ADVERTISEMENT

Born this way?

Do you choose who you are attracted to? If you wanted to be gay tomorrow you are telling me you could just decide to be attracted to guys?
I think the human mind is trainable. To that end, yes I think over time I could convince myself to prefer men. It's weird to me that sexuality holds such a high honor among all of human traits when literally every other aspect of our being is considered a choice. I can be anything I want other than gay. That's out of my control. Hell, I can even be a woman, but not gay because I wasn't born that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I think the human mind is trainable. To that end, yes I think over time I could convince myself to prefer men. It's weird to me that sexuality holds such a high honor among all of human traits when literally every other aspect of our being is considered a choice. I can be anything I want other than gay. That's out of my control. Hell, I can even be a woman, but not gay because I wasn't born that way.

I think you are confusing biology with learned beliefs. They aren't the same thing. Trans is also a biological thing, so no, I don't think that is really a choice either.
 
I think you are confusing biology with learned beliefs. They aren't the same thing. Trans is also a biological thing, so no, I don't think that is really a choice either.

Lol, how is trans a biological thing when literally every strand of DNA shows whether you are a man or a woman? Or do you deny the science of xx/xy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Lol, how is trans a biological thing when literally every strand of DNA shows whether you are a man or a woman? Or do you deny the science of xx/xy?

I don't deny that science at all, but that doesn't mean that someone born into a man's body can't feel like they are a woman, or vice versa. Trans isn't just about the physical.
 
the party of "science" lololololololol

We should make a list of things that are biological and things that are learned.

Political ideology: biological
Sexuality: biological
Faith: biological
Sports team affiliation: biological

Gender: learned


I don't deny that science at all, but that doesn't mean that someone born into a man's body can't feel like they are a woman, or vice versa. Trans isn't just about the physical.

And I have to respond with the absolutely cliche but totally accurate corollary:

I feel like a black woman. Are we cool with that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
We should make a list of things that are biological and things that are learned.

Political ideology: biological
Sexuality: biological
Faith: biological
Sports team affiliation: biological

Gender: learned




And I have to respond with the absolutely cliche but totally accurate corollary:

I feel like a black woman. Are we cool with that?

Except you don't feel like a black woman and trans has nothing to do with race anyway.

Are you being sarcastic? Political ideology, faith, and sports teams are biological? What are you even arguing at this point? I assume that is sarcasm, but what kind of point do you think you are making?
 
Last edited:
With as many anti-gay conservatives we've seen get busted on Grindr, I think it's clear what's going on here.

Crazyhole, it's okay. You're amongst friends. We accept you for who you are. It's safe for you to come out. Feel free to suck as many D's as you want. No one here is going to judge you.
 
Except you don't feel like a black woman and trans has nothing to do with race anyway.

Are you being sarcastic? Political ideology, faith, and sports teams are biological? What are you even arguing at this point? I assume that is sarcasm, but what kind of point do you think you are making?

Who are you to say whether or not I feel like a black woman? You cannot judge me and the only thing that genetics can determine in my life is whether I am gay or not. Everything else is for me to decide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Who are you to say whether or not I feel like a black woman? You cannot judge me and the only thing that genetics can determine in my life is whether I am gay or not. Everything else is for me to decide.

Yeah, except you don't feel like a black woman and we all know that. Your whole point is nothing more than to mock it because you don't understand it. And again, race has nothing do to with trans.
 
Yeah, except you don't feel like a black woman and we all know that. Your whole point is nothing more than to mock it because you don't understand it. And again, race has nothing do to with trans.
Rachel Dolezal felt like a black woman. That didn’t make her one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I think the human mind is trainable. To that end, yes I think over time I could convince myself to prefer men. It's weird to me that sexuality holds such a high honor among all of human traits when literally every other aspect of our being is considered a choice. I can be anything I want other than gay. That's out of my control. Hell, I can even be a woman, but not gay because I wasn't born that way.

Because sexuality isn’t a choice. If you act upon your sexuality is a choice but sexuality itself is not a choice. All “conversion” therapy does is makes that person feel like they’re worthless so they no longer act upon those feelings - even though they still exist. That’s why it’s being banned in many states. It’s torture.

I wasn’t trained to be gay. Nothing my parents or surroundings taught me trained me to be gay.

