Is homosexuality learned?

[Morkeliph]

Well, I think the topic is pretty straight forward. Nature or nurture when it comes to homosexuality? The majority of research says its biologically based, but do you believe it? Does environment condition sexual preference? Is it a part of gender socialization? Are all people inherently bisexual? Tell us what you think., and most importantly, if you believe environment plays ANY part in the matter, please try to come up with examples of how it does this and what effects specifically play a role.

If sexual preference is purely biological, then we shouldn't expect to see people to be able to change their sexual preference. I think that it is learned, but not consciously. I think that sexual arousal can be conditioned to different stimuli, and that can be either male or female stimuli. I also think that humans have a natural tendency towards heterosexuality, but that tendency can be altered through environmental conditioning. For example:

Say a young boy repeatedly is sexually stimulated in the presence of other males. This could be through provocative talk, masturbation, or other events. When this repeated pairing of arousal and the presence of males occurs, eventually the presence of males could come to exert some stimulus control over the arousal; just the presentation of males of certain traits could elicit sexual stimulation. This would acount for the involuntary attraction towards males, using a respondent conditioning model (classical conditioning). Then, if acting upon the conditioned stimulation is reinforced with further stimulation, or other sexual or social reinforcers, the behavior of "overt homosexuality," or acting upon homosexual desires could be environmentally conditioned. This is a possibility I thought of one day that may or may not be true. For me, it seems to make some sense, and only further research could "prove" anything. It would explain why many people don't begin "realizing" they're homosexual until they around the age that they begin to find themselves frequently sexually stimulated. It could account for why some people change sexual preference several times. It could account for why some people act upon homosexual desires while others do not. It could account for why those who typically repress homosexual desires eventually lose them, or why their desires are less strong than those who do act upon them. I think it could explain a lot of things, but there are obviously gaps in the hypothesis. Anyway, that is one possiblity that occured to me and I thought might interest some of you, or at least spark some controversy. ;) :P

[Neo]

First; I really dislike polls in IR. It kind of takes away from the whole point of IR, which is to discuss something.

Second;

Homosexualityis not a choice. Just becuase people are confused about thier sexual prefernce does not mean its learned.

Otherwise, it would be possible to "learn" how to not be gay, or to stop being straight. '

Ugh.

How would you reverse this? How would explain homosexuals that had NO such type of stimulis like this -- or for that matter what about straight people who grow up without ever being... uhm stimulated in such a fashion that would 'learn them to the straight ways'

Meh. I don't know what I am saying anymore.

The way I see your post (and correct me if I am wrong) is that your trying to find another way to blame gay people for being gay, as if, it IS a choice and such...

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

...Neo, you obviously feel rather strongly about this. If you honestly got that confused from trying to reply, I think you should collect and consider your thoughts a little more before posting. You're kind of all over the place and your response is very poor in numerous categories. And Mork, man. Break up that last 3-page blob into some paragraphs, man...:P

As to the topic, there have been tests done in several species that can isolate a gene that induces a dramatic increase in homosexual response. It's caused a lot of problems with both sides of the debate because it immediately raises the question of whether or not it would be considered a "faulty" gene. As in, if you could have your child treated with gene therapy to "cure" his homosexuality, would you? Gays are vehemently opposed to this idea for obvious reasons, and many mainstream Christians and others are all for it. Incomplete dominance could easily account for those that feel "confused" in regards to their sexual preference.

Anyway, I don't think stimuli could account for homosexuality in any convincing way. Behavioralism fails badly, here IMO.

[EdvardMunch]

Given the way Hollywood and TV glamorizes the bodies of men and women, if behaviorism were true, I should think we'd all be bisexual. Furthermore, one should think, then, that gay parents could raise their children to be gay, but children of homosexual parents show no higher levels of homosexuality than children of heterosexual parents. (1)

Research says that homosexuality is heritable, and if one person is homosexual, their identical twin is more likely to be than their paternal twin.

Of course, just like everything else in psychology, it's not purely genetic or even that simple. One line of evidence points to differing androgen levels in the womb (2). The statement here is that, for women, the lengths of the index finger and ring finger (on either hand, but particularly on your right) are highly influenced by the androgen levels in the womb while you were developing. Heterosexual women tend to have an index finger which is about the same length as the ring finger (it can be a bit longer or shorter). Homosexual women, however, tend to have an index finger which is shorter than their ring finger.
For men, finger lengths did not predict homosexuality, but birth order did. The more older brothers a man had, the more likely he was to be homosexual. The reason seems to be that womens' bodies adjust each time they have a baby, and more androgen is released for the next baby to develop in.

There are other gender differences as well. Whereas men demonstrate a category-specific pattern of sexual arousal (generally, men are either attracted to men or women), women seem to be more neutral and can be sexually aroused by sexual images of men or women. (3)

Of course, let's not forget that homosexuality is not just about sex. As in all romantic partnerships, there are two apparently distinct elements in the brain: romantic attraction, and sexual desire. These usually operate in concert, but independently of each other. As such, it is possible to have a miss-matched system. For example, a person can be romantically attracted to men, but sexually attracted to women. (4)

Finally, the issue is further confounded because homosexuality is thought to exist more on a continuum than as either 100% heterosexual, 100% bisexual, or 100% homosexual. (5)

Based on these findings (and others I can't find internet links for) I think homosexuality is more genetic and prenatal than not. However, this does not completely leave out the environment. I think the environment can have a censoring effect, in which people can be homosexual, but because the environment does not endorse homosexuality, they will keep it hidden, maybe even not recognizing it in themselves. In this sense, they would demonstrate heterosexual behavior, despite being homosexual. Of course, this doesn't make them heterosexual persay.

