Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

Hi all

As of 29 July 2022. What does the science say? What do you think?

Homosexuality: nature or nurture?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8309
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 262 times
Been thanked: 471 times

Re: Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #31

Post by Clownboat »

Wootah wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 12:56 am [Replying to Purple Knight in post #23]

Personally, I think people would and do put their penises everywhere. The mating instinct is pretty strong (because it is essential).

However: knowledge is knowing what to say. Wisdom is knowing when to say it.

I think this applies here. Yes we can put our penis anywhere and wisdom is knowing where is correct.
Post 9: "First, what does it matter to you whether it's a choice or innate? If it's a choice, then it's no different than religion and the people who choose to be queer should be free to live as they choose. If it's innate, then it's no different than being tall or short and the people who are born that way should be free to live as they are."

Should we allow people to freely choose who they are attracted to?
Should we allow people to freely choose which god they want to worship?

Yes, we can put our worship in to any god, but wisdom is knowing which god is correct. Therefore, only Allah worship should be allowed.
What do you think of my reasoning?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 729 times
Been thanked: 438 times

Re: Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #32

Post by Purple Knight »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 4:59 pm
Purple Knight wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 4:53 pm Let's say you have a baby you raise in a box, perhaps a couple of them, males and females. They might develop their own language, since the desire for language seems innate. But will they figure out successful mating, never having seen or heard of it? What do you think?
Before we go down that trail, the question that's relevant to this thread is about sexual attraction, not how one actually has sex.
Well yes then sexual attraction can be nature. But it also has this weird component where it's nurture. It was not weird at all to exhibit homosexual behaviour in Rome. Someone already mentioned Rome. Now take some very straight male who is very put off by the idea of having anything shoved up his butt, especially that, clone him, and drop the baby in ancient Rome. Is that reaction still there? That's the question. If that reaction can be swept away then the behaviour is definitely nurture.

I had a similar conversation with someone I know about how innate our disgust against nudity is. It could be 100% cultural. But take a culture where nudity is expected. We're both nerds so we were using the Farengi from Star Trek as an example, for whom female nudity is the cultural norm. Take a human female baby and raise her there. My friend's take is, nudity would not bother her then. My take is, she would be disproportionately ashamed of her body even if it was fine and would grow up completely messed up and traumatised.

I take huge stock in twin studies and I tend to assume everything is genetic.
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 4:59 pmSo if the babies are both born heterosexual, both will eventually become sexually aroused by the other. The specific means by which that arousal is expressed is likely learned IMO. But the underlying attraction/arousal is innate.
I agree. And since that's the point of the topic, well, yes.

I just don't know if those two would ever actually achieve successful sex.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Sage
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 223 times
Been thanked: 608 times

Re: Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #33

Post by Jose Fly »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:25 pm Well yes then sexual attraction can be nature. But it also has this weird component where it's nurture. It was not weird at all to exhibit homosexual behaviour in Rome. Someone already mentioned Rome. Now take some very straight male who is very put off by the idea of having anything shoved up his butt, especially that, clone him, and drop the baby in ancient Rome. Is that reaction still there? That's the question. If that reaction can be swept away then the behaviour is definitely nurture.
Interesting, but a moot point since there's no way to do that.
I had a similar conversation with someone I know about how innate our disgust against nudity is. It could be 100% cultural. But take a culture where nudity is expected. We're both nerds so we were using the Farengi from Star Trek as an example, for whom female nudity is the cultural norm. Take a human female baby and raise her there. My friend's take is, nudity would not bother her then. My take is, she would be disproportionately ashamed of her body even if it was fine and would grow up completely messed up and traumatised.
Kinda the same thing.
I take huge stock in twin studies and I tend to assume everything is genetic.
I don't know about everything, but I do believe more things have a genetic component than a lot of people realize.
I agree. And since that's the point of the topic, well, yes.

I just don't know if those two would ever actually achieve successful sex.
I don't either. Thanks for the intriguing discussion! :)
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 729 times
Been thanked: 438 times

Re: Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #34

Post by Purple Knight »

Wootah wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 12:56 am [Replying to Purple Knight in post #23]

Personally, I think people would and do put their penises everywhere. The mating instinct is pretty strong (because it is essential).

However: knowledge is knowing what to say. Wisdom is knowing when to say it.

I think this applies here. Yes we can put our penis anywhere and wisdom is knowing where is correct.
Clownboat wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:56 am "First, what does it matter to you whether it's a choice or innate? If it's a choice, then it's no different than religion and the people who choose to be queer should be free to live as they choose. If it's innate, then it's no different than being tall or short and the people who are born that way should be free to live as they are."

Should we allow people to freely choose who they are attracted to?
Should we allow people to freely choose which god they want to worship?

