Homosexuality nature or nurture?

[UCUMAY]

So does abortion. What's your point?

that this is very much not an abortion thread. Take it elsewhere.

I second that. Abortion on this thread is an attempt at thread jacking.

Homosexuality being a means of self-limiting population isn't.

[Helertia]

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?

Because that's not happening right now at all >.>

[The Bleeding Roses]

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.

When homosexual relationships can lead to reproduction you can try that card again.

[Helertia]

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

When homosexual relationships can lead to reproduction you can try that card again.

A: It helps to prevent over population
B: Not serving a biological purpose doesn't really matter at all in this debate. Do we argue over whether wisdom teeth are nature or nurture?

[The Bleeding Roses]

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.

Your understanding of norms is quite lacking.

It is a matter of statistics, not morality. Homosexual may be all fine and dandy to a population morally, but statistically it is not the norm.

[The Bleeding Roses]

When homosexual relationships can lead to reproduction you can try that card again.

A: It helps to prevent over population
B: Not serving a biological purpose doesn't really matter at all in this debate. Do we argue over whether wisdom teeth are nature or nurture?

Abortion serves that first purpose as well.

Do you equate abortion to homosexuality?

[Saurisia]

I'd say it's not natural, rather it's nurture.

[Nulono]

A: It helps to prevent over population
B: Not serving a biological purpose doesn't really matter at all in this debate. Do we argue over whether wisdom teeth are nature or nurture?

Abortion serves that first purpose as well.

Do you equate abortion to homosexuality?

Deja vu!

[Jello Biafra]

Nature, but affected by nurture. The same way heterosexuality is.

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

When homosexual relationships can lead to reproduction you can try that card again.

Except, of course, for the fact that "biological norm" doesn't equal "100% of the population reproducing".

Your understanding of norms is quite lacking.

It is a matter of statistics, not morality. Homosexual may be all fine and dandy to a population morally, but statistically it is not the norm.

Neither are redheads. Are they "wired wrong"?

[Helertia]

A: It helps to prevent over population
B: Not serving a biological purpose doesn't really matter at all in this debate. Do we argue over whether wisdom teeth are nature or nurture?

Abortion serves that first purpose as well.

Do you equate abortion to homosexuality?

Hmmmm. One kills a fetus....the other is attraction to the same sex....
No.
I could equate it to contraception, I suppose. Quite a few similarities. The Pope hates both contraception and homosexuals. Both contraception and homosexuality mean pregnancies are pretty unlikely. Both contrapception and homosexuals go on my penis.

[The Bleeding Roses]

Nature, but affected by nurture. The same way heterosexuality is.

When homosexual relationships can lead to reproduction you can try that card again.

Except, of course, for the fact that "biological norm" doesn't equal "100% of the population reproducing".

Your understanding of norms is quite lacking.

It is a matter of statistics, not morality. Homosexual may be all fine and dandy to a population morally, but statistically it is not the norm.

Neither are redheads. Are they "wired wrong"?

Hair pigmentation doesn't affect one's behavior.

[Nulono]

Both contrapception and homosexuals go on my penis.

Sigged!

[Eireann Fae]

Neither are redheads. Are they "wired wrong"?

I don't know about 'wired wrong', but they're bloody hawt ;)

Do you equate abortion to homosexuality?

This argument is even more fallacious than your usual ones... That's saying something.

[Jello Biafra]

Nature, but affected by nurture. The same way heterosexuality is.


Except, of course, for the fact that "biological norm" doesn't equal "100% of the population reproducing".


Neither are redheads. Are they "wired wrong"?

Hair pigmentation doesn't affect one's behavior.

So the only biological norms are the ones that affect behavior?
(Not to mention that sexual orientation and sexual behavior are not equivalent.)

[Super-Deathland]

Definately nature, maybe a tad nurture but then sexuality isn't all black and white like people expect.

[Eireann Fae]

Definately nature, maybe a tad nurture but then sexuality isn't all black and white like people expect.

Unless it's an interracial relationship *nods*

[DaWoad]

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

When homosexual relationships can lead to reproduction you can try that card again.

heh, yah either you have no idea what you';re talking about or you're being deliberately obtuse. Genes can be passed from generation to generation without requiring direct reproduction. Helping your siblings is, from a genetic standpoint, helping yourself.

[SaintB]

nature? Nurture? In the end it should not matter; people need to shut the fuck up about it.

[Volnotova]

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.

Try saying that to a biologist or neuroscientist and watch them laugh at you.

[Unhealthy2]

Someone's view on whether people are born gay or not is also a strong indicator of how much they believe in the blank slate vs. biological determinism, or whether they take some other approach. It may seem like a minor issue, and, on its own, it is. However, if settled, it would provide very strong evidence in favor of a model of how humans develop.

[Lackadaisical2]

It can't be both? I've always seen it as like left-handedness.

This seems most likely to me, althoguh for some that'd depend on whther you think what happens to a fetus int he womb is part of nature or nurture.

[Lackadaisical2]

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?

Not at all. For a long time we practiced infanticide, nothing wrong with some baby-back ribs.

[Hayteria]

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.

How can you be so sure? You can't change the past so you can't test your hypothesis; hardly something to act so sure of.

On a sidenote, I doubt homosexuality, which occurs in, IIRC, 3 to 4 percent of the population, really makes all that significant a difference to overpopulation anyway.

[Rffrff]

I'd say it's not natural, rather it's nurture.

It's true, I was brought up gay

[Innsmothe]

I'd say it's not natural, rather it's nurture.

Nature disagrees with you mate.