That doesn't really answer your question, because you're talking about conditioning specifically. In that case, I suppose it's possible. I mean it should be theoretically possible to make a person aroused whenever they hear a chime, because after that chime is some sort of sexually explicit image. Then, if we just switched that chime with a member of the opposite sex, it should be possible to pair that member with sexual arousal. A similar process could take place for romantic attraction I'm sure.

However, on a mass scale I do not believe this happens. It would take quite an effort to pair members of a certain sex (which one is not already attracted to) to romance and desire, since the stimuli we're conditioning a response to are supposed to be neutral. I do not find it likely that this happens on a mass scale, and genetics and prenatal development seem to explain more of the variation in homosexuality than conditioning does.

Works Consulted:
1. Lesbian and Gay Parenting (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html)
2. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation (http://sigs.kupatrix.org/Finger-Length_Ratios.txt)
3. Emerging Perspectives on Distinctions Between Romantic Love and Sexual Desire (http://sigs.kupatrix.org/Love_and_Sexual_Desire.txt)
4. A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal (http://sigs.kupatrix.org/Sexual_Arousal.txt)
5. Our erotic personalities are as unique as our fingerprints (http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr01/erotic.html)

[Xenon]

During early fetal development both male and female fetuses start out being physically female; prior to the male fetus being able to produce its own hormones. The production of testosterone in male fetuses is not triggered until around the seventh or eighth week of fetal development; by the presence of the Y chromosome. This necessitates that female fetuses initially have rudimentary organs that could develop into either "male" or "female" reproductive and sexual organs. As a result, the tissue that develops into the male prostate gland also exists in women as the G-Spot.

Any "feelings" someone has, whether straight or gay are going to come from chemicals in their brain. So, of necessity, then it stands to reason that we are all somewhat bisexual with a preference for one or the other taking over at some point in time (probably puberty) when there are a lot of chemicals (hormones) swirling around.

Honestly, the question doesn't bother me much, because I don't care why gay people are gay and heterosexuals are heterosexual. All I know, is that after you hit on me, go away if I am not interested in your advances.

[Neo]

Yeah, GA, I didnt even realize I posted in this thread until just a little while ago (I was damned tired last night).

Anyways, Edvard said what I wanted to say (I guess?) way better then I could've put it across. Tired posting FTW.

Though of course I may start a new trend of tiredness + intoxicated posting soon. Haha =P

-Neo

[Morkeliph]

What fun responses! Thank you for all your participation. I figured I'd contribute my first argument as a counter argument to the norm just to stir the pot a bit and get some good discussion. I'm glad to see it worked.

NeoX: I never suggested that homosexuality is a choice. The term choice implies conscious control over sexual arousal, which is not the case IMO. However, it has been shown that sexual arousal can be conditioned to various different stimuli, which accounts for many sexual disorders and sexual obessions. I merely suggest that the arousal response may be conditioned to a particular biological sex; that is just as some arbitrary stimuli come to elicit sexual arousal in others, the stimuli of a male might come to elicit arousal in some. Arousal occurs due to many chemical activities within the organism, just like any other feeling, and other feelings have been shown to be conditioned to particular stimuli as well, which accounts for many a phobia. Just because the response is conditioned doesn't mean that it is a choice, or that it was a choice to condition it. People develop phobias against their will and even unconsciously; it would be no surprise for a person to develop and conditioned arousal response to something without willing it or even being conscious of it.

As to the genetics of homosexuality, I do not deny that genetics play an important part, even a key part. Numerous studies have shown that genetics play an important role, but I don't believe it is entirely genetic. It is possible that genetics make homosexuality more readily conditioned in some; they are more susceptible to homosexuality. Does that make them inferior? I don't think so, it just makes them different. Genetics play such an important role in all behavior that it would be ludicrous to rule it out entirely. I do not believe, however, that people are born hetero-, homo-, or bi-sexual. Gender is obviously a product of the environment, and sexual preference is likely a largely environmental. Preference infers selecting one over the other, and most matters of preference I believe to be cultural, not genetic (but not all).

EdvardMunch: Finger length and birth order theories and very superstitious and analogous to palm-reading and astrology. Homosexual parents have heterosecual children because sexual preference is more environmental than biological, that seems pretty straight forward (no pun intended). There are many more factors to the environment than just immediate family, and I think the typically natural response is to be aroused in the presence of members of the opposite sex, which is why homosexuality is a distinct minority in all races and cultures (as far as I am aware). As for romantic love, studies have also shown this to be a cultural phenomenon. Romantic love is a very western ideology and not even recognized in many eastern societies. The "westernization" of the world has made it much more prevalent, but it is hardly a natural occurence. Romance is relative for one; what is romantic to one is not to another. In addition, romance shows cultural trends; the individual's cultural background influences many of their preferences in what they find romantic, and members of that culture are likely to share many of those preferences.

