Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
The Guyliner

GET UPDATES FROM The Guyliner
 

Does the 'Nature vs Nurture' Debate Exist to Help the Gay Community, or Begin its Decline?

Posted: 7/02/2012 00:00

Nature, nurture, choice, whatever. The world seems obsessed with what makes the gays gay. The hot potato of how homosexuals came to be is passed around from soapbox to soapbox until it becomes decidedly mashed, becoming kind of difficult to tell it was ever a potato to begin with. I have never understood the fascination with unravelling this big secret. It's just something that happens; why can't we be satisfied with that? But, no, the curious minds continue to peer through the dirty net curtains and into gay society for some kind of solution. And when the code is deciphered, then what? When all the research has been done, genes examined and endless, dull, wittering studies analysed and crosschecked, what happens next? Will it lead to society truly understanding and accepting homosexuality and its 'practitioners'? Or will we be firmly on the path to extinguishing it altogether?

Call me paranoid, but I'm a little suspicious of those desperate to uncover the big, unexplainable mystery that put me here in all my fella-fancying glory. When any great debate or research goes into trying to find out why something happens, it's usually because they're looking for a way to eradicate it or promote its survival. Scientists are only cosying up and getting to know cancer because they want to make it go bye-bye for good, after all, and all those studies that show ginger hair is on its way toward extinction - thinning out, if you like - are in their own way trying to prevent this great genetic loss.

Imagine, then, if the 64-trillion pink pound question is answered. It's nature! It's a genetic thing! Great, so now we know what it is, maybe we can switch it off. Potential parents can opt to have a test to tell them whether there's a prospective interior decorator lurking within. Or perhaps there's a magic potion you can take, or a way of conception you can try, that will eliminate any possibility that your child will ask for tickets to a Lady Gaga concert as soon as it can speak? Would they do it? You, reading this, would you? Why would you? Why wouldn't you?

I asked some friends about this, straight and gay, who either already had children or were potential parents. Obviously, with a gay man doing the asking, they were unanimous in their denial that they'd drink the potion and have a 100% chance of giving birth to a straight baby (if a baby, with no sexual awareness whatsoever can be perceived as straight, of course - I'm not a scientist so can't really delve too deeply here) or at least a child who would grow up to be heterosexual.

Many of them cited 'grandchildren' as a reason for wanting heterosexual offspring. It may be true in the case of my friends, but as a general rebuttal it doesn't wash - gay parenting is on the up, everywhere, enjoying a rise to prominence meteoric enough to rival those insufferable Anya Hindmarch 'I am not a plastic bag' shopping sacks. There are lots of factors involved in being reluctant to have a gay child, most of them based on stereotypes or equally applicable to straight children, but no less concerning for parents. For starters, growing up as one can be difficult, even now - just take a look at the recent spate of teenage suicides - and there's also the perceived loneliness, exposure to illnesses still viewed as predominantly gay, prejudice or violence from others (my mother's only concern about having a gay child, she says), drug culture and, perhaps most worryingly of all, raising a child that will tell you your outfit looks like shit just as you're on your way out the door to a party. And that's before we even get onto the issue of religion.

I'm not saying my friends weren't being truthful - they are all comfortable with homosexuality and would defend me to the death - but I do wonder how many others out there would have the top off that potion bottle faster than you can set up a TiVo to record Queer Eye for the Straight Guy reruns.

And so onto nurture. Scenario two, then. Rejoice gay gene deniers! You can actually 'catch gay'! All it takes is a little boy using lip balm while his mother tells him how much she loves him or staring just a little bit too hard at that poster of David Hasselhoff in his fire-engine red speedos and, eventually, you'll be having an awkward conversation with your pride and joy in TGI Fridays on his 15th birthday. What then?

Do you drive yourself mad wondering if you shouldn't have allowed him to have that 'pretty princess' birthday cake even though he said he liked the colour? Was it your constant playing of Kylie on the kitchen radio? Perhaps young Lisa would not be bringing Sarah home and kissing her aggressively on your front porch if you'd made her wear pretty frocks and curled her hair rather than let her maraud across the fields in dungarees with the lads? And so for the next child, will you force upon it a heteronormative existence in the hope you finally do get those grandchildren to leave sticky marks all over your windows? Maybe you won't answer the door to the effeminate little chap from down the road in case your one and only heir switches a promising start in football for a life devoted to ballet.

