Gayness: Nature or Nurture?

[SekoETC]

There was this one guy working at the airport café and he was like soo gay!

[Schme]

Oh yeah?

[west]

Oh, MAI GAWWW Susan, I like, saw this guy at like Urban Outfitters or whatever, and I sweartogod he was like soooo gay. Like, he looked at me and I was wearing my one shirt, like, you know the one that shows off my boobs real well, and he didn't even try to look down my front! He just said, "I like your shirt." I was all like HELLO. BOOBS HERE. but he like, totes didn't get my signals. Totally gay.

[Schme]

That's what I was thinking.

I seen a guy in a mall with a scarf, my friend says "This guy is full fag." But it was winter.


I swear, west, that was fucking perfect. Nice.

[Dee]

Oh, MAI GAWWW Susan, I like, saw this guy at like Urban Outfitters or whatever, and I sweartogod he was like soooo gay. Like, he looked at me and I was wearing my one shirt, like, you know the one that shows off my boobs real well, and he didn't even try to look down my front! He just said, "I like your shirt." I was all like HELLO. BOOBS HERE. but he like, totes didn't get my signals. Totally gay.

LMAO

[yossarian_lives]

In a science mag recently (maybe Scientific American… I cant remember) I read that every biological older brother you have increases your risk (for males) of being gay by about 30%. This is not due to environment (except maybe for the environment in the womb or the mother immune system or whatever causes it…) because it did not matter if the siblings had had any contact or not. I believe it was a very rigorous study.

One can see how this might come about: In the environment in which humans did much of their evolving having (in smallish biologically related groups) a string of brothers all vying for top sexual status could be counterproductive and result in conflict and death. Thus if there is a chance that some of these brothers are gay and as such not a sexual threat to the leaders dominance this might increase social harmony…

[yossarian_lives]

Of course this only explains some of the biological origins of homosexuality. One can be biologically homosexual without having older brothers or without being a male for that matter…

I have to say though for all of those who doubt that homosexuality has any biological origins: There is a part in the amygdala which handles sexual function and is distinct for the sexes. Homosexuals often have this part of the brain resembling that of the other sex. Of course this is not the only reason. For some people there are psychological reasons and others it is a just a lifestyle choice or numerous other reasons... including combinations of those just mentioned.

[Schme]

Sounds like a good article.

[PRUT]

I personally think it's nurture... God created us two different sexes to reproduce, and not all one sex. I don't think it's natural.. We're not born gay.

Yeah yeah.
If You say something, would you become a lesbian?
If not why not?

Everything is natural what exist on Earth.
There a lot of species which has homosexual activities.
Some of them even can switch its sex from depending on what chances they have to procreate. The other have homosexual sex just for fun!
There is a fine movie on National Geografic about sex of animals

I don't think that people don't belong to Nature, so we are similar to animal in our needs and desires. I would say, that homoseualism is natural, however I would not be a gay - just different genes and that's all.

[Phalynx]

Once you get into biology, epsecially comparative anatomy, you always hit the same question... which came first ..

The chicken and the egg,

The physical differences or the behaviour..

The quest has to be for a magic gene, and yer there are so many more important things we should be researching, because nature or nature its unlikely those with strongly held beliefs about the morality of sexuality will change them much at all...

[Diego]

Once you get into biology, epsecially comparative anatomy, you always hit the same question... which came first ..

The chicken and the egg

Once you get into biology, you always hit the same answer--the egg.

The quest has to be for a magic gene, and yer there are so many more important things we should be researching, because nature or nature its unlikely those with strongly held beliefs about the morality of sexuality will change them much at all...

I for one sincerely doubt it's a simple matter of genetics. While there may well be genetic tendencies towards more ambiguous sexuality or conflicting sexual brain development/anatomical sexual development, I recall reading a particular article that proposed the beginning of "innate homosexuality" to be the womb, as in, the fetus is sometimes exposed to an excessive (or was it insufficient?) amount of a type of androgen hormone which can cause its brain to develop neurochemically inclined towards homosexual attraction.

[Augery]

I read a book some time ago that had a chapter or two about hormone levels before birth and a persons sexuality.

I can't remember any of the details but I believe the book was this

Main Title : Right hand, left hand : the origins of asymmetry in brains, bodies, atoms and cultures / Chris McManus.

Personal Author : McManus, I. C.
Imprint : London : Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2002.

If anyone wants to read it.

[Schme]

Sounds like a good book.


Diego, if that was what caused homosexuality, it's still genetic. It's while the genes are devolloping. I can't say I believe that so much, though. See, if that were the case, there would likely be many many more homosexuals, no? Or am I wrong?

[Pie]

yes, and there would be more gayness in history. MOR GAYNESS IN HISTORY!! BUT IT ISN'T!!!

(I'm not saying things in history aren't gay, for I know some of them are, I ment gay people at differen't times. If gayness were genetic than gayness would be aparent thewought history.)

And If gayness is Nature, than gayness would be in history more also. But no. Gayness Is nurture, combigned with a little genetics, and alot o choice. Nurture, genetics, And choice. CHOICE!!!

[Dee]

I agree with Pie