Homosexuality: Nature Vs. Nurture
by Homosexuality has become a huge issue in our culture all across the country. Gay activists have been making their voices heard throughout the country and have been drawing attention to their cause.
Aside from all the medical research and studies as talked about above, if a person looks at homosexuality from their own perspective, than the point of a person’s sexual orientation being inborn can become more clear in most cases. The term “coming out of the closet” is often used and most people understand it’s meaning; which is a person who is gay, and than decides to “come out” and make his sexual preference public. That right there should tell you that a person’s sexual orientation is inborn. The person was shunned from his inborn calling to become homosexual by society and therefore kept it a secret to try to “fit in” to society or a certain clique or community. Don’t you think homosexuals would love it if they could just pick and choose their sexual being? Do you really think that if they could avoid the pressure from society and all the controversy surrounding homosexuality they would?? But the fact of the matter is that a human being does not pick and choose his or her sexual orientation and it nobody can be “taught” or “nurtured” to become homosexual.
To emphasize my point I will provide an example, take our small community of Cardinal Mooney High School. We have several homosexual kids who “came out of the closet”. Now, I believe it’s fair to say that our community in Cardinal Mooney High School is overwhelming heterosexual related. So you if one can be nurtured to his or her sexual orientation, than why did these couple of kids face the embarrassment and take daily harassment from people in our little community? They tried to cover up and “fit in”, even went as far as to have a “cover up girlfriend” to try to fit in and seem like he was normal. It’s amazing how much society and peers can pressure a person to deny their own sexuality, which they were born with just to try to fit in. But in the end, we face the facts. The couple of openly gay kids in our High School should be respected because they stopped lying to themselves and were brave enough to face our community and stay true to their sexuality that they were born to live. Now that’s just our very small community of Cardinal Mooney High School, now think of a much larger community and you can see that homosexuality is determined by nature, there’s no recipe to create a persons sexual orientation.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post CommentTennisGirl528
On February 5, 2009 at 9:43 am
This is a great article. I entirely agree with you, although there is some evidence that prenatal hormones might play some role in homosexuality, along with genetics.
sebel
On April 21, 2009 at 10:19 pm
this is probably the stupidest article i have ever read. twin studies are not the natures best argument, its nurtures. think about it. identical twins share 100% of their genes if one is gay, genetically the other one MUST BE TOO. In bailey and pillards study they found only 52% correlation, i think that speaks for itself. Homosexuality IS NOT biologically determind.
nnkk
On April 23, 2009 at 7:05 pm
if its not one its the other…if it were entirely nature then why does the older brother effect only apply to males…nature isn’t biased so that argument is down the drain…also the twin thing sebel ^^^ has a point studies show that IDENTICAL twins can have different sexual orientations (youtube: homosexual: nature vs. nuture) i’m trying to write a research paper on this and its all very confusing…i’m in between both but leaning (for this research paper) towards nuture
blank
On May 12, 2009 at 2:55 pm
was this written by a high school student?
lil mama
On October 17, 2009 at 11:56 am
Good research. I cant say I agree or dis-agree. I do think the the slander needs not be put on this page though. This is science based. Not religion based. Grated I love God and church but I also know that God does not hate His creations and only wishes us all the best. We should do the same for each other.
Optimus Maximus
On February 14, 2010 at 5:08 pm
This is a less than convincing argument. How about we look at the known mechanics of genetics?
We all inherit genes from our parents. Whether we have blue eyes or brown eyes depends on the genes we inherit, and whether those genes express a dominant or a recessive trait.
Example, if you inherit two blue eye genes from your parents, you will have blue eyes. If you inherit either two brown eye genes from your parents, or one blue eye gene and one brown eye gene from each parent, you will have brown eyes, because the brown eye gene is the dominant gene. To get the recessive blue eyes, you have to have TWO blue eye genes, or the dominant eye color gene will dominate.
Now, let\’s all be realistic and agree that if homosexuality is an inherited trait, it MUST be a recessive trait, because it only occurs in a small percentage of the total population. I\’ve seen estimates ranging form 3% to 15% for the total occurrence of homosexuality in the general population. You may argue it\’s larger or smaller, but surely we can all agree it is small enough to say without reservation that it must be a recessive trait if it is an inherited trait.
