Ditto

This topic could be solved easily, just ask someone that is gay?

Seconded.

God ain't go nuffink to do wiv it or summin or nuffin.

They're all different, and they don't necessarily know what made them gay.

Like every other mental aspect of a person someone's degree of homosexuality (its not a black and white thing people) is a combination of nature and nurture.

I don't know how much is nature and how much is nurture, all I know is that some genes make homosexuality far more likely (because I've seen a scientific study or two referenced).

It is unnatural. Homosexuality is a detriment to the continuation of species.

If you left a thousand gay dogs in an isolated island with plenty to survive for several generations, it would only last one.

Errmmm... How does that make it unnatural? Just because it is a barricade to the continuation of the species doesn't mean that it isn't natural, on the contrary, almost everyone has mutations within their cells, these one's just happen to be somewhat harmful. It's the same thing with hereditary diseases, I don't see what makes homosexuals any different (Not to say that it's a disease, merely that it is hereditary).

Thats not quite the same. Evolution is the progression of a species from mutations that benefit them.

It is natural for male and female to unite and continue their species. Wouldn't the opposite of this also be the opposite of natural? Its the only way nature can exist.

I won't argue this further, though. It is clear that neither of us will ever change our stances.

And since when was convincing others of one's being correct the point of these debate threads? ;P

Homosexuality seems far more "natural" than, say, that computer you're sitting at when you post on forums, to me.
I'm failing to see how "unnatural" is necessarily a bad thing.
The human race is faring more than well enough to do without a few extra babies. Hell, we've already got more than we should.
He never mentioned evolution. He pointed out random genetic drift, which has nothing to do with what's good or bad for a thing. I'm not seeing your point.
It is natural for wildcats to hunt and eat prey. So obviously prey species need to not only be a part of this system, but to encourage it, and willingly sacrifice themselves to the cat. Seeing as the opposite of that is prey species avoiding being eaten, which is "unnatural."
... and what is that even supposed to mean? Anything that exists will be "natural," in its own context.

there are quite a few species that have homosexuality in females AND males of the species i dont exactly see how it isnt natural, i do believe it could easily be from how someone is raised like anything else in someones life, i dont think someone who is gay can just magically change it by going to some crazy camp MAYBE they could be bisexual but they wouldnt not be attracted to the same sex; they would just deny it. I definately think homosexuality is quite abit more natural than necrophilia or dendrophilia, at this day and age the human race really doesnt need such a large population anyways currently our numbers are insustainable, somethings gotta happen to lower it; would you prefer that more people be homosexual or that we do mass slaughters? id choose the prior.

Now, I admit, after rereading my old posts, I was quite stupid with my arguments, don't expect the same this time, I'm done attempting to rely on scriptures to argue against people who don't believe in them at all. And so I go


What? This is the kind of thinking that kills of a race, and may cause major problems in China, there is no problem with the amount of kids we are having, name one problem with having a higher population.

I'd say this topic is going slightly off-course, the question was whether homosexuality was nature vs. nurture. I would say that it is a bit of both, but the majority of it comes down to Nurture.
Think about it, you can pretty much change anythings nature by the way to upbring it, it's nature for us to poop our pants, but it's nurture that teaches us to use a toilet instead. The same basic principal can be applied to homosexuality. Perhaps some people have genetics that make them feel a slightly stronger tug towards the same sex, it's nothing that cannot be changed by your upbringing, and visa versa, as proved by the majority of homosexuals who are simply homo so they can have more sex.

I'd say it all comes down to ethics, what you grow up being taught is right and wrong, it doesn't matter if you begin with a slight tug towards the same sex, a proper upbringing can easily squash that, so my answer to this topic, Nurture.

Wow, first of all the poll was misleading as Nurturing should be defined as comforting those who are leaning towards being gay to be straight.

Also you were pre genetically determined by God (yes he can do that) to be a man or a woman. So you HAVE to be straight. And as a defense to this statement many ppl say 'well im just being myself, i didnt choose to be gay'. Well you know what? Everyone everywhere has free will, and it is 100% a choice to be gay or not, so you need to take responsibility for your choice. It is a sin to be gay, and there is no way to justify this fact. If you can't find a girl to be with, or a guy, and be straight then just don't date for the time being!

So no, you can't say 'well im just being myself' no your just being stupid. You are, who you choose to be, and you need to choose to be what God commands you to choose, whether you like/believe it or not

So yes, it arises from a choice that is most commonly festering from peer pressure or failure.

And about the world being over-populated, well, you cuold give everyone in the world 11 square feet of land, and they would ALL fit in less than half of texas. So, those who say we could use less babies, you need to do some research. IDK google the fact, it might be 10 sqaure feet and 1/4 of texas.

