Homosexuality - Nature vs Nurture the realities

Keeping the board fresh with ideas on new forums for digest, keep it crazy but fun.

Moderator: embleton

Homosexuality - Nature vs Nurture the realities

Postby dave » Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:15 pm

Homosexuality – Nature vs Nurture

Although, no consensus has been reached about the cause of homosexuality the following facts can be noted. Homosexuality is not unnatural and has been observed the world over in all cultures and at all times in history. The behaviour has also been observed in many different animal species and can be said to be the natural diversity of sexual behaviour. Scientific communities favour a biological cause for homosexually while psychological studies continually show that people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. There is no evidence that nurture in parenting has any impact in the formation of a person's sexual orientation. Cultural beliefs have no effect on an individuals’ basic sexual orientation and only contribute to the amount of prejudices experienced by those not identifying as heterosexual. There are no studies to support the notion that sexual orientation can be changed. Individuals may experiment with various sexual behaviour, but this has no bearing on their predisposed sexual orientation. Children at even earlier ages are identifying themselves as gay. Fifteen percent of LGBT families have a dependant child under the age of 18 in the UK. You’re more likely to smoke if you’re gay. Sexuality surveys tend to under estimate the prevalence of homosexuality.

In the famous Kinsey study in the 1930/40s, 4% of women and 10% of men said that they were exclusively gay for at least 3 years of their life. The prevalence of homosexual experience of sex with same sex partners was reported as 37% for men. Kinsey study suggests that 4% of men and 2% of women are exclusively gay. In one of the latest surveys from Australia of 20,094 respondents, less than 2.6% identified themselves as gay. In the survey 9% of men and 19% of women had some history of same sex attraction or/and experience. In 2012, Office of National Statistics (ONS) asked 180,000 UK adults about their sexual identity in a face to face survey, only 1.5% of males and 0.7% of females identified themselves as gay. In a survey carried out in Brazil in 2009, 10.4% of 8,200 people identified themselves as gay. Research completed by the Williams Institute in the US in April 2011, reported that 7% of people identified their sexual orientation as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) . In the survey an average of 8.2% of Americans have taken part in same sex sexual behaviour. In the ONS, Integrated Household Survey (IHS) of 238,206 people, between April 2009 and March 2010, reported that the younger you were the more likely you would identify as LGB. Only 1% identified themselves as gay in this survey. Generally, the latest surveys estimate the LGBT population rates as between 3.5% to 5%.
Those who declare their sexuality as LGBT have to overcome a number of issues. Social sigma, hostility, violence, harassment and isolation, which lead to 30% of all suicides committed. Gay people have difficulty coping with individuals in families, religious groups, colleges, schooling, the work environment and the general public. In a survey by Pew in 2012, 1,197 of LGBT individuals were questioned about discrimination. Fifty eight percent have been the target of discrimination and sixteen percent of this had happened in the last year. Those surveyed revealed that 39% had not told their mother or father about their sexual orientation.
Gay acceptance is negatively correlated with religious identify and practice. The majority view for not accepting homosexuality was among those who held religious beliefs, in the Pew Research survey. The next reason for not accepting gays got only 13%, which shadowed the main reason of 52%. Five-to-one without religious affiliation accepted homosexuality. Still, 66% of those who attend weekly religious services believe homosexuality is a sin. The opposition to gay marriage is mostly identified in religious people. The majority of people who accept homosexuality believe you are born that way. In an IHS survey in the UK of 238,206, it reported that you were twice as likely to hold no religious belief if you identified as LGB.
In surveys done in 2013, Pew global found that the acceptance of homosexuality varied the world over from 88% in Spain to only 1% in Nigeria. The majority view in all Muslim countries is that homosexuality should not be accepted. Although, Muslim countries are the least accepting of homosexuality, Russia and China still have less than 21% who accept homosexuality. You’re highly likely to live in the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa and have totally negative views about gays. The most unfriendly religious group towards LGBT is Muslims, followed by the Mormon Church in close second place.
ONS survey in 2012 identified that, gays are more likely to have a degree level qualification than heterosexuals and more likely to smoke. The younger your age the higher the percentage of individuals identified themselves as gay in the ONS and Pew surveys. The higher educated you are the more likely you will say people are born gay. The Office of National Statistics is not aware of any country that included a question of sexual orientation in their population census surveys. The majority view in the USA is that it makes little difference if gay people raise children. More people in Britain accept homosexuality than the USA.

These findings highlight that the scientific community favour a biological reason for sexual orientation. It's still difficult to identify the percentage of LGBT people in face to face interviews, those surveys that are not anonymous, and often those in communities that don't accept LGBT people. The percentage of those identifying themselves as LGBT and those who have had same sex experience is normally reported as three to four times higher. Religious belief is the main reason for people's rejection of LGBT people. Geographical location has a very strong correlation with acceptance or rejection of LGBT people. Still great numbers of LGBT people cannot declare their sexual orientation to their peers and family. Today it's clear that homosexuality is natural, and people and animals exhibit this behaviour and only religious opinions are against this scientific finding.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 4:14 pm

Re: Homosexuality - Nature vs Nurture the realities

Postby Paul » Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:06 pm

Whether there is a specific cause or reason for homosexuality, seems to me a spurious debate. The answer to the same question re heterosexuality could be "reproduction". But there is no clear advantage in sexual reproduction over other methods, no reason as such to evolve that method. And the fact that most of the time people have sex only because it feels nice, I think isn't just a coincidence.

