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

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

I think the answer is is quite important as it would show us the cause/source of homosexuality.

If God, as believers think, then why is God creating gays?


Gays evolved due to random genetic mutations.
They are a rare breed and they are going extinct
because they can’t reproduce.

Research exotic becomes erotic. That’s one theory on the nurture side. I think sexual orientation is like empathy. We all have a natural capability to develop a healthy one that rightly values the skin we’re in & respects the “other”, but various experiences can steer things in a different direction. Variations on nature that are not out of alignment with treating/loving other as self (& vice versa) are a beautiful result of our creativity. Mauling our body instead of resolving childhood trauma is malpractice, in my opinion (which I believe to also be fact).


I didn’t see it, but now I’m curious.

As far as I can see, sexual orientation has always been diverse, and it has been a matter of herd morality to decide what is good for the group. The smaller the group, the more it seems to have to do with the survival of the group, and experience with sexually transmitted diseases will have guided behaviour to some degree. It was quickly discovered that incest had adverse consequences, and homosexuality threatened the number of offspring and thus the survival of the group. Likewise, a certain ratio of males to females was considered important.

The larger the group became, especially if it was embedded in a larger society, the more room there was for diversity, although herd preferences seem to have remained intact among the poorer people, and those who had some prestige and wealth seem to have allowed more diversity, although in prominent examples this wasn’t always the case. The question that always arises with sexuality, especially from the point of view of women, is whether it is consensual. This is particularly problematic in the case of paedophilia, where it is presumable that it is not, but I would imagine that homosexual relationships could also be forced, as strength and power often corrupt relationships and they become one-sided.

We still struggle with men who lack the sexual education that allows them to not only fulfil their own desires, but to include those of their partners as well. This may be because sexuality was long thought to be only a matter of procreation, and as late as the late 19th century, women who were sexually frustrated even though they had given birth to children were diagnosed with the symptom of “hysteria.” This suggests that we are just discovering in sexuality the health aspects that are, of course, just as important to a homosexual person, the health aspects being just as complex, if not more so, in men.

In the West we are experiencing a period of confusion, it seems to me, with a sudden increase in people wanting to be changed into another sex, which is certainly a real need, just not in the numbers we have seen recently. There are clear cases where the sex of children has been determined by surgeons at birth because there was uncertainty about the sex organs, and a wrong decision was made. However, this seems to be the case only in a minority of people who want to be transgendered. Cases are also reported where homosexuals were pressured to convert and regretted it because they were not in the wrong body, but only homosexually inclined.

The suffering caused by these misunderstandings and the lack of empathy for those affected is far greater than we can imagine, and great care must be taken to protect these people, but at the same time it is necessary to recognize what the real problem is. If it is understandable for a man to think that a woman is repulsed by the opposite sex, then it is equally possible for a man to have a similar negative feeling about women. It is equally understandable that attraction to the opposite sex is not uncommon, just as the number of asexual people is underestimated.

What is particularly disturbing is that an institution that talks so much about love seems to be least empathetic towards homosexuals, and only protects people with other sexual orientations if it turns out that one of their own is involved in a scandal, where in most cases it has been an abuse of trust that makes it all the worse. The inability to embrace homosexual Christians, whether as members of the Church or of the clergy is a disgrace.

Nature is as nature does.

Let me tell you about the birds and the bees…

One day in your early teens you wake up thinking about sex. It has been dawning on you for quite a while, but now it can no longer be ignored. You are suddenly attracted to the opposite sex and find it difficult to stop thinking about certain aspects of their differences.
As a boy of 13 girl’s hair took on a sort of indelible beauty, their smell, shapes and mannerisms were transformed from “yuk - girls” to " OMFG - girls".

I have know some gay people over the years and they pretty much have the same experience except that they found they were attacted to the same sex. For a heterosexual it is what is normally expected, but for gay people it can be very hard to accept and a secret to be kept from other for fear of ridicule.

Nurture cannot explain this. Neither can the idea of personal choice make an impact on the outcome of these forces.

