Nature or Nurture. Does it matter?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2009 1:23 AM GMT
    So everyone has a theory as to whether or not its nature or nurture. The truth however is an absolute fact. When they do come up with the answer, whether it be nature, nurture, or some combo, what would be the significance of knowing? What do you guys think the positives and negatives are of knowing?

    For example, if it is nature, crazy women might decide to abort their baby if its detectable invitro and they don't want a gay child. Would the knowledge cause friction between gays and "choice" groups? On the other hand, it would close the book on the "choice"(the other one about gay being a choice) argument.

    Handling the knowledge is something we are going to have to discuss eventually. I thought I'd ask you all since we have such a diverse group here. I know this is an extremely broad question, so no need for fine detail.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2009 1:29 AM GMT
    Nature. This is why designer babies will be another dwn fall for all of humanity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2009 4:02 PM GMT
    Well, the question I'm asking isn't "do you think its nature or nurture". Thats kind of a pointless question since the truth isn't a matter of opinion or personal theory. The question I'm asking is what you guys think will happen once we have the knowledge. How might the knowledge impact our community and its relation to the the outside.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2009 4:07 PM GMT

    I think they both work in tandem, like how certain flowers won't grow unless in the right environment. It's definitely inborn...because how do you explain gay twins or brothers raised in the same house, but one is only gay, just different variant of the same plant or the gardener tended to one differently. Ouch, my head hurts.

    Don't worry about the knowing. Catholics know that suppressing their kids too much turns them into excess obsessed freaks. Christians know making everything a sin only makes their kids want to sin and dumb people know that if they continue to do the same dumb things the kid will follow, but has it meant they change their ways? NURTURE....LOL, which overbearing mother are you going to convince not to be more overbearing?

    FURTHERMORE, ideas, beliefs, and temperament are changing (maybe not fast enough for you and your peers), but it is. No faith in days when homosexuality will be adequately explain/accepted and the stigma removed? One example I can think of when that happened was interracial coupling. It used to be inconceivable. Now it's normal and accepted, with very little band-aid burn.





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2009 4:52 PM GMT
    I'm gonna tell the over bearing crazy headed old women I'm gonna be seeing later this week it's ALL HER FAULT!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2009 4:53 PM GMT

    No it's yer fault, perv. No one told you to do a guy.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2009 8:09 PM GMT
    ? Ok I'm confused now. Just deleted my whole post. Is this about human potencial in general or homosexuality?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 13, 2009 8:17 PM GMT
    Are you asking whether being gay is a result of nature or nurture? It's definitely nature. No one raises a child to be gay. It just happens that way for some.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2009 8:30 PM GMT
    Yes it matters human curiosity needs to be satisfied.

    Other than that some people are despirate to have something outside of their control to blame. Can't just say to themselves I wanna fuck some hot man ass, i don't care what anyone else seems to want, they need to have someone or something else to blame for their feelings of sexual deiance

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2009 12:14 AM GMT
    You are actually correct. No one TOLD me to do a guy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2009 12:20 AM GMT
    Ok.....


    Let me clarify.

    What do you think are the social and political fallout will be from knowing the answer to the question of nature or nurture...

    I'm not asking if you think its nature or nurture. Cause like I said, it doesn't matter what you think since the truth is likley absolute and therefore not a matter of personal theory....

    If this is too big of a question, feel free to discuss a small part of it....

    Come on guys, what do you think?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 14, 2009 8:42 AM GMT
    In America, the truth never matters. People are that fickle and choose to believe what they want, regardless if the truth is obvious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2009 2:24 PM GMT
    Shouldn't be an issue. Religious views are a complete choice and they are protected under the law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2009 2:47 PM GMT

    heheh, if it's nature, then the religious right nut bars (of all faiths) will be faced with the giant bug-a-boo of abortion.

    Likely they'll spontaneously combust under the pressure of what to do!icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2009 10:10 PM GMT
    owl975 said
    For example, if it is nature, crazy women might decide to abort their baby if its detectable invitro and they don't want a gay child.

    We'd be a pretty barbaric society if a woman wants to abort a baby that is A) known to be gay, and B) knowing that its sexual orientation is biologically encoded and not a pathology or a sin.

    Is it nature or nurture? I think that answer varies, depending on the person. Many people feel they were born gay, and they're probably right. It's also plausible that some people are inclined to become gay based on peer influence or experiences.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2009 11:15 PM GMT
    Sorry to make u all crazy. But I am an identical... yes 100% same genes triplets.. 2 are gay but different ends of the Kinnsey? scale and one is straight yes... very straight.

    So we have the same genes and same environment growing up. But, all three of us have very different personalities FROM BIRTH.

    BTW.... UCLA genetic and pschy department within the last two years is doing ongoing research with DNA collection from siblings, and multiple birth sibling with questionaires about their parenting. So, the answer is still out.

