivated by random, regular social interaction?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Additionally, what kind of "nurture" is most conducive to homosexuality? Would you say that homosexuality is predominantly induced by physical or mental trauma (abuse, neglect, etc.)? Or would you say that it is mysteriously cultivated by random, regular social interaction?

Man, I had some sources on this, but I lost them. A couple of studies have shown that late birth order is correlated with homosexuality, especially children with many older brothers. This is just a correlation, however. This could mean alot of things. One, in a large family, the father may not be able to give enough attention to all his siblings, especially the younger ones, as there are more siblings to deal with when the boys later in the birth order are young. It can also mean that a young child ends up relating to males much better, admires them, etc... Of course, the mother's body could also be hormonally different after giving birth a couple times.

But these are just hypotheses that I brainstormed about right now. They have found a correlation, but no one knows exactly why. But I do think having a father not really involved in your life adds to the chances. This has been hinted at in a couple of studies, as well. My guess is that in 10 years, we'll have a pretty good idea as to the causes, but for now, the answer eludes us. Especially related to female homosexuality. I barely came across any studies on that.

Well, if all this fly stuff is true. Then there is a chance we could "intervene" and stop it at birth right? Is that morally right? Would homosexuality be a disorder again? Would we look really foolish for creating and then defending rights for chemically disabled people? If we can "heal" someone from being a homosexual could we also inflict this condition? Would this create an ultimate weapon of mass destruction? How funny would it be if nations simply stopped producing children and disappeared!!!!!!!!!

hahahha I think ive got my doomsday device all set now.

I was born gay folks... Although my mom did raise me listening to the indigo girls... (butchy lesbians with a lot of emotion and beautiful music!) yeah... i dont really think about why very much... its just the way it is, and because i dont see anything wrong with it, i dont question it too much.

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer I was born gay folks... Although my mom did raise me listening to the indigo girls... (butchy lesbians with a lot of emotion and beautiful music!) yeah... i dont really think about why very much... its just the way it is, and because i dont see anything wrong with it, i dont question it too much.

If science told u that u were gay becasue of a genetic chemical inbalance and just like the fruit fly's u could be "treated" would u be interested?

not at all... i dont think that way.. im here right now.. i always look for reasons in the present..

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer not at all... i dont think that way.. im here right now.. i always look for reasons in the present..

Excellent!!! I've been waiting for someone with first hand knowledege to talk about this issue for a while. So if you were "born" gay, then you obviously think that you were genetically constructed this way correct? In which case, do you view people who are not necessarily born gay but become gay through either abuse, neglect, etc. as being confused individuals that would not achieve their sexual preference through the "standard ubringing" so to speak?

i dont speak for others... nor do i look for such answers usually... but in this case ill explain what i think.. i dont come at this from any kind of scientific point of view for the most part, cause i more spirtiually oriented.

example: its hard for me to understand how other guys can be so attracted to girls... atleast thats what my body feels. My personal impression of many humans is that many are probably attracted to both sexes... most people that are actually gay will end up coming out because its much more pleasing for them to accept their sexuality as thus... I known i was gay since i was very young... I dont go by statistics or science either, so i think the whole nurturing thing is crap...

but i dont rule anything out... in my case i know ive always been gay. and overall i dont really care about the reasons behind it. besides its not a big part of my life, though Casey wouldnt want me to say that ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok I think that most people would say it's a combination of the two. But when you say that we shouldn't regard nature and nurture as being mutually exclusive, do you think that there are ever instances where they could be regarded as mutually exclusive? If not, then would you say that everyone is born straight with varying levels of predilection towards becoming gay and then the environment takes over from there?

I'm too tired to discuss it in depth, but when I say that nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive, what I mean is that yes, while obviously we can identify two different mechanisms operating on the same mind here (parents - nurture - and the biological self - nature), the two mechanisms interact in a sense and are partially determined by each other, and must therefore be regarded - to some extent at least - as part of the same system.

To use the example I gave before, for instance, our very nature can be determined by the way we are nurtured and the way we are nurtured (in both the sense that our parents may nurture us differently depending on our nature, and that this "treatment" can be subconsciously interpreted in different ways by the way we "naturally" are) can be determined by our nature: thus, we can identify two different elements here (nature and nurture) but that is not to say that they're entirely independant from each other or that they are mutually exclusive.

I don't know how much sense that made, but that's the best I can do for now sorry.

It's more nature than anything - else why would so many gay guys have similar tendancies/mannerisms?

Picture it as a spectrum, on one end you have Gay, the other straight, and in the middle bi - those whose sexuality lies near the centre (whether on the Straight side or the gay side) are more susceptible to having society/experiences influence their ultimate 'preference'

First that research bothers me cause its like saying that homosexuality is something that can be turned on and off....
And wether a person's sexuality is a result of genes, education,the environnement you live in, natural or not...why does it bother ppl so much? Just live your life and let other live theres.



----------------
250th post!

So true..

I mean.. there are probably people out there that are into having sex with trees... who cares!? Just make sure you find your own tree and not somebody elses!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.