What’s the sub context of “Nature vs Nurture” discussion?

[JennyC]

The “Nature vs Nurture” thread on BBM is going strong with over 350 posts.  I have gotten into discussion with some Christian friends a few times on this topic.  I get the arguments presented by both sides. Personally I just want to say “why does it matter”.  Hopefully most of the people here agree it does not matter whether homosexuality is nature or nurture.  But that is not the question I want to ask.

My question is What is the sub context or agenda of “Nature vs Nurture” discussion or where does this discussion lead us to. Is this just an academic research topic, or different groups (let it be pro or anti gay rights, religious right, conservative, liberal, etc.) are trying to prove something with this discussion?  What’s the logic here?

I wanted to ask the question for sometime, but never worked up the courage to ask on BBM board.  I think Chez Tremblay is a much peaceful place, so I am going to put it out here for you intelligent bunch to educate me.

[littleguitar]

I think part of the hesitancy to call it nurture comes from the idea that "nurture" implies something social, so something you would have a choice in whether or not to participate.  It is similar in feminist arguments.  Many feminists are hesitant to say women have a "feminine" nature or that there are biological differences between men and women because, to the wrong person, this could be used as proof that women should be subordinate.  I would think that for those who are against gay rights or are homophobic, saying that homosexuality is not nature would be a way for them to try and prove homosexuality is wrong.

I hope that was actually some sort of an answer to your question!

[starboardlight]

I agree with you. I think it's besides the point. If a straight woman wants to have a relationship with another woman, it's her rights to "choose" to do so. As long as the two partners are consenting adults who are blood relatives, there's no harm to society.

I think the agenda is that many gay men and women want to argue nature, because their sexuality is something they didn't choose. They therefore shouldn't be discriminated against because of it. The religious right want to argue nurture because if it's not an inborn trait, it can there fore be changed.

All of that is really besides the point, imo. If you think about there are thing that are part of our genetics and we go ahead and changed or treat them, and there are traits that are not part of our genetic make up that we know better than to mess with. The only thing that concern me is that two people who love each other should have the freedom to do so.

[delalluvia]

I agree with you. I think it's besides the point. If a straight woman wants to have a relationship with another woman, it's her rights to "choose" to do so. As long as the two partners are consenting adults who are blood relatives, there's no harm to society.

I think the agenda is that many gay men and women want to argue nature, because their sexuality is something they didn't choose. They therefore shouldn't be discriminated against because of it. The religious right want to argue nurture because if it's not an inborn trait, it can there fore be changed.

All of that is really besides the point, imo. If you think about there are thing that are part of our genetics and we go ahead and changed or treat them, and there are traits that are not part of our genetic make up that we know better than to mess with. The only thing that concern me is that two people who love each other should have the freedom to do so.

Scarily, the latest I'm hearing from the far right is that if being gay is 'genetic' then they hope genetic research will progress rapidly and isolate the 'gay gene' so that it can be excised from people or some sort of gene therapy developed so that this 'abnormality' can be 'fixed'.

At brunch yesterday, I told this to a bi/lesbian friend of mine and she looked askance at me.  'What if we don't want to be "fixed"?'

Then another friend of mine reminded me of a Star Trek episode that was eeriely familiar.  About a gender neutral society that frowned on heterosexual or homosexual relationships.  One member fell in love with the Riker character and began to develop 'female' traits. 

They 'fixed' her.  And she thanked them for it.   

More recently, the newest X-Men movie has one plotline about a mutant whose father is wealthy enough and either wants to develop or has started to develop a 'cure' for mutants.

The X-Men movies have always been about discrimination.  Would taking a 'pill' fix that?  Or are humans just sneetches and we would find something else to discriminate against?

[Kd5000]

Getting back to the initial post...

