Homosexuality - nature vs. nurture

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-05-21 06:25am

+http://forums.axn-asia.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=30

Arguing with a friend over homosexuality. He goes it's all psychological and shit, and posts a link from trueorigins.org, a "refutation" of talkorigins

I just need cold hard proof that it's physical, and not just behavioral and shit.

Thanks

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-05-21 08:49am

Even if homosexuality is by choice, he still has to prove something wrong with it. And we know they can't do that. So the issue of nature vs nurture is ultimately irrelevent.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-05-21 08:52am

Given the sort of harrassment gays can expect, who would make such a 'lifestyle choice' willingly?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-05-21 08:54am

Indeed. Thats something I've always pointed out. Why would people choose something where they know damned well they are going to be persecuted to such degrees?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-05-21 08:56am

I've met someone who claimed that it was a choice that they made so that they could have a reason for everyone to hate them, and lose personal responsibility for things. It isn't their problem anymore, it's the world's. Doesn't make any goddamned sense. Honestly, claiming you can choose homosexuality is like saying you could choose to be heterosexual. I can't be attracted to guys... I am attracted to women. I can't help it.

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-05-21 09:36am

Here

It's the Swedish study that shows that gays respond differently to sex hormones than straights. What that, in turn, points to, is a physiological difference between homosexual and heterosexual people, i.e. it's not a "choice" it's something that you're born with or possibly develop along the way. Though it's more likely the former(I'm not a biologist so I'm a little hazy on some of the finer details).

Short version: our brains are different.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2005-05-21 09:41am

Tell him that they have found homosexual behavior in over 600 animal species, including, at times, entire troops of bonobo chimpanzees. Also point out that with identical twins, if one of the twins is homosexual, the chance that the other twin will be is higher than the average.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2005-05-21 10:04am

It is worth while to note that when defeated in the nature Vs. nurture debate homophobes, religiously oriented ones especially, often claim that they find homosexual sex to be objectionable (sinful, wrong, immoral, unnatural Etc.), rather then homosexuality itself, and that even if some were a homosexual they can still refrain from practicing gay sex. Others like to take this route because they belief that by condemning the act of gay sex, rather then homosexuality itself, they are not being 'bigoted'.

In any case, I agree with Alyeskas advice, challenge him to prove that homosexuality is somehow wrong, the nature vs. nurture issue is ultimately irrelevant.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2005-05-21 02:12pm

Alyeska wrote:Indeed. Thats something I've always pointed out. Why would people choose something where they know damned well they are going to be persecuted to such degrees?

They are brainwashed into it by the liberal agenda in our schools, of course

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-05-21 02:15pm

fgalkin wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Indeed. Thats something I've always pointed out. Why would people choose something where they know damned well they are going to be persecuted to such degrees?
They are brainwashed into it by the liberal agenda in our schools, of course

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Don't forget the homonormative effects of mass media.

And God only knows how many innocent boys ran out and start humping their best buddies when they realized that Rosie O'Donnell was no longer available...

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-05-21 03:25pm

Is heterosexuality just as "behavioural" and psychological? If not, why not? Where's the morality involved in it in either answer?

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-05-21 03:35pm

Real simple, he wants proof Homosexuality is some choice foisted on it's victum? Give him a list of the hundreds of Gays who grow up in Mormon and Fundies familes...

Post by **fgalkin** » 2005-05-21 03:58pm

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Real simple, he wants proof Homosexuality is some choice foisted on it's victum? Give him a list of the hundreds of Gays who grow up in Mormon and Fundies familes...

Oh, but you see, that's the whole point. The liberals are brainwashing good old fundamentalist Christian boys and girls into gays through the Liberal Media and the Liberal Schools, most notably through the Satanic theory of Evolution.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-05-21 05:32pm

I know two crucial aspects about the human mind:

1. It's extremely complex.

2. It's very, very sensitive to stimuli.

Two people being raised in the exact same conditions can turn out to be exact opposites. So "nurture" only plays a role in a person's development... it may have a heavy impact on some, a minor impact on others. To suggest that there's a single, universal "cause" of homosexuality is to dumb down the argument to ridiculously simplistic levels.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-05-22 11:49am

I think it's more complex than merely saying "nature versus nurture". Both effect a persons sexuality. However, I very highly doubt it's a "choice" that people make one day and that they can decide not to be gay.

