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

[paradox]

Paradox, could you please just admit that you are wrong so I can extricate myself from this? It's obvious to anyone reading and this topic is very simplistic and dull, a non-event with an obvious answer, solved decades ago.

Feel free to get out of this nonsense, I'm out of this discussion from now on, but no I don't think I'm wrong.
For me homosexuality is a social degradation of western society, and so is seen non only by non-westerners but also by many westerners.

[Pattern-chaser]

In the name of human rights, why are people forbidden to walk naked outside? they wouldn't do any harm to others just like homosexuals "don't do any harm".

That's a good and reasonable question, but it isn't really on-topic here, and has nothing (that I can see) to do with homosexuality.

[paradox]

In the name of human rights, why are people forbidden to walk naked outside? they wouldn't do any harm to others just like homosexuals "don't do any harm".

That's a good and reasonable question, but it isn't really on-topic here, and has nothing (that I can see) to do with homosexuality.

The point is "human dignity" which is under attack from all over the place, homosexuality being just one of them.

[Pattern-chaser]

The point is "human dignity" which is under attack from all over the place, homosexuality being just one of them.

Human dignity may indeed be "under attack", but I think these attacks come more from commercial, capitalist, profit-centred, activities, than from homosexuality. I still think this digression is off-topic.

[Greatest I am]

I do not discriminate against gays, and like them likely more than the heterosexuals I know, but that does not make me blind to knowing that they are not the best possible end for a species that has to reproduce with two genders.

It's evolution, Dear Watson.

Homosexuality in humans only exists because it has proved useful. Human societies are large and complex and they require a great deal of pluralism to function. Homosexuality is one form of pluralism that provides society with males or females who are not restricted by family, who can synergistically join forces and contribute to society in ways that those busy with family have less opportunity to do. In indigenous societies, gay and intersex people performed tasks that others did not, most notably, as shaman.

Whatever, with eight billion people, there's no need to encourage fecundity. It's not as though we are running out of humans.

True.

That should be our last worry.

I don't know if I agree with your usefulness for plurality theory.

Diversity was and is generally seen as more harm than care to a homogenous culture.

If true, we unfortunately did not get the message for way too long.

Regards
DL

[Sy Borg]

I do not discriminate against gays, and like them likely more than the heterosexuals I know, but that does not make me blind to knowing that they are not the best possible end for a species that has to reproduce with two genders.

It's evolution, Dear Watson.

Homosexuality in humans only exists because it has proved useful. Human societies are large and complex and they require a great deal of pluralism to function. Homosexuality is one form of pluralism that provides society with males or females who are not restricted by family, who can synergistically join forces and contribute to society in ways that those busy with family have less opportunity to do. In indigenous societies, gay and intersex people performed tasks that others did not, most notably, as shaman.

Whatever, with eight billion people, there's no need to encourage fecundity. It's not as though we are running out of humans.

True.

That should be our last worry.

I don't know if I agree with your usefulness for plurality theory.

Diversity was and is generally seen as more harm than care to a homogenous culture.

If true, we unfortunately did not get the message for way too long.

A homogeneous society would quickly collapse. Everyone would be ordinary. No one would have special skills in engineering, healthcare, warfare, instruction, the arts - and they would soon be out-competed by a society with exemplars leading their work in these areas. Plurality in a human society is critical, and should not be confused with multiculturalism, which is optional.

[Sy Borg]

In the name of human rights, why are people forbidden to walk naked outside? they wouldn't do any harm to others just like homosexuals "don't do any harm".

That's a good and reasonable question, but it isn't really on-topic here, and has nothing (that I can see) to do with homosexuality.

Not all societies forbid nakedness either, although the Garden of Eden story hints at why so many choose to be clothed. Adam and Eve became aware that they were naked and "covered their shame". I expect that Vikings and Pacific Islanders had a more pragmatic attitude to being clothed or not. Not to mention protection.

On the other hand, about a billion Muslim women are not allowed to display their (head) hair.

These days, most of us would be leery about sitting after someone has parked their uncovered their uncovered junk and derrière on a public seat, and not too many want to be pushed up against the genitals and bottoms of strangers on a crowded bus.

[Greatest I am]

Thanks for this S B.

Regards
DL

[Sy Borg]

Thanks for this S B.

Anyone who's had a UTI has no interest in parking their naked bot where someone else's has been. A lot of rules no doubt stem from disease risks, eg. pig meat could transmit parasites to the eater. Gay bans might have happened in societies with poor hygiene, just speculating.

Once it was enough for people to cover their "shame", which prevented disease. As population density increases, people increasingly need to cover their faces as well, to protect against pollution and diseases.

[Greatest I am]

Thanks for this S B.