Well the Christian folk who now in the nature vs nurture thing, huh?... Many fundamentalists still believe that ppl willed theymselves or were "corrupted," recruited, etc into being gay. The Catholic church says it's a "condition."   I presume they would quietly add the word "mental" in front of condition if pushed.

Personally, I believe it's 98% genetic and 2% social factors which no one seems clear about. Oh, they've mapped the human genome, but a geneticist told me they will spend the rest of this century trying to figure out what those genes do...

The movie seems to sorta imply a nurture thing with Jack and Ennis both having distant (that might be to kind to describe Jack's dad) fathers. Don't really know about Ennis's father but the nurture debate would say EARLY childhood influences (when Ennis's dad was alive) influence sexual orientation. 

However there are many gay men who come from high functioning families and there are many straight men who come from a household without a father present. I would presume the same would apply for gay and straight women. The Cheney household might give me pause for thought, though.

350 posts, hah. Gawd, how can a thread get that long?

[JennyC]

Thanks for offering your opinion on this topic.  Needless to say that we are all pretty much on the same page here.  I am just playing devil’s advocate here as I really want to get to the bottom of this topic.

I would think that for those who are against gay rights or are homophobic, saying that homosexuality is not nature would be a way for them to try and prove homosexuality is wrong.

That argument won’t really hold up, would it?  Not everything natural is right, not everything unnatural is wrong.  Religion itself is nurture rather than nature.  I don’t think a person is born to be religious; it’s a choice you make to believe in whatever religion you believe in.  Why it’s ok in some instances, but not others? Why the double standard?

I think the agenda is that many gay men and women want to argue nature, because their sexuality is something they didn't choose. They therefore shouldn't be discriminated against because of it.
 

Does that imply that for the gay men and women who choose to be (rather than born to be) homosexual, they then should be discriminated because of their choice?  I don’t really see the benefit for gay community from this discussion.  If just purely to educate the public, that’s fine.  But I don’t think there is any political gain here unless you can prove that all homosexual are nature, not nurture, which we all know it’s a hard sell.  You can not use the argument to protect the majority (born to be homosexual) while abandoning the minority (choose to be), however a small percentage that may be.

Scarily, the latest I'm hearing from the far right is that if being gay is 'genetic' then they hope genetic research will progress rapidly and isolate the 'gay gene' so that it can be excised from people or some sort of gene therapy developed so that this 'abnormality' can be 'fixed'.

This is something new.  So far right thinks that being gay is ‘genetic’.  Then great, it’s given by god, by our creator, why should we attempt to fix it?  It’s not some disease that people can die because of it.  Just like some people are right-handed, and some are left-handed, why fix it?

[Shuggy]

Even to ask what causes homosexuality is homophobic if you don't ask at the same time what causes heterosexuality. We don't really know what attracts men to women or women to men. (A different question from what purpose that serves.) Many strait men (especially) can't even get this question, and will try to explain their attraction as if women's attractiveness compared to men was somehow innate, leaving no explanation for men's attractiveness to strait women. When a teenager gets lusty about a teenager of the opposite sex, the last thing on their mind is "if we do this, we may have children". On the contrary!

Homophobes keep asking "What causes homosexuality?" with a view to asking "How can we cure it?" Eugenically if genetic, through ever stricter upbringing, I suppose, if it is nurture.

I like to answer "Neither, it's a Gift from God!" just to annoy them.

[delalluvia]

Scarily, the latest I'm hearing from the far right is that if being gay is 'genetic' then they hope genetic research will progress rapidly and isolate the 'gay gene' so that it can be excised from people or some sort of gene therapy developed so that this 'abnormality' can be 'fixed'.

This is something new.  So far right thinks that being gay is ‘genetic’.

SOME right wingers are drifting toward that idea, not all. 

Then great, it’s given by god, by our creator, why should we attempt to fix it?

Because people want to 'fix' things all the time.

It’s not some disease that people can die because of it.  Just like some people are right-handed, and some are left-handed, why fix it?

