Homosexuality nature or nurture?

[Ashmoria]

are you planning on making a thread on every basic question that ever occurs on internet forums>

it doenst matter why someone is homosexual. there isnt anything wrong with it so its no more important that why someone is left handed.

No just the ones important to me. I didn't say it's wrong. I am Bisexaul. To say either is wrong is hypocritical.

oh im not suggesting that YOU said its wrong. I AM saying that there is nothing wrong with it.

emphasizing nature over nurture is important in a world where gay is too icky to allow. but if you cant help yourself its wrong to condemn you for it. in a world where no one cares who you sleep with (as long as it is consentual adults) (in general, after all i would care very much if you were consentually sleeping with my husband) no one would care if you had sex with a member of your own gender because you were totally compeletly born gay, if you developed an attraction to one specific person or if you just wanted to give it a try.

[Tokos]

Modernisation is the key of holding a demographic.

This explains why the Episcopalians and Anglicans are going from strength to strength and are taken seriously by everyone, while Islam, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are barely noticed. Oh wait it's the other way around!

[DaWoad]

Define "wrong".

And all that proves is a gay guy will have sex with a woman if it means getting out of this stupid experiment.

Biological norm is heterosexual.
Homosexuality serves no biological purpose, it's simply deviant behavior.

not true homosexuality serves many biological purposes from an evolutionary standpoint.

[Innsmothe]

But according to your teachings, everything is the will of God, so a neurotical disorder in Gay people is nothing short but his divine and Omnipotent will.

I don't think you have that good a grasp of what Christianity's teachings are.

Hinduism, Asatru, Druidism and Voodu have all allowed for Gay Congregations if not marriages.

Seeing how being the passive part in an sexual encounter was considered unmanly in Norse society, I seriously doubt the "Asatru" part.
As for Hinduism, lolwhat. Homosexuality only became legal in India last year.

The icelandic congregation of Asatru currently do gay marriages. :/

Plus, Norse society was splintered remember? Farmers/Craftsmen and Warriors/Merchants, a dedicated farmer would never go Viking and thus would never reach Valhalla anyway.

[Tekania]

But according to your teachings, everything is the will of God, so a neurotical disorder in Gay people is nothing short but his divine and Omnipotent will.

Christianity teaches that people have a very strong inclination towards doing bad things as well, you realise? The idea of the human mind being disordered and generally fucked-up is a tenet of Christianity. No reason that can't apply to homosexual urges.

Hinduism, Asatru, Druidism and Voodu have all allowed for Gay Congregations if not marriages.

Plenty of homosexuals in Christian congregations. It's not as if you are asked at the door if you are gay or not. I can't think of a single church that actually classes homosexuality (as a state of mind) as a sin, much less something you can be barred for.

Depends on the type of Christian soterology really. Arminians and Pelagians generally need it to be a choice which a person can overcome, Calvinists and Augustinians would expect there to be a disorder which would cause it.

And yes, I've never known a reputable Church to turn away a homosexual from attending. And the ones that do remind me more of the Pharisees who questioned why Christ would sup with sinners, than they do a viable Christian church.

[Baltenstein]

The icelandic congregation of Asatru currently do gay marriages. :/

So do a lot of Christian churches.

And on a general note, it's not really unusual for religious or other social groups to act more tolerant when they are a societal minority than when they form the majority. (Christians being no exception here)

[Tokos]

not true homosexuality serves many biological purposes from an evolutionary standpoint.

I don't see how this is possible, given it effectively kills any chance of the individual reproducing. Evolutionary forces don't "care" about whether one's genetic oddity is good for the tribe or not.

[Innsmothe]

not true homosexuality serves many biological purposes from an evolutionary standpoint.

I don't see how this is possible, given it effectively kills any chance of the individual reproducing. Evolutionary forces don't "care" about whether one's genetic oddity is good for the tribe or not.

Altruism says otherwise.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Christianity teaches that people have a very strong inclination towards doing bad things as well, you realise? The idea of the human mind being disordered and generally fucked-up is a tenet of Christianity. No reason that can't apply to homosexual urges.



Plenty of homosexuals in Christian congregations. It's not as if you are asked at the door if you are gay or not. I can't think of a single church that actually classes homosexuality (as a state of mind) as a sin, much less something you can be barred for.

Depends on the type of Christian soterology really. Arminians and Pelagians generally need it to be a choice which a person can overcome, Calvinists and Augustinians would expect there to be a disorder which would cause it.

