Homosexuality - Nature, Nurture or Both?

[Makalakumu]

Is Homosexuality something that is determined by genetics (nature), something that is learned (nuture), or a combination of both?

I am interested in what people think. If you want to comment further on your vote, feel free.

I'm going into lurk mode to see how this poll plays out.

upnorthkyosa

 

[ginshun]

Personaly I tend to think that it is genetic. I can't imagine why anybody would choose to be looked down upon and rideculed by the general public.

I have a few gay friends, and I don't think any of them made a consious decision to be attracted to people of the same sex.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I chose both because we cannot discount tramatic events and culture when some are just obviously berdosh by nature.
Sean

 

[BrandiJo]

I think its something genitic. I dont know i just have a hard time beliving people would make such a choice givin the crap they have to face often

 

[OUMoose]

I voted "both", because I'm not really sure. I've heard compelling arguements from both sides of the fence, but nothing to really lean me one way or the other.

 

[Ray]

I think some of what is sexually stimulating to us individually is due to imprinting. At some important stage in our development we experience something that turns us on or revolts us--and it sticks with us either permenently if reinforced or stamped out by psych extinction.

I think it also plays a part in fetishes and unusual practices.

Obviously, imprinting isn't the total determining factor, but it plays a part.

 

[arnisador]

It seems clear that there's a genetic component (there are separated-by-adoption sibling studies, for example). But, it also seems clear there's something else (not all identical twins have the same sexuality). I believe that the genetic component is large, but I don't know if it's more than 50% (if that's even meaningful!).

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Both.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

I think it's more genetic, but can be both. I saw something interesting about physical characteristics that relate to your sexual orientation. It had to do with a person's fingers of all things (it was maybe if your index finger was longer than your middle finger you were more likely to be homosexual, don't remember exactly) I'd have to search for the study, but I so think it relates to the amount of hormones in your body determined before birth. I do also think that people can, and do make choices to be in relationships that cross their biologically determined preference.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The problem I find with "imprinting" is that there aren't any studies (that I know of) to show that imprinting promotes any form of homosexuality.

Three books I've read in the last two months provide a wealth of information on the topic and give a clear indication that homosexuality...and heterosexuality...are polygenic. Homosexuality has multiple causal factors, both genetic and environmental.

Here are the books, for those interested, with a brief review of each:

Queer Science, by Simon LeVay. LeVay conducted a study in 1991 where he studied the third interstitial notch of the sexually dimorphic nucleus in the anterior hypothalmus (say that five times real fast). This area was smaller in Gay men than in heterosexuals. This caused a firestorm of controversy, which led him to research and write Queer Science.

In his book he provides not only a history of homosexuality, he also covers all the research up until the book's publication. He points out the methodological flaws of the research...including his own study...and provides what I consider to be fair and well thought out observations of the social impact of homosexuality and such research. I recommend this book without reservation to anybody, regardless of political orientation.

A side note: LeVay makes mention of a groundbreaking study by NIH researchers Dean Hamer and Angela Pattattucci. I worked in the lab where Angela earned her Ph.D. She's a wonderful woman. She and Hamer found that many homosexual men have a significant number of gay male cousins and uncles on their mother's side of the family. The study showed the odds of this occuring by chance are 100,000 to one. This work also suggests that homosexuality can be carried along by the mother's X chromosome, which would explain its endurance in being passed on through generations. Later Hamer and Pattattucci found a common genetic marker carried by a large number of these men. When last I saw Angela, she was researching this, taking blood samples in families where homosexuality was clustered.

Are We Hardwired?: The roles of genes in human behavior, by William R. Clark and Michael Grunstein has a chapter on the genetic influence on homosexuality. The rest of the book explains genetics and its various roles in influencing a number of our behaviors. Also a well done book and like LeVay's, highly readable and accessible to the lay person who doesn't have a deep background in science.


The Sexual Spectrum: exploring human diversity, by Olive Skene Johnson, Ph.D. This is an interesting book, but with some flaws. While Johnson presents some interesting data and talks about research that has been done, she gets some of her facts wrong. She lists the Netherlands as being the first country to legalize homosexual marriage...it was Denmark. One gets the impression that some of what she cites she pulls from memory. Given that she uses no footnotes it becomes difficult to reference her reading list. That aside, she does get many things right, and it would be a valuable book for the family struggling with a child's homosexuality...or for that person who is conflicted with their own sexual identity. I'd suggest it...but with those caveats mentioned before. Its good...but not as carefully written as "Queer Science" and "Are We Hardwired".

