• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?

DeathIndustrial88 said:
Well you're allowed to have your opinion.

It's not totally impossible that exposure to something in the womb could cause it.

Although since homosexuality goes as far back as antiquity, im not quite sure what people would have been exposed to that would. Possibly hormones or something made by the mother.
Not sure how that fits into the animal kingdom either though.

I'm not using quotes cause I consider what I'm saying as just general discussion, for anyone. You most likely aren't the only one here who believes it's environmental.


At the end of the day, I don't think it matters what 'causes' it. It matters more how society reacts to it and how they treat people who might happen to be gay.
Click to expand...

Are your sure you fully understand that i'm not arguing that homosexuality is 100% environmental? You are responding as if that's what i propose, even though i have carefully explained this is not the case. Pointing out that other animals also exhibit homosexuality might serve to disprove the idea that it is 100% environmental, but in no way whatsoever proves that it's 0% environmental. In other words, it's completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Anyway i'm glad you now agree that environmental factors can't be ruled out. I'm puzzled as to why you think only the very specific environmental subset of exposure in the womb could have influence, but i'll leave it at that.

Regarding quotes, they serve two neat functions: They notify respondents which facilitates communication, and they clarify the intended recipient. Furthermore, quotes do not in anyway destroy the opportunity for general open discussion. I recommend using quotes. They're a feature.
 
ChemicallyEnhanced said:
Yes it does, you ugly, dumb, homophobic, ignorant, rancid cunt :) ❤️😏💋*

Let me guess: you're straight? I'm not spreading misinformation OR an opinion; I'm telling you how it is. Factually.
You are straight and therefor your opinion on homosexuality and it's basis in nature and/or nurture is null and void. It's like a white person claiming the Africans were HAPPY being oppressed slaves. You have no knowledge, experience or insight. In both cases this means should should sit down, be quiet, and let the people who KNOW what they're talking about, talk about it.

Not calling them stupid, just ignorant and ill-informed. They're making an ASSUMPTION based on nothing.
I don't give a flying fuck about being P.C. btw.

*To be clear, I was being ironic there, not hateful. I meant neither the emoji's nor the diatribe
Click to expand...

I am indeed straight. This is completely irrelevant.

Do you really not understand that your assumption that homosexuality is not influenced by environment whatsoever, is also an assumption? In fact, assuming that it's influenced by both nature and nurture is less of an assumption since it's a neutral starting point. You're making more of an assumption than the people you call ignorant for making assumptions. I've explained this already. Did you read my post? Am i being super unclear? Is my english too bad? English is not my first language, so please let me know if my sentences are difficult to parse.

Your idea that people who are not gay can't form valid thoughts about gayness is unreasonable. Generalize it and see what absurdity results... "Only people with trait X can form valid thoughts, opinions and knowledge regarding trait X"...
 
DeathIndustrial88 said:
"I'm puzzled why some one who's gay would think it wasn't their environment"...

Idk, you sound like you know better than people who have lived it, so why don't you tell us?
Click to expand...

If you were to use the "quote" function, it would be more clear that it's me you're misquoting.

Why even misquote someone like that in the first place?
 
DeathIndustrial88 said:
So not only do you want to tell me where my sexuality comes from but you also wanna tell me how I should reply. lol
Click to expand...

I'm asking you to not fabricate quotes from me in making your points against me. A reasonable expectation of civil discourse. Go ahead and pretend that's some fascist evil if you will... Ridiculous.
 
You being straight is NOT irrelevant! You are not gay and therefor have know experience or understanding of it.
And I know it's not environment (FFS look it up, even scientists agree on this). My dad knew I was gay when I was like 2.
 
This is my last reply to you, btw. I'm done wasting my time on someone who is being willfully obtuse and has no desire to actually learn anything, just spout their ignorant perspective. Seriously, how can you think you know more about homosexuality than ACTUAL homosexual people? All of whom - you may have noticed - have told you exactly the same as I have.
May I ask what part of your environment turned you straight, btw?
 
ChemicallyEnhanced said:
This is my last reply to you, btw. I'm done wasting my time on someone who is being willfully obtuse and has no desire to actually learn anything, just spout their ignorant perspective. Seriously, how can you think you know more about homosexuality than ACTUAL homosexual people? All of whom - you may have noticed - have told you exactly the same as I have.
May I ask what part of your environment turned you straight, btw?
Click to expand...

I don't claim to know anything about it at all. I'm just pointing out that you have no basis for entirely ruling out all possible environmental factors.

I've made plenty of remarks to try and convey that i don't represent homophobia and am arguing on purely epistemological terms.

My refusal to accept arguments that solely reference mere beliefs does not constitute a lack in desire to learn anything. That's bordering on insult, to make such a conclusion.

I have not claimed to be able to tell what environmental factors influenced my own or anyone's sexuality, and i have certainly not implied there should be one single factor, or even any known or knowable factor, that decides sexuality in any particular case.
 
Last edited:
Whatever your opinion is about this topic, or however strongly you feel about it, there is absolutely no excuse for the level of name calling that just went down. Definitely way overboard.

I know it's a touchy topic, but please try and have some level of respect for each other during discourse.
 
Let's begin looking at what the science says. I'll use wikipedia as a starting reference, admitting its shortcomings.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Environment and sexual orientation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

According to this wikipedia article,

"Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is the result of a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."

