|
|
Post by id82 on May 8, 2009 3:58:11 GMT -5
Sorry if this is in the wrong forum.
After having a conversation the other day with a friend about homosexuality it got me thinking.
Not being a homosexual myself, I was wondering if homosexuals are actually born that way or if a lot of it is in upbringing. Or is it both?
My friend tried to make an argument that homosexuals are not born that way due to a natural order of organisms needing to reproduce with eachother, and because it goes against that order it isn't natural. And that it might be some kind of un natural genetic mutation. He then said that a lot of it has to do with the persons upbringing, a male being mainly raised by their mother, or being raised to be more feminine could lead to homosexuality.
When I stated that homosexuality has been found in nature, he stated that animals in nature only do it to show dominance. After this I didn't really know what to say, and I didn't want to sound like I didn't know what I was talking about. I've had a lot of homosexual friends but I never really talk to them about their sexual orientation.
Now my friend may be a complete idiot about this, and I wouldn't be offended if anyone on here thinks so. I wouldn't really get offended if anyone calls me an idiot for questioning this. But it did get me thinking, is it a fact that homosexuals are born that way or is it in upbringing? Or do both factor into it? I would just like to be better educated on this.
Keep in mind we didn't bring religion or religious beliefs into the discussion. Him and I are completely for gay marriage and equality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on May 8, 2009 4:06:36 GMT -5
Talk to any homosexual person who has one or more siblings. Statistically, the sibling(s) will probably be straight, despite being raised the same home, by the same parents, in the same way.
I know that's how it turned out for an acquaintance of mine (he's quite gay, while his older brother is straight).
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on May 8, 2009 5:10:09 GMT -5
My friend tried to make an argument that homosexuals are not born that way due to a natural order of organisms needing to reproduce with eachother, and because it goes against that order it isn't natural. Actually, homosexuality does have a biological use. The world is a harsh place and adults die. Sometimes these adults leave behind offspring that cannot care for themselves. Other parents do not want to take over, as they have their own offspring to raise. But if there is a same-sex pairing, they can take over raising the orphans without taking away from their offspring because they have no offspring. Obviously, this only works in animals that form communities. Debunked by the APA. Tell him to watch "March of the Penguins." (I think that's the title of the movie...) No one really knows. Best ideas at the moment is that it's a combo of both. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on May 8, 2009 5:32:00 GMT -5
It is genetic in nature. Here is a peer reviewed article about it. Also from another study:There are some other studies I saw, but am not sure where they are now, that show more rates of incidence. What they all seem to boil down to is that when there's a healthy rate of fertility in a population there is going to be a non-insignificant percentage of homosexuals. In order to reduce the incidence of homosexuals, one would also drastically lower the fertility rate in heterosexuals, which obviously has negative effects on population stability and whether the population is even viable in competition with other populations. [ETA] Just to throw in some subjective, non-scientific aspects: In different transsexual circles there's a bit of discussion about hormones and sexuality. During transition (from the birth sex to the proper gender) many transfolk undergo a shift in sexual preference, sometimes as much as being completely opposite from what they had been. I don't know of any studies done, nor have I heard anyone reference any such studies, so all that has been done is conjecture. The 3 thoughts, in order of prevalence that I've personally noticed them in: 1) Hormones, and some genetics, are completely responsible for sexual preference; thus it is fully nature that is responsible. 2) Hormones do nothing for affecting sexuality, rather some people have a shift as they become more comfortable with themselves instead of following society's forced expectations and acceptabilities; thus it is fully nurture. 3) Some combination of hormones and being more in touch with one's innate sexual preferences can lead to a shift in expressed sexuality; thus it is a combination of nature and nurture. Of course something else anyone would needs to do is determine where they draw the line between nature and nurture. I mean, do you count hormone supplements as nature or nurture? What about other medications which affect the mind? What about the effects stress and anxiety have on the brain, especially during development (meaning childhood through puberty)? One might try to claim it's just semantics, but then again that's what a lot of arguments boil down to. |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on May 8, 2009 6:02:12 GMT -5
Talk to any homosexual person who has one or more siblings. Statistically, the sibling(s) will probably be straight, despite being raised the same home, by the same parents, in the same way. Maybe the statistics are there, maybe they're not. However, when my polyamorous, genderfluid, feminine-leaning pansexual self has a heteroflexible father, a bisexual mother, and one lesbian sister out of two younger half-siblings... well I don't know what that shows. Maybe it speaks to genetics. Maybe not. I don't know. I do know I get a lot of jokes from my ex about having sprouted off a particularly strong branch of the queerberry bush, but he likes to tease me.  |
|
|
|
Post by brendanjd on May 8, 2009 6:38:18 GMT -5
My opinion on the origins of homosexuality: Who cares?