Was I born with 'it'? Probably. I knew something was 'up' from an early age. Before I even knew what sex was, something didn't ring true. I felt different, unusual. Bewildered. Other people noticed too and the name-calling commenced. Did I end up gay - after a lot of deliberating and genuine belief that I probably wasn't - because I came into the world that way or was I living up to everybody else's assumptions? I don't think it matters. Some gays truly have no idea. It can creep up gradually or can pounce without warning. The straightest guy or girl of all can see a pair of eyes and fall in love with their owner, rendering them gay without even realising. Nature? Nurture? Who cares? Can't it be both - some born with it, some growing into it? Why do we have a concrete answer? Let it be random.

Like chicken and egg and the expanding universe, there are some riddles we just can't solve. Some questions don't have an answer. I don't want to be studied, examined like a curio in an antique shop, with everyone eager to know my origins or value. I'm not interested in being understood, or 'explained'. I'd rather just get on with it. There's no shame in "I don't know". I don't know. I don't want to. So if you do find out, don't tell me. Keep it to yourself.

 

Follow The Guyliner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/theguyliner

Nature, nurture, choice, whatever. The world seems obsessed with what makes the gays gay. The hot potato of how homosexuals came to be is passed around from soapbox to soapbox until it becomes decided...
Nature, nurture, choice, whatever. The world seems obsessed with what makes the gays gay. The hot potato of how homosexuals came to be is passed around from soapbox to soapbox until it becomes decided...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 29
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
lastpost
see biography
03:36 PM on 02/08/2012
"The world seems obsessed with what makes the gays gay."
Evolution: Wherever did humans get the impression it was over?

"Will it lead to society truly understanding and accepting"
Maybe. But on the way there we’ll first have to pass though realisation and humility. We’re mere players. Not writers of the rules.

"Call me paranoid"
Ok then. But even if you are that doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. Since we tend to fear most that which we don’t understand. Unfortunately, when the understanding in use is itself a contrivance, that tends to make reality the first casualty.

"You, reading this, would you? Why would you? Why wouldn't you?"
Nature has a task. Diversity is one of the top tools in its kit. If it should fail. Because we didn’t assist its methodology, or else thought we could impose our rules upon it with impunity. That’s it. Something else will take our place. Even if mistaken, the longer we hang around the more likely we are to find that out.

"if you do find out, don't tell me. Keep it to yourself."
Sorry. But each small part in this, starts or ends right here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark Van Kekerix
An Ordinary Gay Guy
07:25 PM on 02/07/2012
I frankly think that fearing we'll find "the cure" is pretty silly. The research being done into the 'causes' for homosexuality have been showing that it will likely have multiple causes, some genetic, some environmental. The key bit of information is that sexual orientation is immutable (unchangeable by the person). All the reputable medical, psychiatric, and psychological research organizations have agreed on this for many years now.
03:22 PM on 02/08/2012
personally i think there is a strong gentic link. from i what i hacve observed, many of the traits that would make some gay show very young, proschool even. If a genetic marker can be identifiied, i would be willing to be that some parents would test for it and not carry a that child to term, just as being done for genetic reasonns. In china and india that your are a girl will be cause for terminateing a pregancy. I doubt all parents would choose this course of action, but some would
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
06:22 PM on 02/07/2012
Oh come on. I understand the debate bothers you. But frankly, it's not even noteworthy. With practically any concept in psychology, the "nature vs. nurture" debate exists - so the notion it existed to "Help the Gay Community, or Begin its Decline" is missing its actual point completely. Does the "nature vs. nurture" debate on intelligence exist to help the intelligent people or begin their decline? The fact is that people want to understand how things came to be the way they are, and when it comes to psychology, "nature vs nurture" are the two extremes of the spectrum of possibilities. That the individual points of the debate are at times being abused for discrimination or defense against discrimination in no way detracts from the fact that at its foundation, the debate is simply a question of basic research - knowledge that can be used or abused, but that in itself has no purpose.
06:14 PM on 02/07/2012
This is ridiculous. It is commonly agreed upon in the field of psychology that most of personality is a combination of nature and nurture. With that being said, if research continues to lean toward there being biological ties to being gay, then those who think it's a choice will fall to the wayside more quickly. We've been around for thousands of years and even if people could "cure" us, I don't this it would happen on a very big scale.
photo
Sonja Dawn
Hearing is not the same as listening.
05:30 PM on 02/07/2012
The only reason being gay is a big deal--something that needs to be studied is because the leaders of the world. I think you're right, they want to find a cure. I've heard a lot of people saying we need to speak louder and get more attention. If something already has so much negativity surrounding it, being loud only makes it worse. However; I think it's too late to be quiet now. Maybe we need a new way to direct our voice? I agree, who cares? The people with money do and they want to eradicate us mmwwwaaaaa....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:07 PM on 02/07/2012
Honestly, I find this sort of research fascinating because it's kind of a path of self discovery, just one I can't take personally. I *do* want to know why I am this way, what role us queers play in human evolution, why we're still part of the family tree.