Coming out as gay cannot be done lightly - not even in our supposedly more enlightened times. This is not about choice, but biological necessity.

Not so.
They can and do reproduce, and the emergence of homsexuality is from heterosexuals. Because the fact is that there are no hard and fast divisions between hetero and homo.
All homosexuals come from a union of heterosexuals, and shall continue to do so.
Homosexuals are found throughout the mammalian world.

:laughing: It’s a bit late :text-thankyouyellow:


Just asking for a friend… :-"

An interesting idea, with zero empirical support.
The first and obvious problem for this theory is that it is hopelessly teleologial and has no mechanism to feedback from overpopulation to increase in homosexuality. If people over breed they either find land and resources or die. How doe the gametes “know” to increase homosexuality??
THe other point about incest begs the question; if there are dire consequences then how do cultures know what was the cause and how do cultures with long term proscriptions against incest know about dire consequences?
This sort of biological determinism has long been challenged by anthropology. The fact is that genetically healthy populations can do as much incest as they want for several generations. Many cultures specifcally choose close relations for economic purposes with no dire consequences at all. Problems only occur when you get a recessive genetic disease which can be expressed in the phenotype such as the bleeders of European royalty.
Athropologists generally agree that proscriptions against incest are more do so with the promotion of exogamy, which extends influence and enlarges familial connections across groups and even across tribal boundaries. This is massively selective as it tends to promote peace and trade.

It all very well positing teleology.
But human social evolution is not always so easily logical.

The simple fact about homosexuality is that it does not have to have a reason.
There is very little about evolved characteristics that can be easily attributed to a fucntion. Men have nipples. How many times have you ejaculated, and how does that compare with the number of children you have.
I know homosexuals that have children born naturally who number greater than my own children. So I do not see being gay as some sort of response to too many people in the world.
Seuality is a spectrum. It does not have to be perfect in making offpring - it just needs to work enough for there to ne enough humans to carry on.
Gays make great parents.

In the normal way. Sometimes with the assistance of a turkey baster.

In the past it was very common for parents to see children die, because both, child mortality rates and fertility rates were very high. In Europe in the mid-18th century parents lost on average between 3 and 4 of their children. With little or no social support, that was a problem, and sexual diversity didn’t help. A group/family had to see to it that it retained the number it needed to survive, and it is well known that sons were favoured over daughters.

I think that you are arguing a point with someone who already accepts that sexual orientation is diverse, but I’m saying that there have been social interventions to prevent it, for whatever reasons. I have just provided a few.

There is the rule that says: “Don’t have sex with first-degree relatives.” First-degree relatives are the individuals you share 50 percent of your genes with—your parents, children, and siblings. Indeed, non-human animals have evolved a host of strategies to prevent incest. Even plants possess anti-incest mechanisms: “Different versions of the same gene can be either dominant or recessive. A small non-coding RNA mediates such differences in dominance as part of a system that prevents inbreeding in plants. Many flowering plants have elaborate systems to distinguish between pollens that are acceptable for fertilization and those that are unsuitable. For plants of the Brassica family, one such system is self-incompatibility — rejection of genetically similar gametes.”

I think that we forget that cultures in the past were as, if not more, observant of nature.

I find frequent references to the problems of incest:

There is no doubt that this would also be a reason to promote exogamy.

Again, you are running against an open door. My only contention is that homosexual relationships alone do not produce children.

It’s complicated.

everybody is unhappy to a certain extent. Even Werther.

More like can but wont.

I do not see gays going extinct, as that would mean that genetic mutations have gone extinct.


Not to mention that they reduce the value of females, by a degree, as compared to men.

They cannot even respect their own mothers as equal, thanks to their misogyny.

Sick minds.


They are like naturally occurring viral invasions to make Earth less populous and more habitable.

So there are no gay females in your book? Interesting! :-k

So you see nature as being able to count, and knowing when to adjust populations in the various life forms.

Don’t we get a say?