nature vs. nurture of homosexuality what do you think?

Question

I’m a high school student and I have been looking for good info to use in a debate in my psychology class I have been assigned to be on the nurture side but all I can come up with is sexual preference and I know that that is not going to be good enough. If you have any good nurture arguments pleas help me out I have been going nuts for the last month trying to find good stuff but have failed.

Answer 1

This is a difficult one, but only because there is a general tendency amongst homosexuals to reject the idea that they had any choice in the matter. And to get evidence to support the nurture case you require evidence - such as life histories - which can easily be manipulated to give the desired picture even if that isn't entirely accurate.

There is also a profound misunderstanding within the homosexual community of what homosexuality actually involves. The response from "Snarky", who felt it necessary to point out that she has an above average IQ, and who seems to think that there is something notable about having two heterosexual parents, one of whom is a minister, and the fact that she didn't know what a homosexual was until she went to high school, is typical of the kind of misconceptions I'm referring to.

Still:

1. Even twin studies, (a favourite approach amongst psychologists who want to measure the significance of genetic factors in determining characteristics such as intelligence, homosexuality, etc.) have failed to produce evidence that genes play an irrevocable part in the incidence of homosexuality.

2. If homosexuality were "in the genes", how come there are any homosexuals left in the world? Since homosexuals, by definition, are far less likely to produce offspring the numbers of homosexuals in the world should have dropped to zero thousands of years ago.

3. If homosexual behaviour has a "natural"/genetic basis, why - despite considerable amount of research on the subject - can nobody find evidence which provides incontrovertable support for that claim? In practise all we have is certain biological feature which MIGHT make a person more inclined towards a preference for homosexual behaviour.

4. Studies have shown that a steady stream of one-time homosexuals are choosing to change their thinking and behaviour to a heterosexual orientation. And there are many examples of people who remain happily re-aligned after many years (20 years+). If homosexual preferences were innate this should not be possible.

5. There's an old joke about some writing on a toilet wall. The first line reads: "My mother made me a homosexual", and the second reads: "So if I give her the wool, will she make me one too?"

In practise this isn't as much of a joke as it may seem. Psychologist Oliver James, in his book "They F*** You Up: How to Survive Family Life" (with asterisks), discusses homosexuality and its possible roots. He concludes that "nature" only has a 25% influence at most, the rest he puts down to a variety of "nurture" factors including the influence of both the mother and the father.

6. For the point of view of a militant homosexual who is not afraid to acknowledge the element of choice, see this web site: http://www.petertatchell.net/ and select "Gay Genes" from the list on the left hand side of the screen.

7. Perhaps the most terminal argument against "natural" homosexuality is the evolutionist view as expressed by Professor Richard Dawkins in his book "The selfish Gene".
According to Dawkins, the purpose of human bodies is to provide the means for our genes to transmit copies of themselves to the next generation. Insofar as the basic definition of homosexuality precludes sexual involvement with a person of the opposite gender, true homosexual behaviour is arguably a rejection of a person's primary reason for being here at all.

Answer 2

The only thing nurturing does is get in the way of nature. Why cant the nurturing addicts give it a break and look at it from the natural side of it. Nature is going to have sex no matter what. Some nurture fanatic psychopathic monster comes along and tells me how and when and where and why I'm supposed to be natural yet what do I see? Some activity trying to convince me of some idea that I can and will be nurtured into some sort of evolved being capable of repressing nature. Has anyone ever told nurture that I like nature and since I am the one to decide such matters when it comes to that I can tell you that I am just as much a mess as anyone, maybe even a little worse. Because I had to make that determination and had no nurturing to rely on I now listen to all the arguments and can only say... I wish I knew then what I know now. Perhaps a bit of moderation and guidance would have helped avoid chronic and habitual behaviors so... one cheer for the nurture side of the argument for the help nature needs when it comes to growing up and living with humans.