I think it's caused partially by original sin(some say genes?) and the surrounding influences, which instills a homosexual tendency, but can be overcome. Sin, will, of course, never be removed totally. Total depravity. Adam and Eve's sin has caused the human nature to degenerate and be polluted for perpetuity. Nevertheless, with the grace of God, all those who are faithful and sincere, and try their best, will be justified and saved.

[Baltenstein]

not true homosexuality serves many biological purposes from an evolutionary standpoint.

I don't see how this is possible, given it effectively kills any chance of the individual reproducing. Evolutionary forces don't "care" about whether one's genetic oddity is good for the tribe or not.

From what I've read, the birth of a hormonally homosexual male increases the fertility of possible female siblings. Not sure about the source though.

[Tokos]

Altruism can arguably carry benefits for the individual in a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" way, like with symbiotic species. Homosexuality (genetically speaking) does not. At all. Apples and oranges.

You don't need to ascribe some kind of purpose to every little mutation mankind has. Haemophilia does no one any good (and a lot more harm, of course, than homosexuality) yet there it is.

[UCUMAY]

emphasizing nature over nurture is important in a world where gay is too icky to allow.

That's why this thread is here. Perhaps you misread my intentions.

[Ashmoria]

emphasizing nature over nurture is important in a world where gay is too icky to allow.

That's why this thread is here. Perhaps you misread my intentions.

oh hun im just pontificating. im not casting any aspersions on you whatsoever. i understand where you are coming from.

[Fennijer]

Biological norm is heterosexual.
Homosexuality serves no biological purpose, it's simply deviant behavior.

Simply deviant behaviour?

If being unable to reproduce defines me as deviant, then there are many heterosexuals who cannot reproduce and therefore serve no biological purpose. Therefore they must be engaging in deviant behaviour every time they attempt to reproduce. Also, heterosexuals who engage in sex with protection must be deviant also, as there is no biological purpose in that either.

Perhaps, and this is pure speculation, the 'purpose' of homosexuals is to take care of the millions of children which are churned out by heterosexuals and abandoned, neglected or taken away. Perhaps also, the purpose of not being able to reproduce is a 'natural' progression to combat the rapid over-population in the world which is a direct result of over-begatting amongst heterosexuals whom seem unable or unwilling to 'put a raincoat on it'.

I think you need to take a step back from defining what is 'norm', and consider that; where it may be the 'norm' to you, it is not the 'norm' for a large proportion of the population.
Have you ever looked at the care profession, and considered what proportion of those working in it are of 'the deviant behaviour' category which you callously define, or unable to have children of their own? I can assure you that the parents of virtually all those orphans and neglected children were not homosexual. So it would appear that the homosexuals of the world are actually making good of the mess that heterosexuals (not ALL heteros) are creating.


As to the topic... Nature or Nurture, I would say from personal experience that it is nature foremost and nurture is not a factor in my own personal life (as my adoptive parents are mildly homophobic) but 'over-protectiveness' could be a factor after the fact.

[Xsyne]

not true homosexuality serves many biological purposes from an evolutionary standpoint.

I don't see how this is possible, given it effectively kills any chance of the individual reproducing. Evolutionary forces don't "care" about whether one's genetic oddity is good for the tribe or not.

You share 25% of your genes with any offspring of your siblings.

[Tokos]

That has no bearing on the matter. Homosexuality, evolutionarily speaking, is as bad for the individual organism as sterility. No one argues that someone being born sterile is somehow beneficial to their genes. If we were ants, with workers intended to be sterile, maybe, but we're not.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it has a grand purpose. See: haemophilia.

[Xsyne]

That has no bearing on the matter. Homosexuality, evolutionarily speaking, is as bad for the individual organism as sterility. No one argues that someone being born sterile is somehow beneficial to their genes. If we were ants, with workers intended to be sterile, maybe, but we're not.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it has a grand purpose. See: haemophilia.

You don't seem to understand. If you assist in the survival of another individual who shares your genes, then you have passed your genes on. It's K-selection at its finest.

[UCUMAY]

That has no bearing on the matter. Homosexuality, evolutionarily speaking, is as bad for the individual organism as sterility. No one argues that someone being born sterile is somehow beneficial to their genes. If we were ants, with workers intended to be sterile, maybe, but we're not.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it has a grand purpose. See: haemophilia.

You don't seem to understand. If you assist in the survival of another individual who shares your genes, then you have passed your genes on. It's K-selection at its finest.

That's the same reason humans live past the point of being sexually viable. Grandparents take care of grandbabies since grandbabies share the genes.

[DaWoad]

not true homosexuality serves many biological purposes from an evolutionary standpoint.

