Sexuality: Nature vs. Nurture

How is any sexuality "non-traditional"? Simply because it does not fit in with a certain religious affiliation or expectation? Homosexuality is well documented in over 500 species of animals including humans. It is a natural occurrence, regardless of if environmental factors have anything to do with it. I personally know a set of twins - one is homosexual while the other is heterosexual. Everyone's sexuality is based in their genes as well as in their environments, as are a majority of a person's non-physical traits.

In reference to the above comment: I intended to use the term "non-traditional" as an umbrella term for non-heterosexual sexual orientations, as to not leave any thing out. The term "traditional" (quotes are used intentionally there) to refer back to the term queer, or strange/unusual/not "normal" (i.e. traditional) which was also used to refer to non-heterosexual sexualities. It may be traditional biologically, but I was referring to "non-traditional" sexual orientations in society.

I agree with the possibility (after taking the biology of sex class) that there may be a specific gene that could contribute to a predisposition in homosexual orientation. Like you said in your blog, having an uncle/aunt to help care and protect for the family as well as the sibling's children greatly enhances survival rates for the entire family, continuing the trait through natural selection. Of course, this would be extremely difficult to prove, but it may be an explanation for why homosexuality is so widespread across many species. I also agree that no part of anyone's personality or characteristics of who they are could ever be only nature or only nurture influenced. They say that the personality develops by age 5, giving an open window for nurture to play a role, which may be confusing because how exactly would you know what environmental factors contribute to sexual orientation? but all of this cannot be easily measured in any sense. This is a very controversial topic, and I appreciate your openness to consider all possibilities.

One thing I think people who conduct studies on sexuality often neglect is that these things are personal preference. People have the right to fall for anyone and like anything. Personally, I don't really like to think of this topic as a nature/nurture topic purely because you can't make people like certain things. Of course your environment will have SOMETHING to do with it, but saying that it's not normal, or "non-traditional," seems a bit judgmental. I'm not saying you're wrong for posting this, I just think people conducting these studies need to understand that people have a right to privacy and personal preference when it comes to the people they choose the rest of their life with.

I like the topic of this blog a lot because it does bring up a controversial nature vs. nurture topic in society today. Personally, I've always been more inclined to believe that genes play the majority role in influencing sexuality but it's interesting to note that studies have shown that nurture plays a role too. I still believe that sexuality is mostly gene-based and not necessarily a choice like the comment above suggests but it's nice to read about it from a slightly different perspective. Very intriguing blog entry!

Your blog topic is very engaging. It is interesting because it is hard to tell if sexuality is affected by mailny gene or environmental factors. In my opinion, most of the cases of homosexuality are genetic. I feel that homosexual individuals have known their identities at a very young age, when they have not been affected by environmental factors long. But I believe different people grow up differently and might develop homosexuality later in their life, so it is not impossible. Overall, you did a great job in giving an example on Nature vs. Nurture concept!

Along with some of the above comments, I never thought of sexual preference as a component of the nature/nurture debate. So I appreciate this blog as it made me look at it a different way. My personal belief is someone's sexual preference is out of their conscious control, but I'm not sure if I would say it's their "genes" per say. I do agree that the society one grows up in has something to do with it, however small the impact may be. I think the things we experience every day impact us in the subtlest of ways that we can't possibly be aware of. I believe it's easier to see how a culture affects a person when looking at cultures different than your own, but even then it's impossible to understand/see fully. I'm getting off topic. Thanks!

Very interesting. Going to a performing arts high school there were a lot of "non-traditional" sexualities, as you can imagine. Specifically talking about dance, I always wondered how some of the dance guys could be heterosexual, and others homosexual. I never thought of the nature vs. nurture argument when relating to sexuality, so this was a educational yet interesting read! Thanks!

I think this is a very important topic for people to be discussing in today's day and age. I always wonder what makes people gay or straight, and there are so many reasons to believe in nature as well as nurture. Nurture makes sense, because if it were nature, then why do families with generation after generation of straight people have gay children? Nature also makes sense, because even boys and girls who are raised in environments that would theoretically strongly lead them to be straight, (such as boys who are raised to be tough, play sports, play with trucks, etc. and girls who do dance and play with dolls) can sometimes turn out to be gay. As such, I believe it's a combination of the two.

I don’t understand why in the first place, people are doing research on homosexuality. Does it matter? Why people are trying to understand anything that is different than what we consider normal. I understand studying psychopath since they are a threat, but I do not see the point of wasting money in research on homosexuality. The last time I checked, heterosexual had a higher rate of divorce. Nice post!!