The conditioning model also accounts for a continuum of sexual preference as well. Just because an individual is conditioned to be aroused to the sound of a bell does not mean they cannot also be conditioned to be aroused to the sound of static on a radio (using arbitrary stimuli as examples). That means people can be conditioned to be stimulated to both men AND women, and for some, one more than the other or vis versa. There is rarely any clean cut conditioning; most things exist on a continuum. Genetics can play a role here as well, determining how readily a respnse may be conditioned. In other studies, taste-aversion was found to occur fastest in humans when flavor and sickness was paired, rather than appearance and sickness, or flavor and physical pain. Why is this the case? Because humans are omnivorous and rely upon taste and smell rather than sight in determining worthy food sources. In other studies, pigeons were show found to more readily condition a food preference when visual stimuli were paired with aversive consequences, rather than flavor. This is because the genetics of the bird make them more susceptible to visual stimuli than flavor stimuli; presumably because birds rely more on sight in selecting proper food sources. The point here is that genetics play a role in conditioning as well, determining the effectiveness of conditioning in difference scenarios.

Finally, as to the morality of sexual orientation, I am not making any argument. I merely suggest that sexual preference, whether homo-, hetero- or bi-sexual may be conditioned. It's a possiblity, definately not a given truth. Is one sexual orientation better than the other? That is not the objective of this discussion. What we are trying to discuss is how do people develop sexual preferences? I understand one argument lends itself more readily to one moral ideology than another, but I'm not concerned with that. Ideologies are for philosophers and theologians, and in this discussion I do not wish to refer to either. We are talking about the the science of sexual orientation. On that note, just because the majority of research shows one thing, do not suppose that you must subscribe to that conclusion. For one, most of us do not know how the research was conducted, which is the most important part. Secondly, just because the majority of research says that the Sun revolves around the Earth doesn't mean that it is true; it may just suggest the the majority of research has been conducted in that direction and other possiblities have not been carefully examined. That being so, I suggest that we come up with our own hypotheses of sexual orientation, whether they be empirically proven or not, and see what strengths and weaknesses we find in them. That is all I am attempting to do.

[Prozerran]

I suppose homosexuality can be learned. Hell, in prison I'm sure there's plenty of Homosexuality 101 for all the newbies. But I agree with the majority here that Sexuality in general manifests from a physiological condition rather than a mental one. Maybe it's not genetics, but it's certainly not just environment. If it were, homosexuality probably wouldn't have emerged in areas like the Catholic Church or the Bible Belt.

[Neo]

Just becuase your in prison and practice uhm... homosexual relations with another man doesn't make you gay.

That is, just becuase you do it, doesn't mean you prefer it.

I am pretty sure that after a few years in the slammer you'd be ready to screw anything. =P

I guess what I am trying to say that, while something can arouse you it doesn't mean your ... prefer it.

If your male friend were to grab your penis and stimulate it, chances are your going to enjoy it, that doesn't mean your gay.

Meh, am I just sounding confused here?

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

You are kind of making me laugh, but you're on the right track. The body can be mechanically stimulated through a series of familiar actions; like Pavlov's dog. But actively pursuing sexual relations with someone of the same sex does pretty much put you on the border. Either way, this discussion seems like a rather blatant attempt on Mork's part to get people bickering.

[Schwitzer]

Some interesting posts.

I just want to quickly point something out about the stimulus-response issue.

Yes, it follows that if you have a bad experience under certain conditions, you will associate those conditions with bad experiences. And same for good experiences. However, the question is can this sort of conditioning really be used to overturn something as deep-set as sexuality?

I'm lead to believe not.

A few decades ago attempts were made to turn homosexual males straight by a process called electro-shock therapy. This was a horrible method, where a homosexual male would be shown images of men and women. Whenever a picture of a man was shown, he'd be given an unpleasant electro-shock. The motivation behind this was that they would be able to condition a homosexual male to no longer be attracted to men.

The success rate? Zilch.

[Morkeliph]

WARNING!!! SOME EXPLANATIONS MAY BE RELATIVELY "GRAPHIC." THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH SENSITIVITIES TO ISSUES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION ARE ADVICED TO READ WITH CAUTION. NO MATERIAL IN THE POST IS MEANT TO BE OFFENSIVE OR PORNOGRAPHIC IN ANYWAY.

GenocideAlive: I'm not trying to spark argument here, just spark increased participation and thoughts that might run contrary to the mainstream. I present the respondent possibility of conditioning sexual preference because I think it's an interesting viewpoint that might be incorporated into our existing theory.

Schwitzer: I'm familiar with the electric shock procedure you described called "Conversion Therapy." I agree that it was a poor form of "therapy." I don't think this weakens the respondent-sexuality hypothesis however. The conversion prodecude was operating under an operant model, attempting to regulate sexual arousal (a reflexive behavior) by pairing it with an aversive consequence. Studies have shown that punishing the occurence of a well-established, reinforced behavior does not stop the behavior from occurring, but may delay the onset of the behavior or its intesity to a degree. Punishment, as I have argued many a time previously in other threads, is a poor procedure for changing behavior anyway, but it is generally not applicable to innate or reflexive behaviors, like sexual arousal.

The model I'm presenting is a respondent model, where the behavior isn't maintained because of its consequences, but by its pairing with another stimulus. Just as Pavlov's dogs were conditioned to salivate to the sounds of a bell by pairing and unconditioned stimulus (food in mouth) with a conditioned stimulus (bell sound), I think that it is possible that sexual arousal can be conditioned to the presence of members of either sex by effective pairing. That this pairing occurs in the environment naturally is a matter that should be researched more fully, but I think we could hypothesize on a few examples. Before we attempt this, le me draw out the model a little more explicitly for those participating:

US (sexual stimulation) ---> UR (sexual arousal)
CS (presence of particular sex) ---> CR (sexual arousal)


What conditions exist in our environment that might be responsible for the conditioning of homosexuality? That's a tough question that I'm not going to pretend to know the answer to, but something that perhaps merits research. We might, however, be able to hypothesize some potential possiblities. What happens when men repeatedly engage in sexually explicit conversation in the presence of other men? Could this provide a source of pairing sufficient for conditioning? What about men who frequently view pornography in the presence of other men, or that frequently depicts men? Could this contribute? Sorry to get graphic, but what about men who "circle jerk" or masturbate in the presence of other men? Men who engage in "group sex?" These sorts of situations provide opportunities for the pairing of stimuli that might lead to conditioned sexual arousal. Not that every homosexual has engaged in such activities, and not that these are the definate and only situations that might lead to such a conditioning, but they are surely possibilties.

Once again, I do no suggest that genetics play no role in sexual orientation, but I suggest that the environment plays a large role as well. Genetics might make some individuals more susceptible to the conditioning effects of the environment. If sexual orientation where purely genetic however, we'd expect to see strong trends of heritability, which we do not.

Finally, I am not suggesting that homosexuality is inherently evil, or inherently good, in this thread. I am merely trying to suggest a few possibilities for its development, good or bad. I encourage participation and alternate opinions or theories in this discussion, but please be considerate of others feelings.

[Neo]

But sexual arousal does not = sexual attraction.

-Neo

[Morkeliph]

I see now where you are getting confused NeoX. If I may, let me post some info from wikipedia to help us in our discussion. I think it will be helpful not for semantic purposes, but for functional purposes.

Sexual attraction, in species which reproduce sexually, is attraction to other members of the same species for reproduction. This type of attraction is important for the survival of sexually reproducing species.

Sexual attraction in animals

Sexual attractiveness in non-human animals depends on a wide variety of factors. Often, there is some element of the animal's body which exists for sexual attraction, like the bright plumage and crests of some species of birds. In many species, there are behaviours which appear to be sexual display. Some of these attributes seem to there to demonstrate fitness and health, for example by demonstrating the ability to sustain an "expensive" feature with no other apparent survival function. Conversely, the receiving sex may be predisposed to perceive these features as sexual attraction. It is possible that these features by the giving or the receiving ends cause major survival problems (see game theory), especially where, as in moose, a direct competitive element is involved.

Frequently (especially in insects) chemical signals are used to generate sexual interest and to locate potential mates. These signals, known as pheromones, can produce a profound effect upon an animal's behaviour even when present in very minute quantities.

Common elements of sexual attraction in humans

Typically, sexual attraction refers to a person being drawn to another in order to have a sexual relationship. The concrete meaning of a sexual relationship differs across cultures and history. Because human social behavior is often highly complex, a sexual relationship may entail one which, at its beginning, has little or no sexual behavior, and only after a period of time, which can be a courtship period, or a threshold such as marriage, does sexual activity enter the interaction patterns.

Certain aspects of what is sexually attractive is universal agreed upon across the human species, or nearly universal among particular cultures or regions, while other factors are determined more locally, among sub-cultures, or simply to the preferences of the individual, which may come about as a result of a variety of genetic and psychological factors. Sexual attractiveness of a person to another person depends on both persons;
Much of human sexual attractiveness is governed by physical attractiveness. This involves the senses, in the beginning especially:

1)visual perception (how the other looks)
2)audition (how the other sounds, mainly the voice; what may also vary widely is how noisily somebody walks (also depending on the footwear, though this is not necessarily a big factor for sexual attraction)
3)olfaction (how the other smells, naturally or artificially; the wrong smell may be repulsive).

Some studies suggest that one source of physical attraction of a human male to a human female is dependent upon a proportion between the width of the hips and the width of the waist (aka waist-hip ratio) (see Golden ratio). (disputed — see talk page)

As with other animals, pheromones may also enter into the picture, though less significantly than in the case of other animals. Theoretically, the "wrong" pheromone smell may cause someone to be disliked, even when they would otherwise appear attractive. Frequently a pleasant smelling perfume is used to encourage the member of the opposite sex to more deeply inhale the air surrounding its wearer, increasing the probability that the pheromones from the individual will also be inhaled. The importance of pheromones in human relationships is probably limited and widely disputed, although it appears to have some scientific basis.