It's a profound curiosity. I mean, isn't it just fascinating that the chance of a gay male baby increases with each male child? What purpose does it serve for the younger sons to be more likely to be gay? Less competition with the older brothers? More males in the extended family but not as many babies (face it, we gays make *great* uncles and aunts)? Something else? Why doesnt' the same hold true for lesbians? What about the stress correlation? Why do women giving birth during periods of high stress have a higher chance of a gay baby? It can't be a true response to circumstances, because 15+ years later is a helluva long time for a reaction to stimulus. Or maybe it's for long-term stresses and human civilization has simply eliminated those? Perhaps it was so that in very hard living there are (again) fewer babies, lower population growth, and so-on?

On the other hand, I too share the fear that if we ever did get a definitive answer that it would have disastrous consequences. We already have people aborting girl babies, is it so hard to imagine they'd abort gay ones?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rockysparks
there's no law against being annoying.
04:50 PM on 02/07/2012
I was forty years old and already the father of five children --- biological and fostered --- when I realized, "OMG! I'm gay! I'm not supposed to be doing this." After I came out, I became the legal guardian of two more foster kids, who eventually became my adopted kids.

Apparently I didn't get the memo that gay people aren't good parents. Oops.

I'd give them back, but they're all grown up now and some have started to present me with grandchildren. I'd have sent them all back, but the biological ones wouldn't fit in the envelope they were sent in and the fostered and adopted ones wouldn't leave. So there was nothing to do except feed them, make them take baths, educate them, domesticate them, tell them to get jobs so they could buy their own cars and videogames, feed them again and advise them never, ever to interfere with Daddy's naps.

I know, I know, a lot of people are concerned about children being exposed to same-sex relationships. My response has always been --- when you have seven kids, who has time for one? I just turned 61 yesterday; it's been so long since I've had any adult companionship --- other than a couple of elderly and sometimes incontinent cats who only pay attention to me when they want to be fed or let outside --- I don't think I'm much of a threat to either the heterosexual or homosexual world.
photo
Sonja Dawn
Hearing is not the same as listening.
05:35 PM on 02/07/2012
rockysparks you ROCK! not very original I'm sure but true nonetheless...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rockysparks
there's no law against being annoying.
09:36 PM on 02/07/2012
Sonja, I get that a lot, but I still appreciate it. My kids always tell me that despite my name, I have no taste in rock music ...
04:43 PM on 02/07/2012
I could no more choose the way I am than 'grow a new head'.
04:40 PM on 02/07/2012
Until and unless it's established that homosexuality is an undesirable trait, the question should be a strictly academic one. A lot of time and effort has gone into establishing that homosexuality is not undesirable, and most definitely not pathological. There's genuine academic research going on into the subject, but the people who raise this in debate are generally those who start from the assumption that homosexuality is undesirable.