And

"The influence of hormones on the developing fetus has been the most influential causal hypothesis of the development of sexual orientation."

It also says:

"Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation are weak, especially for males."

So, from a glance at wikipedia, it looks like the broader scientific community tentatively considers homosexuality as the result of a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors, that hormonal (i.e early environmental) hypotheses have been influential in the field, and that support for later environmental factors is weak.
 
Whichever mod anonymously edited my post: no. It was VERY clear I was joking and the "insult" wasn't even the joke, the joke was claiming adding a pleasant smiley to something change the tone and emotion of it WHILE doing that exact thing in a way which completely disproved my own point. So now, it was neither an insult, nor crossing the line. The rules here are supposed to be objective, not your own personal (mis)interpretation.
Would have PM'd you that (and probably worded it a little differently) if you hadn't taken away that option by hiding your identity
 
Mjäll said:
I don't claim to know anything about it at all. I'm just pointing out that you have no basis for entirely ruling out all possible environmental factors.

I've made plenty of remarks to try and convey that i don't represent homophobia and am arguing on purely epistemological terms.

My refusal to accept arguments that solely reference mere beliefs does not constitute a lack in desire to learn anything. That's bordering on insult, to make such a conclusion.

I have not claimed to be able to tell what environmental factors influenced my own or anyone's sexuality, and i have certainly not implied there should be one single factor, or even any known or knowable factor, that decides sexuality in any particular case.
Click to expand...

To clarify: I genuinely have not in any way attempted to suggest you were homophobic, btw. I apologize if you felt like I was. I don't think you're homophobic at all 👍

^I'm not being sarcastic btw lol. Looking back, I feel I probably came off a little harsh/strong. It does come from a place of frustration, though, not anger. I'd like to think we're debating, not arguing.
 
ChemicallyEnhanced said:
Whichever mod anonymously edited my post: no. It was VERY clear I was joking and the "insult" wasn't even the joke, the joke was claiming adding a pleasant smiley to something change the tone and emotion of it WHILE doing that exact thing in a way which completely disproved my own point. So now, it was neither an insult, nor crossing the line. The rules here are supposed to be objective, not your own personal (mis)interpretation.
Would have PM'd you that (and probably worded it a little differently) if you hadn't taken away that option by hiding your identity
Click to expand...

I, the recipient of the mock insult, am also on board with the irony. No offense taken at all.

Some other things you wrote i did consider a bit insulting but not at all troublingly so.

I hope i haven't insulted anyone. Hopefully the moderation was uncalled for and based on a misunderstanding, albeit an understandable one. (Understandable misunderstanding, now ain't that cute)
 
ChemicallyEnhanced said:
Whichever mod anonymously edited my post: no. It was VERY clear I was joking and the "insult" wasn't even the joke, the joke was claiming adding a pleasant smiley to something change the tone and emotion of it WHILE doing that exact thing in a way which completely disproved my own point. So now, it was neither an insult, nor crossing the line. The rules here are supposed to be objective, not your own personal (mis)interpretation.
Would have PM'd you that (and probably worded it a little differently) if you hadn't taken away that option by hiding your identity
Click to expand...
It was sarcasm.
 
Mjäll said:
I, the recipient of the mock insult, am also on board with the irony. No offense taken at all.

Some other things you wrote i did consider a bit insulting but not at all troublingly so.

I hope i haven't insulted anyone. Hopefully the moderation was uncalled for and based on a misunderstanding, albeit an understandable one. (Understandable misunderstanding, now ain't that cute)
Click to expand...

Thanks for that and I'm glad you took it as it was intended.

Also, I literally just posted a bit of an apology (not for the mock insult) after re-reading our posts and realizing I was a bit harsher than I had thought I was.
 
Mjäll said:
Not sure. I'm just arguing that if we are to exclude the possibility of any environmental factors for gayness, proof is required.

I can brainstorm a bit for you if you for some reason are interested in my speculations regarding environmental factors for gayness. Right now i'm unsure of your intentions.

I'm not saying your intention is to "disprove" my appeal to skepticism by trying to show that i don't have counter-examples at hand, but if it is: You should know that this is not a valid rebuttal since i'm simply arguing that the other guy is lacking proof for his assumption. If on the other hand you're simply expressing interest in my speculations, that's fine although mysterious. Feel free to clarify and i will happily speculate about environmental factors. Either way, i intend no harm.
Click to expand...

You can trust that I'm never going to try to deceive you or have ulterior motives when asking you questions. I was just curious about your opinion is all. Personally, I don't think it matters much whether I was "born gay" or it was somehow conditioned in me at a young age. I am what I am and have been for as long as I can remember having sexual thoughts.
 
ChemicallyEnhanced said:
You are straight and therefor your opinion on homosexuality and it's basis in nature and/or nurture is null and void. It's like a white person claiming the Africans were HAPPY being oppressed slaves.
Click to expand...

you know I love you but that's a terrible analogy. Mjall is not making a positive or negative judgement about homosexuals. You're allowed to have an opinion about stuff without having lived it. I've never been rich but I have an opinion about how much taxes rich people should pay. I'm not a woman but I have strong beliefs about the importance of women.

Human sexuality is complex. It wouldn't be radical to think that less than 100% of the factors at play are genetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top