Yes, we can put our worship in to any god, but wisdom is knowing which god is correct. Therefore, only Allah worship should be allowed.
What do you think of my reasoning?
Biologically speaking, only one place is correct and everything else is deviant, because everything else doesn't make a baby. That doesn't make it morally wrong to put it in a butt, and in fact it's probably morally wrong to stop people from it, just as it's morally wrong to stop humans from doing the other 95% of their behaviours that don't have a biological purpose anymore and are just outgrowths of our brains being too big (like playing video games for example) but it does sort of justify being weirded out by the thought of putting it anywhere except that one place.

Many males are very put off by the thought of homosexuality, especially of it being applied to them. Some may be overcompensating but some aren't. And that feeling of disgust has a strong biological basis and is just as natural and acceptable as the homosexuality it causes people to be bugged by. As long as nobody uses that disgust to go out and do anything to anyone, of course.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 19134
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 2149 times
Been thanked: 1421 times

Re: Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #35

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:39 pm Biologically speaking, only one place is correct and everything else is deviant, because everything else doesn't make a baby.
"Bologically speaking" homosexuality can be of, well, biological benefit if it reduces tension within a close knit group, such that "biologically beneficial" reproduction might occur more readily.

If I'm warring with Billy Bob cause he too fancies Jane, and along comes Studly Doright to sweep Billy Bob off his feet, now me and Jane can hook up and have us a young'n, til it is, she too fancies ol Studly Doright there, and them two, or three, they raise up my child without my investment, and now I'm freed up to fetch after Cindy Lou, who she doesn't like that other bunch anyway, cause they used to tease her for wearing glasses.

Now I've had me the first offspring with no further investment, and since Cindy Lou got too shamed to wear her glasses, she can't tell her how ugly it is, I am, and now I've got me another, second offspring.

Homosexuality's only "deviant" to those who consider it a "deviancy".
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #36

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #35]

Which characters were the male and female ones?

What on earth did you prove by that?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 4262
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3721 times
Been thanked: 1931 times

Re: Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #37

Post by brunumb »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:39 pm Biologically speaking, only one place is correct and everything else is deviant, because everything else doesn't make a baby.
Am I correct in thinking that you therefore do not approve of any sex unless it is with the specific purpose of producing a baby.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 19134
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 2149 times
Been thanked: 1421 times

Re: Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #38

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Wootah wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:34 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #35]

Which characters were the male and female ones?

What on earth did you prove by that?
I'll leave an answer be, to encourage further study.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 729 times
Been thanked: 438 times

Re: Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #39

Post by Purple Knight »

Wootah wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:34 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #35]

Which characters were the male and female ones?

What on earth did you prove by that?
He's saying that homosexuality can have some survival advantage, at least group-wise. And I agree.

In fact, it's a similar story to what some people think about supergeniuses such as myself. We ourselves don't have to breed a lot (or even at all) for groups with us in them to flourish because of us, which means, groups with the genes to occasionally cook a few up, are groups which flourish. Homosexuality might do a lot of things for a group in a similar fashion.

But as far as the sexual act itself, you can't call humping a refrigerator or a tortoise shell or even a child less deviant. The category of things that might conceivably have such an advantage is everything. If some things are deviant, then there's only one logical line to draw and that line is what makes a baby versus what does not. And it may be a short-lived line anyway because we may soon find a way to make a baby from two parents of the same biological sex.
brunumb wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:36 pm
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:39 pm Biologically speaking, only one place is correct and everything else is deviant, because everything else doesn't make a baby.
Am I correct in thinking that you therefore do not approve of any sex unless it is with the specific purpose of producing a baby.
No, actually, what I don't approve of is putting stigmas on deviance when 95% of human behaviour either doesn't have a direct survival advantage anymore or even actively impedes the behaving organism's survival.

There is a fairly clear line between what has a survival advantage and what doesn't. But our species really doesn't care to follow it in anything else so I don't see why we should care that Tommy the NEET dropped out of school to play video games and never bathes, or that Francesco will never make a baby because he's putting it in another male's anus.

Now, if we were in a primitive situation, a small group, and the only chance my daughter would have to mate with someone unrelated was Francesco's son, I might care.

But we're not, and I don't.

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Post #40

Post by Wootah »

If I'm warring with Billy Bob cause he too fancies Jane, and along comes Studly Doright to sweep Billy Bob off his feet, now me and Jane can hook up and have us a young'n, til it is, she too fancies ol Studly Doright there, and them two, or three, they raise up my child without my investment, and now I'm freed up to fetch after Cindy Lou, who she doesn't like that other bunch anyway, cause they used to tease her for wearing glasses.
So you are warring with a man over a woman and another man comes sweeps Billy Bob off his feet - is that rape you are talking about? Why would Billy Bob get swept off his feet by a guy, is he bisexual?
You have a kid with Jane and then she ditches you for Studly and has two more and you get with Cindy Lou.

How does Billy Bob continue his generations in this scenario? Why would Studly care about your offspring with Jane. This scenario ....
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view

Post Reply