Yes, the classic debate of Nature Vs Nurture.
Are you a product of your genes, or of your upbringing?

This question brings many other questions onto the table which directly relate, the most talked about being "Are you born Gay/Straight, or become so?"


Here's my example using Romeo and Juliet, sure they're fictional, but represent a very plausible situation. By being born into their respective families, should they not have, through the nurture of their parents, hated each other?

Also, everyone knows about the kids in school that never study yet gets better grades then the kid who spends every waking moment preparing for the test. Does that not mean the first was born with better genes?

And the delicate question of sexuality, did the child grow up to be homosexual because he played with dolls, instead of with sticks pretending they where guns/swords?

So my main question to you is your stance on Nature vs Nurture, and also your stance on how sexuality is determined. (Feel free to ignore this question, it's just used for some interesting comparison of answers)

This post was last modified: 09-25-2008 09:39 AM by Rawrmander.

Getting away from the sexuality question, I think people are a product of Nurture, because a child who's taken out of a terrible family experience and put into a loving and caring household can grow up and be just as productive as anyone else.

As for sexuality, that is a debate that will go on for a very long time, and really can't be explained by anyone. Those who believe that homosexuality is a "sin" will say it's a choice, whereas scientist will point to certain markers that may indicate that someone is predisposed to their sexuality from birth.

I think nature vs nurture can be separated from the gay choice issue. I would certainly say that people are more influenced by nuture as opposed to nature. Both play a role, sure, but nuture can change everything.

I would lean towards homosexuality being a choice, even if it's not a conscience one (nuture influences you to go in one direction or the other). There might be some things that are passed genetically that make you more or less predisposed to being gay/straight, but ultimately it is your decision. I'm not saying that it's wrong- that's a person's choice. Anyone that "chooses" to be gay isn't hurting me, so I can't see the problem with it.

I'm not asking the question of right or wrong, and I'm definatly not asking religion to take place in this issue. I'm just asking, are you who you are because you grew up that way, or born that way?

Choosing is a part of who you are. But why'd you choose what you did?
In other words, this is a question of freewill.

So what we're saying is that even if someone is genetically disposed to being a homosexual, they don't actually have to have a relationship with someone of the same sex, and if they do it just comes down to choice? I think that's a little bit small-minded, especially when we turn around and say that it's just "perfectly natural" for a young man and woman to have sex.

It's too bad when we let ideology cloud our judgments, and even if we don't think that's the case, then we should step back and re-examine what we've said.

Too bad we couldn't do an experiment and take ten (heterosexual) 18 year old guys, let them out into the world like any other person would be, and somehow not allow them to have sex...I wonder how they'd turn out or if people would see that as being cruel, but for some reason it's ok to ask someone who's gay to do the same thing, because their not being intimate with someone of the same sex would be "moral"....how laughable.

"A beast who's nature, nurture can never stick"

- The Tempest

Can you quote where anyone has said that? I simply asked a question, and someone replied that its a possibility that sexuality is not defined at birth. Its also a possibility that it is. We don't claim what we say is truth, but a hypothesis. We also aren't claiming one choice as better or worse then another.

Yeah, if someone did say that; I guess it would be narrow-minded.
If you take the definition of "natural" then yes; a male and female having sex is perfectly "natural". That's what our reproductive organs are there for after all. (How young are we talking about though? Cause if they're not old enough to be reproducing then its not "natural".)

Why do you keep bringing up the topic of morality?

I keep bringing up the topic of morality Raw, because in today's society, especially the religious one, sexuality and morality walk hand in hand. To those individuals, the two can't be separated, and since we have a President who runs his office by means of praying and doing what he thinks is right by his religious views, I think that's important.

btw my other comments aren't focused on anyone in specific...I'm commenting on societal views.

I think most people wouldn't use this preface to their choice argument... in my case, I wasn't referring to homosexuality as much as everything in general. I certainly didn't say someone could be genetically disposed to being homosexual... what I said was that they could be more genetically disposed to being a homosexual, as in, more likely, but I think it (and everything else outside of homosexuality) still comes down to choice.

I wouldn't use that as part of your argument. It is "perfectly natural" since the propagation of our species depends on it. It's easy to argue that straight is "natural" and homosexual is "unnatural." I think the argument one would seek would be to determine if being "unnatural" is immorally wrong.

Of course, this debate was an issue of nature vs nurture on a larger scale than just homosexuality...

I don't think this really helps your argument (or hurts, just irrelevant/faulty logic). In the nature vs nurture discussion, anyone that is anti-homosexual will argue the choice side, which means that they aren't asking someone who's gay do to anything. They are just asking someone to do/not do something, since that someone can choose not to be gay. They would additionally argue that forcing heterosexuals to be abstinent would be immoral because they don't see that as a choice... that is just the way people are born, aka what is natural.

