Nature vs Nurture - Born gay or turned gay?

[Lee]

First of all, i know that there has been a thread about this in the past, but i know its a controvercial topic, and would like to see more peoples views. i would like to keep it all objective, as subjective statments just tend to confuse things

Im currently revising for my last psychology exam, and one of the themes is nature vs nurture, i decided to link this with sexuality as there is a hell of a lot to say about it. Its really interesting to see all the different points of view.

I think now it is pretty much accepted by 99% of psychologists that sexuality is not something a person decides, this is even stated by the american psychological association, who also go on to say it is determined by biological factors.

so, i was wondering, what are your views on this? are we born gay, are we born as a blank slate (tabula rasa) as behaviourists would say and 'learn' to be gay, or do you think its a bit of both? Do you know any wacky or wonderful research that has been carried out?

so, personally i think that there is a lot of evidence swaying it towards the biological explanations.
1) Neurology - hypothalamusNeurology tends to be a big player in this, one study looked at the structure of brains in post mortem examinations, and found that part of the brain (the suprachiasmatic nucleus, found in the hypothalamus) was nearly double the size in homosexual men than it is in heterosexual men. Now, further research on this is now linking the structure of a homosexual mans hypothalamus with that of a heterosexual females, and the structure of a homosexual females with that of a heterosexual mans. There are many variations in the structure of the hypothalamus in different sexual orientations.
2) Pre-natal Hormones Another common explanation of sexuality is the presence/absence of certain hormones in the womb. For males, research suggests the more male offspring a woman has, the greater the chance of the son being gay each time. This is due to the presence of Testosterone in the womb. It is also thought that the timing of the introduction of different hormones into the womb can have an effect on sexuality, the main hormones linked to sexuality are testosterone, oestrogen and androgen.
3)Genetics one of the main ways for testing the genetic infulence of something in psychology is with twin studies. It was found that in identical twins, if one was homosexual, there was a 50% chance both would be, this is only 22% in non identical twins, and 9.2% in non twin brothers. Now this would suggest that nature does play a big role, the fact they are raised together would suggest that if it was environmental factors that caused homosexuality, the the rates would be the same for identical twins as it would be for non twin brothers. Also in identical twins who were seperated at birth, the chance of both being gay if one is remains at around 50%. This removes the nurture side of the argument, as they were brought up seperately, however does not conclude that sexuality is genetic, as they still shared the womb together, which could mean it is affected by other factors discussed such as pre natal hormone levels.

Well, i hope i havent bored you all to death, i find this all really interesting, i would love to know what makes some people gay and some people straight and some people bi. For people who want to know more i would suggest watching ' John barrowman - the making of me', that covers more issues, and is really interesting!

Thankyou for reading
Hopefully this will spark a little bit of debate, will be interesting to see different views
Please keep it kind :biggrin:
Back to the revision again
Lee

[fredv3b]

It's an interesting question. I personally lean towards the born gay hypothesis. However I remain to be convinced that the answer is, in reality, important. What good would having the answer do us?

[Gareth125]

To be honest i think there a combination of complex factors including both genetics and hormonal in the fetus , that are not just specific to humans alone . You get gay animals too , dogs and cats ( the ones ive come accross ) and in several ape species too . So there must be a number of evolutionary factors that affect sexuality . Maybe it is natures way of controlling population, since gay animals would not naturally reproduce? It would interesting to do studies in gay animal species to see if the number increases % wise as the population increases. Whatever the reason i'm sure that you are born gay and don't choose to be gayand are controlled by factors beyond our control . It does confirm though that the religious people who say being gay is a sin dont know what the hell they are on about . If the bible said having black skin or being disabled is a sin there would be uproar since neither of those are a choice or lifestyle. But will leave the religious debate to another thread

[Lee]

It's an interesting question. I personally lean towards the born gay hypothesis. However I remain to be convinced that the answer is, in reality, important. What good would having the answer do us?

Thats a very good point, and one i shall raise in my essay, so thank you! :biggrin:

Knowing isnt going to bring us any great benefits, yes they know why people are gay, but there will still be the die hard homophobes who think its wrong and not what god wanted etc

On the other hand, the harm it could do is pretty endless.
It only takes a few corrupt politicians, which lets face it, the world isnt short of, and then they could look for the cures. If they find a gene do they genetically test babies for it and prevent gay babies being born? Do they try and use gene therapy to counteract the 'faulty' genes?

