Is Homosexuality Nurture or Nature?

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Not necessarily. Tons of psychological literature backs up that people are far more into what might be called 'traditional' male and female roles than modern political correctness would like. That extends to what types of jobs they want to do, too. Women want to work with people, while men prefer to work with things (statistically speaking).

2) Again, not necessarily. The jury is still out on nature vs nurture. Douglas Murray, who is a guy I have a lot of respect for (and is gay) believes it's probably a combination of nature and nurture.

1) Yeah, I'm not saying it should be 50/50, but I'm sure nurture vs nature plays a huge part in setting those roles.  I'd love to see what happened in a couple of generations without the nurture part.

2) I think the jury is more in than out.  I'm sure Mr. Murray is a wonderful fellow, but nurturing someone into sexual acts is a lot different than nurturing someone into wearing frills or playing with trucks.  Some people are bisexual, sure, and they might be pushed in one direction or the other, but I would have to have more nurturing than this planet could offer to try against my natural preference.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

1) Yeah, I'm not saying it should be 50/50, but I'm sure nurture vs nature plays a huge part in setting those roles.  I'd love to see what happened in a couple of generations without the nurture part.

Well, Peterson quotes studies on Scandinavian attempts at perfect gender equality which showed, to the consternation of their authors, that gender preferences in careers/educational subjects increased, not decreased as the playing field leveled. There are some women who are probably more comfortable in the outdoors than men but I haven't met any yet. And women seem more mentally geared to raising children then men are (statistically - your mileage may vary).

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

2) I think the jury is more in than out. 

I think it's one of those things you're simply not allowed to talk about. Unless you're gay, anyway.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I'm sure Mr. Murray is a wonderful fellow, but nurturing someone into sexual acts is a lot different than nurturing someone into wearing frills or playing with trucks.

Yes, but youths seem much more flexible as their hormones kick in and are more readily subject to that nurture part. If you're first sexual experiences are gay, and pleasurable that's more likely to interest you in more of the same. Not a subject I've spent much time on, admittedly as I don't really see how it matters much.

[Rue]

On 6/24/2020 at 11:57 AM, Goorbekind said:

-homosexuality is not to be aroused by the same sex. it's to orientate oneself to exploit or be exploited by the same sex sexually. 

i-ts a conduct, not an attribute.

-children are impressionable. and it's a federal offense to indirectly counsel children to make sexual conduct by flying LGBT flags or demonstrating any support for them.  it is also a federal offense to fly obscene material, and the LGBT material is certainly dominantly characteristic of sex.

 

I focus on the above words I parsed from Gooverkind's comments as I was told not to reproduce entire posts of others.

Since the post with the above words was submitted the person who submitted it who  did not come back to defend it and explain its basis I ask why?

The postwith the above words made no coherent sense and when I read it, I found the syntax, grammar and disjointed pattern of writing almost identical to the words and syntax  of Tdot on this thread who also seems to have gone.

Does anyone other than I or Michael Harder find the thread inflammatory?

Was this a thread and subject  a genuine discussion or was its purpose to simply crap on gay people for being gay with rhetorical disparaging stereotypes?

How is this thread and such comments not a prop or excuse to piss on gays for being gay?

I challenge this thread and its the responses from Tdot and the above poster to be hateful subjective opinions that are intended to present hateful stereotypes of gays.

If I came on here and took the word gay out and put "white male" or "Christian" or "Jew" or "Muslim" or "women" or "conservative" or "liberal" I would make the same critical response and also challenge it for the exact same reasons.

I have been censored twice on this thread for challenging it. This is my third attempt to make the point. Perhaps my words are now more acceptably put.

 

 

[Heelaque]

It seems the title of this thread is fundamentally flawed as it pits the science of personal biology (nature) against the structure of a social upbringing (nurture) as though it could be simplified to being just one or the other (as humans we crave to parse simplicity from complexity in an effort to understand).

Since we as individuals are the product of both (on every other metric governing our personality) it would seem logical to assume that sexual orientation is no different and so the validity of the original 'topic' can be considered flawed to the point of nullified.

Sexuality as I understand it is temporally-instanced from a broad gradient of nature with nurture - not permanently assigned from one of two choices

If morality and ethics are to be cited within the aspect of sexuality then it should be framed within the context of consent - not to be confused with sexual preference.