A sexually attractive visual appearance in humans generally involves:

1)a general body shape and appearance sanctioned by the local culture.
2)a lack of visible disease or deformity.
3)a high degree of mirror symmetry between the left and right sides of the body, particularly of the face.
4)pleasing bodily posture.
5)facial similarities to parents (see David Perrett study)

However, these factors are complicated by many other factors. There may sometimes be a focus on particular features of the body, such as breasts, legs, hair, or musculature.I think this is a very interesting little excerpt about sexual attraction in general. Particularly I think it is interesting to see how particular classes of stimuli seem to elicit sexual attraction. Might I suggest that the reason they elicit sexual attraction is because they elicit sexual arousal on some level. Notice that sexual attraction "is attraction to other members of the same species for reproduction." This implies that arousal is a part of it, as natural sexual reproduction cannot occur without arousal.

It may be possible that the stimulus class of "male" is actually a complex combination of various other stimulus classes, visual, auditory, and olfactory, and it is the combination of this stimuli to which the subject may become conditioned.

[Neo]

You can't say that sexual arousal equals sexual attraction though.

You can give your best friend a boner, but that doesn't mean he wants to be with you.

EDIT: I wont be dragged into a semantic arguement either, you should understand what I am trying to say. I may not be Schwitzer or Nuts, but I try.

-Neo

[Dark_Viper]

Being a Male that is Bisexual.. i do not know how much i can really say..
and.. i havnt ever posted in IR befor.. so i hope this will do.. :-/

reason why I believe that its not nurture/envirumental is that

as i grew up as a child..
my parents are straight
my reletaves are straight and most of them racists/bigots(stongly anti gay/black)
dont remenber really any people that were openly gay in school either

but.. i was allways attracted to males as well as females.. yet i didnt ever bother thinking that was a little off.. allways thought i was straight but signs got stronger..

sure nurture could contribute to some..
but i know guys who are homosexuals that grew up in a strong christion family.. and acted straight as they were scared that anyone of their friends/family/church would find out..

even though im attracted to both.. i still have a very beautiful Girl Friend in my life..

So all in all.. i believe it is stongly genetic.. with a little touch of envirument

[Whiteknight]

Although it doesn't relate directly to the topic, it has great relevancy for those arguing purely genetical.

(http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=8561&news_channel_id=9&channel_id=9&relation_id=12085) (http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=8561&news_channel_id=9&channel_id=9&relation_id=12085%29%5D)

MONTREAL (CP) - You are what you eat.

And who you hang out with, and the weather and the way your mother raised you, say gene researchers at McGill University.

Contrary to popular belief, recent research at McGill helps to prove your DNA alone does not determine who you are, says Michael Meaney, a neuro-biologist at the university.

While external factors like environment and experience don't alter our basic human genetic code, they do produce permanent changes to the way genes behave, says the McGill team.

"Our fate is not just sealed by our genetic inheritance, but by how the genes are sculpted by their environment," said Meaney's research partner, Moshe Szyf, a professor of pharmacology.

Researchers have mapped the billions of building blocks that make up human DNA and it seems every day they isolate another gene linked to specific characteristics or illness.

But scientists have known for some time that it is the chemical coating on the surface of gene cells that determines which genes in the cell will be activated and which will not.

Diet, maternal nurturing and even the weather can trigger changes to that chemical coating on the surface without changing the genetic code within.

Scientists at Duke University Medical Centre have likened it to putting gum on a light switch. The switch isn't broken but the gum blocks its function.

"We can no longer argue whether genes or environment has a greater impact on our health and development because both are inextricably linked," Dr. Randy Jirtle, a genetics researcher at Duke, said in a recent article on so-called epigenetics.

Szyf and Meaney were able to prove that a mother rat's early nurturing produced specific changes to the chemical coating in specific areas on the gene cell.

The changes affected the area of the brain responsible for stress response in the adult rats.

They then wondered if they could reverse the change by injecting the brains of healthy, well-adjusted rats with L-Methionine, a natural amino acid popular as a dietary supplement.

The chemical coating changed again.

"They became very anxious and had a very poor response to stress," Szyf said.

"It demonstrates that although our genes are sculpted very early in childhood. . . things can change later in life and the things that change could be as simple as some of the basic things we get from our food."

Although the research is in its infancy, it raises the prospect that drugs or diet could alter the genetic effects that predispose people to illness.

It doesn't mean we can totally change our genetic predispositions, Szyf said, but there are therapeutic possibilities.

"We hope one day we can have diagnostic tools so we can predict these things and follow it," he said.

"This is just the beginning."

So, I suppose it's possible that if homosexuality is from genes then it would be possible to introduce a drug to change the chemical coating, or that the gene may be turned on sometime during life.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

I'm not going to post too much on this delicate subject, since by the way I post I most likely will offend someone.

This subject can only be best answered by someone who is homosexual. That being said, I believe that homosexuality is just your personality and preference. It's like liking apples instead of pears when your parents like pears instead of apples. Which brings me to another question.

Is heterosexuality learned?

[EvilEggCracker]

Meh, I think that if you want to be gay you can but if you dont then you cant. I personally would hate to be gay(the thought..eugh!) BUT if I wanted to be gay I could. I think its mostly inherited but youre environment does have an effect on your sexuality

[Dark_Viper]

I'm not going to post too much on this delicate subject, since by the way I post I most likely will offend someone.

This subject can only be best answered by someone who is homosexual. That being said, I believe that homosexuality is just your personality and preference. It's like liking apples instead of pears when your parents like pears instead of apples. Which brings me to another question.