Something like religion is taught. I specifically went to Hebrew school and what not as a child/teen.

Do you really think you could just change your sexuality?
 
Of course it didn't. There is a difference in appropriation and being trans.
Honestly, I don’t think there is. They’re appropriating a gender.

Look, I don’t have a problem with most things. If Bruce wants to call himself kaitlin and cross dress, no problem. If he can find a doctor to perform operations on him, that’s his deal. But I think the science is incomplete and it’s a tricky thing regardless. I’m leaning towards thinking that believing you’re one gender caught in the body of another is a mental health issue, but that doesn’t mean that I will treat them differently than any other person or that the government should treat them any differently. I do wonder about doctors who perform procedures when the science is incomplete, but that’s their deal. Again, let people live their lives.

With that said, don’t use my taxes to pay for gender reassignment procedures. If they’re going to have gender divisions in sports and jobs like police and fire, don’t make ciswomen compete against transwomen. And don’t treat people with different beliefs like they’re evil if they aren’t trying to impose their belief system on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Because sexuality isn’t a choice. If you act upon your sexuality is a choice but sexuality itself is not a choice. All “conversion” therapy does is makes that person feel like they’re worthless so they no longer act upon those feelings - even though they still exist. That’s why it’s being banned in many states. It’s torture.

I wasn’t trained to be gay. Nothing my parents or surroundings taught me trained me to be gay.

Something like religion is taught. I specifically went to Hebrew school and what not as a child/teen.

Do you really think you could just change your sexuality?

Just to be clear, nobody here is condoning conversion therapy. I think that if a person were to choose to go to conversion therapy to become straight, that's totally cool because it's their decision and if it works for them, super congratulations to them. It's certainly not something that can be forced upon anyone.

But to your main point, which is what ive been posing the question about, how does a sexual attraction to a particular gender determine how you label yourself? Is someone that is attracted to someone of the opposite sex automatically a heterosexual? Is someone that is attracted to children automatically a pedophile? Is someone that is attracted to animals automatically a zoophile?

As others have pointed out, sexual preference can be fluid. So why is homosexual so strict in nature that it can be defined by mere thoughts while the rest require some sort of action?
 
Just to be clear, nobody here is condoning conversion therapy. I think that if a person were to choose to go to conversion therapy to become straight, that's totally cool because it's their decision and if it works for them, super congratulations to them. It's certainly not something that can be forced upon anyone.

But to your main point, which is what ive been posing the question about, how does a sexual attraction to a particular gender determine how you label yourself? Is someone that is attracted to someone of the opposite sex automatically a heterosexual? Is someone that is attracted to children automatically a pedophile? Is someone that is attracted to animals automatically a zoophile?

As others have pointed out, sexual preference can be fluid. So why is homosexual so strict in nature that it can be defined by mere thoughts while the rest require some sort of action?

We use heterosexual or homosexual purely a societal way of organizing people. You could just as easily drop the labels and just say “Attraction” and leave it at that.
 
We use heterosexual or homosexual purely a societal way of organizing people. You could just as easily drop the labels and just say “Attraction” and leave it at that.

Fair...and I think that's the ultimate goal - labels wouldn't need to exist but for now - they obviously do. Even though labels can be exclusionary - people tend to label themselves so they actually feel a sense of belonging. I label myself as gay and am now part of a larger society/community.

Just to be clear, nobody here is condoning conversion therapy. I think that if a person were to choose to go to conversion therapy to become straight, that's totally cool because it's their decision and if it works for them, super congratulations to them. It's certainly not something that can be forced upon anyone.

This could be a whole topic on itself - but I don't 100% agree with you. It's not always that person's decision - even if they are a grown adult. What if they're made to feel so self worthless by their surroundings that they feel this is the only option? It's truly a scary, disgusting thing - that has no scientific basis. People are literally tortured into "believing" something different.

But to your main point, which is what ive been posing the question about, how does a sexual attraction to a particular gender determine how you label yourself? Is someone that is attracted to someone of the opposite sex automatically a heterosexual? Is someone that is attracted to children automatically a pedophile? Is someone that is attracted to animals automatically a zoophile?

As others have pointed out, sexual preference can be fluid. So why is homosexual so strict in nature that it can be defined by mere thoughts while the rest require some sort of action?