The solution is to not allow them to reframe the debate. Challenge their underlying assumption, their reason for asking, rather than allowing them to pursue this irrelevant tangent.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:09 PM on 02/07/2012
I know at least one researcher who studies us because he thinks we're neat. That and (according to him) we have better bars.
04:32 PM on 02/07/2012
Very good and thought-provoking topic! Surprisingly -though I don’t know why I find it surprising- I agree wholeheartedly with you. I don’t know how my ‘gayness’ happened, I just know it did. I didn’t conceptualize any of this then but I do know it happened. I don’t know whether something clicked or whether I “grew” into it. I feel like I was born gay but then again, I wasn’t born already thinking about sex. It was just something that happened. I too didn’t realize until after my grade-school counterparts did and knowing after them was terribly distressing –especially realizing that the stinging adjectives used to describe me did, in fact, describe me. I was different. I didn’t fit in. Something was amiss in comparison with my peers. And then, like all stories with a turning point, I started to realize that –despite much initial inner debate– I was queer. I started to find myself as well as my “group.” It’s been eight years since I told the first person I was gay but it’s still a growing and learning process. Regardless of whether it’s nature or nurture, I think it’s important to not underestimate either. Nurture is a powerful thing and we can all concede that nature is too. As the article says, it’s whatever. It shouldn’t matter to our community or the public. We exist and “sometimes, it’s better to know than to know why…”
photo
Valksy
civis mundi sum
04:02 PM on 02/07/2012
The concept of a "gay gene" is hopelessly simplistic. If it is based in genetics, it is more likely to be a multiple gene interaction with no on/off switch. It may even be more appropriate to consider it an innate feature rather than a genetic one, as hormone influences while in utero are also thought to be of relevance.

I think that the question is interesting and relevant BUT it posits a perfect world where people will not try to tamper with personal characteristics. I don't like the idea of engineering kids to be blonde haired and blue eyes, the idea of engineering them straight is just as offensive.

I always knew that I was different. I remember clearly having a non-sexual crush on Lydna Carter's Wonder Woman from the age of 6 or 7 (and I still have a thing for buxom, dark haired, blue-eyed women to this day). I never, for single one moment, had so much as a crush on a male. I'm not capable of it.

Does it matter why? I suppose humans are often curious things. And, in terms of basic human rights, basing the battle on an innate and immutable personal characteristic will make the fight shorter. I've been involved in activism since I was a teenager and I would like to be able to retire from fighting for what others take for granted. But I don't see an end in sight. I'll take whatever is most expedient.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Platt
04:24 PM on 02/07/2012
The only problem with fighting a battle based on an innate and immutable personal characteristic is - what if it's not? It's dangerous for your strongest reason to be "because we cannot change" because if someone finds a legitimate way to do it then your entire argument collapses. It also implies that we're just making the best of a bad situation, and that we would change if we could. Better to argue the less cut-and-dry "because we should not HAVE to change".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrld20
03:32 PM on 02/07/2012
No the nature debate will not decline the gay community... That's just silly!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Platt
01:28 PM on 02/07/2012
The more I think about a potential "cure" the more it depresses me. I've learned a lot from growing up gay. I have a perspective on life that straight people don't. I've come to realise things about myself I wouldn't necessarily have thought to examine. I think society has itself learned a lot from us, and could stand to learn more still.

So the obsession with finding out "why" makes me very uneasy. We should be celebrating all forms of human sexuality, not trying to suppress it. We're here, we're queer and we don't need to be cured, so why is everyone so intent on finding the source of the "problem"? It's all just a pointless distraction from the real argument, which is this - we exist, we're part of society, so why shouldn't we have equal rights and treatment?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kenneth Alton
03:51 AM on 02/07/2012
The whole nature vs nurture thing is a read herring, a way for people who don't like or disapprove of homosexuals to re-cast the debate. Nobody asks about is it nature or nurture that makes the child of two Catholic parents suddenly decide to convert to being Lutheran.

If you can belong to any religion you choose (or belong to none at all), why can't you love whom you choose?
03:16 AM on 02/07/2012
For me, I ask the eternal cliche, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" I've known I was somehow different from other guys from a very young age. Girls just didn't "do it" for me. I never felt like hanging around other guys, and didn't care about sports (which might have had something to do with it). My parents never pushed me to do anything I didn't want to do, or in current academic parlance, never forced me to conform to strict heteronormative ideals. They didn't "nurture" me gay, but they didn't "nurture" me to a beer-swilling, football-playing womanizer, either. I truly believe I was born gay. When I came out to my parents, they said they wouldn't want me any other way either.

However, the engineer in me does want to know if there is a genetic marker, the "gay gene". I don't want to know where it is, I don't want to know how it works, I'm really just curious if there is one or not.