You could also view it from the point that if we are looking for a 'cause', are we not treating it like it is abnormal?

I think thats a really good point raised. i think out of curiosity i would like to know why i am gay, but at the same time, i would be quite scared what the consiquences would be.

Lee :biggrin:

[Lee]

To be honest i think there a combination of complex factors including both genetics and hormonal in the fetus , that are not just specific to humans alone . You get gay animals too , dogs and cats ( the ones ive come accross ) and in several ape species too . So there must be a number of evolutionary factors that affect sexuality . Maybe it is natures way of controlling population, since gay animals would not naturally reproduce? It would interesting to do studies in gay animal species to see if the number increases % wise as the population increases. Whatever the reason i'm sure that you are born gay and don't choose to be gayand are controlled by factors beyond our control . It does confirm though that the religious people who say being gay is a sin dont know what the hell they are on about . If the bible said having black skin or being disabled is a sin there would be uproar since neither of those are a choice or lifestyle. But will leave the religious debate to another thread

Another really good point. We share 94.6% (im not 100% thats correct, but its deffinitely 94.something) whith apes, who tend to show a lot of homosexual tendencies.
You raise the point gay animals do not naturally reproduce, there is a theory that links in with the more children a woman has, the more chance they have of being gay. That is because the more children she has, the older she gets. As people age, DNA, which is a double strand begins to fray, this results in the DNA being copied incorrectly, and increases chances of other genetic problems such as downs syndrome. Could it be that the DNA is not optimum, and being gay is an attempt to prevent that DNA from being carried on?
It would be interesting to see if % of population being gay increases as population does. People say there are more gay people now than there have been in the past, this is very hypothetical and unlikely, but could it be that its not people feel more comfortable coming out, and it is just that there is a larger % of the population are gay? There are endless amounts of questions, and most of which will probably never be answered

Lee :biggrin:

[matty7]

id say your born gay and nothing wrong with that - i knew i was before i really knew what sex was...as a kid im sure i didnt choose it which i really find funny when people say " well, its your choice" when u tell them your gay - this may sound controversial but why would you choose to be gay with all the predutice about - if as i teen i would have chosen to be like all my mates and trying to get with every girl goin and fitting in with no worries at all, instead of worring whether people would accept me as gay - turns out nobody gave a crap anyway mile: but maybe i was very lucky compared to some

[peterinmalaga]

I think you need to be a little more sceptical about scientific explanations/discoveries. Was it Popper who said that scientific truth is provisional, i.e. true until proved untrue. This is particularly obvious in the case of psychology. Psychologists' explanations of homosexuality have swung from one end of the spectrum to the other over the last 100 years or so. I agree with Fred that it isn't important to us to know the truth. And I think it might well be better for us as gay men, if psychologists did not see us as a suitable subject for study. You hit the nail on the head when you said that the harm that psychological theories could do us (and have done us) is "pretty endless". I have 2 male dogs. They try to shag one another occasionally. Does this mean they are gay? No! Why? Because dogs don't have the concept of "gay". And it is arguable that it would be better for us if we, as human beings, didn't have this concept either. Politically the concept of being gay is only of importance because of the way in which it has been used to torture, kill and oppress us. We have to resist that. In the course of history millions of men have had sex with other men without needing a label for it. Labeling us as "gay" has done immeasurable harm.

I wasn't sure about Popper but I think I am right:
"Theory, for Popper, is always provisional; his view of science reflects a reaction to the dogmatic ideologies of his youth, the totalitarian Marxisms and fascist teachings with their absolute truth claims in both science and politics. Popper's philosophy of science depicts scientific research as an ongoing, living process, rather than a set of finished statements; science was a part of what he came to term the "open society" with a sceptical and critical attitude to truth."
The uncertain quest: science, technology, and development
Edited by
Jean-Jacques Salomon,
Francisco R. Sagasti, and
Céline Sachs-Jeantet

PS You say " i would like to keep it all objective, as subjective statments just tend to confuse things". Many greater minds than mine would argue that objectivity is not really something that we can aspire to, if we are honest.