In other words, to be heterosexual or homosexual is not the choice... they would argue that being heterosexual is natural by birth (and they would have plenty of supporting materials to make this claim), and that a person can "choose" to be homosexual (which becomes more likely depending on the nurturing, which again, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that influence can greatly affect a person's decisions).

Thus, to counter successfully, you either have to back up and counter from the choice vs genetics (which is what the original discussion is about), or move forward and say that even if it is a choice, it is not morally wrong. They could counter this with religion, which would take you in a completely new direction to debate, and a tough one to counter at that. You either have to play their game and use their evidence (the Bible, for instance) against them by quoting scripture in context to support your claim, or you have to successfully discredit their evidence, which opens the can of worms by attacking a person's religions foundation, so tread carefully.

As for societal views, yeah, we are becoming more secular, slowly, but you can't expect a fast transition. The vast majority of our citizens are Christian, and that shows when we elect our leaders. Just look at Obama. One of his greatest challenges is to convince people he's not Muslim, and also to convince them that he is Christian. He has no chance of winning the election without holding the same religious views as the majority of the citizens. Of course, majority rules, and will continue to try to force their views on the minority. That, again, is a completely different discussion for another day!

Like the gene-sequences of nature and the many environs of nurture, the balance of both qualities varies greatly.

This post was last modified: 10-04-2008 02:21 AM by Badwrong.

I don't want to get involved in this too much because I'll probably get too into it, but if there's any misconception at all that homosexuality/bisexuality includes any kind of conscious choice... there's no choice. It's not a choice. I don't even have to back that up it's so obvious. Why would someone choose to be gay?

I believe that nature plays a massive part. There was a documentary on these identical twins, one straight, one gay. One was more naturally inclined to be attracted to men. And considering the childhood experiences, education and upbringing was identical between them, it would lead me to believe that nature plays a part in sexuality.

From the most ignorant conservative redneck families can spring the most *~fabulous~* gay people. I don't know what to make of this: the "gay gene" hasn't been dwelling in the family, but upbringing and "nurture" of the gay individual would seem to parallel that of a straight, ignorant hick.

Statistics indicate that you're more likely to be gay if you've had a sexually abusive childhood. In this case, I believe that a particularly traumatic experience in childhood can lead to the development of homosexuality.

So yeah, there is no choice. You're born to be gay or straight, unless something dramatic happens which teeters your values. The point I can't emphasise enough is that you're not in control of your sexuality, so you can't just decide to be straight. If that was true, I suppose any of you could just decide to be gay for a week... any takers?

Doesn't that negate your argument that there is no choice?

In fact, the mention of two identical twins, one straight, one gay, could easily be nuture rather than nature. There were not the same person, with the same experiences. Even a small difference in the things one twin experienced or how people acted towards him, etc.

I don't think that anyone is saying that a homosexual has a conscious "choice" to be gay or straight (thus "being gay" for a week wouldn't really be possible... at best someone would be acting gay for a week, or experimenting, etc). They (we) are just saying that a person is born without a set sexual preference. They might be more inclined to go one way or the other based on genetics, but it isn't stamped at birth. However, the upbringing (nuture) will be the determining factor, as even a child that is born incline to be gay can be nutured into being heterosexual, and vice versa.

No, I adressed it:

Is sexuality such a fragile thing? I don't think so. For someone with largely the same upbringing (the documentary showed when they were like, eight years old), is it possible that the relatively miniscule differences in upbringing would cause the massive gap between the twins? I wouldn't think so.

Do you have any ideas on what would influence this "choice"?

This post was last modified: 10-07-2008 12:57 AM by Dave.

Absolutely... think of it like the butterfly effect. But why is sexual preference such a massive gap? Are you saying that it would be odd for two identical twins to choose a different career, a different religion, a different hairstyle, outfit, or way they take their eggs? At what point is it acceptable to assume that they were socialized into different preferences? Sexual preference is just such a big "choice" that it certainly couldn't be one in the first place, and thus has to be instilled at birth?

The only reason anyone claims the nature card is to claim that it goes against religion. As I said earlier, nuture is much more likely and the majority of the evidence supports it. Nature backers try to stretch the evidence so they can have the label of homosexual and christian (or other religion). Why not try to claim that homosexuality isn't necessarily wrong? Heck, most religious texts, the Bible especially, are living texts that are changed or reinterpreted throughout history. If there is enough pressure, religion can adjust to consider homosexuality not a sin. That's why religions can exist as long as they do... they adjust to fit the times, or become irrelevant.