I've often argued here that homosexuality is "hardwired," but after reading LeVay I accept that the environment can play a role...the level and lasting impact of environmental influence is unclear.

I do not accept the explanation that homosexuality is a "choice." In taking this moralistic stance few ever consider that they're suggesting we are all bisexual by nature. Not too many heterosexual males will willingly admit that they could sexually eroticize a man. It isn't something they're capable of doing.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Ray]

The problem I find with "imprinting" is that there aren't any studies (that I know of) to show that imprinting promotes any form of homosexuality.

I also don't know of any studies that promote the imprinting hypothesis. I put it forward, but am certain it can't be my original idea. I wonder if it's been researched? Does the analysis of Dean Hamer and Angela Pattattucci's data rule out imprinting as a possible contributing factor?

In any case, it's just a thought I had.

 

[ninhito]

I choose choice. Every belief that was new was seen by society as retarded, stupid, or evil. O and in a study i read, dont remember where sorry, male heterosexual male gets eroticized by gay photos. O and if you paid some heterosexuals they would and could eroticize a gay male. Its always a choice, whether it be to do this or not to do this, to believe this or not to believe, it is always a choice.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I also don't know of any studies that promote the imprinting hypothesis. I put it forward, but am certain it can't be my original idea. I wonder if it's been researched? Does the analysis of Dean Hamer and Angela Pattattucci's data rule out imprinting as a possible contributing factor?

In any case, it's just a thought I had.

Here's a review of Hamer/Pattattucci's work...it also mentions LeVay.

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/studies.html

Imprinting--and what you're referring to with this term would likely be called something else, I suspect--would be a sociological explanation. Hamer and Pattattucci are geneticists. If you'd like a book that covers some of the social theories of homosexuality, LeVay's would be a start.

To be fair to the social theories, here's a site I found on the sociology of human sexuality. Interesting stuff.

http://www.ablongman.com/html/henslintour/henslinchapter/index.html

As for Ninhito's observation that "heterosexuals" were found to be excited by gay photos...you are in fact correct. Some gays lie about their orientation. Those who were stimulated, in spite of their denials to any homosexual leanings, were found to score highest on homophobia rating scales.

Gays in that study, however, were not found in that study to be excited by photos of women. And honestly, I don't recall the study either. I'll see if I can find it. Its in Johnson's book...and she doesn't reference anything clearly.

I have to disagree that you could pay a heterosexual man enough money to successfully eroticize another man. Again, if that were true, then we're all bisexual by nature. I think some of the conservatives here might be uncomfortable with that suggestion.


Regards,


Steve

 

[tsdclaflin]

Please do not confuse "nurture" with "choice". Environment can influence sexuality without someone "choosing" their sexuality.

This may sound contradictory, but I do not believe homosexuality is genetic and I also do not believe that homosexuals choose to be homosexual (some might, but most do not). I believe that it usually occurs because of environment but not by conscience choice.

My opinion is based on my experiences with homosexual friends and a former homosexual that I know.

 

[arnisador]

This is a good point. Environmental doesn't mean there's a choice--indeed, it seems clear that sexual preference is set by around 5 years old, and hence is unlikely to be a conscious choice.

The weight of evidence supporting a genetic component is quite heavy, though.

 

[ninhito]

okay so a person feels alittle attraction out of nowhere, not even when he was younger, towards the same sex and he says well i must be gay if i feel like this, right. Okay now he just made a choice to accept those feelings, did he not...and most people have an attraction to the same sex but they CHOOSE to accept it or not accept and move on with their life...

 

[arnisador]

A 'choice' implies a comparison of two options, which doesn't strike me as what's happening in your scenario. If he feels "I must be gay" as you say then he isn't choosing, he's concluding.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

When I say choice I don't think it's a choice to be homosexual or not, I believe you are or you are not born that way, but I think some homosexual people will succumb to societal pressures to be seemingly straight and suppress their true sexual identities. I am thinking of several examples of people that I personally know who were married in heterosexual relationships, had children and later could no longer deny their biological sexual orientations and left the marriages to become involved in same sex relationships. I think these people were not ever confused about who they really were. I think their younger selves made a choice to deny their true orientation for parental/societal acceptance and then later as mature adults came to accept their genetically predetermined orientation.

And btw how did I get in The Study? :xtrmshock

 

[arnisador]

Yes, there's a difference between choosing how one is and how one acts. The latter clearly happens all the time; the former, very rarely, I'd imagine.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Yes, there's a difference between choosing how one is and how one acts. The latter clearly happens all the time; the former, very rarely, I'd imagine.

Yes, that's it exactly thanks for sharing your economy of words. :asian: