Author Topic: What’s the sub context of “Nature vs Nurture” discussion?  (Read 5769 times)

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: What’s the sub context of “Nature vs Nurture” discussion?
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2006, 10:23:01 am »
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.
No more beans!

Offline starboardlight

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,127
    • nipith.com
Re: What’s the sub context of “Nature vs Nurture” discussion?
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2006, 12:37:16 pm »
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.
"To do is to be." Socrates. - "To be is to do." Plato. - "Do be do be do" Sinatra.

Offline JennyC

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
Re: What’s the sub context of “Nature vs Nurture” discussion?
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2006, 06:59:20 pm »
Ok this is one shameless bump since I started it.   ;)

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