Is heterosexuality learned?

I know what you mean.. but a thing i have learned..

No matter what you do.. someone will be offended.. though.. thoughs people just have to listen with an open mind and chill out..

I personally cannot be offended.. as long as you have a good reason to back up your thoughs.. sure i may be new to the IR.. but isnt that the meaning?

now back onto the subject:

Yes there are an extreamly large amount of theories on how homo/heteralsexuality works.. Ive listend to many.. and alot make sence..

This is one of thoes issues that we will not be able to figure out for a good long time..

Sure.. even when the truith is figured out.. at least half of thoes close minded fools out there will decline it..

untill we all become genetically engineered zombies.. there will allways be the fight between nature vs. nurture.

ive seen great points and great counterpoints.. to me everyone is right

The fact is that I am also a furry.. and there is a strong number of Bi and Homosexuals in this group.. .. there has also been discussions about nature vs. nurture in this group to.. as there is a monsterous amount of furs in the world as well... that too.. is undecided

Furry.ca poll (http://www.furry.ca/cgi-bin/furryca/forum/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=14;t=1328)

[Schwitzer]

Meh, I think that if you want to be gay you can but if you dont then you cant. I personally would hate to be gay(the thought..eugh!) BUT if I wanted to be gay I could. I think its mostly inherited but youre environment does have an effect on your sexuality
Then how do you explain all the homosexuals that want to be straight?

For example, I remember reading somewhere that a third of youth suicides were homosexuals that couldn't live with what they were.

[Dark_Viper]

Then how do you explain all the homosexuals that want to be straight?

For example, I remember reading somewhere that a third of youth suicides were homosexuals that couldn't live with what they were.

Exactly Schwitzer...

Part of that was cause they hated themselves for being homosexuals.. and that they were hated/bullied by their peers for being homosexuals

[Neo]

It doesn't help if you grow up in a very intolerant enviroment...

It may not be specifically that they hate themselves, but if the people they are surrounded with are so intolerant or hatefilled towards homosexuals... its not surprising that they might commit suicide.

-Neo

[Cyberspirit]

I don't think it matters.

If homosexuality is genetic:
Homosexuals usually do not have children so homosexuals will always remain a minority.
If homosexuality is learned:
An environment that "teaches" homosexuality is rare so homosexuals will still remain a minority.

I think it is more important to distinguish those with really unnatural tendencies from those who just want to act homosexual for the sake of being homosexual.

I know a girl who behaves lesbian not because she is not attracted to guys but because she feels that it is easier and more fun to date a girl than a boy !?!
And a man with usually natural tendencies will become "gay" when attracted to an effeminate boy.
And so on and so forth.

As to people who are truly never attracted to the opposite sex, they should still be treated as normal people, except for the fact that they cannot reproduce as other humans do.

And to complete Unholy-Assasin's post, heterosexuality is inherited, not learned. Even flatworms seek out the opposite sex to reproduce.
Its a necessity. If they were not genetically programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex, then they either had to reproduce by cloning (which they have "forgotten" how to carry out) or go extinct.

On the other hand, I think that homosexuality is learnt ( or somehow heterosexual desires are suppressed ) because it has no selective advantage and so is hardly passed down from one generation to the next.
If it is genetic, it could be just an accident, like a scrambling of genes that individually have nothing to do with sexuality but in combination somehow alters one's sexual tendencies.

In conclusion, homosexuality can be faked or learnt but it cannot be genetically inherited.

[Neo]

In conclusion, homosexuality can be faked or learnt but it cannot be genetically inherited.

Proof?

You do realize that there are many many homosexuals that go on to live so called normal lives and have children and marry for years, even decades before they admit to themselves (or come out pubically).

-Neo

[Cyberspirit]

If they are able to ____ with the opposite sex, how can you call them homosexuals ?

As I said many so-called homosexuals do not realize that they are just attracted to that one/few individual of the same sex and not everybody of the same sex.
They get depressed and "admit" that they are homosexuals and noone bothers to find out what really happens.

Of course, there are always exceptions.
I have proven logically that real homosexuality cannot be inherited.
I did not say that apparent homosexuals cannot start a normal family and somehow get turned on by their opp-sex spouses enough to have children naturally.

And you just indirectly proved my point.
We see apparent homosexuals getting married and having children, but we do not see an entire family or lineage with homosexual tendencies.
That's why I said that if homosexuality were genetic, it is an accident.
Just because my xxx relative has homosexual tendencies does NOT make me a probable homosexual.

[Schwitzer]

I think it is more important to distinguish those with really unnatural tendencies from those who just want to act homosexual for the sake of being homosexual.
And why would this be important?

And a man with usually natural tendencies will become "gay" when attracted to an effeminate boy.
If a man is attracted to another man, then I'd say he was "gay" to start with.

In conclusion, homosexuality can be faked or learnt but it cannot be genetically inherited.
So the thing Edvard posted about the chances of one identical twin being gay if the other one is is purely coincidental, eh?

If they are able to have sex with the opposite sex, how can you call them homosexuals ?
I filled in the blank for you. We're all mature here - we can say 'sex'.

Now, of course homosexuals are physically capable of having sex with the opposite sex. The stimulation may be somewhat mechanically - as you'd expect if you discount the emotional attraction - but it is still quite possible.

As I said many so-called homosexuals do not realize that they are just attracted to that one/few individual of the same sex and not everybody of the same sex.
Um. Where did you pull this from? I don't believe this at all. I think you just made it up.

People know who they're attracted to - you can feel it. I can't imagine how someone would be so confused that they convince themselves that they are attracted to everyone of a certain gender.

I think I get what you're trying to say. You're trying to argue that due to natural selection, the "gay gene" would die out. That's a fair comment, but I'll refer you back to Edvard's post for the appropriate counter-argument.

[Neo]

Besides the fact that homosexuality has existed throughout history... If it was really going to 'die out' it would've done so a long long time ago.

-Neo

[EvilEggCracker]

Ah, but noone has really tried to stop Homosexuality?(well not on a large scale anyway)

[GrimTerror]

Just a few little questions to think about...

-If it is true nature to be straight, then being gay would be "unnatural" right? But if it is a biological factor, then it must be natural.

-If it was a choice would anyone want to be gay in this day and age? Although things have gotten better there is still a gap between the gay and straight (and bi) societies.

-Being strait is normal, right? Define normal.

-Is there a purpose to homosexuality? I think there is. Picture this:

*Everyone in the world is homosexual. There is no procreation, the human race dies out.
*Everyone in the world is hetrosexual. There is too much procreation, the human race multiplies beyond control (ignore contreception for now.)

Maybe Homosexuality is nature's way of keeping the balance. And it's not like its a modern thing, i'm pretty sure homosexuality has been around as long as any other sexual preference.

Since it's widely believed that Hormomes are responsible for feelings, i think that they could be the source. To put it in a symbollic manner.

There are some Temporary hormones which make us feel differently at different times. Depression maybe?

There are some permanent hormones that constitute who you are, and they never change. They might be for your cpaacity to learn maybe? Those aspects that you cant change. Perhaps there is a varying hormone for sexuality, and when it is implanted into you (during puberty, in the womb, whenever) it stays with you like anything else.

What causes that hormone could be a different matter. Maybe it's in a minority to other hormones, or the probabilty of it making you up is smaller.

Whatever the case, i don't think homosexuality has too much to do with environment. Its more of an innate thing. As for a change in sexual preference due to environmental reasons, i think thats more of a mental change. We arn't born insane or with insanity hormones, but through trauma it can change our mentality. Perhaps the same can be said for a change in sexual preference. A certain event changes your mentality that overrides your innate feelings.

Non of that makes sense huh?

[EvilEggCracker]

Meh, I think all gays should be cast out into the wilderness!:o

j/K!

Seriously though, if the love between the same sex is natural then what is the love between two completely different animals (eg. Man and horse)?

[GrimTerror]

That doesn't make sense at all. Because humans have same-gender sex means they can have sex with other animals? That's pretty far out, much further out than Pluto could ever hope to be. Look at what you just said, and think of all those things on the other side of Pluto.

Although biologically fascinating, cross-breeding is morally wrong. I would never put any animal or human through that phase.

I just don't want to know why you put that foward...

*shudders*

[EvilEggCracker]

Meh, i said it cause i read this thing about this spanish guy was squashed by a falling boulder...just as he was humping a chicken....ewwww....

Oh, and why not cross breed? Its been done lits of times before. But i think it would be cool if we made a race that was like Humans only they were used for manual labour!Although, I doubt many people will agree with me:shiftyr:

[GrassDragon]

Although biologically fascinating, cross-breeding is morally wrong. I would never put any animal or human through that phase.
What are mules then?

Oh, and why not cross breed? Its been done lits of times before. But i think it would be cool if we made a race that was like Humans only they were used for manual labour!Although, I doubt many people will agree with me:shiftyr:
You mean like slaves?

This is all digression though. I think homosexuality must be some innate trait, either stemming from genetics or nurturing early in our lives. I didn't choose to be heterosexual, why would they choose to be homosexual?

[EvilEggCracker]

You mean like slaves?


Is there any other kind?

[Dark_Viper]

Seriously though, if the love between the same sex is natural then what is the love between two completely different animals (eg. Man and horse)?

Thats called beastiality or Zoophilia.. to a wide variety of beasts.. and its done by both male and female humans.. a lot..
zoophile.net (http://www.zoophile.net/)

Hybrids/Anthros would be nice.. but not as slaves.. to feral..

Cyberspirit:.. you should really stop pulling that stuff out of your rear.. as you really dont know what your talking about.

besides..dont you realise that the animal kingdom have their fair share of homosexuals/Bisexuals as well?.. didn't know that huh..

its been arond forever and is everyware.. homosexuality wont just die out.. even if you killed ever single homosexual out ther.. right now.. i promise you.. there will just be more in the next generation of life..

[Cyberspirit]

I did not say that homosexuality cannot be genetic, just that it cannot be inherited as in other physiological traits.

And I did not deny that homosexuality can exist, just that they will always remain a minority since homosexuality confers little selective advantage ( at least that's the case for humans. And I assumed we are only talking about
humans )

To add to your point homosexuality appears here and there in the animal kingdom. So how do you trace a specific set of genes that result in homosexuality through the generations ? You can't. Those set of genes exist but they are not always purely the result of being inherited whole and fully functional from the previous generation.
you may not believe me but I may know more about animals than you do.
Anyway, this is not the place to argue such things.