Case in point, my grandfather on my father's side was a gay man. In fact, it's why he was discharged from the Navy. Back in the 1940s, the idea was to "cure" homosexuals by them finding a nice girl and getting married, and hopefully that would fix the queerness. My grandfather managed to have kids (he was able to have sex with a woman) but he never stopped being gay, which lead to martial problems and a sexless marriage after Nana found out, not to mention a nasty knock to her. She was a fairly religious woman, but fortunately, she was also an amazingly practical one. Now, if he could have chosen to not be gay, he would have absolutely taken it. I mean, the guy forces himself, despite a complete lack of physical attraction, to have three kids with his wife. That to me indicates that he didn't have much of a choice in his homosexuality.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-05-22 01:19pm

first to show that homosexuality is not a choice and is not changeable

Homosexual men and women often recall childhood play preferences like those of the opposite sex(Bailky and Zucker 1995) But most do not report same sex attraction until during or shortly after puberty sets in(Garnets and Kimmel 1990)

The interesting part is that research suggests that female sexual orientation is more fluid and changeable than that of males, which is in close accordance to males more "target specific" sexal response. (Diamond,2000 and Peplau& Garnets, 2000) This is a phenomenon across cultures. What is basically means though is that females are more or less elastic in sexual orientation. Now the folowing sentence is pure conjecture on my part... But it may have something to do with the bonded nature of females in a hunter gatherer society like that which existed before the rise of cities. Females would have been rahter close knit and like bonobo chimps may have used sex as a form of social bonding

But of course the sucess of the ex-gay movment in longditudinal studies is less than 1 % which is not statistically significant. Here are the quotes and references in this regard...

Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual. Subsequent to the study, two of the male founders of Exodus fell in love and were united in a union ceremony. They claimed that the Exodus program was "ineffective...not one person was healed." The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%
Masters and Johnson (1979): This study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60% which was maintained for 5 years after treatment. Unfortunately, only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. From the available data is quite possible that none of these five converted to heterosexuality. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.
NARTH (1997): They studied 860 clients whose data was sent by 200 therapists who were members of the organization. When the subjects entered therapy, 68% identified themselves as totally or almost exclusively homosexual. It is not clear whether this referred to sexual behavior or sexual orientation. The actual percentage of homosexuals was not reported; most of the subjects might have been bisexual. When they left therapy, 33% said they were exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual. Again, it is unclear whether this refers to behavior or orientation. Again, the percentage of heterosexuals is unknown. Unfortunately, 63% of the subjects were still undergoing therapy at the time of the survey. Of greater interest would be the percentage of subjects who entered with a homosexual orientation, converted to bisexuality or heterosexuality, and were able to sustain their sexual orientation for, say, two years following therapy. The NARTH report did not track the results of those clients after therapy. It is possible that none of the subjects who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation was able to change their orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.
Schroeder & Shidlo (in progress): This study is aiming at analyzing the experience of 200 people who have undergone conversion therapy. As of late 1997, they had studied 100 subjects. They reported a conversion rate of 0%.
OCRT pilot study (2000): The sponsors of this web site surveyed each of the 36 websites of the GayChange WebRing. 3 These are mainly Internet sites created by individuals or small Christian ministries. From the sites' content, all appear to be Evangelical Christian in outlook. Of the 28 accessible web sites, only one reported what they felt were conversion success. They had two clients who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation, and decided during therapy to remain celibate. One entered therapy as a bisexual and has developed a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Neither actually changed their sexual orientation. The conversion rate of the Christian ministries sampled was 0%.
Exodus International (2000): On 2000-JAN-21, the board of directors of the National Association of Social Workers issued a statement which condemned all therapies which attempt to change a person's sexual orientation. Exodus International (EI) offered a rebuttal to that statement. In his rebuttal, Bob Davies, North American director of EI wrote that: Over 250,000 individuals have contacted various EI offices inquiring about a sexual orientation change. This includes "gays, lesbians, family members, friends, counselors and pastors."
Thousands of men and women have stopped homosexual behavior. That is, they have decided to become celibate. These are now "in the process of seeking deeper change in their sexual feelings and attractions."