[SydneyG]

I do not believe homosexuality is a choice that people make, I personally think it is the way someone is born and they cannot change themselves, nor should they have to or feel pressured to.  It is no secret that people in the LGBTQIA+ community face a more severe form of discrimination than many of us can understand.  When thinking of the hate that they are subjected to simply for being themselves I don't understand how people would think that it is a choice.  Just as people don't question heterosexuals and ask them, well why do you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex, I think people shouldn't questions homosexuals because attraction is a deep part of us and it is something that we can't control.

[Trudeauisahero]

Homosexuality is an abomination. Whenever I see it on television I get so angry I have to jerk off! ?

[Nationalist]

Both.

It depends on the circumstances. 

[disobey]

On 11/15/2019 at 3:42 AM, Guest PPC2019 said:

Is Homosexuality Nurture or Nature?

I hear alot of scientist saying they can issolate the homosexual gene in a lab. They say they that homosexuality comes from brain development in the womb. Other scientist believe all mammals are slightly bisexual, and it's natural to lean towards the opposite sex.

Do you believe homosexuality is causted by nature, or only by upbringing?

 

  It's caused by immorality.

[reason10]

On 11/15/2019 at 4:42 AM, Guest PPC2019 said:

Is Homosexuality Nurture or Nature?

I hear alot of scientist saying they can issolate the homosexual gene in a lab. They say they that homosexuality comes from brain development in the womb. Other scientist believe all mammals are slightly bisexual, and it's natural to lean towards the opposite sex.

Do you believe homosexuality is causted by nature, or only by upbringing?

Heredity versus environment? That's a thorny issue. If somehow a gay gene is discovered through amniocentesis, you'll find homosexuals suddenly becoming the most PRO LIFE group on the planet. If abortion is fine within 20 weeks and amnio discovers a gay gene, then homosexuals could wind up being extinct after a few generations. So much for Hollywood.

My earliest experiences with homos involve the standard scenario of a weak father and an overbearing mother. There has to be both. If it is heredity, the mother has to have all the power. If it is just a fatherless home, then the boy joins a gang, sells drugs and winds up in prison.

To answer that next question, Yes, I've known some homosexuals, going back to high school. I suspected they were homos, but we were still friends. And when the swishiest homo friend of mine died of AIDS, suddenly it all clicked. Absentee, no balls father and way overbearing mother. He was a good friend, too.

Of course in any scientific model there are exceptions to the rule. That's a way scientists are forced to admit they are not GOD. To me, the only real contributions scientists make to the world is in NAMING scientific things, and cataloguing them.

[reason10]

On 8/1/2022 at 6:26 PM, disobey said:

 

  It's caused by immorality.

I've heard that theory many times. Can't really dispute it.

There are lots of theories why some men prefer men. We know the Bible and the Koran have harsh judgments and penalties for homosexuality.

[blackbird]

quote

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation as opposed to a mental disorder. This paper summarizes and analyzes that purported scientific evidence and explains that much (if not all) of the evidence is irrelevant and does not support the homosexuality-is-not-a-mental-disorder claim. As a result of their deficiencies and arbitrariness, the credibility those two groups that are typically deemed authoritative and trustworthy is called into question.

Lay summary: At one time, homosexuality was considered to be mentally disordered. Since the 1970s, however, major medical associations in the U.S. have labeled homosexuality as a normal counterpart of heterosexuality. Those medical associations have proposed that their homosexuality-is-normal claim is based on “scientific evidence.” This article critically reviews that “scientific evidence” and finds that much of their literature does not support the claim that homosexuality is normal. This article suggests that instead of supporting their claim with scientific evidence, those major medical associations arbitrarily label homosexuality as normal.   unquote

This is a long article and I can't post the whole thing on here.  If you want to read the reasons why they reached this conclusion, go to the following website:

Homosexuality and scientific evidence: On suspect anecdotes, antiquated data, and broad generalizations - PMC (nih.gov)

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

does not support the homosexuality-is-not-a-mental-disorder claim.

You think being gay is a mental illness?   And you’re basing this on your religion, not mental health professionals?

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

You think being gay is a mental illness?   And you’re basing this on your religion, not mental health professionals?

"7  The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. " Proverbs 1:7 KJV

[reason10]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

quote

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation as opposed to a mental disorder. This paper summarizes and analyzes that purported scientific evidence and explains that much (if not all) of the evidence is irrelevant and does not support the homosexuality-is-not-a-mental-disorder claim. As a result of their deficiencies and arbitrariness, the credibility those two groups that are typically deemed authoritative and trustworthy is called into question.