If one person wants to be with another person of the same gender, they should be able to do so as they are fundamentally free and equal humans beings. Even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that teh gehy was a learned behaviour, I would still hold this as true.
|
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on May 8, 2009 6:53:42 GMT -5
My friend tried to make an argument that homosexuals are not born that way due to a natural order of organisms needing to reproduce with eachother, and because it goes against that order it isn't natural. And that it might be some kind of un natural genetic mutation. No offence, but your friend fails biology forever. |
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on May 8, 2009 7:38:35 GMT -5
He then said that a lot of it has to do with the persons upbringing, a male being mainly raised by their mother, or being raised to be more feminine could lead to homosexuality. Pop psychology at its finest and stereotyping to boot! In any case, the Bear community is thriving. There is a consensus among all of the major psychological and anthropological organizations that sexual orientation is in-born and wired in the brain itself, rather than the result of a voluntary decision or traumatic experience early in life. This has been demonstrated in a number of twin studies which show a strong correlation in homosexuality between monozygotic twins over fraternal twins having the same gender. The groups who say homosexuality is a choice are the same ones who argue that the earth is 6000 years old. Its a minority view, and more than that its a view which cannot be separated from partisan politics and religion. The idea here is, " Surely God wouldn't afflict someone with 'the gay' and send him to hell for it, that would make God cruel! It must be a choice, otherwise we can't hold faggots can be held accountable for their sin!" |
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on May 8, 2009 13:13:44 GMT -5
Homosexuality could also serve a use in the survival of a species by LIMITING the breeding population. If a species takes up X amount of resources to survive, but the result of every single breeding-age adult would result in a population of Y, then having a small amount of the breeding-age population only mate with their own gender could tip the balance just enough for the population to remain steady.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 8, 2009 13:25:06 GMT -5
Homosexuality could also serve a use in the survival of a species by LIMITING the breeding population. If a species takes up X amount of resources to survive, but the result of every single breeding-age adult would result in a population of Y, then having a small amount of the breeding-age population only mate with their own gender could tip the balance just enough for the population to remain steady. Which is completely undermined by some fundie groups practicing irresponsible breeding habits (chief among them, breeding at all). |
|
|
|
Post by id82 on May 8, 2009 13:33:33 GMT -5
No offence taken he's not a biologist, and if you told him he was wrong he would probably agree with you. I just didn't know how to tell him he was wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 8, 2009 14:04:09 GMT -5
I am so tired of that dominance argument. So are a lot of people who are heavily into dog training.
Each of my dogs have a position in the pack, each has their own situation where they are dominant. A good hunting dog leads the hunt, that's why he's out in front. If your hunting dog is passive and submissive, he's not going to leave your side, and you go hungry. The only reason that a hunting dog listens to you is because you have the bang stick that makes the bird fall down (and a lot of breeding to remove bird killers and eaters out of the line).
My dogs all hump each other on a regular basis, it's a form of play, they enjoy doing it to each other. At dog meets they joyfully hump their friends. They take turns.
Another reason that homosexuality happens in wolves (sorry, best wild pack animal I know) is because only the alpha breeds, so they get some sexual frustration off with it. It's also a bit of a bonding activity. You have to remember that dogs/wolves do not think like us, they don't even see the world in the same way we do. There are up to 20 different positions within a wolf pack, some of these positions are allowed to tell off an alpha. All of these positions take the dominant position at times, depending on the situation.
As for nature vs. nature though, I'm going to go with nature, only because of the physiological differences that have been found.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 8, 2009 15:19:54 GMT -5
No offence taken he's not a biologist, and if you told him he was wrong he would probably agree with you. I just didn't know how to tell him he was wrong. Speaking as a biologist, I say point him to the sources Oriet provided. Oh, and if you want very clear examples of homosexuality in nature, look up bonobos. |
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on May 8, 2009 15:47:22 GMT -5
I can't understand why people can't notice the number of effiminate straight men and masculine straight women and think that even if you are raised as a "tomboy" or "mama's boy," you're not going to go gay. Not automatically, anyway.
Unless, of course, you already have the presumption that every effeminate man is secretly gay. Same goes with abuse and trauma. Though, I mean, you consider the abuse rates for women. You'd think that 90% of women would be gay by the age of 18.
I do think there are social effects on sexuality, but that doesn't mean that it's a primary source.
following up what Oriet said, it does seem that sexuality in transfolk may be influenced both by being in touch with their own identity and hormones. I wouldn't exactly set it up as fact, but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence on the subject that would point in that direction. One of the things that is commonly noted in trans articles is a potential shift in orientation, though it's never clear why. Kinds wonder what it would do to someone who wasn't trans, though, to undergo HRT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on May 8, 2009 16:04:53 GMT -5
Anyone else see John Barrowman's "the making of me". Because the suggestion from that is that it arises during pregnancy from conditions in the womb, and is particularly particularly common if more than one male pregnancy has preceded the pregnancy. Something to do with decreasing ability for the mother's body to produce testosterone. [/answering a science question with a documentary made by an actor]
|
|
