Homosexuallity nature or nurture?

[DrDeath]

i'm not saying people don't have the right to find happiness anyhow they want (i'm gay for pitys sake) but i do feel that it should be done in private and not public, that's why i find it uncomftable when i see it being done in public.

 

[DaveC426913]

... if i had my hetrosexuals would be banned from romantic displays in public, just like expect you would ban homos from plublic displays of affection if you could. as long its not indecent or immoral then what's the problem?

Agreed. It is not an "orientationist" issue at all.

Society generally regards sex as a private act. (Note that, while there are certainly lots of sexy advertizements, a surprising few actually show overt sexual intimacy between two* people).

Overt displays of groping and face-swallowing or worse are frowned upon regardless of the people. It is the couple's* actions, not their identities that are targeted with disdain.


*two or more - let's not get "numberist"!

 

[arildno]

Caveat: I find it more disturbing to inadvertently stumble upon a SINGLE person engaged in a private act than a couple..

ONE or more produces discomfort..

 

[DrDeath]

but youve got more chance of being able to join the single person then you have of joining the couple!

 

[wolram]

The more gay guys there are, the more chance i have of geting a girl friend,
so, rock on tommy, sorry the original question, i think it is all in the
mind.

 

[DrDeath]

you mean the old " i think I'm gay, therefore i am gay" philosophy?

 

[DrDeath]

p.s wolram, i could walk into a party a walk out again with pretty much any woman i wanted. just because I'm gay doesn't mean I'm not attractive to women and don't know how to charm them.

 

[wolram]

you mean the old " i think I'm gay, therefore i am gay" philosophy?

I am only grasping at straws Doc, like i grew up in the country and love its
aromas, city folk turn there noses up and put a hankie over it, i am the same
with cities, i can not get out fast enough, heck who knows there may be
some synapses connected differently, i have read of violent people becoming
placid after a head trauma, other than that i am just prattling.

 

[DrDeath]

actually it may be as good a theory as any other that's come up so far, homosexual tendencies may simply be caused by a difference in body chemistry/hormones, which would therefore plonk it into the biologically caused category.

 

[arildno]

I happen to think it has more to do with chemical variations in the environment of the foetus than with genetics per se, but that's my quirky theory.

 

[DrDeath]

there are way too many possiabilties and not enough answers, how much do you think it would cost to commision a scientific study into this problem.

 

[wolram]

there are way too many possiabilties and not enough answers, how much do you think it would cost to commision a scientific study into this problem.

Well just think your selfs lucky, what ever the out come, i do not see another human for days at a time, and it will get worse when i start my new
job workining 10 to 6, so stop being such egotists and think of poor old me.

 

[DrDeath]

why is it your comment doesn't tie in at all with the quote? anyway I'm no egotist i just like to try and find out the answers to things

 

[wolram]

why is it your comment doesn't tie in at all with the quote? anyway I'm no egotist i just like to try and find out the answers to things

I hope i am not a bad human doc, an you find what you are looking for, other than m y best wishes what can i give.

 

[arildno]

Well, you're being rather cryptic here, wolram!
Perhaps you think it is easier for gays to meet up with someone for the night.
Maybe it is, but then again, that's what it is for the most part: For the night, and little else.

 

[DrDeath]

your definatly not a bad human (as far as i know) wolram, thanks for the best wishes though, Xxxx :tongue2:

 

[DrDeath]

speak for yourself about the one night thing, i actually go in for the long term relationships my-self, although theirs nothing wrong with one nighters if that's what you into!

 

[wolram]

Well, you're being rather cryptic here, wolram!
Perhaps you think it is easier for gays to meet up with someone for the night.
Maybe it is, but then again, that's what it is for the most part: For the night, and little else.

oh, i would like to kick you to , some reality, dreams are good, but focus on what you want, if it is not in the soup, then you are wrong.

 

[DrDeath]

your absolutly right dreams are good and we should focus on what we really want. sometimes the two things are one and the same. but we're digressing again (god I'm such a nag).

p.s. in particular reality you want him kicked to, as long it contains butterflys I am sure he'll be happy there.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I'd say it's nature, and not partly both. Whether or not a person comes out as a homosexual is dependent on nuture though.

 

[arildno]

speak for yourself about the one night thing, i actually go in for the long term relationships my-self, although theirs nothing wrong with one nighters if that's what you into!

I wasn't speaking about myself in general (that's why I put the "maybe" there)
I was trying to understand wolram's obscure posts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hmm..IvanSeeking, you are shifting the issue!
You are the one implying that 85% of female seagulls feel revulsion at the thought of what the remaining 15% do.
That is a hardly substantiated claim.