Lay summary: At one time, homosexuality was considered to be mentally disordered. Since the 1970s, however, major medical associations in the U.S. have labeled homosexuality as a normal counterpart of heterosexuality. Those medical associations have proposed that their homosexuality-is-normal claim is based on “scientific evidence.” This article critically reviews that “scientific evidence” and finds that much of their literature does not support the claim that homosexuality is normal. This article suggests that instead of supporting their claim with scientific evidence, those major medical associations arbitrarily label homosexuality as normal.   unquote

This is a long article and I can't post the whole thing on here.  If you want to read the reasons why they reached this conclusion, go to the following website:

Homosexuality and scientific evidence: On suspect anecdotes, antiquated data, and broad generalizations - PMC (nih.gov)

At one time the  APA considered pedophelia to be a sexual preference.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/apa-classifying-pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation-was-an-error/
 

Quote

 

In May, the APA released the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). In this document, the first new edition in 10 years, the APA described pedophilia as a sexual “orientation.”

The classification went largely unnoticed until last month, when the NeonTommy blog of the Annenberg Digital News at the University of Southern California published a blog post critical of the terminology.

 

Social conservatives said calling pedophilia an “orientation” was a step towards normalizing pedophiliac behavior.

But within days, the APA changed the classification, noting in a press release “'Sexual orientation' is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read 'sexual interest.’”

The APA said the unwelcome attention from conservative Christians helped them turn out a more precise and accurate guide.

 

I wouldn't trust the APA any further than I could throw it.

[reason10]

9 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

You think being gay is a mental illness?   And you’re basing this on your religion, not mental health professionals?

At one time, the DSM thought it was.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder

So a book can decide if a mental disorder exists or not.

• First published in 1968, the DSM-II listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.
• In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder, but replaced it with "sexual orientation disturbance."

Remember, the APA once said pedophelia was a sexual preference.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/apa-classifying-pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation-was-an-error/

 

Amazing what access to a printing press can accomplish.

[TreeBeard]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

"7  The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. " Proverbs 1:7 KJV

Do you also believe mental illnesses and seizures are demon possession?  That’s the kind of silliness you get when you believe the bible over science.  

[blackbird]

15 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you also believe mental illnesses and seizures are demon possession?  That’s the kind of silliness you get when you believe the bible over science.  

Science is not infallible.  Not everything in science is the truth.  Science claims have often been disproven later.  Your problem is you won't admit you are a sinner in need of a Savior and salvation.  You think you know better than God and the Bible.

[TreeBeard]

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Science claims have often been disproven later.

Disproven how?  More science?  Or by religion?

 

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Your problem is you won't admit you are a sinner in need of a Savior and salvation.  You think you know better than God and the Bible.

I know I am more moral than your god and that we, collectively, certainly know a lot more than than the bible could ever tell us about the world we live in.  
 

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Disproven how?  More science?  Or by religion?

 

I know I am more moral than your god and that we, collectively, certainly know a lot more than than the bible could ever tell us about the world we live in.  
 

 

I think everyone around her knows you are full of it and just like to be contrary and spew nonsense.

[herbie]

It's Sunday why aren't you knocking on doors handing out pamphlets?

Calling other people full of it....

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I think everyone around her knows you are full of it and just like to be contrary and spew nonsense.

You really can’t answer how science is corrected when it turns out to be wrong?   

It’s corrected by more and better science.  
 

Do you have any other method as to how science is corrected when it’s wrong?

[Nationalist]

I can answer this.

I have a gay son.

He tells me he has always known.

[Infidel Dog]

There used to be this video on YouTube of this little turtle that was obsessed with screwing sandals. 

I called him squeaky - squeaky the turtle - because every time he gave the sandal a little turtle hip thrust he squeaked.

Nature or nurture?

[Nationalist]

19 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

There used to be this video on YouTube of this little turtle that was obsessed with screwing sandals. 

I called him squeaky - squeaky the turtle - because every time he gave the sandal a little turtle hip thrust he squeaked.

Nature or nurture?

A very horny turtle.

[Infidel Dog]

41 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

A very horny turtle.

I think the owner said he had no interest in other turtles.