Now, since I believe the majority of homosexuals do not have children, i.e., do not reproduce, the occurrence of this recessive gene should be decreasing over time, as the major carriers (existing homosexuals) are not passing that gene on to future generations. This would argue for a decrease in the number of homosexuals over time, due to the decreasing occurrence of the recessive gene in the general population.
This is the reverse of the principle used to \”breed\” selective traits into various lines of livestock. If you want to increase the occurrence of a particular trait in livestock, you selectively breed a male and female that both exhibit that trait. If done over several generations, you get a \”type\” of that livestock that generally exhibits the trait for which you have selected.
Since the majority of homosexuals do not \”breed\”, their traits should not be passed on as an option to succeeding generations.
That homosexuality is more \”common\” today argues directly against the \”genetic\” nature argument, because the opposite effect of what we expect from nature (genetics) is observed. More frequency, not less frequency.
On the other hand, as homosexuality is more accepted, and in many cases celebrated, argues for homosexuality being a learned response. Homosexual frequency in the general population can be shown to have ebbed and flowed throughout history as it was more accepted (Ancient Greece) or less accepted (Biblical literature, Ancient Rome, Victorian England, etc.)
Therefore I submit the frequency of homosexuality observed in the general population is exactly what you would expect from the nurture argument and diametrically opposed to what would be expected from the nature argument.
For another example, look to the fact that a large percentage (much larger than the general) of Muslims have homosexual experiences. This is a response to their religious teachings that women are of lower status than males, and should be regarded as property. This causes psychological problems for male/female bonding, and leads to homosexual encounters among most males as they attempt to create an \”equality\” relationship bond with other males.
That homosexuality is a learned (nurture) response is undeniable based on real world evidence. Attempts to make it a nature debate is only the latest PC effort to gain acceptability by its practitioners and their sycophants.
Optimus Maximus
On February 14, 2010 at 5:54 pm
This is a less than convincing argument. How about we look at the known mechanics of genetics?
We all inherit genes from our parents. Whether we have blue eyes or brown eyes depends on the genes we inherit, and whether those genes express a dominant or a recessive trait.
Example, if you inherit two blue eye genes from your parents, you will have blue eyes. If you inherit either two brown eye genes from your parents, or one blue eye gene and one brown eye gene from each parent, you will have brown eyes, because the brown eye gene is the dominant gene. To get the recessive blue eyes, you have to have TWO blue eye genes, or the dominant eye color gene will dominate.
Now, let\\\’s all be realistic and agree that if homosexuality is an inherited trait, it MUST be a recessive trait, because it only occurs in a small percentage of the total population. I\\\’ve seen estimates ranging form 3% to 15% for the total occurrence of homosexuality in the general population. You may argue it\\\’s larger or smaller, but surely we can all agree it is small enough to say without reservation that it must be a recessive trait if it is an inherited trait.
Now, since I believe the majority of homosexuals do not have children, i.e., do not reproduce, the occurrence of this recessive gene should be decreasing over time, as the major carriers (existing homosexuals) are not passing that gene on to future generations. This would argue for a decrease in the number of homosexuals over time, due to the decreasing occurrence of the recessive gene in the general population.
This is the reverse of the principle used to \\\”breed\\\” selective traits into various lines of livestock. If you want to increase the occurrence of a particular trait in livestock, you selectively breed a male and female that both exhibit that trait. If done over several generations, you get a \\\”type\\\” of that livestock that generally exhibits the trait for which you have selected.
Since the majority of homosexuals do not \\\”breed\\\”, their traits should not be passed on as an option to succeeding generations.
That homosexuality is more \\\”common\\\” today argues directly against the \\\”genetic\\\” nature argument, because the opposite effect of what we expect from nature (genetics) is observed. More frequency, not less frequency.
On the other hand, as homosexuality is more accepted, and in many cases celebrated, argues for homosexuality being a learned response. Homosexual frequency in the general population can be shown to have ebbed and flowed throughout history as it was more accepted (Ancient Greece) or less accepted (Biblical literature, Ancient Rome, Victorian England, etc.)