Sexuality goes beyond a label - it's something that's ingrained into you. I can label myself as straight - but sorry - I'm not straight. Even people who's sexuality evolves as they get older - those feelings existed - they may have just taken some time to be realized.

There's not a lot of studies done on human sexuality and I'm not 100% sure there will be until the stigma around it is completely gone. We're getting there but we're not there yet.
 
Fair...and I think that's the ultimate goal - labels wouldn't need to exist but for now - they obviously do. Even though labels can be exclusionary - people tend to label themselves so they actually feel a sense of belonging. I label myself as gay and am now part of a larger society/community.



This could be a whole topic on itself - but I don't 100% agree with you. It's not always that person's decision - even if they are a grown adult. What if they're made to feel so self worthless by their surroundings that they feel this is the only option? It's truly a scary, disgusting thing - that has no scientific basis. People are literally tortured into "believing" something different.



Sexuality goes beyond a label - it's something that's ingrained into you. I can label myself as straight - but sorry - I'm not straight. Even people who's sexuality evolves as they get older - those feelings existed - they may have just taken some time to be realized.

There's not a lot of studies done on human sexuality and I'm not 100% sure there will be until the stigma around it is completely gone. We're getting there but we're not there yet.

My point was that "homosexual" was typically used for years as a way to designate gay people specifically; no one really went around saying "I just learned that Julie is heterosexual!". I get your point too but ideally we wouldn't even need to designate some as "gay" or not, if and when it becomes a generally accepted, mundane part of life.
 
My point was that "homosexual" was typically used for years as a way to designate gay people specifically; no one really went around saying "I just learned that Julie is heterosexual!". I get your point too but ideally we wouldn't even need to designate some as "gay" or not, if and when it becomes a generally accepted, mundane part of life.

The irony is that the homosexual community has itself decided to balkanize themselves by creating subcategories. You would think that they would want to get away from labels, instead they have expanded and demanded more of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
The irony is that the homosexual community has itself decided to balkanize themselves by creating subcategories. You would think that they would want to get away from labels, instead they have expanded and demanded more of them.

This isn't a homosexual/heterosexual thing - it's a human thing. Especially in today's day and age where people are so accessible no matter where they are in the world.

People continue to sublabel because it makes them feel more belonged (within their subcategory). The gay community is quite diverse (surprise, I know) - so just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have ANYTHING in common with me - well - other than being gay. Unfortunately - many people also use these sublabels to alienate people.

I personally have no problems with labels. Those labels describe who I am. The thing is - I won't judge people based on those labels - when many will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
My friend has a 23 year old daughter that is a lesbian, yet she's a virgin. She's never even been on a date, but she knows who she's attracted to. She's just been afraid most of her life to be open because of how conservatives view her (living in a red state).
But it's not just conservatives. Various groups like to out people, because they feel they have no right to privacy.

When the US gets back to looking at people as individuals, and respecting their privacy, we'll all be better off. The funny thing is that Conservatism here in the US is staring to slowly 'rediscover' that, while Progressivism increasingly being against that Liberal ideal.

E.g., we saw that with the Covington Kids defending a gay man against bigots.

That homosexuality exists in all species, yet homophobia exists in only one.
That's really a stretch. It's like saying only humans get drunk and drive cars irresponsibly.

Now what is true is that homosexuality is found in nature, even every commonly (50%+) in a subset of species. But some of them also have medical complications because of it too. But that's 'bigotry' to even mention that, oddly enough, despite being scientifically true.

I.e., No one likes to visit the fact that homosexuality, from a religious text aspect, like most things in religious texts, pre-printing press, pre-medicine, pre-everything, was to warn of the complications of introducing orifices to the bacterial havens of our bodies. It had really less to do with homosexuality, but sexual practices.

In fact, we're seeing a massive resurgence in STD infection rates in the US and UK for a reason, worse than the Boomers, way, way worse than Gen-X (who had the AIDS scare). And yet, in countries like France, which make both Conservatives and Progressives 'cringe' with their culture, STD rates are very low ... especially among teens ... especially where -- gasp -- women aren't 'protected' like here in the US.

Why is that?

I.e., it's not just Conservatives causing issues in the US. Progressives are as well. I'd even argue that since 2006, Progressives are just as bad.

That's why I really don't care for all this non-sense. Let people be individuals, in their private lives, and stop judging ... both sides.