O well, at least you tried to teach me something. Thanks.

And I already admitted that "homosexuals" can have children. Bisexuals and homosexuals. Does anyone know the difference ?
Or maybe I am the one who does not know. In that case, no more comments. I admit my mistake.

Did you think that I badly want homosexuals to disappear ?
I don't know, but I know that pure homosexuals are a minority and neither you nor I can change that, however much we like or dislike homosexuals.

Maybe you thought I was saying that homosexuals will die out.
I will be very nice and admit my mistake first.
Now please tell me where in my post did I conclude with certainty that homosexuals will go extinct ?
And tell me with your eyes open that I did not mention genetic accident as a possible cause of innate homosexuality ?

And then, there's the case of the twins.
So there is o so little chance of the two boys/girls affected by the same genetic accident ?
And "genetic accident", what a horrible word ! Cyberspirit has started talking about mutant monsters ... what if he starts bringing in the incredible hulk and the X-men ? No, nothing that he says makes sense ... we should disagree with anything this psycho says ... ?!?!?!

Ok, be serious.
I speak up for neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals.

People please stop talking of homosexuals as if they were destined to be outcasts. What's the point of telling everyone else to respect them if we do not recognise that they can live their lives just like you and I ?
And stop assuming that everyone who speaks like me hates homosexuals. ( Besides, which is more discriminating ? Saying that homosexuality is inherited and irreversible ? or that homosexuality arises randomly and is affected by the environment ? )

And the reason I feel that we should distinguish people with really unnatural tendencies from those who act homosexual for the sake of being like homosexuals :
for the latter, their "homosexuality" is faked. There is no point debating the cause of their "homosexuality" because they are not really attracted to people of the same sex. For them, the question should be why they choose to suppress their originally heterosexual tendencies.
You can say that this is "learnt homosexuality". There is still no debate then since my arguement is exactly that most homosexual behaviour is learnt.
I may eat hot food every night according to my doctor's advice but that does not mean I like to eat hot food. So there is no point discussing why I "like" to eat hot food.

So there, I have explained myself.
If you all still think I am an idiot then tell me what I need to know.
If you think that I am very annoying and not worth arguing with then ... fine, but let me know so that I will not post here again.

[GrimTerror]

Don't attack me for this but you seemed a bit agressive just then.

That aside, i think it could depend on what your views on homosexuality are. Say you believe that it's perfectly ok to be gay, then you'd be more liberal as to the cause. If you felt homosexuality was a conscience thing, where you choose to be gay bu suppressing your hetero-sexual feelings, then your most likely to feel that it is an environmental nature/nurture type thing.

That said, anything we say to suggest the cause of homosexuality will be too Subjective (based on thoughts and feelings) until we actually have some scientific proof.

[Cyberspirit]

Sorry if I sounded that way.
I just wanted to clear all the misunderstandings so that we can get on with the discussion.
About scientific evidence. I can't produce specific ones yet.
Maybe someone will find evidence of a particular clade/species/lineage with homosexual tendencies. then we can prove that homosexuality is inherited.
At this point I think it helps if someone gives an accurate definition of "homosexuality".
I got accused of "pulling that stuff out of" my "rear" most probably because I have a different, and most probably erroneous, definition of homosexuality from that of others.

[GrimTerror]

You are entitled to your opinion, don't let anyone try to make you think otherwise. Your opinion is just as valid as anyone elses, so there should be no need to argue over such things!

As for that pulling stuff out of your rear thing, just let it slide. Just because someone else can't accept that someone has a different to them is no reason to fight back in spite. Keep calm!

[GenocideAlive]

There IS a need to fight back! Give in to your anger! Come to the Dark Side.

[Neo]

Don't attack me for this but you seemed a bit agressive just then.

That aside, i think it could depend on what your views on homosexuality are. Say you believe that it's perfectly ok to be gay, then you'd be more liberal as to the cause. If you felt homosexuality was a conscience thing, where you choose to be gay bu suppressing your hetero-sexual feelings, then your most likely to feel that it is an environmental nature/nurture type thing.

That said, anything we say to suggest the cause of homosexuality will be too Subjective (based on thoughts and feelings) until we actually have some scientific proof.

Pretty sure that most, if not all homosexuals would refute your claim that they are 'suppresing thier 'real urges' since there real urges are those of a homosexual nature.

-Neo

[GrimTerror]

Hey that wasn't my claim at all, i was commenting on something based on something that someone else said...ok that was a bit vague, so i'll try again.

"That aside, i think it could depend on what your views on homosexuality are. Say you believe that it's perfectly ok to be gay, then you'd be more liberal as to the cause. If you felt homosexuality was a conscience thing, where you choose to be gay bu suppressing your hetero-sexual feelings, then your most likely to feel that it is an environmental nature/nurture type thing."

What i meant to get across there was depending on how you feel about homosexuals (say if you fell that it's perfectly natural, or if you felt it was wrong) would influence what you thought was the cause.

Say...A person who thought it was natural might say it's natural to be gay, but we just haven't found out what it is that causes it yet.

As opposed to someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, who might think it's a faulty gene or cause by environmental factors.

See where i'm coming from?