I've been thinking about this lately, and I was wonder what you all thought about it. For example, if a child is brought up with gay parents, will that affect their orientation? Or are people just born with a preference?

I don't see why it has to be definitively one or the other. So many ideologues from all sides of the argument have invested so much in their adamant assertion that there must be a black and white solution to this problem. Their solution. I don't see why it needs to be that cut and dried. "You got gay this way. That is a fakt! Now I shall judge/celebrate/patronise you".

__________________
Time is the distance that you can't return by miles.

I escaped somehow. Let's go

actualy [sic] I have quite a blessed life if I'm honest. I have many people to love, hate few and have few money problem's [sic].... What more does a person need? Oh yeah and I have some kind of humbleness unlike you of course ^_^ ~ CarefulCarpenter

counter qustion:

if a child is brought up with straight parents, will that affect their orientation? or are people just born with a preference?

i think the answer to your questions is right there!

had gays been predominately been found in one group of people, it is most likely a nurture question, but they arent. you see gays in white upper class families, in white lower class families, in black, asian families, in muslim families (where it isnt exactly well looked upon gay people) etc etc etc.

that said, i dont think, like bort says, its that black and white. it would be neat if it was, but its probably a question of nature and nurture and not nature vs nurture.

ps. is it just me or is the realjock gay fittness community just a tad too much in your face?

Does nurture impact on campiness though?? or is that genetic too?
Does the idea of being interested in Liza Minelli come from being into 'the scene,' or does he naturally gravitate towards her? HCH

i know a girl, a few years older than me who was raised by a lesbian couple. if orientation is a product of your environment, then she should also be a lesbian by default. but she certainly is not.

that being said, i also can't see it as being 100% one way or the other. i think depending on the person it could be either, or even a combination of both. it's really impossible to say definitely.

__________________
"I knew I was too late - and I was glad something bloodthirsty waited in the wings. For in failing at this, I forfeited any desire to live."

the orientation itself genetic, or born with.
the ability to accept, embrace and live a productive, well adjusted life: acquired, if your lucky.
imo.
to extend far beyond sexuality.

Austin, why do I have a hard time believing you were really "wondering" about this? i mean, for chrissakes already.

__________________
albert, you are the father

I agree.

I am tired of people shrieking at me about why their solution is correct too. It seems to be really politicized now too, which is annoying.

well I was definetely gay since the day I was born, so I don't know, I guess it's genetic.

Stfu Manhatten, didn't know being a bit O/T deserved THAT.

Serious Question; (and no bitching about O/Tness)
Feminine mannerisms and interests, are they "learned" or "inherent"?
Combination? Neither......insight please.

well I always felt like a girl.

I think that my soul is female and my body is male. What I don't know is why it happened, is it my karma in this life or was it just a cosmic karmic fuck up?

I thought that it was like a proven 'fact' that homosexuality is genetic? Either way I think it can be both. A girl I am friends with is clearly straight but when she hangs out with me and another friend who is also gay she is influenced to think otherwise. She recently slept with a girl and liked it, but I think she naturally is more male inclined.

my opinion lies somewhere between this and this, i kinda believe them both:

also, just something i wanna toss in:
i found out after i came out that my uncle on my mums side is gay, and a great aunt on my dads side is a lesbian (although she's never officially come out because the family disapprove so much, in fact she moved to america with her partner to escape the scrutiny).

i think that's what the scientist tell you right before they want to sell you medicine to supress the gay gene or whatever.

i think it depends on your genes, your experiences and surroundings. so it is both genetic and acquired.

The goal of this thread wasn't to prove one way or another, it was just to see which 'theory' each of you support, whether it be one, neither, or both.

And sparklelulu, if I wasn't interested then I wouldn't post it. You'll notice I don't spam the board anymore...

I'd say mostly genetic/biological. The purely sexual/romantic factor.

The rest based on pattern based behaviour isn't so much to do with the genetics I don't think, there is a lot of blatantly nurtured mannerisms though which I could see people associating with 'gay', it doesn't really have anything to do with who and what a person is attracted to. As much as they wish it did to simplify matters..

what does that even mean?