    But as an MD and all three of us are doctors it is the genes with environmental influence and variable penetrance of the gene expression. (ie Kinnsey 1 or 10) that resulted in our "gayness".
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Oct 14, 2009 11:57 PM GMT
    Given some religious people believe in creation versus evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence, I think the same will go here. There will be a large percentage of people who will believe that being gay is a choice. Many of them already talk as if there's no such thing as homosexuality, just heterosexuals steered in the wrong direction.

    If I recall, geneticists are currently saying that it's likely homosexuality is the result of several genes working in concert. Not just one. And I want to say that they're leaving some room for "nature" as part of the equation, but I could be wrong.
  • shadjn

    Posts: 3

    Oct 15, 2009 12:04 AM GMT
    TomTTT saidSorry to make u all crazy. But I am an identical... yes 100% same genes triplets.. 2 are gay but different ends of the Kinnsey? scale and one is straight yes... very straight.

    So we have the same genes and same environment growing up. But, all three of us have very different personalities FROM BIRTH.

    BTW.... UCLA genetic and pschy department within the last two years is doing ongoing research with DNA collection from siblings, and multiple birth sibling with questionaires about their parenting. So, the answer is still out.

    But as an MD and all three of us are doctors it is the genes with environmental influence and variable penetrance of the gene expression. (ie Kinnsey 1 or 10) that resulted in our "gayness".


    It is very interesting because my best friend is a triplet as well, unlike you TomTTT, my buddy is a boy with two girls. He is gay, one sister is lez, and one sister straight. The straight girl came out last, not sure why I included that.
    Nonetheless, I have two half brothers that are gay as well. We only share our father's genes and we were not raised in the same environment what so ever.
    I would be interested in participating in that UCLA survey if it's still being conducted. Let me know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2009 1:32 AM GMT
    TomTTT saidSorry to make u all crazy. But I am an identical... yes 100% same genes triplets.. 2 are gay but different ends of the Kinnsey? scale and one is straight yes... very straight.

    So we have the same genes and same environment growing up. But, all three of us have very different personalities FROM BIRTH.

    BTW.... UCLA genetic and pschy department within the last two years is doing ongoing research with DNA collection from siblings, and multiple birth sibling with questionaires about their parenting. So, the answer is still out.

    But as an MD and all three of us are doctors it is the genes with environmental influence and variable penetrance of the gene expression. (ie Kinnsey 1 or 10) that resulted in our "gayness".

    I think people often confuse what "identical" means in reference to twins .. Have you seen this study? Is it what you mean by "variable penetrance"?:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215121214.htmScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2008 ) - Contrary to our previous beliefs, identical twins are not genetically identical. This surprising finding may be of great significance for research on hereditary diseases and for the development of new diagnostic methods. How can it be that one identical twin might develop Parkinson's disease, for instance, but not the other? Until now, the reasons have been sought in environmental factors. The current study complicates the picture
    .....
    The researchers studied 19 pairs of monozygotic, or identical, twins and found differences in copy number variation in DNA. Copy number variation (CNV) occurs when a set of coding letters in DNA are missing, or when extra copies of segments of DNA are produced.
    This would distinguish perhaps identical twins from a "clone"
  • stee99

    Posts: 317

    Oct 15, 2009 2:07 AM GMT
    does it really matter? i think its nature but knowing wont change it.. same as why im left handed..
  • nadaquever_rm

    Posts: 139

    Oct 15, 2009 10:52 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    heheh, if it's nature, then the religious right nut bars (of all faiths) will be faced with the giant bug-a-boo of abortion.

    Likely they'll spontaneously combust under the pressure of what to do!icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif


    What a beautiful thoughticon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 12:33 AM GMT
    In my opinion is a combination of both, but to tell you the truth, i personally dont care! I chosed to be gay? Yeah, so whats up to you?, was i born like this? Looking back i might say yes!

    Anyway returning to the question, i think even if proven one way or another, there will always be a LOT of people denying the result, so my advice is, live on the now and keep searching for happiness

    ohh and the truth is out there! Lol x- files fans
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 12:41 AM GMT
    I'd say it it's a combo of both. They both play their parts and some tend to choice more of one then other to either help them understand why they are the way they are or justify blaming others for their own turn out.

    In my case, I would say it was more nature then nurture. My folks didn't raise me to be gay. The question to ask is how do you raise a child to be gay in the first place? Answer: You don't. No one raises their child to be straight. it sorta just happens as a natural response and their are so many variables to both.

    Is there a truth to this puzzling question? I'm sure there is. the question is whether people will accept it? that seems to be the main question since most people don't seem accepting of gays to be gin with let alone the notion that being could natural or born through nurture. If it's through nurture you'll have a plethora of parents asking themselves "Where did we go wrong?" (only the ones who aren't accepting of gayhood anyway) and if it's natural then it begs to question why and will it evolve to something else?

    Personally not much effort on my part is put into thinking about something like. I am what I am and for whatever reason it maybe I'm happy with being the way am. Some questions are better left unanswered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 12:44 AM GMT
    "I'd like to know where to proff to this truth is coming from?"

    ....yeah! Is this google's new proyect? Lol
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Oct 19, 2009 12:48 AM GMT
    It doesn't matter.