In the absence of anything conclusively stating otherwise, I've always personally thought that whether you're gay, straight or bi came mostly from nurture, not nature. A new study shows the opposite: http://www.newscientist.com/channel...tructured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
The problem with this theory is that homosexuality has no historic basis. Throughout human history, there have been two sexual orientations that have predominated to a nearly universal degree: Straight and bisexual, with the latter more commonly found amongst men than women. This is furthered by the fact that even today, many people who construe themselves as gay or lesbian, have a history of opposite sex. From a sheer evolutionary point, the idea that we could be born gay makes no sense: What reproductive benefit could be gained by an expression that makes the chances of mating succesfully and producing offspring so very much unlikely?
I don't see the conflict from an evolutionary standpoint, there's a reason why homosexuals are a tiny insignificant percent of the human population.
Erm I think there is a historic precendence for homosexuality....and that's why brains are being studied. If it is no more alifestyle choice than having black or white skin then what does it say about all those who say they have a direct link to god and 'his' 'take' on the issue...?
How do you know that the nurture doesn't affect the brain development? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The research only said that there is similarity of brain structure between gay & straight female, and between lesbian & straight male. I read somewhere even music can influence brain development especially in the early stage (infancy).
inzomnia: This study is important because it focuses on parts of the brain that are thought to not be affected by development. From the article:
But then it is an anomaly with no sufficient disadvantage to disappear from the population. This has to mean that there always was considerable pressure on homosexual organisms to behave in a heterosexual way. Which, in turn, means that (if this idea is right) homosexuality can only persist in populations of species with a certain level of intelligence.
Huh ? It's either genetic or it's not. It could be a genetic defect from one of the parents, just of the mother, or a non-genetic defect during embryonic development originating in the mother or the embryo itself (see post 5).
The very existence of homosexuality would suggest there is indeed an evolutionary reason for it. Perhaps it is just that we haven't found the link yet because we have been focussed too heavily on the nuture side of the 'debate'. Just in conversations I've never heard anyone say they chose to be homosexual only that they 'always felt gay'. Not scientific I know but it's certainly not like choosing to be a goth is it?
Want to place a bet? All manner of social conditioning, bullying, drugs, and 'therapy' have so far failed to eradicate it.....
Good point, but you're assuming everything nature does has a point. What about Down's Syndrome? Does it confer some evolutionary advantage? Obviously not, yet it persists in the population due to a common error in the production of gametes. Homosexuality could be a similiar situation. It could be the result of a common error in the reproductive process or in embryonic development. Alternatively, it could be like sickle cell anemia. Perhaps there is a reproductive advantage to being heterozygous (having one copy of the "gay gene"). For instance, such people might be less agressive and so less likely to get in fights resulting in their deaths, while still being attracted to females and so able to reproduce.