I don't think I've ever laughed so much from a single forum post in my entire life.

Wrong.
Gay brains are different.
That being said, nurture will not change your brain composition.

That's ignorant and assumptive, to be quite honest. Your god has no affect on me whatsoever and your inability to separate your religion from your logic is pure proof that you should not be participating in any debate about the level of which color of crayon to use.

Also I believe it was posted to keep religion out of this topic. Cite something more grounded and plausible than your beliefs when in this topic if you want to make any sort of point that doesn't make you look like such a child.


Just wondering if you could provide a link or something to the studies you mention. I'm rather interested to see what they have to say.

Please explain, I never mentioned anything religious in that paragraph, and if you just find it stupid, then do what it said, tell me one reason why a higher population would be bad, and I can easily disprove it.


If you had actually read my post:

All the scientific evidence they show never says how strong the tug is, it simply says that some feel more inclined, and maybe their original preference would be the same sex, but Nurture can often change what your natural feeling would be, which is why I said it all comes down to Nurture. Reread what I posted again, maybe you'll actually realize that I was already addressing that link you posted before you even posted it.

Falkoner, this topic has made me lose all my respect towards you.

For an argument against this stupid "you can choose" argument.
This is true: I have a friend who is gay and he was in a highly Christian household. His parents literally beat him "trying to get the gayness out" or something. He's still gay. He didn't choose, but he just accepted that he liked guys and was not sexually attracted to girls in any way. He rather wouldn't have been after what he went through, but nothing he can do, or his parents can do, although they've tried, can change his orientation.

The majority of my arguments in Serious Discussion have made me lose respect for the SC community in general, most tend to see things much different than I do, probably because the majority of them really don't have a religion, or they don't live by it.

It was his choice, I guarantee it. He had the free agency to choose to continue to be gay, as proved by so many out there who are not gay by nature, just by the fact that they are sex-driven slobs, it's not that difficult to change what you feel more attracted to. Your friend probably felt like being rebellious due to his parent's harshness, because homosexuality sure as heck isn't a permanent mindset, it can be changed.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2008, 5:21 pm by Falkoner.

falkoner you dont need religion to be spiritual and you dont need to have either to be a good person, and your views on easily changing your sexually are sorta ridiculous you cant just choose what foods you dislike or like sure overtime your preference may change as your brain developes or ages but still you cant be like okay today i feel like enjoying women woo im straight!

That "kills" a race?
I'm not about to debate whether or not we're nearing the following critical threshold, but a habitat can only support so much population. We've enough people living that we're far more than stable - it would require some obscenely cataclysmic events that wouldn't be much affected by having a few hundred million more babies anyways, to kill us off, at this point. On the other hand, the "MOAR IS BETR" is far more lethal, due the forementioned prospect of a population limit.
No, that would be bisexuality. Homosexuality, if anything, limits one's available "bedding" pool. ;P
Furthermore, look at the number of people in history who have-put bluntly-been in deep shit and/or distress due to an attraction to males which they wished, of anything, to be rid of.
"Nature vs. Nurture" is a common phrase referring to the question of whether or not a particular trait among people is the result of genetics or of their outside situation.
Arguably, it could be reasoned as that the "nurture" refers to "nurturing of [particular trait]," in which case the phrase is quite accurate.
Space is not our only limited resource - and aside from that, it has many uses other than shelter.
Observable proportions in brain size seems rather significant to me, doesn't it?
Arguably, one could claim that my obsessive compulsive disorder is a matter of nurture, on the basis that it may be overrided with between months and years of discomfort and conditioning. But the matter is, it's something I was born with, and my "tug" towards it is very, very significant.

Ohhh, my, if I could choose my sexual orientation, I'd be asexual in a moment. I've simulated it, to some extent, by stuffing the perverted and lustful aspects of my head into some far, dark corner, but they're still there to be a constant bloody annoyance that's resulted in plenty more frustration and stupidity than I'll admit to any one person.

Falkoner, please research pheromones and gain a better understanding how they work. You'll actually come to the realization that homosexuality is very much so genetic and hardly at all adjustable by nurture. You're making the assumption that nature haves a weak influence over your future mindset and that nurture is powerful enough to change you. I'm not saying there are never any cases whatsoever where nurture does in fact overpower nature, but every research regarding homosexuality tends to indicate that genetics are the strongest factor in determining one's sexual orientation. So even though you "addressed" the argument, the argument was not countered at all.

As far as overpopulation goes, distribution problems tend to be the main effects (which are actually main problems of the world today).