Unfortunately, he does not estimate how many of these thousands of clients have actually changed their sexual orientation. On 2001-MAY-14, we Emailed EI asking for additional information. Davies does mention that some "are now happily married and raising children." However he does not give estimates of their number, nor does he indicate how many were entered EI as bisexuals and have remained with that sexual orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

Spitzer (2000): Dr. Robert Spitzer conducted a study of 143 "ex-gays" and 57 "ex-lesbians" who had reported that they had become "straight." In fact, the data shows that few are now heterosexual. He reported that 89% of the men and 63% of the subjects emerged from therapy still having feelings of attraction to persons of the same-sex. 16 (11%) of the men and 21 (37%) of the women report that they now have a heterosexual orientation. Again, it is not known how many entered therapy as bisexuals or as homosexuals.

A total of 86 of the 200 subjects were referred to Dr. Spitzer by conservative Christian groups specializing in homosexual ministry; NARTH referred 46 subjects; other sources provided 68. It is apparent that the individuals that Dr. Spitzer interviewed were hand-selected from a very large group of persons who had either a homosexuals or a bisexual orientation. The 46 subjects from NARTH might have been chosen as the most successful patients from as many as 250,000 individuals who entered therapy. Unfortunately, no data has been reported about the total number of persons from whom the 200 carefully selected patients were provided. Assuming that only 100,000 subjects were involved -- a VERY conservative figure, then 37 "success stories" represents a conversion rate of 0.04%

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm

ow to pin down a cause.

The Kinsey institute questioned every aspect of the psychological
mdevelopment of homosexuals back in the 1980s and found that childhood
development was largly the same in homosexuals and heterosexuals So
it isnt environment. In 1991 Simon LeVay did a blind study of the brain, comparing the hypothalmus of homo and heterosexual men. What he found was that a region of the preoptic hypthalmus was larger in hetersexual men than in homosexual men and heterosexual women. It jst so happens that this area of the hypothalmus is linked to sexual behavior, and what this means is that homosexual brains are more like female brains. This was confirmed on a similar study using sheep(larkin et al 2002)

Allen and Gorski also found that the Coruus COllosum of homosexual men was one third larger than in heterosexual men, and thus think with both sides of their brains, much like females do, as their is better connectivity between the right and left hemispheres of the brain. Basicaly... we are wired like females.

This is pure conjecture but I would think bisexual men have a brain anatomy that is somwhere in between.

Genetic evidence has shown an link, but not a causal one. %4% of identical twins raised apart have the same homosexual orientation9provided one is gay) and 22% of fraternal twins. This suggests not only a genetic influence(but not out and out cause) but the jump in fraternal twins(raised apart) also suggests something due to prenatal environment(but not living environment)

Sexual orientation in animals has been shown to be altered by prenatal hormone condiditons (Dorner 1976 and 1988 and Money 1987) the first being done with rats, the second using sheep. Humans wewre put through similar experiments By ellis and Ames 1987, Glaude 1990 Meyer-Bahlburg 1995. Exposure to horomones typically experienced by females during this time dramatically predisposes males to be homosexual later in life, as well as cause males to have sptial abilities more like females thanmales.

Females have been put through similar studies where the reverse is true, male hormones predispose them to lesbianism.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-22 01:35pm

Now the folowing sentence is pure conjecture on my part... But it may have something to do with the bonded nature of females in a hunter gatherer society like that which existed before the rise of cities. Females would have been rahter close knit and like bonobo chimps may have used sex as a form of social bonding

That doesn't make sense. Males in tightly-knit hunting and fighting groups would've also done well with the bond created by sexual activity. For ex: The Spartans engaged in homosexual behavior within battle groups, to increase the bond between males and strengthen trust. These hoplite were relying on 1/2 the shield of the guy right next to them to defend them. They needed trust.