An early thing I learnt was that the enjoyment of sex was to encourage reproduction. Maybe that is close but misses the target. Reproduction is a "spin off" that helped select sexuality as an activity for social animals. And very possibly all social animals have a similar perception of sexuality, a social activity at least as important and often way more important than procreation. And not in some vague way. I mean, sex as a social activity is more important for the survial of these species than sex for reproduction. Think of all those weird things evolved and done by shed loads of species in the process of mating, especially including humans! There are simpler ways if the aim is just to share some gametes.

Of course it always depends. And isnt always clear. Social insects appear to use sexual reproduction. But they do not use sex in a social way. A hive or nest of social insects is more like a single animal, and does not "mate" with another hive or nest even though they are the same species. The parties in the sexual activities of these animals are so closely related that its more like an act of self insemination. But its a successful strategy, and lends weight to the argument that the benefit of sex is primarily social.

For humans that benefit is by a big margin. And grows as sex maybe becomes unnecessary for reproduction. If/when sex is no longer necessary, will it go "out of fashion" or will people still do it for reproduction *because* of its social nature.

It wasnt always so, but homosexuality is not an issue amongst my peers, which includes muslims. There is zero argument even if its a topic.

The negative attitudes towards homosexuality I think post-date the Abrahamic religions. Literal references are very contentious, including and maybe especially in the Quran. This is a relatively modern interpretation. I do not expect that an imam in my town (High Wycombe) is a fool, and some will surely have no problem at all with homosexuality. The problem perhaps is arguing the case. Saying Islam itself is a problem doesn't help him convince someone they shouldn't worry about a gay relative or friend. Best to offer that imam some support, no matter how indirect - we are a very social animal and it does go around.
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:19 pm

Re: Homosexuality - Nature vs Nurture the realities

Postby melhart » Mon Feb 29, 2016 1:52 pm

Homosexuality exists in nature among animals. One out of 10 if I remember right. But it`s still considered to be a deviation. Since for psychologists normal=major. Maybe they exist for some reason only God knows.
Always smile. :D
User avatar
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 1:45 pm

Re: Homosexuality - Nature vs Nurture the realities

Postby dave » Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:56 pm

Some argue that a deviation from the norm is just a mathematical or scientific term and has no value judgement. In this way normality is given an important status that is justified by science. However, don’t been deceived, as discrimination, exclusion, rejection, humiliation, and lower status always follows for those unfortunate to hold the label. Discriminate awaits those labelled as deviants in society. In simple terms normal is seen as good and abnormal as bad. The labels have social implications with individuals experiencing exclusion, ill-treatment, stigmatisation by society for not being normal.

In the Church of England, the legislation passed by the House of Commons for same sex marriage was debated and the Church was given rights to not apply the new legislation on marriage within the Church of England. The Archbishop of York raised questions about the term marriage being applied to same sex couples and if the term could accommodate them or the definition of all marriages had to be changed. It was implied that the traditional family of mother, father and children was the norm. Traditional understandings of marriage were again and again argued for by Bishops. Sexual morality and the protection of children were used to justify some Bishops and their position for the traditional or normal use of the term marriage. In 1991 the Bishops issued a booklet on sexuality called “Some Issues in Human Sexuality – A Guide to the Debate” and the same rhetoric of normal and abnormal is used. I remember reading the booklet and thinking the Church says it’s not the norm to be gay, bisexual etc. but the Church can accept you but you must not act or have sex outside marriage! The document just dresses up normal in technical language and excludes those who are different. The booklet was referred to in the marriage debate by Bishops which is surprising as it was written 25 years ago.

Those with mental health issues has seen another group of people defined in negative terms of normal and abnormal. Again drastic outcomes befitted anyone defined as having mental health conditions. They were not normal and needed to be segregated from other people and locked away. Any inhuman treatment was justified under the pretends of curing or changing them. Young mothers outside marriage were locked up alongside gay people and anyone that didn’t fit societies understanding of the norm and defined as having mental health issues or being mad. In some cases, those with mental health problems were lobotomised, which entails sticking a sharp needle into your brain and stirring it up. It was seen as a miracle cure and in the UK one thousand operations were performed a year. Science was used to justify the procedure but little follow up was carried out. Today this procedure is seen as inhuman and would not be used but this doesn’t exclude other inhuman treatment being used again those defined as abnormal.

Being left-handed is again something that was/is seen as not being normal and those who were left handed were subjected to ill-treatment and still do in some countries. The word left is taken from Anglo-Saxon word “lyft” which means weak. It’s in the dichotomy of words that one group (normally the largest group) is defined as good against the bad, normal/abnormal, included/excluded etc. The terms are not unbiased or value free as put forward by some, even if put forward as being scientific by some.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 4:14 pm

Re: Homosexuality - Nature vs Nurture the realities

Postby mange_tout » Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:13 pm

Interesting stuff here.
Really I say each to their own, as long as people play people will play.
It's just the control freaks want to play everyone like we're the sims.
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:14 pm

Return to Off Topic Ideas and General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest