Gayness: Nature or Nurture?

[saztronic]

Homesexuality and bisexuality are all over history, Pie. Sorry to disappoint you. From Alexander the Great to the ancient Egyptians (yes, Dee, really) to Greeks to Romans to Native American cultures (hermaphrodites were even considered gods) to Popes to monks to peasants to every-friggin'-where. Good grief. Try reading a history of homosexuality before making blanket claims about how it just wasn't around that much until recently.

Why do you think countries have had anti-sodomy laws for thousands of years, since the fetal stages of the modern nation-state? Some U.S. states still have such laws on the books, but they're not new -- they date from the 18th and 19th centuries in most cases.

[Schme]

Yes, exactly.

I didn't say there'd be more historical figures, Pie. I said there'd be more in general.

A lot of choice? A lot of bullshit. Tell you what, man, if you could choose between enjoying screwing the opposite sex, as is socialy acceptable worldwide, and between being ostracized by damn near everyone and lumped into a stereotypical catagory of "Fuck up freak of nature." what would you choose, eh? If it choice, there'd by no homosexuals.


And "Gayness" isn't a word.

[Pie]

Meh, whatever.

[west]

Zoidberg wins!

[Schme]

Bah, Catholiscism, Catholickism, same thing, eh Pie? I mean, who cares, eh?

[Pie]

Amen to that.

[Diego]

Schme:

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?

It would not be genetic, no, because genetic disorders are defined as an abnormal sequence of genes in the DNA of an individual that cause a phenotypical change. Homosexuality being innate due to maternal hormonal abnormalities affecting the womb would not imply any form of abnormal sequence of genes in their DNA, thus, while still being "nature," it wouldn't be genetic.

And if homosexuality was the cause of a genetic mutation, there should be far less homosexuals than there currently are, as mutations in the same gene are unlikely to occur as often as they would have to, to account for homosexuality nowadays. Furthermore, the genes would always die out due to lack of breeding, thus implying they would have to be replicated exactly each time you see a "born" homosexual around, which is very, very unlikely.

Pie:
While the others replied rather well to your points, I'd also like to throw this out in the open. If homosexuality isn't nature, why are there so many reported homosexual animals in the wild?

[Pie]

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?

HEY!!! Thats EXACTLY what I meant....

[Diego]

How fortunate that I responded to it, then.

[Schme]

It would not be genetic, no, because genetic disorders are defined as an abnormal sequence of genes in the DNA of an individual that cause a phenotypical change. Homosexuality being innate due to maternal hormonal abnormalities affecting the womb would not imply any form of abnormal sequence of genes in their DNA, thus, while still being "nature," it wouldn't be genetic.

I see.

HEY!!! Thats EXACTLY what I meant....

Pie, you haven't got you're head together here. I wasn't saying it was choice, I was saying it wasn't due to hormones, which is not what you are saying.