(March 9) - What determines whether a person is gay or straight has been the focus of social, religious and political discussions for years that almost always come down to the question: is it nature or nurture?

While scientists say a definitive answer is years away, their studies – including some of twins – are providing some early and interesting clues to inform the debate.

60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl reports on this fascinating subject this Sunday, March 12, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Studies of a pair of 9-year-old twins raised by the same mother in the same house who exhibit opposite tendencies seem to rule out the nurture argument. Adam paints his nails and plays with dolls; he asked his mother for a Barbie doll when he was just 18 months old. His twin brother Jared has as many GI Joes as Adam has girl dolls and prefers his camouflage bedspread to his twin brother's pastel-colored one. He wanted fire trucks when he was 18 months old.

Adam's behavior is an example of childhood gender nonconformity, say scientists. Research shows that most children with extreme tendencies toward gender nonconformity grow up to be gay.

But is it nature then? Another set of twins, Greg and Steve, grew up in the same house. Steve liked sports and the outdoors while Greg liked helping out in the kitchen, says their mother. Today, Greg is gay and Steve is straight but they are identical twins with the same DNA. So how can it be nature?

Some scientists say the key to what determines sexuality could be in the womb. In a study of rats, researchers discovered they could alter the sexual behavior of the rodents. The rats are born premature and approximate humans still in the womb. Scientists manipulating levels of the male hormone testosterone in the premature rats could alter their sexual behavior at maturity, causing males to act like females and vice versa.

Another interesting observation scientists have made is a relationship between the amount of older brothers a boy has and the likelihood he will be gay. Studies suggest the more older brothers a boy has, the greater chance he will be gay.

But at this early stage in a still under-funded field, there are many more questions than answers. The emerging consensus among scientists, though, is that people are born gay. The exact mechanism is still a mystery.

There was a show on Animal Planet or maybe Discovery the other night about the 450 species of animals that have homosexuals in the population. Anyone who think's it not nature (in the vast, vast majority of cases) is deluding themselves.

[quote=](March 9) - What determines whether a person is gay or straight has been the focus of social, religious and political discussions for years that almost always come down to the question: is it nature or nurture?[/quote]

This is one of the mysteries of sceience for sure, and I don't know if will ever be solved. If it could, though, then we could rid rid of paedophilia.

I think that many people, especially those who only have a cursory understanding of biology, think that if something is "nature" it must be genetic. There are certainly things about people that are chemical but not genetic, although there may be a hereditary/genetic tendency to have particular chemical balances or imbalances. Perhaps they will find that, like in the rat study, that sexuality can be manipulated with chemicals in utero. Perhaps the family environment (multiple older brothers) is a contributing factor that molds a person's sexuality.

Regardless of what the science eventually concludes, one thing seems very clear. Being gay is not something that is within the person's ability to CONTROL. Therefore one does not CHOOSE to be gay, nor can they be TURNED STRAIGHT, at least not by the time their sexuality begins to express itself.

Jesus and I would disagree with you. They just need to be sent to the right kinds of camps. It'd be like a fat camp instead of low calorie food and exercise you are surrounded by the appropriate kind of pornography

Sounds fun except it might give kids an unrealistic view of women (all the silicone 'enhancements' found in pr0n) and inferiority comlpex if the movies star Lexington Steele or Peter North.

Its neither, and the "nature vs. nurture" debate is in itself absurd. Human behavior, in all its forms, is a combination of both environment and biology. People choose pick a side so it is easier to reconcile their sexuality with religious, political, or philosophical beliefs. Its understandable though, it can be hellish to sit contemplate an issue for yourself. You say "you are born gay" I call bullshit. Tell me "you become gay" I'll scream it just as loud. There is no gay or straight, there is just human sexuality. Nature vs. Nurture is akin to pointing at a purple cloth and asking "is it black or white?". Its hilarous, attaching absolutes to a subject which has been "studied" for less than half a century.

Now I know the rationale behind it, people believe that one factor, ones biology or their environment, constitutes a more substantive role. Thats irrelevant, it cannot be proven either way. There is no quantitative method for determining this. Its like Bentham suggesting that we could measure the relative utility of objects. These "twin studies" fail to recognize this and offer only a quasi-scientific basis to support previously held opinions.

This is the last I'll post on this subject. Homosexuality, drugs, abortion, are discussed entirely too often on this board. Talking about these issues is a lot like pissing down your leg, it feels hot to you but no one else gives a shit. It shows a dissapointing lack of diverse opinions and I will no longer contribute discussion on these topics.

There was a fantastic sci-fi short story about 12 years ago that involved a company developing a drug which prevented the transfer of diseases like AIDS through uterine lining...the side-effect was that homosexuality was a byproduct of high levels of stress in the mother during pregnancy, and the hormones that resulted were also blocked, so the company sold the drug as a sure-fire preventor of homosexuality.

Not a realistic scenario, but it was a fascinating story because it focused on whether or such a case would be akin to decimating a subculture, and the impacts such an event might have for the individual.

It's a good story, and it won a few awards I think.

Great post.

Whether teh gay is choice, nature, or something else entirely has zero effect on my thoughts about it.

That first post was really long. Someone please summarize.

One twin is always gay.

It's funny cuse it's true.

Basically I agree with this post

so does this mean we've officially beaten this subject to death? i imagine it will come up again when some state tries to pass some homophobic law, or a new rm member expresses some "extreme" views on the subject.

Huh?

double huh?

I cant resist...

SHOW US ON THE DOLL WHERE THEY TOUCHED YOU!!!

Each person has unique sexual attractions to certain people/activities. Do you have any idea what causes them? I sure don't, and I don't know if that will ever be solved.