Murderer is too broad of a term. Many soldiers are technically murderers. They have killed someone. Anyone is capable of being a murderer in the right scenario.
OMFG ... Geez! This is what I cannot stand about Progressives!!! You play right into the Conservative trap!

I.e., As a pro-Woman's Rights / pro-Right-to-Choose Libertarian, I really hate it when Progressives go there. And it's 10x even more stupid when you call a solider a murderer! Dumb, dumb, dumb!

E.g., a solider kills an enemy combatant who has decided to be there, as a peer ... an equal soldier, killing. That's called combat. It's not murder. A soldier who violates the rules of engagement other laws can be a murder. But a soldier that kills a peer combatant is not. But now ... you give the Conservative some 'ammunition.' Why?

Because did the baby choose to be 'at odds' with the mother? Even in the case of incest, rape ... or the baby 'killing' the mother because of some medical issue, but did the baby 'choose'? Geez, you call a soldier a 'murderer' for combat against a peer that also chooses, and you open up this argument for a baby that doesn't.

^^^ This is why Progressives are too dumb to argue with Conservatives, and we Liberals and Libertarians cringe. You just called soldiers murderers, and it's so easy for Conservatives to flip that against Abortion. Dumb, dumb, DUMB!!! You really are the stupid of the stupid Progressive type.

But are they pyschopaths? You can be psychotic and never act out. Doesn't mean you're not a pyschopath. After all, most psychopaths aren't identified until they act out. Doesn't mean they weren't psychotic before their first offense.
There are 4 types of soldiers. Only one type, the tiny, small minority, are pyschopaths are murderers, and prosecuted for being murderers. But they are almost always filtered out.

I still cannot believe you went there on 'soldiers.' Geez you're dumb, dumb, DUMB to do that!

You don't learn to be gay.
But people do learn about different, sexual approaches. One of these days we'll focus on individuals, instead of groups. One of these days we'll stop arguing left and right and all the meta-BS that doesn't matter.

I still cannot believe you went there on 'soldiers.' It just opens up the ultimate avenue for an anti-Abortion argument from Conservatives.
 
I think the human mind is trainable. To that end, yes I think over time I could convince myself to prefer men. It's weird to me that sexuality holds such a high honor among all of human traits when literally every other aspect of our being is considered a choice. I can be anything I want other than gay. That's out of my control. Hell, I can even be a woman, but not gay because I wasn't born that way.
Crazyhole..
Dude...
Just stop.
Actually, he has a point ...

First off, many of us avoid things as an adults because of a stigma. It's not just preference. Let's forget tags for a moment. Let's focus on being naked in front of others, same sex, different sex, different people, whatever. Now let's expand it to being intimate with others, and then consider the friendship, status, even sex.

This is what is known as being 'impressionable.' We've all grown up with stigmas, we've had ideas 'impressioned' upon us, by others. It is reduced with age, mature, but it's never removed for many. What if the state now decides that I 'grew up' with 'biased values' and I need to be 're-trained' to be 'more exposed'? Yeah, that's probably far-fetched ... for me, a nearly 50 year-old adult. So ...

Secondly, let's look at kids. Why? After all, 'science' is stating that if we don't ensure a child has been 'assigned' by puberty to their 'wishes,' and that includes physical 'gender re-assignment,' then they will have more psychological issues. Okay ... ummm, so ages 7-10. But not so fast! We're now seeing one parent decide for a child at age 4-5.

At what point is it 'choice'? And at what point is it 'impressionable'? Does it factor in that a mother has been dressing up a child that was born with 'male equipment' in dresses since age 2, and wants reassignment by age 5? Is the father a bigot to be against that?

This isn't a right-wing argument. Liberals and Libertarians are watching in shock as it's happening in the US now. At what point does the 'desire to reduce future, psychological issues' mean we implement temporary or even permanent, irreversible hormonal or even physical developments?

The fact that Progressives are saying that's 'bigotry' is scary. No, it's questioning the 'value' of changing something, now, for a child at puberty, let alone under age 5, against changing something ... later, when the child has more, functional understanding of the world.

I have the same argument on vaccine schedules, especially when the state mandates them younger and younger. Especially in countries and, increasingly, US states where it's criminal for a person or a parent to disagree ... even criminal for a doctor and medical professional to disagree. Where even the US FDA warns against here in the US, yet the UK NIH mandates for it. Where there is 1 authority to lobby.