Therefore I submit the frequency of homosexuality observed in the general population is exactly what you would expect from the nurture argument and diametrically opposed to what would be expected from the nature argument.
For another example, look to the fact that a large percentage (much larger than the general) of Muslims have homosexual experiences. This is a response to their religious teachings that women are of lower status than males, and should be regarded as property. This causes psychological problems for male/female bonding, and leads to homosexual encounters among most males as they attempt to create an \\\”equality\\\” relationship bond with other males.
That homosexuality is a learned (nurture) response is undeniable based on real world evidence. Attempts to make it a nature debate is only the latest PC effort to gain acceptability by its practitioners and their sycophants.
Optimus Maximus
On February 14, 2010 at 5:55 pm
This is a less than convincing argument. How about we look at the known mechanics of genetics?
We all inherit genes from our parents. Whether we have blue eyes or brown eyes depends on the genes we inherit, and whether those genes express a dominant or a recessive trait.
Example, if you inherit two blue eye genes from your parents, you will have blue eyes. If you inherit either two brown eye genes from your parents, or one blue eye gene and one brown eye gene from each parent, you will have brown eyes, because the brown eye gene is the dominant gene. To get the recessive blue eyes, you have to have TWO blue eye genes, or the dominant eye color gene will dominate.
Now, let\\\\\\\’s all be realistic and agree that if homosexuality is an inherited trait, it MUST be a recessive trait, because it only occurs in a small percentage of the total population. I\\\\\\\’ve seen estimates ranging form 3% to 15% for the total occurrence of homosexuality in the general population. You may argue it\\\\\\\’s larger or smaller, but surely we can all agree it is small enough to say without reservation that it must be a recessive trait if it is an inherited trait.
Now, since I believe the majority of homosexuals do not have children, i.e., do not reproduce, the occurrence of this recessive gene should be decreasing over time, as the major carriers (existing homosexuals) are not passing that gene on to future generations. This would argue for a decrease in the number of homosexuals over time, due to the decreasing occurrence of the recessive gene in the general population.
This is the reverse of the principle used to \\\\\\\”breed\\\\\\\” selective traits into various lines of livestock. If you want to increase the occurrence of a particular trait in livestock, you selectively breed a male and female that both exhibit that trait. If done over several generations, you get a \\\\\\\”type\\\\\\\” of that livestock that generally exhibits the trait for which you have selected.
Since the majority of homosexuals do not \\\\\\\”breed\\\\\\\”, their traits should not be passed on as an option to succeeding generations.
That homosexuality is more \\\\\\\”common\\\\\\\” today argues directly against the \\\\\\\”genetic\\\\\\\” nature argument, because the opposite effect of what we expect from nature (genetics) is observed. More frequency, not less frequency.
On the other hand, as homosexuality is more accepted, and in many cases celebrated, argues for homosexuality being a learned response. Homosexual frequency in the general population can be shown to have ebbed and flowed throughout history as it was more accepted (Ancient Greece) or less accepted (Biblical literature, Ancient Rome, Victorian England, etc.)
Therefore I submit the frequency of homosexuality observed in the general population is exactly what you would expect from the nurture argument and diametrically opposed to what would be expected from the nature argument.
For another example, look to the fact that a large percentage (much larger than the general) of Muslims have homosexual experiences. This is a response to their religious teachings that women are of lower status than males, and should be regarded as property. This causes psychological problems for male/female bonding, and leads to homosexual encounters among most males as they attempt to create an \\\\\\\”equality\\\\\\\” relationship bond with other males.
That homosexuality is a learned (nurture) response is undeniable based on real world evidence. Attempts to make it a nature debate is only the latest PC effort to gain acceptability by its practitioners and their sycophants.
Fongster
On March 6, 2012 at 1:23 am
Agree with Optimus Maximus.
It’s definitely nurture, and not nature. Furthermore, with the advancement of the Human Genome Project, we now know that humans only have approximately 30,000 genes or so. It’s undeniable that everything we do is affected by our environment. Just because someone is born with, let’s say, an obesity gene, does not mean that that person will definitely be obese.
Likewise with homosexuality.