Anyone who's had a UTI has no interest in parking their naked bot where someone else's has been. A lot of rules no doubt stem from disease risks, eg. pig meat could transmit parasites to the eater. Gay bans might have happened in societies with poor hygiene, just speculating.

Once it was enough for people to cover their "shame", which prevented disease. As population density increases, people increasingly need to cover their faces as well, to protect against pollution and diseases.

Indeed.

There were many strange and sometimes stupid in our old customs.

What depresses is that we are just as stupid in many cases as we were back then.

I E. Supernatural belief and fait, the epitome of stupid thinking.

Regards
DL

[Ecurb]

Not all societies forbid nakedness either, although the Garden of Eden story hints at why so many choose to be clothed. Adam and Eve became aware that they were naked and "covered their shame". I expect that Vikings and Pacific Islanders had a more pragmatic attitude to being clothed or not. Not to mention protection.

On the other hand, about a billion Muslim women are not allowed to display their (head) hair.

These days, most of us would be leery about sitting after someone has parked their uncovered their uncovered junk and derrière on a public seat, and not too many want to be pushed up against the genitals and bottoms of strangers on a crowded bus.

The extent to which women's hair is considered sexy is a bit bizarre. In the Middle East, it was not just the Muslims that were pruriently obsessed with hair. In the Christian Eastern Roman Empire, when regimes changed, the previous male heirs were either killed, or (if the victors were merciful) blinded and castrated (so they could produce no heirs). The female descendants were sent to nunneries and (horrors!) shorn of their hair, as if no descendants could possibly derive from a bald female.

Regarding the nature vs. nurture question: it is unresolveable. However, since I've started in on the Classics, I can mention the history of Gaius Tranquillus, written in about 100 A.C.E. To Tranquillas, the history of Rome was the history of its emperors, of whom there had been twelve at the time. Based largely on Tranquillus, Gibbon opined that only one of the twelve had been sexually "regular". The irregularities ranged from the opportunism of Caesar; the sadism of Nero; the pedarasty of Galba, and the deadly gay pedophelia of Tiberius, who had his young lovers cast off the cliffs of Capri so they could tell not tales.

The emperors, of course, were able to satisfy whatever sexual urges they may have had, and apparently did so often. Perhaps their lust was encouraged by the fear that their ascension to power was temporary -- a fear that was justified by the fact that 8 (or maybe 9) of the 12 met untimely deaths at the hands of assasins.

[Sy Borg]

Regarding the nature vs. nurture question: it is unresolveable.

As a species, this question has long been resolved. Homosexuality has been found in all cultures at all times in history. Numerous other species engage in homosexual bonding.

Individuals may sometimes have their sexuality impacted by conditioning, and it's generally unhealthy. However, most sexual orientations are lifelong and highly resistant to change, even under threat of harassment, imprisonment, torture or execution - common historical punishments inflicted on innocents punished for simply existing.

[Ecurb]

Individuals may sometimes have their sexuality impacted by conditioning, and it's generally unhealthy. However, most sexual orientations are lifelong and highly resistant to change, even under threat of harassment, imprisonment, torture or execution - common historical punishments inflicted on innocents punished for simply existing.

Yes. And without nurture, no humans would live longer than a couple of days, and whatever their genetically constituted sexual proclivities might be would never develop. One might think (for example) that basic gender is determined by "nature". But that appears incorrect (or, at least, the normal genetic determination of gender is not the determinating factor).

The fact that animals practice homosexuality is irrelevant to the argument. As is the case with humans, animal behavior is always influenced by both nature and nurture. If such seemingly genetically determined traits as height are influenced by nurture, why wouldn't sexual preference be?

By the way, I don't care about this issue. I don't think it's relevant to sexual morality. I just posted because I wanted to add the interesting tidbits about the Roman emperors.

[Ecurb]

Feel free to get out of this nonsense, I'm out of this discussion from now on, but no I don't think I'm wrong.
For me homosexuality is a social degradation of western society, and so is seen non only by non-westerners but also by many westerners.

And yet you use Jaques David's painting of Socrates as your avatar? Hmmm.

[Pattern-chaser]

Regarding the nature vs. nurture question: it is unresolveable.

As a species, this question has long been resolved.

Here, I think I must disagree. The source of homosexuality cannot be brought down to nature or nurture. The two probably aren't distinct anyway. Nurture can affect nature, and nature, nurture. A practical example: we have learned that some lessons an individual learns, through nurture, can change their DNA (nature) in ways that would surprise someone who knows only the basics of Dawkinsian evolution. I can't remember the scientific terms for it all, but I believe it reflects our current understanding of inheritance, genetic and otherwise.