Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Is Homosexuality Nurture or Nature?


PPC2019

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Not necessarily. Tons of psychological literature backs up that people are far more into what might be called 'traditional' male and female roles than modern political correctness would like. That extends to what types of jobs they want to do, too. Women want to work with people, while men prefer to work with things (statistically speaking).

2) Again, not necessarily. The jury is still out on nature vs nurture. Douglas Murray, who is a guy I have a lot of respect for (and is gay) believes it's probably a combination of nature and nurture.

1) Yeah, I'm not saying it should be 50/50, but I'm sure nurture vs nature plays a huge part in setting those roles.  I'd love to see what happened in a couple of generations without the nurture part.

2) I think the jury is more in than out.  I'm sure Mr. Murray is a wonderful fellow, but nurturing someone into sexual acts is a lot different than nurturing someone into wearing frills or playing with trucks.  Some people are bisexual, sure, and they might be pushed in one direction or the other, but I would have to have more nurturing than this planet could offer to try against my natural preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

1) Yeah, I'm not saying it should be 50/50, but I'm sure nurture vs nature plays a huge part in setting those roles.  I'd love to see what happened in a couple of generations without the nurture part.

Well, Peterson quotes studies on Scandinavian attempts at perfect gender equality which showed, to the consternation of their authors, that gender preferences in careers/educational subjects increased, not decreased as the playing field leveled. There are some women who are probably more comfortable in the outdoors than men but I haven't met any yet. And women seem more mentally geared to raising children then men are (statistically - your mileage may vary).

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

2) I think the jury is more in than out. 

I think it's one of those things you're simply not allowed to talk about. Unless you're gay, anyway.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I'm sure Mr. Murray is a wonderful fellow, but nurturing someone into sexual acts is a lot different than nurturing someone into wearing frills or playing with trucks.

Yes, but youths seem much more flexible as their hormones kick in and are more readily subject to that nurture part. If you're first sexual experiences are gay, and pleasurable that's more likely to interest you in more of the same. Not a subject I've spent much time on, admittedly as I don't really see how it matters much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2020 at 11:57 AM, Goorbekind said:

-homosexuality is not to be aroused by the same sex. it's to orientate oneself to exploit or be exploited by the same sex sexually. 

i-ts a conduct, not an attribute.

-children are impressionable. and it's a federal offense to indirectly counsel children to make sexual conduct by flying LGBT flags or demonstrating any support for them.  it is also a federal offense to fly obscene material, and the LGBT material is certainly dominantly characteristic of sex.

 

I focus on the above words I parsed from Gooverkind's comments as I was told not to reproduce entire posts of others.

Since the post with the above words was submitted the person who submitted it who  did not come back to defend it and explain its basis I ask why?

The postwith the above words made no coherent sense and when I read it, I found the syntax, grammar and disjointed pattern of writing almost identical to the words and syntax  of Tdot on this thread who also seems to have gone.

Does anyone other than I or Michael Harder find the thread inflammatory?

Was this a thread and subject  a genuine discussion or was its purpose to simply crap on gay people for being gay with rhetorical disparaging stereotypes?

How is this thread and such comments not a prop or excuse to piss on gays for being gay?

I challenge this thread and its the responses from Tdot and the above poster to be hateful subjective opinions that are intended to present hateful stereotypes of gays.

If I came on here and took the word gay out and put "white male" or "Christian" or "Jew" or "Muslim" or "women" or "conservative" or "liberal" I would make the same critical response and also challenge it for the exact same reasons.

I have been censored twice on this thread for challenging it. This is my third attempt to make the point. Perhaps my words are now more acceptably put.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It seems the title of this thread is fundamentally flawed as it pits the science of personal biology (nature) against the structure of a social upbringing (nurture) as though it could be simplified to being just one or the other (as humans we crave to parse simplicity from complexity in an effort to understand).

Since we as individuals are the product of both (on every other metric governing our personality) it would seem logical to assume that sexual orientation is no different and so the validity of the original 'topic' can be considered flawed to the point of nullified.

Sexuality as I understand it is temporally-instanced from a broad gradient of nature with nurture - not permanently assigned from one of two choices

If morality and ethics are to be cited within the aspect of sexuality then it should be framed within the context of consent - not to be confused with sexual preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...