Homosexuality...

Nature vs Nurture

  • Nature

    Votes: 53 76.8%
  • Nurture

    Votes: 16 23.2%

  • Total voters
    69
Status
Not open for further replies.
reg said:
Other mammals noted for homosexual activities include: female cattle (Short, 1984)’, burros (Flinders, 1993), Male mountain sheep (Weinrich, 1982; Denniston, 1980), giraffes, rats (Kirsch & Rodman, 1982), dolphins, dogs (West, 1977, p. 116), female red deer (Short, 1984), donkeys, cats, rams, goats, pigs, antelope, elephants, hyenas, rabbits, lions, porcupines, hamsters, mice, and porpoises (Weinrich, 1982).

You forgot dogs and leopard seals. There are many examples of homosexual behaviour in nature.
 
I really didn't want to get sucked into this; but what the hell

Compromised said:
You forgot dogs and leopard seals. There are many examples of homosexual behaviour in nature.

"Homosexuality" is a term used to characterize human sexual feelings towards other human beings. It is, at best, ludicrous to consider this anthropomorphic perspective to apply -simpliciter- to mammals in general.

Is masturbation an example of homosexuality? Sexual release and the means to it is one thing. But the satisfaction involved hardly characterizes the
motivation.

God help me, you guys should not ask interesting questions! But you are a good bunch.
 
The question of nature vs nurture is a red herring IMO, since humans are too complex for it to be one or the other. I believe the "cause" is nearly always a combination of both.

There are plenty of "born gay" people who live out straight lives due to peer pressure. Therefore it's totally reasonable there are "born straight" people who live gay lives for the same reasons.
 
Lol...

Compromised said:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/06/26/brothers-gay.html

Younger brothers more likely to be gay: study

Last Updated Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:43:26 EDT

CBC News

The probability of a man being gay rises the more older brothers he has, a finding that adds weight to idea sexual orientation could be influenced in the womb.

In 1997, a study led by Ray Blanchard of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, concluded that having older brothers increases the likelihood of homosexuality in younger brothers.

To find out if psychological factors in the family were behind the effect, Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines compared men with older brothers born to the same mother to those whose older brothers were adopted or stepbrothers.

If nurture was responsible for the birth order effect then both groups would be expected to show similar rates of homosexuality.

Instead, Bogaert's study of 944 men found only biological older brothers showed an effect on sexual orientation, whether or not they were raised together.

The findings are reported in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The effect was seen with one older brother, and seemed to be stronger for those with three or more older brothers, Bogaert said.

The overall rate of homosexuality in men is about three per cent, Bogaert estimated.

Although having several older brothers may increase the rate to five per cent, the remaining 95 per cent of men with several older brothers are heterosexual, he said.

Some sort of "prenatal factor" such as a maternal immune response to several male fetuses could be at play, altering the brain development of younger brothers, Blanchard told CBC Newsworld.

The findings don't rule out the effects of learning in homosexuality, but more research is generally finding prenatal effects, he said.

The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Copyright ©2006 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved
A study from almost ten years ago suggests that how an individual is raised can influence that individual's behaviour later in Life. That same premise would hold true for rapists, murderers, and so on and so forth, would it not, Mr. Compromised? What 'prenatal factor' is this report referring to? What is a 'maternal immune response', exactly? Of course the 'findings' don't rule out the effects of 'learning' in Homosexuality, but rather the above synopsis seems to support that concept. Sincerely, Jon .
 
Lol...

mmouse said:
The question of nature vs nurture is a red herring IMO, since humans are too complex for it to be one or the other. I believe the "cause" is nearly always a combination of both.

There are plenty of "born gay" people who live out straight lives due to peer pressure. Therefore it's totally reasonable there are "born straight" people who live gay lives for the same reasons.
What possible Evolutionary or Biological imperative could there be for an individual to be born a Homosexual, Mr. Mmouse? Sincerely, Jon .
 
I have no idea jonny. By "born gay" I meant, somebody who would be gay if it weren't for peer pressure. Perhaps you could try to explain what would make such people gay.
 
Lol...

mmouse said:
I have no idea jonny. By "born gay" I meant, somebody who would be gay if it weren't for peer pressure. Perhaps you could try to explain what would make such people gay.
It seems clear that you don't understand your own statements, Mr. Mmouse. I guess that's why you're asking me to help explain your comments. Sincerely, Jon .
 
eyeofthedragon said:
What possible Evolutionary or Biological imperative could there be for an individual to be born weird, Mr.Esco!? Sincerely, eotd
Oh come on, being weird was obviously a choice for you. Sincerely Esco
 
It's pretty apparent that acutus, with all his seeming know how can't produce an arguement to save his life.

Every post is answered with a question. When questioned, he answers with a question. There have been posts with cited research on homosexuality in many forms of life, but instead he refuses to take his bearded head out of his ass and continues to annoy the shit out of people.

I don't put him on ignor because I like reading his neanderthal, unintelligent yet intelligently written posts.

Acutus, sorry, Mr. Jon Acutus, you're a idiot.
And no, it's not emotion that leads me to say that, it's observation.
 
acutus said:
It seems clear that you don't understand your own statements, Mr. Mmouse. I guess that's why you're asking me to help explain your comments. Sincerely, Jon .

Great job, now one more person in the world sincerely thinks you're an asshole.
 
What about fish? I know gay guys often call women fish. Is that because they know all fish are striaght as opposed to dogs etc who have been observed bumfuckin each other. There could be gay fish though... and they are just hiding it really well and that's why they have never been observed or caught in the act. And what happens if you eat a gay fish?
 
ruck said:
It's pretty apparent that acutus, with all his seeming know how can't produce an arguement to save his life.

Every post is answered with a question. When questioned, he answers with a question. There have been posts with cited research on homosexuality in many forms of life, but instead he refuses to take his bearded head out of his ass and continues to annoy the shit out of people.

I don't put him on ignor because I like reading his neanderthal, unintelligent yet intelligently written posts.

Acutus, sorry, Mr. Jon Acutus, you're a idiot.
And no, it's not emotion that leads me to say that, it's observation.
What 'cited research' are you referring to? Please note that one's level of observation is clearly correlated to their intelligence. Sincerely, Jon .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.