__________________
"I knew I was too late - and I was glad something bloodthirsty waited in the wings. For in failing at this, I forfeited any desire to live."

Sorry this is so long - I just felt it necessary to answer the questions as well as I could.

Well, from what I've studied (both academically and personally), I tend to believe a considerable amount of the work of John Money, Ph.D. I think what his work explains pretty much clarifies the issue about every possible sexual and psycho-sexual normality and abnormality. Money has found that sexuality and identity go together, but are inherently autonomous - that is to say that we cannot separate the two but they each work independently.

Two of the most important findings of Money's studies are what he calls the "lovemap" and "G-I/R", or Gender-Identity/Role. These sets of things, in combination with various other things (of less importance, however) combine to create who we are as people. The love map is a developmental representation of the perfect lover and programmed sexual activity. It is part of what helps us to decide whether we inherently desire male, female, or transgendered partners. The lovemap also helps us to physically realize the desires that we have sexually - I suppose also including specific qualities (physiological and otherwise). This is something that is forged early on, but at some level, perhaps, never completes formation. The main details stay the same, but it is possible for certain nuances to change, since we as people change. G-I/R, represents how we see ourselves physically and how we are hard-wired to see and understand that orientation. There can be disparities within G-I/R which help to explain being bisexual or transsexual orientations. Just because we have specific genitalia does not mean that we will express the societal "norm" for orientation in regards to our genitalia. G-I/R is formed even before birth and develops, to some extent, until about age 6 or 7. This, in combination with our lovemap and other influences (such as psychological and psycho-social variables) help to create the multitude of combinations that we experience day-to-day. This allows a unique understanding of sexual and psycho-sexual deviancies such as fetishes, paedophila, and even necrophilia. There's a place for explanation for everyone in Money's work, and aside from just making a shit-load of sense to me, I think this is another reason that it seems practical: neutrality and equality play a large part of analyzing situations and individuals. Other groups like Kinsey and Johnson and Masters aren't so thoughtful (and I trust Money's statistical information more anyway).

Check out the book: "Gay, Straight and In-Between: The Sexology of Erotic Orientation" by John Money. You should be able to get it on Amazon.

Nothing is a proven fact, KTLR. Our understanding of the way things are exist only because we give them validity. Forgive my disassociative perspective here, but realistically, is science even provable (since we made the rules that judge whether it is or is not valid?) Honestly, I really do think Money (as above) is about as close as we're going to get for a long time. I am not entirely sure why we're searching for a "gay gene", when the genes for sexuality are probably going to be either the same or very similar. Is it genetic - possibly. I personally think, however, that all of this is like one step above genetic. It is DEFINITELY not something that can be concretely altered, however. Gay camp is out of the question - just like getting voyeurs to actually stop being voyeurs (just because you don't watch people, doesn't make you NOT a voyeur - the same thing applies to any other sexual deviancy).

I agree with you to some extent. I tend to be less of a behavior psychology supporter than most people. I do believe that environment plays a part in what we become as people, but I definitely DO NOT think that it is the most important or most impressing factor.

BleedingHeart asked about mannerisms - I think these are a physiological thing (of course, there could be some shred of psycho-physiological connection). We, as a society of people, tend to have a problem with organizing things. We are a bit compulsive and seem to have to categorize EVERYTHING because of our language and the way that we understand things. This is important to mannerisms because we tend to try to categorize mannerisms by orientation. Subconsciously, we find it awkward that mannerisms defy our "supposed black and white" picture of things. Saying that "all gay men have limp wrists" or that "all lesbians like men's clothing and hate long finger nails" is a societal construct and an attempt at our societal subconscious to categorize something we don't understand fully. I know plenty of straight men that have a little "flame" in 'em, and I know plenty of lesbians that hate men's clothing and like long, nice nails. It also seems that we, as a society, embrace those that can shed light on the things we don't understand and we tend to believe a lot of the time without questioning. That's part of the reason that we to where we are today (which could be considered good and bad).

definitely biological