It scares me that we're no longer allowed to debate, and that anyone who questions anything is considered a bigot and otherwise a threat to society.
 
This isn't a homosexual/heterosexual thing - it's a human thing. Especially in today's day and age where people are so accessible no matter where they are in the world.

People continue to sublabel because it makes them feel more belonged (within their subcategory). The gay community is quite diverse (surprise, I know) - so just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have ANYTHING in common with me - well - other than being gay. Unfortunately - many people also use these sublabels to alienate people.

I personally have no problems with labels. Those labels describe who I am. The thing is - I won't judge people based on those labels - when many will.
What about the ones who don't want to be labeled? They don't want to be part of a larger group? They want to be left alone, and only share with people in private?

I have been with the same woman 25 years. How many times have we been labeled by others? How many times have we been told various things, or people assumed various things about us? Especially when I used to travel thousands of miles away from her for work?

Frankly, I think too many people not only judge, but don't respect her and I as individuals, or a married couple that doesn't care what people think. And I give everyone who wants to not leave us alone a huge middle finger, especially the ones brazen enough to comment and judge.

I judge people by how they treat others, not what group they belong to. But there seems to be a huge move lately to not respect the privacy of others, and it's not just a Conservative movement.
 
I want to know if the guy who is attracted to sheep out on the farm, is that way because of genetics.
 
the old nature vs nurture argument. im going to stick with nurture until proven its nature.

Why would you go with one over the other when there isn't compelling evidence for either?

If anything - I find it VERY hard to believe it's strictly nurture for the plain fact that gay people come from everywhere and every single culture. And have for basically all of recorded history.

Like I mentioned before - there's actual scientific proof that correlates the more older brothers a male has - increases their likelihood to be gay. Here's what some hypothesize:

Scientists don’t yet understand the exact mechanism, but they suspect that parts of the Y-chromosome of these fetuses causes an immunological reaction in some mothers; these antibodies remain in her body, and later affect the brains of any future male fetuses in her womb in a way that makes them more likely to be gay. And much like a “booster shot,” each subsequent pregnancy with a Y-chromosome child only makes this maternal reaction stronger.

I want to know if the guy who is attracted to sheep out on the farm, is that way because of genetics.

Do you really not realize how disrespectful it is when someone is talking about same-sex attraction and then you compare it to bestiality? Who am I kidding - of course you don't.
 
Why would you go with one over the other when there isn't compelling evidence for either?

If anything - I find it VERY hard to believe it's strictly nurture for the plain fact that gay people come from everywhere and every single culture. And have for basically all of recorded history.

Like I mentioned before - there's actual scientific proof that correlates the more older brothers a male has - increases their likelihood to be gay. Here's what some hypothesize:

Scientists don’t yet understand the exact mechanism, but they suspect that parts of the Y-chromosome of these fetuses causes an immunological reaction in some mothers; these antibodies remain in her body, and later affect the brains of any future male fetuses in her womb in a way that makes them more likely to be gay. And much like a “booster shot,” each subsequent pregnancy with a Y-chromosome child only makes this maternal reaction stronger.
humans at the base level are animals. there is a biological imperative to reproduce. that is in every animals dna. thus i believe it is nurture that leads people to be gay.

you say if a young boy has a lot of older brother there is correlation. why cant the fact that a young boy having older brothers actually be considered nurture over nature?

if there is a study that comes out tomorrow that shows one of the sequences in the dna makes someone gay ill concede. just show me the proof.
 
I want to know if the guy who is attracted to sheep out on the farm, is that way because of genetics.
Do you really not realize how disrespectful it is when someone is talking about same-sex attraction and then you compare it to bestiality?
People who make these kinds of crude and callous remarks will also tell you with a straight face that they're no bigot/homophobe. It's simply because: 1) they are Christian and 2) hold fast to Christian scripture. :rolleyes:

It's actually quite remarkable to see how much appalling crap people have done over the centuries in the name of Jesus Christ.
 
People who make these kinds of crude and callous remarks will also tell you with a straight face that they're no bigot/homophobe. It's simply because: 1) they are Christian and 2) hold fast to Christian scripture. :rolleyes:

It's actually quite remarkable to see how much appalling crap people have done over the centuries in the name of Jesus Christ.