I don't see how this is possible, given it effectively kills any chance of the individual reproducing. Evolutionary forces don't "care" about whether one's genetic oddity is good for the tribe or not.

actually they do. Assuming, at least, that homosexuality is a recessive trait. If your brothers and sisters are more likely to survive and pass on variants of your DNA containing the "homosexuality" genes then it's a beneficial trait.

[Tekania]

That has no bearing on the matter. Homosexuality, evolutionarily speaking, is as bad for the individual organism as sterility. No one argues that someone being born sterile is somehow beneficial to their genes. If we were ants, with workers intended to be sterile, maybe, but we're not.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it has a grand purpose. See: haemophilia.

Homosexuality isn't as bad as sterility. Homosexuals are still capable of biological reproduction.

[Nulono]

Is asexuality wrong too?

[Iniika]

Just because something exists doesn't mean it has a grand purpose. See: haemophilia.

I wish more people would understand this about themselves. The thought that just because humans exist means that we have some incredible purpose bothers me. Why do we have to have a purpose? Why can't we make our lives how we want?

[The Floridian Coast]

In this thread please present facts. Wiki for the purpose of this thread is not considered a credible source. No flaming or caplocks will be tolerated. My apologizes if this has been done before. I could not find it.

I believe it will be like 90 percent nature and 10 nurture. They did an unethical and illegal study in the states where they turned a genetical male twin into a female. They raised this 'female' to adulthood. Results 'she' felt disconnected, trapped in the wrong body, and is currently undergoing the steps to correct this. If I find said news report I will post a link. Sounds like transgenders, doesn't it?

Edit: said link http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... ript.shtml

Gender identity disorder is in a completely different realm as homosexuality. They are not even remotely related. A person with gender identity disorder can be a heterosexual or a homosexual.

[Desperate Measures]

In 1970 Dr. Robert Heath, founder of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology at Tulane University did an experiment in which he had a gay male engage in sexual relations with a woman via stimulation of the brain's septal region.

Basically, homosexuals are wired wrong. Nature.

He was high on pressing the button marked, "PLEASURE". He would have fucked a tree if it meant he could press that button again.

"In 1954 James Olds and Peter Milner of McGill University discovered that the septal region is the feel-good center of the brain. Electrical stimulation of it produces sensations of intense pleasure and sexual arousal. They demonstrated their discovery by inserting wires into a rat's brain and then showing that when the rat figured out it could self-stimulate itself by pressing a lever, it would maniacally bang on that lever up to two-thousand times an hour. (The image at the very top of this page, third from the right, shows one of Olds and Milner's rats banging on its lever.)

In 1970, Robert Heath of Tulane University dreamed up a far more novel application of Olds and Milner's discovery. Heath decided to test whether repeated stimulation of the septal region could transform a homosexual man into a heterosexual.

Heath referred to his homosexual subject as patient B-19. He inserted Teflon-insulated electrodes into the septal region of B-19's brain and then gave B-19 carefully controlled amounts of stimulation in experimental sessions. Soon the young man was reporting increased stirrings of sexual motivation. Heath then rigged up a device to allow B-19 to self-stimulate himself. It was like letting a chocoholic loose in a candy shop. B-19 quickly became obsessed with the pleasure button. In one three-hour session he pressed it 1500 times until, as Heath noted, "he was experiencing an almost overwhelming euphoria and elation and had to be disconnected."

By this stage of the experiment B-19's libido was so jacked up that Heath decided to proceed with the final stage in which B-19 would be introduced to a sexually-willing female partner. With permission from the state attorney general, Heath arranged for a twenty-one-year-old female prostitute to visit the lab, and he placed her in a room with B-19. For an hour B-19 did nothing, but then the prostitute took the initiative and a successful sexual encounter between the two occurred. Heath considered this a positive result.

Little is known of B-19's later fate. Heath reported that the young man drifted back into a life of homosexual prostitution, but that he also had an affair with a married woman. Heath optimistically decided that this showed the treatment was at least partially successful. However, Heath never did try to convert any more homosexuals."
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Top/experiments/%20

[The Floridian Coast]

That has no bearing on the matter. Homosexuality, evolutionarily speaking, is as bad for the individual organism as sterility. No one argues that someone being born sterile is somehow beneficial to their genes. If we were ants, with workers intended to be sterile, maybe, but we're not.

It is good for the species as a whole.

If the human race had neither homosexuality or abortion, the vast majority of humanity would be starving to death right now on a irreparably polluted and bled dry Earth. Overpopulation is bad, mmkay?