Being born with one less limb or autistic or infertile doesn't kill anyone either, but they sure want those fixed.  In fact infertility is one of the most 'creator given' gifts that no one thinks is a gift and they want to change.  One African man whose wife had fertility treatments and gave birth to multiple children told the media that this was 'god's will'.  However, IMO his wife being infertile in the first place seemed more 'natural' and 'god's will' but he had no problem ignoring that.

Crazed right wingers really do think homosexuality is a defect, a bad one and one that needs 'fixing' so I'm sure they would want such 'therapy'.

[JennyC]

Being born with one less limb or autistic or infertile doesn't kill anyone either, but they sure want those fixed.  In fact infertility is one of the most 'creator given' gifts that no one thinks is a gift and they want to change.
...
Crazed right wingers really do think homosexuality is a defect, a bad one and one that needs 'fixing' so I'm sure they would want such 'therapy'.

Del,

You are right, guess have to add a lot of disclaimer as to what kind of 'genetic defect' that we should just let it be.  I wonder if our talkative bunch also suffer some 'genetic defect'  .  [sigh]  If someone really thinks there is something wrong because you feel attractive to, sexuality intimate with, and/or love a person with the same gender as you, that's nothing you can do to convince them otherwise.

[JennyC]

Even to ask what causes homosexuality is homophobic if you don't ask at the same time what causes heterosexuality.

Well put, Shuggy.

[ednbarby]

Even to ask what causes homosexuality is homophobic if you don't ask at the same time what causes heterosexuality. We don't really know what attracts men to women or women to men. (A different question from what purpose that serves.) Many strait men (especially) can't even get this question, and will try to explain their attraction as if women's attractiveness compared to men was somehow innate, leaving no explanation for men's attractiveness to strait women. When a teenager gets lusty about a teenager of the opposite sex, the last thing on their mind is "if we do this, we may have children". On the contrary!

Homophobes keep asking "What causes homosexuality?" with a view to asking "How can we cure it?" Eugenically if genetic, through ever stricter upbringing, I suppose, if it is nurture.

I like to answer "Neither, it's a Gift from God!" just to annoy them.

Nice answer, Shuggy.  I like that.  And along the lines of the rest of your very insightful post, I'm brought back to something my husband said a long time ago when his sister became engaged to an African American and their parents, who he had thought were so liberal and open-minded, went completely ballistic.  We went to lunch with her and her then fiance and were talking about how irrational their parents were being.  Ed said, "Really, we're all a little bit racist in our hearts, unfortunately.  Because until you can see a man as a man and not a black man or see a woman as a woman and not a black woman, you *are* a racist.  Ron agreed and admitted that his parents were having the same amount of difficulty with him marrying a white woman.

Until we all see homosexuality as something that does not need to be fixed any more than heterosexuality needs to be, we will be living in a homophobic society.  But I really think that this movie has made huge strides in moving us as a society towards that goal.  It has to have, because I'm witnessing people every day who say their minds have actually been changed by it.

[starboardlight]

I think the agenda is that many gay men and women want to argue nature, because their sexuality is something they didn't choose. They therefore shouldn't be discriminated against because of it.
 

Does that imply that for the gay men and women who choose to be (rather than born to be) homosexual, they then should be discriminated because of their choice?  I don’t really see the benefit for gay community from this discussion.  If just purely to educate the public, that’s fine.  But I don’t think there is any political gain here unless you can prove that all homosexual are nature, not nurture, which we all know it’s a hard sell.  You can not use the argument to protect the majority (born to be homosexual) while abandoning the minority (choose to be), however a small percentage that may be.

precisely. i really think you fall into a trap when you argue rights based on nature. i'm of the mind that it doesn't matter. if it doesn't hurt people and doesn't infringe on others' freedom, then it should be your right, choice or not.

[JennyC]

Ok this is one shameless bump since I started it.   

Bumping it to hear more people’s opinion on this.