Why does it offend you so much? If scientists were to prove that bestiality has a genetic predisposition would it change anything in regards to the homosexual community? They are separate topics and one doesn't affect the other. If scientists were to determine that any kind of behavior contains a level of genetic predisposition, regardless of whether it is considered good or bad behavior it doesnt present an affront to homosexuality, if anything it validates it.

We know without a doubt that if homosexuality is genetic in nature it cannot be a dominant trait. If it was, humanity would have already gone extinct. It's possible that it's a genetic mutation, but the failure of this study to identify that mutation gives credence to the idea that it's a learned trait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
humans at the base level are animals. there is a biological imperative to reproduce. that is in every animals dna. thus i believe it is nurture that leads people to be gay.

you say if a young boy has a lot of older brother there is correlation. why cant the fact that a young boy having older brothers actually be considered nurture over nature?

if there is a study that comes out tomorrow that shows one of the sequences in the dna makes someone gay ill concede. just show me the proof.

Yet homosexuality exists in basically every species. Not ALL humans have the desire to reproduce. As a whole - sure - but there are straight people who have no innate desire to reproduce.

Regardless - what you're saying makes no sense. Show me the proof that it's nurture. There is no proof either way at the moment. You're simply choosing something because it fits what you want to believe more.

I honestly don't know what it is - because - like I said - there is no proof at the moment. If anything - I'd venture to say it's a mix of both. I don't think there's a strand of DNA that makes someone gay (if there was, we'd likely have figured it out by now). But there are certain biological factors that probably contribute to it.

Why does it offend you so much? If scientists were to prove that bestiality has a genetic predisposition would it change anything in regards to the homosexual community? They are separate topics and one doesn't affect the other. If scientists were to determine that any kind of behavior contains a level of genetic predisposition, regardless of whether it is considered good or bad behavior it doesnt present an affront to homosexuality, if anything it validates it.

We know without a doubt that if homosexuality is genetic in nature it cannot be a dominant trait. If it was, humanity would have already gone extinct. It's possible that it's a genetic mutation, but the failure of this study to identify that mutation gives credence to the idea that it's a learned trait.

It offends LGBT people so much for the exact reason you stated - they have nothing to do with each other and its a subconscious effort to tie the two together in people's minds. One is not acceptable and one is.
 
Yet homosexuality exists in basically every species. Not ALL humans have the desire to reproduce. As a whole - sure - but there are straight people who have no innate desire to reproduce.

Regardless - what you're saying makes no sense. Show me the proof that it's nurture. There is no proof either way at the moment. You're simply choosing something because it fits what you want to believe more.

I honestly don't know what it is - because - like I said - there is no proof at the moment. If anything - I'd venture to say it's a mix of both. I don't think there's a strand of DNA that makes someone gay (if there was, we'd likely have figured it out by now). But there are certain biological factors that probably contribute to it.



It offends LGBT people so much for the exact reason you stated - they have nothing to do with each other and its a subconscious effort to tie the two together in people's minds. One is not acceptable and one is.

I can't speak for everyone and I'm sure that some people do want to tie them together for anti-gay reasons, but in and of itself the idea of trying to find a gay gene and also trying to find a bestiality gene or a murderer gene shouldn't be assumed to be a form of insult. I'd like to know to what extent our DNA affects our minds and actions. The more we can identify, the more we can predict, encourage, or deter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Yet homosexuality exists in basically every species. Not ALL humans have the desire to reproduce. As a whole - sure - but there are straight people who have no innate desire to reproduce.

Regardless - what you're saying makes no sense. Show me the proof that it's nurture. There is no proof either way at the moment. You're simply choosing something because it fits what you want to believe more.