Really it was a statistic cited by a biologist that I have always found amusing.

But, really, I don't have the patience to argue with a guy who begs to keep his revulsion of me and other gays pure and inviolate.

I never said that you revulse me, in fact, I like you. I said that I am instictually offended by the sight of homosexual behavior. I think you need to understand that for some of us, this is normal. I mean, you can rationalize this any way that you wish, but I know what I feel. I could, probably once be classified as a homophobe. After all, I was taught to believe it is evil according to Catholic beliefs. But I got over this long ago. And in spite of the fact that I have had many gay friends, and a couple who were close friends at that, there is still a biological aspect to this that goes beyond perception.

I think this is more a matter of heterophobia on your part. I get tired of implicity being accused of something for being who I am.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Look, seriously, one of my best buddies in college was bisexual. This is not an issue for me.

Two more thoughts here. First, I had to learn about homosexuality and then try to imagine why. But my interest in girls, my sexual attraction to girls, came long before my knowledge of sex. When I learned about sex with women, it was a total aha moment. No one can tell me that the difference was learned.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, you're being rather cryptic here, wolram!
Perhaps you think it is easier for gays to meet up with someone for the night.
Maybe it is, but then again, that's what it is for the most part: For the night, and little else.

I think it is easier for gay men to hook up for the night, but that's just because they're men, not because they're gay. Straight men would love to just hook up for one night, too, but the women aren't often quite as willing.

 

[loseyourname]

I never said that you revulse me, in fact, I like you. I said that I am instictually offended by the sight of homosexual behavior. I think you need to understand that for some of us, this is normal. I mean, you can rationalize this any way that you wish, but I know what I feel. I could, probably once be classified as a homophobe. After all, I was taught to believe it is evil according to Catholic beliefs. But I got over this long ago. And in spite of the fact that I have had many gay friends, and a couple who were close friends at that, there is still a biological aspect to this that goes beyond perception.

I'd imagine that sometimes this may be the case, sometimes it may not be. I was similar to you when I was much younger, revulsed by the thought of two men together, or even of men being sexual creatures in general (and I never felt this way about women). But my best friend in high school turned out to be gay, and once he came out, I ended up having no problem with it. I even became heavily immersed in gay culture, to the point where half my social time was spent in or around West Hollywood. At this point, not only does homosexuality not in the least bit repulse me, but I'm pretty damn certain that if there were no available women around, I'd gladly turn to men. Not because I consider myself homosexual to any degree, but a man is better than nothing.

It could just be that I became accustomed to homosexuality at the tail end of my formative years. How old were you when you first became "okay with it?" When you first had significant exposure to the gay community?

 

[DrDeath]

arildno quote "I wasn't speaking about myself in general (that's why I put the "maybe" there) I was trying to understand wolram's obscure posts." jesus boy your so easy to tease, I am only messing with ya, love you really dude! :rofl:

and i think most of the guys are right, most people do have an inbuilt distaste for homosexuality, however the majority of them actually become mature enough to not have a problem with us poofs and just let us get on with what we like doing. some people unfortunatly don't become mature as they continue to display homophobic traights throughout their whole life.

and yes it is easier for gay guys to hook up for one nighter's because most guys (gay or straight) are happy with one nighters, whereas women arent, so gays get a good deal on the casual sex side of things, straight guys get a good deal on the not get bullied side of things. hey I am happy with those odds.

 

[arildno]

The biologist hardly said the 85% were repulsed by the other 15% behaviour, did they?

You claim there is some necessary connection between your heterosexuality, and your repulsion of homosexuality, and you argue for this because your repulsion is felt at an "instinctual" level.

Whenever was a strong sense of revulsion ever felt on any other level than the "instinctual"?

Furthermore, it seems to me that you've misread my post (due to some unclarity I wrote):
What I meant, was that the emotion of disgust is strong enough to prevent a possible desire for the object of disgust from ever surfacing into the individuals consciousness (i.e, a putative desire of this sort is held LATENT, it does not become manifest).
It does not follow from this everyone having this sense of disgust would have the desire for the forbidden if their sense of disgust was removed, and thus, in our context, it does not mean that every person who is repulsed by the idea of men being together is himself a closeted gay individual.

However, that being said:
You have yet to give any solid arguments as to why you think there is a NECESSARY connection between your heterosexuality and your revulsion for the other.
As to how customs of revulsion change, consider the two examples from history:

1. In the early 18th century, due to the activities of "The Society for the Reformation of Manners", a numerous series of raids against London's gay bars (called "molly houses") began.
In particular, informers were used, young men who acquiesced to play the "passive" role in anal intercourse in order to provide evidence against the "true" mollies.

