no, silly sausage

Outrageous we're on page 2 and nobody has posted Lady Gaga's Born This Way music video.

It's just natures way of keeping the population down.So i'd go nature.I think people probably are born that way.

Yes I think you're born with your sexuality. Looking back I think I knew even as a child that I was gay without really even understanding what it meant, or having feelings for anyone, and as others have said there'd be huge disparities amongst different communities/countries if it was down to nurture.

I do think that sexuality is more fluid than most people acknowledge though and that most people categorise themselves as one particular thing and stick to that, and that's just because of how society is, but that our nature can mean that there can be changes in our sexuality. I also think that most people who identify as either gay or straight probably in fact fall somewhere on the Kinsey scale rather than simply being one or the other... I really don't think sexuality is simple enough to be able to define so strongly.
So I suppose environmental influences can impact us in that way... but that's more to do with how we choose to define it, rather than the impact being on our sexuality itself.

the pansexual pandemic?

It's an interesting one

I think nature, but I would be interested how I would be if I lived my brother's life but with my genes.

Ive absolutely no idea. I know the liberals demand everyone give the same answer or else be labelled homophobic, but I simply dont know. Is it nature or nurture that I fancy women? That I like to eat meat? That I am a serial entrepreneur? etc etc I dont know about myself let alone the millions of other people out there. I know that I think homosexuality should be legal , but I am absolutely bored to tears of everyone going on about it all the time. This distracts from the 1000001 other stories, problems and social issues being ignored out there

I think nature, as the same behavior is known to happen in animal world too.

This

Honestly though could you imagine a scientific experiment where they get 2 sets of newborn mice putting one set in a regular cage and another set in a cage with scented candles, miniature antique furniture and the scissor sisters blasting through the lab? The nurture argument is just very strange to me.

I do sort of want to see a mouse reenacting the Filthy/Gorgeous video with a flaming hula hoop now

NM its not working
The Population is growing must too fast
and as Result WW3
is on track.


Any Non Tough Gays will
be put on the Back line.

If you are Gay in Saudi Arabia or IRAN
you must STAY in the CLOSET
or you Die.

Sheep have to let it all out...............

"Outrageous we're on page 2 and nobody has posted Lady Gaga's Born This Way music video."


TELL GAGA
to FECK OFF



Feel The Force

All humans eggs are female, if a certain protein forms then it turns male.

Sociology, what we learn or are taught, against what's in our nature.

Its far easier to judge than be judged!

I love Fievel goes West!

:laugh2:

The answer is "both/other" and it's barely even a debate... it's been studied inside out!

I am not gay myself, but my friend who is tells me he knew he was gay almost from the minute he could think. So I think you're born gay. No one can make you gay... if they could surely by that same logic those absurd places where Christians think they can "cure" you of homosexuality would actually work.

Hmmm that would make it "both", though. Essentially what you're saying is that we have an innate instinct to identify high population levels and adjust accordingly to keep the population level down. However, the actual genetic material itself has no way of identifying population levels until AFTER being born and achieving social understading... therefore, each baby would be born neutral, before having that instinct "activated" by circumstance. You would also expect to see higher ratios of homosexuality for those raised in urban areas as opposed to rural areas (though tbf, I don't know the actual stats on this).

Finally, thinking about the suggestion logically, there would be no biological reason at all for male homosexuality, only female homosexuality, if the reason was population control. One single straight male can theoretically father thousands of children if there are enough females available to carry them. One female can only naturally (at a push) birth & nurture five to ten children in her lifespan. So while female homosexuality would reduce population levels... male homosexuality would hypothetically make very little difference. To humans in their "natural state", anyway.

"Non-tough gays"

Define your statement, Arista.

You are born with whatever sexuality you are, nothing else makes sense.

surely if it was anything else then it would vary greatly by generation?

Apparently there are "more gays than ever" among young people now, but I think that's easily explained:
- there are more people than ever
- we are generally more accepting now, so gays can be open about it.

But if there was just lesbians and no gays that would lead to a massive imbalance.Loads of horny blokes and not enough child bearing women.
I see nature on earth as like one massive system trying to survive.Only humans have got way too clever and started destroying it.I think homosexuality is just nature trying its best to fight back and even things out.