I honestly don't know what it is - because - like I said - there is no proof at the moment. If anything - I'd venture to say it's a mix of both. I don't think there's a strand of DNA that makes someone gay (if there was, we'd likely have figured it out by now). But there are certain biological factors that probably contribute to it.
just because not all people dont desire to reproduce doesnt do anything but strengthen the nurture argument. every animal has a basic instinct to reproduce. food, shelter, reproduction, all animals share that. if someone says they dont want to have kids, that just proves we are able to over come our natural instinct. that is an example of nurture.

sure homosexuality exists in other animals, but is it because the male is generally smaller/weaker but still trying to fill that base instinct? that would be an example of nurture. sure smaller/weaker is dna but its still making a choice when left with little option.

could it also be a dominance thing we often see in dogs? ive seen plenty of female dogs hump a submissive male dog to show dominance. this is an example of nurture as well.

i could see a lack of hormones for males and an abundance of others in females being major factors as well. but right now we dont have all the information. i have a feeling that over the next 10-20 years the picture will be more clear.
 
just because not all people dont desire to reproduce doesnt do anything but strengthen the nurture argument. every animal has a basic instinct to reproduce. food, shelter, reproduction, all animals share that. if someone says they dont want to have kids, that just proves we are able to over come our natural instinct. that is an example of nurture.

sure homosexuality exists in other animals, but is it because the male is generally smaller/weaker but still trying to fill that base instinct? that would be an example of nurture. sure smaller/weaker is dna but its still making a choice when left with little option.

could it also be a dominance thing we often see in dogs? ive seen plenty of female dogs hump a submissive male dog to show dominance. this is an example of nurture as well.

i could see a lack of hormones for males and an abundance of others in females being major factors as well. but right now we dont have all the information. i have a feeling that over the next 10-20 years the picture will be more clear.

In before someone accuses you of comparing homosexuals to dogs.
 
humans at the base level are animals. there is a biological imperative to reproduce. that is in every animals dna. thus i believe it is nurture that leads people to be gay.

you say if a young boy has a lot of older brother there is correlation. why cant the fact that a young boy having older brothers actually be considered nurture over nature?

if there is a study that comes out tomorrow that shows one of the sequences in the dna makes someone gay ill concede. just show me the proof.

If it were nurture, then families would be more likely to have only gay or straight kids. Not a mix of both. After all, they're being raised in the same environment.

And I'd sure love to see these other animal species nurturing each other to be gay.

And further more, if it's possible to nurture someone to be gay, show me. Go adopt a few kids and make them all gay. I'll be waiting.
 
If it were nurture, then families would be more likely to have only gay or straight kids. Not a mix of both. After all, they're being raised in the same environment.

And I'd sure love to see these other animal species nurturing each other to be gay.

And further more, if it's possible to nurture someone to be gay, show me. Go adopt a few kids and make them all gay. I'll be waiting.

Your first point is really valid, it does create a pretty good question. Your 2nd point undermines it because you equate nurture with encouragement. Nurture is how life affects us. Hitler wasn't born hating jews, he learned it along the way. Carnegie wasn't born with the mindset of a billionaire, he learned it. There is a combination of the two that makes us who we are and you can't diminish either one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Your first point is really valid, it does create a pretty good question. Your 2nd point undermines it because you equate nurture with encouragement. Nurture is how life affects us. Hitler wasn't born hating jews, he learned it along the way. Carnegie wasn't born with the mindset of a billionaire, he learned it. There is a combination of the two that makes us who we are and you can't diminish either one.

I'm not going to argue with you over the definition of nurture.

However what you're doing is false equivalency.

By stating that Hitler wasn't born hating Jews, you're already taking a learned behavior and trying to relate it to being gay to help your argument. This is the definition of false equivalency.
 
every animal has a basic instinct to reproduce. food, shelter, reproduction, all animals share that.

I don't think that's true - but if you can show me a study that proves that - fine.

sure homosexuality exists in other animals, but is it because the male is generally smaller/weaker but still trying to fill that base instinct? that would be an example of nurture. sure smaller/weaker is dna but its still making a choice when left with little option.

What the actual fck? I can show you some leather daddies or bears who are the very opposite of smaller/weaker. The animal is smaller/weaker - so they have no choice but to be gay?

WHAT?!
 
If it were nurture, then families would be more likely to have only gay or straight kids. Not a mix of both. After all, they're being raised in the same environment.

And I'd sure love to see these other animal species nurturing each other to be gay.

And further more, if it's possible to nurture someone to be gay, show me. Go adopt a few kids and make them all gay. I'll be waiting.
yes but i have 2 kids that are wildly different. i treat them the same, but have different reactions.

nurture includes environmental factors like friends, family, school, tv, and music. these things all effect people differently. little events early on can have big impacts later on in life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChrisKnight06
ADVERTISEMENT