At this time, a particular horror was felt towards the ACTIVE player in such acts, and they were in general punished a lot harder (typically pillory&subsequent hanging).

Now, let's go 200 years forward to the naval base of Newport, USA:
2. In about 1919, It came to the attention of the governor, Franklin D. Roosevelt that the naval base of Newport was "infested" by queers, and the authorities decided to root out such pernicious elements.

Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized to engage and pay 19-20 year old men to act as "decoy dicks" in order to get info against the "c**ks**kers&r**tum receivers" in Newport, by playing the ACTIVE part. (When this got known in the media, it was a huge scandal)
Note that the stigma here, the horror most keenly felt by the decent men in the authorities was totally reversed from that of their predecessors in the 18th century!

Now, what does that tell you about the changeability of revulsion?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It would make sense that heterosexual men evolved to feel revulsion, since they would pass their genes on only if they had sex with women. However, I don't know if this has happened to that great of an extent. It seems more likely that men will have sex with anything, and it's instead up to women to evolve a mechanism to choose desirable mates that will enable them to pass on their goods. That's why female chimps are the ones that migrate...because their brothers and other male relatives will willingly mate with them to no detriment of their own. But females have more to lose, thus they must evolve the mechanism to help them choose 1. males and 2. males that are different enough from them that they won't pass on bad genes.

So, an evovled sense of revulsion is possible, but I think it's more likely that it's learned. Look at men of other cultures that feel no revulsion for holding hands with, kissing, or even having sex with other men (gay or straight). I think it's an American value, rooted in Christianity.

 

[arildno]

I can see no particular evolutionary advantage of a sense of revulsion over simply a sense of indifference towards the matter.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

If you are repulsed by homosexuality, you are less likely to engage in it, and more likely to engage in heterosexuality. Thereby allowing you a greater chance at passing on your genes. No?

ah, I see. Well, humans are tricky because we are centered on closely related groups of males. Therefore, you would also want your brothers to practice heterosexuality. If you were indifferent, then you wouldn't punish them for engaging in homosexual acts and they'd be less likely to pass their genes...which are very similar to your own. That's why it's more productive for some animals, eg bees, marmosets, to help raise the offspring of their relatives rather than there own. The odds are better for passing on a greater proportion of your genes (= your siblings genes) if you do this.

So, it's not pretty, and it's not nice, but that's what would yield the highest "benefit."

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Even so, I still think it's mainly a cultural stance. But that is the best explanation I can think of for how it would evolve. Maybe it's a bit of both? Still, a lot of male animals engage in homosexuality, and it's up to females to be more discriminant in choosing mates.

 

[arildno]

Well, however persuasive you think your evolution theory is, it is patently wrong, as can be seen from studying the behaviours of ordinary chimpanzees, and the bonobos in particular.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Well, however persuasive you think your evolution theory is, it is patently wrong, as can be seen from studying the behaviours of ordinary chimpanzees, and the bonobos in particular.

I didn't mean to upset you. Did you read my post above? I said that other animals do engage in it. I am bio anth major...I know about bonobos Even the females engage in it. That's why I said I think it's more cultural than evolutionary. But, I still don't think you can throw out any evolutionary cause, because we do see a difference in male an female frequencies of homosexuality. Male common chimps engage in it more than females because it would have less evolutionary consequences. I'm not saying this is evidence that this is the case in humans, but it's still useful information.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Also, bonobos use sex as a tension reliever. I think common chimps use it to display dominance. So even there, you can't just lump all cases of homosexuality together.

From washington post review of book

In a book scheduled for publication next year, "Evolution's Rainbow," Roughgarden speculates that same-sex relations may have evolved as a glue for coalition-building among animals, including humans.

This hypothesis "also explains homophobia," she said. "Same-sex coalition building is usually a threat to a hierarchy. That sets up a tension, and the alpha male is going to try to break up the coalition."

Maybe that's the reason it either evolved or was passed on through culture. As that book points out (and as I have posted above), other cultures permit, and even encourage homosexuality http://www.vexen.co.uk/human/homosexuality.html#Anthropology

 

[arildno]

Certainly, and it is the lack of sex as a tension reliever that is missing from your evolution theory, and makes its predictions wrong.
The bonobo evidence shows us that we cannot ignore sexuality's function as tension release within a cost/benefit analysis. Without it, we get a skeweed picture, and wrong predictions.