[Lee]

I think you need to be a little more sceptical about scientific explanations/discoveries. Was it Popper who said that scientific truth is provisional, i.e. true until proved untrue. This is particularly obvious in the case of psychology. Psychologists' explanations of homosexuality have swung from one end of the spectrum to the other over the last 100 years or so. I agree with Fred that it isn't important to us to know the truth. And I think it might well be better for us as gay men, if psychologists did not see us as a suitable subject for study. You hit the nail on the head when you said that the harm that psychological theories could do us (and have done us) is "pretty endless". I have 2 male dogs. They try to shag one another occasionally. Does this mean they are gay? No! Why? Because dogs don't have the concept of "gay". And it is arguable that it would be better for us if we, as human beings, didn't have this concept either. Politically the concept of being gay is only of importance because of the way in which it has been to to torture, kill and oppress us. We have to resist that. In the course of history millions of men have had sex with other men without needing a label for it. Labeling us as "gay" has done immeasurable harm.

well the annoying thing about science is nothing is ever proven, when they are pretty much 'proven' it becomes a law, like the law of gravity. Until that everything stays as a hypothesis. One of the main problems with this research is the majority are correlational studies, e.g find a relationship between enlarged suprachiamatic nucleus (SCN) and homosexuality. Because its only a correlation, psychology wont allow a cause and effect relationship to be made. How do we know it wasnt something else that caused us to be gay, but also affected the size of the SCN e.g high levels of radiation, or high levels of a vitamin in mothers diet. And with ethics, we cant manipulate variables, to see if changin hormone levels in the womb does cause the child to be homosexual. So realistically i dont think we will ever find out why we are gay, there are too many correlations which dont all fit together!

And i think the 'label' has a minor effect on it, i think its more the connotations and stigmitization caused by the labels which do the real damage.

A lot of the psychologists who research sexuality are either gay themselves, and tend to stick towards the nature side of the argument, or highly religious and stick to the nurture side of the argument, and think it is due to some kind of 'social disfunction' causing such a terrible sin! ohhh i love people who would centre their whole career just around trying to prove to gay people how 'wrong' they are

[marshlander]

We have had in-depth discussions on this subject many times. Strangely I cannot find the ones that went on more than about a year ago and the search function fails to bring up the discussions I would like to reference here. Andy, have you culled the database? I have tried several times over the past few weeks to find older discussions and the search function has pretty consistently let me down :confused:

As a complete non-scientist my view is that some people are born with a pronounced capacity to love and be loved by members of the same sex. If nurture plays a part it is probably more in suppressing that instinct than not. The dynamic in most societies is, after all, towards conforming to a heterosexual "norm".
I may be intensely curious about what makes me different but, like Peter, I think that once we produce a pathological pathway we are vulnerable to unscrupulous treatment. I do feel very strongly that we are made a more interesting species by diversity. Difference gives us all an opportunity to learn how to adapt and support each other. Unfortunately difference has always been used by some as a stick :mad: The whole eugenics experiment was one awful direction in which some people's curiosity can lead.

Gareth, until 1978 (I think) Mormons did teach that the "mark of Cain" mentioned in Genesis was actually a black skin. That was their justification for refusing men of African descent their priesthood. Just in time God saved the church from financial ruin by giving the prophet at the time a revelation that "all worthy males" could from that point onwards hold the priesthood. Phew! That was handy It was such a huge change in practice (if not in doctrine) that I remember exactly where I was when the phone call relaying the message came through. I was so pleased I actually did a little dance ... This was of course a couple of years before I'd had enough of the whole con trick.

I am somewhat sceptical of the notion that nature has some sort of plan and uses it for the purposes of controlling population. There may be some other protective mechanism at work, but I doubt it is down to a master blueprint.

I know I've posted the John Barrowman programme several times over the years, but since I can't find them on these boards any more here is the first instalment again. There are six YouTube vids that make up the whole one hour programme. YouTube seems to have taken out the links I saved in my favourites so you'll have to search if you want to see more. It is worth it, even if only to ogle the gorgeous Mr. Barrowman ...

[albabonzai]

It's an interesting question. I personally lean towards the born gay hypothesis. However I remain to be convinced that the answer is, in reality, important. What good would having the answer do us?

Indeed.