gay: genetic or behavioral?
StoreTags: gay, homosexual, sociology
Author: datathinner on September 29 2006
Viewed 6094 times. 3 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
People who enjoyed reading this: energygiant, skab, prugelknaben
--> lately i've been studying various surveys and experiments and articles about human sexuality. Before Kinsey's studies, this topic was generally regarded as trivial by most social scientists ... but it seems like we (as a society) are still just as confused on the topic as we were 100 years ago. i recently had a discussion with someone about this and it led to nowhere but insults. so i figure i'll try it with smarter people at EM411. the person (he was gay) mistook me for an "ignorant homphobe" because i was straight and I disagreed with him, ugh. i don't hate gay people, and the sad thing was i was on his side until that whole business of me being ignorant ...

so the question is: do you guys think that being gay is (a)genetic or instinctual - inherited through our parents from birth or (b)social - inherited from our social interactions with people and culture?

basically, is it nature or nurture? what's your thoughts?

i'll save my answer for a little later, i'd like to hear y'alls opinion on this.
Read datathinner's other blogs.datathinner's Recent Blogs
Comments

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
it is what it is.
you are who you are.

studies are one thing, but I have to believe that what grown people do in bed is their own beesewax.
ok. it could be "a" or "b" but I think the world's more complicated and interesting than science has hashed out in 'studies' as of now.

thanks lunatinker.
keep in mind i'm not asking anyone to diclose their personal orientation, too. i just want to hear opinions.

i think everyone has varying levels of "male" and "female" from birth. as in genetics. and i think this obviously affects who we are attracted to.

frnortnr said: "i think everyone has varying levels of "male" and "female" from birth. as in genetics. and i think this obviously affects who we are attracted to."


same here.
sexuality and sex is just a blurr.
and i think the reason why so many people react with such a force to this issue, is that they are really insecure about this issue

like other characteristics i reckon an adult person's sexuality seems predominantly influenced by learning. But innate predispositions that person had will have influenced the kind of learning that person sought out or experienced.. so i don't believe you can meaningfully seperate the two (nature/nurture) as influences in this case.

it seems a little odd that the blog title asks specifically about homosexuality rather than sexuality in general, is there a particular reason for that?

yea, i was thinking about that after i posted it. it's mainly because this discussion came up in another forum that was specifically about gay people, and why it is considered a social deviance.

these are good answers, too. keep them coming. I'm using these responses for a study in my psych/sociology club at school.

i'll take b) nuture.

i dont really believe that humans brains are born with much stuff in them, except the basic survival tools (like how to breath, swallow, etc.)
I think it may have more to do with perceived overpopulation than many people are willing to admit.
Recent blogs: UBC sex study  

its a continuum in my view

influenced by biopsychosocial factors found within the persons genetic and biological makeup and their environment and social experiences etc....

on the topic of wider sexuality

a recent study of transexual's (male to female change) brains illustrated a section of the brain that was closer to the make-up of a female brain that a male brain

sexuality and sexual behaviour is incredibly diverse in my view

when the doors are closed (and sometimes when they are not) different people get up to all kinds of different actions that satisfy their need for intimacy, control, love, care, domination, sublimation, submission, creative expression, identity reaffirmation etc......

In my opinion, your question with its reductionsit (a) & (b) multiple choice somewhat over simplifies the whole issue

Granted the size of the study was small and therefore statitcially non-significant - still interesting

link

room: it's just a launching platform, you can go wherever you want with it and give any opinion you like. i agree with you about the diversity of it all. thanks for the link, too.

datathinner said: "room: it's just a launching platform, you can go wherever you want with it and give any opinion you like. "


i did

energygiant said: "i'll take b) nuture.

i dont really believe that humans brains are born with much stuff in them, except the basic survival tools (like how to breath, swallow, etc.)"



maybe. if Chomsky is right tho, and we're born with an innate map of possible grammars in our heads, who knows what other stuff the great architect slips in there before we get shipped out

also, babies have shown a capacity for the abstract understanding of small numbers, something previously unknown to scientists. for instance, in the study i read, babies in a room with groups of 2 & 3 people will stare at the group of 3 people longer than the other group when a recording of 3 voices is played and vice versa.

it was long thought that children had no capacity for absractly understanding the concept of numbers, and, for example, when they held up two fingers to show "two" with their hands, they are actually equating a symbol of a hand with only its index and middle finger sticking out with the word "two" and not really identifying the concept of the number 2.

seems they might be proven wrong.
link

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Register / login
You must be a member to reply or post. signup or login