So really, males should be as prone to homosexuality as females, based on your theory.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-05-22 01:50pm

wolveraptor wrote:
Now the folowing sentence is pure conjecture on my part... But it may have something to do with the bonded nature of females in a hunter gatherer society like that which existed before the rise of cities. Females would have been rahter close knit and like bonobo chimps may have used sex as a form of social bonding
That doesn't make sense. Males in tightly-knit hunting and fighting groups would've also done well with the bond created by sexual activity. For ex: The Spartans engaged in homosexual behavior within battle groups, to increase the bond between males and strengthen trust. These hoplite were relying on 1/2 the shield of the guy right next to them to defend them. They needed trust.

So really, males should be as prone to homosexuality as females, based on your theory.

It isnt a theory, it is a hypothesis

Females however respond differently than males to various stimuli. it is essentially comparing apples to oranges with brain chem in that regard. Though the interesting thing is that even in sport teams today there are echos of homosexual behavior and it is entirely possible that homosexual acts were more common back in hunter-gatherer days. We simply dont know, which is why my proposed explanation was conjecture.

There is also a difference between hoosexual acts and a homosexual orientation. Females are much more likely to be at least partially bisexual in orientation than males are, who tend to swing one way, or the other.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-22 02:48pm

I was using theory as defined by YEC lexicon.

Almost all of ancient Greece accepted bisexuality. Spartans certainly weren't 100% homo, or they'd've died out.

However, it is true that female bi-ness can be seen even in heteros today. Girl-friends will hug, but guy buddies won't, for ex.

Mouseychan · Post by **Mouseychan** » 2005-06-07 02:00pm

Hay.. I can honestly say I has just shy of no intrest in males untill after I was raped. Granted.. While I do have interest in them now its not any where near my level of interest in females, with a couple very specific exceptions.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2005-06-07 02:08pm

Alyeska wrote:Even if homosexuality is by choice, he still has to prove something wrong with it. And we know they can't do that. So the issue of nature vs nurture is ultimately irrelevent.

Exactly. Even if it were proven tomorrow to be 100% purely psychological, it wouldn't matter.

Who gives a fuck? People who want it to be corrected and, by extension, need it to be correctable.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-06-07 02:34pm

There was an article in a science magazine a while ago about male pheremones causing a reaction in gays rather than female pheremones.
If that aint biological i dont know what is.
They also said that the chances of homosexuality increases if a close family meber is also, especially if it's a sibling or twin.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-06-07 03:05pm

wolveraptor wrote:
Now the folowing sentence is pure conjecture on my part... But it may have something to do with the bonded nature of females in a hunter gatherer society like that which existed before the rise of cities. Females would have been rahter close knit and like bonobo chimps may have used sex as a form of social bonding
That doesn't make sense. Males in tightly-knit hunting and fighting groups would've also done well with the bond created by sexual activity. For ex: The Spartans engaged in homosexual behavior within battle groups, to increase the bond between males and strengthen trust. These hoplite were relying on 1/2 the shield of the guy right next to them to defend them. They needed trust.

So really, males should be as prone to homosexuality as females, based on your theory.

I don't buy this sexual fluidity (as in not constant) stuff only being to do with females. I think that might have something to do with 2 factors:

1. Women generally being more comfortable about their sexuality. I never saw a girl getting beaten up for being a "homo" or heard of it either. We all know that males tend to view these more "fluidic" females as more attractive as well, in general. I would suggest that the reason women seem to have these attractions more often is because they admit them. I have them, I'm male, but if this wasn't an anonymous online forum then I wouldn't be admitting it.

2. P0rn! (OK... slightly jokey one there)! We all knows it too be true reallies!

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-07 04:00pm

Yeah, for some reason, lesbianism is thought to be hot by some males. I don't really like it though. Tab A was meant to go into Slot B, damnit!

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2005-06-07 06:49pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote: The interesting part is that research suggests that female sexual orientation is more fluid and changeable than that of males, which is in close accordance to males more "target specific" sexal response. (Diamond,2000 and Peplau& Garnets, 2000) This is a phenomenon across cultures. What is basically means though is that females are more or less elastic in sexual orientation.

Could you expand on those sources, this information may finally shut up the "Willow can't just 'turn' gay" crowd from the Buffy fandom.

Yes, they do say that. Often.