Answer 3

Boy, you got the " shaft " in this debate. Homosexuals, despite the naturalistic fallacy, are staunch innateists, here. The science seems to support the strong nature position. The only " bad " argument you could use, would be religious. There must be some " channeling " type of nurture, but it probable would be as weak as saying two arms were " nurture " Use the " naturalistic fallacy ". Because something is natural, is not reason for it being " good ".

Answer 4

i'm kinda tired of all this crap on trying to find out what caused this one or that one to 'become' a homosexual, male or female. gosh. didn't anyone ever think it is a birth thing. when we are in the womb, developing into what we later are, we are all male in sex. at a later time, somewhere during the second or third trimester of development, the 'switch' or trigger is flipped into what we are suppose to be & i firmly believe that sometimes our switches get stuck or malfunctions. stop dumping on those who have a different outlook on life & sex. now, for a nuture argument, how about a child's development - are phobias part of our brain's development or are they passed to us by an overly conscience parent (mother/smother love)! or, another goodie! why is one child from a really bad environment overrides his/her environment & become president, ceo, a person of social importance and another child, same neighborhood, same time, same circumstance (or quite similar) becomes a gang leader, druggie, etc? what causes two children of equal or near equal backgrounds to select so different paths when both had the same choices, same pitfalls, chances? this has baffled experts for years, why no try to argue nurture excelled over nature? good luck!

Answer 5

I think it's nature not nurture. Read books by gay people like David Sedaris or Dan Savage, who talk about growing up gay and how they made no choice in the matter. I've also talked to other gay people with similar accounts.

If you think that gay people are "nurtured" into homosexuality, ask yourself why anyone would choose to become part of a hated and persecuted minority group ridiculed and harassed by their classmates, people in larger society, and sometimes even their family.

I don't think you're going to have much luck with the nurture side.

Answer 6

I was born a lesbian, as most gays are. (I was never abused, and my IQ is above average!) Nature draws some of us to the same sex. If you put a group of male and female children on a deserted island with nobody to influence their sexuality with religion, tv, or parenting... You would still find that some of the girls will grow up falling for other girls and some of the boys want the other boys. Some of the kids will want the opposite sex. There will be heterosexual kids and there will be gays and lesbians, perhaps bisexuals, too. Nature decides these things or us. It is not a "choice" of what's inside of us. Being gay or straight cannot be drummed in or out of us. It's not an illness, defect or a malfunction. It has nothing to do with god or having children, because there's lots of straight people who don't want kids or cannot have kids!

Answer 7

Not understanding the stand you must take. Need more info. I will take a guess and say nurturing a gay lifestyle would be to support and encourage the behavior when identified. This would show the child the unconditional love of the parent and lead to a healthier mental state through adulthood.

Answer 8

Nature, there is no nurture involved. Sexuality is inborn, the case of identical twins proves it if one is gay the other twin has a seventy percent chance of being gay as well. Homosexuality has always existed, in the past cultures before Christianity brainwashed everyone with their fear tactics. Nobody gave a damn about it...

Answer 9

Here's a good argument that allows you to claim homosexuality is the result of nurture while still maintaining natural causes:

There is a theory that holds some support that certain hormonal levels in pregnant women (namely, women who are stressed during pregnancy) often are the parents of children who, in adulthood, consider themselves to be homosexual.
--That is, stressed pregnant mothers are strongly associated with homosexual offspring.

The hormone levels are the environment the child develops in just as much as, for instance, the liberalness of a child's hometown might be considered his or her environment.

You could write an entire thesis on it if you so desired.

Answer 10

its not as hard as you think you were assigned nurture.... nature and nurture have different meanings in psychology.

nature is about genetics and bio. in psychology.

Nurture not all about caring for the child, it is more about the childs experience w/ family, friends, peers, the media, etc, basically their environment. Did those experiences influence the child to become the way they are today?

Nature(Is the child born a homesexual?)vs. Nurture(Does the child become a homosexual after several life experiences(i.e exposure to gay culture, two same sex parents, etc.)

Again nurture isn't going to be that hard to defend but nature....