Well I’d say its like about 50–50.

You can have genes so that you are more likely to do this “thing”. Sure
parenting, the environment you grow up in, kind of molds you. But it is a bit deeper than just that. Your
parents can raise you perfectly but you may still turn out to be something “bad”. As the person who grows up,
you have your own view on how things work and how things are. You have your own perception of things.

How do you get treated, how do you percieve this treatment?

It’s not just about parenting, what kind of things you experience is a big part of making you into who you are.
Life full of disappointments? You’ll probably end up with a negative outlook on life. Things are bad, and will
often never go your way.

You always get what you want? Maybe it creates some sort of egoistic prick, thinking he/she is the best, living
in a delusional world. Never had to face the struggles of life. Now, struggles comes in many forms, what may
seem very bad for one person might be viewed as something really trivial for someone else.

It’s about perspective, whose eyes are we looking through, what are we thinking, what are we feeling?
Although genes could make you feel little to no empathy. There is a reason for everything and a consequence
for every action.

Monsters are made not born, maybe not intentionally but they are created.

Nature is who you are, nurture only influences that. It is easy to be influenced but this does not guarantee a
particular outcome. Ones nature though is almost always the default setting of an individual and given all the
same parameters will often result in the same outcome. People can change, but your nature will either change
slowly with time, or determination, it can also change with catastrophic emotional and physical events.

BEHAVIORAL

What makes us lesbian or gay? I don't know about you but I was born a baby, not a lesbian. At least I don't
remember fancying the midwife. But scientists I have interviewed for my forthcoming book tell me that the
brains of gay people look different from those of heterosexuals. There is even one theory about why gay men
and lesbians are rubbish at following directions, which would definitely explain me being unable to read a
map. However, there are those – medics, social constructionists, radical feminists, postmodernists and,
incongruously, rightwing anti-gay bigots – who believe that sexuality is nurture not nature. So who is right?

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
Almost 40 years since homosexuality was removed from the list of recognised mental disorders, scientists
persist in searching for a "cause", refusing to consider whether sexuality and sexual desire could be social
constructs, not biological or genetically determined. Such scientific studies span 100 years. The history of these
experiments is not a proud one. The Nazis specialised in them, with a view to eradicating homosexuality. Since
then, there have been countless attempts to identify a "gay gene" or some simple, biological basis for being
attracted to the same sex.

Advertisement
The popular consensus of the gay liberation movement today is that about 10% of us are born gay. It is also
argued that some of us only "realise" we are later in life, and others choose to live in the closet through fear or
shame. The rest of us grow up feeling and appearing different from straight people, with gay men being a bit
camp and liking Madonna and lesbians favouring KD Lang and power drills. Because we are hardwired to be
gay, goes the theory, it is pointless for anyone to attempt to convert us to being straight. The topic often causes
a huge stir, both within the community and in wider society.

Last year, the journalist Patrick Strudwick argued in the Independent that the actor Cynthia Nixon played
straight into the hands of the homophobes when she told the New York Times that she chose to be gay, stating:
"You do not choose to be straight or gay; it chooses you." Perhaps Strudwick holds this view because he is
well aware, through his excellent undercover investigation on so-called "gay cures", that some people believe
that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" and can be easily reversed. Either way, Strudwick's view is the dominant
one in the west today. I believe that we can be against homophobic aversion therapy and still argue against a
gay gene, but my views on whether we are born that way could well change during the course of my research.

At the moment, however, I suspect that rather than biology being destiny, our sexual preference is shaped by a
combination of early experiences, peer pressure, opportunity, circumstances and fate. Do the heterosexuals
reading this ever wonder how they ended up straight, especially since so many of you will have had crushes
on or even sexual contact with someone of the same sex at some stage?

Why do the majority of the gay rights lobby get so nervous when some of us speak of being gay as a positive
alternative to heterosexuality? Is our sexuality really something genetically imposed on us that we have no
control over? Why is so much effort put into locating a gay gene and not a paedophile gene? Are we seen as
even more dangerous than child abusers, or is it that it some of us have so little pride in who we are that we
behave as though we are born with a kink in our nature?

If we have been led to believe that we are powerless to determine our sexual orientation does that protect us
from the bigots? How does it explain bisexuality? What about the "late bloomers" , the Hasbians and
Yestergays? I don't just want to rely on the differing opinions of the psychiatrists, biologists, psychologists and
medics to look at this issue. I want to hear from you. Have you always felt gay or lesbian? Since when? Or
were you happily heterosexual until you fell in love with someone of the same sex, like Cynthia Nixon? Please
fill in my survey and your views will become part of this crucial and fascinating debate.

There is no real debate about this, except among the scientifically ignorant or people with an agenda. The
reason there is not much debate is not because the answer is easy. It's not. The reason there is not much debate
is because the question assumes a lot of things that simply are not really true. Hetero/homosexuality and
Nature/Nurture are false dichotomies.
Let me explain...

Sexual preferences, like all our preferences, are a product of the brain.

Now let's do a thought experiment: What if some day we could do brain transplants, and we put a female
brain into a male body? Or a male brain into a female body? Would those people be homosexual?

This is essentially what the Drosophila experiments that Ankit mentioned in his answer did. Except the 'brain
transplant' was done genetically, by turning off a gene that controlled whether the fly brain developed to be
male or female.

Genes control whether humans (and their brains) are male or female too. The Y chromosome includes genes
that make you (and your brain) a male. You can have two X chromosomes (which would normally make you a
female), but if you have a Y too then you are still a male (XXY is called 'Klinefelter syndrome'; those people are
still males).

How does that Y make you (and your brain) male? It does so in lots of different ways, but mainly by causing
the development of testes, which secrete hormones that tell your tissues (including brain) to become 'male'. In
the absence of these hormones, female tissues develop.

Y chromosome -> testes -> hormones -> 'maleness'

No Y chromosome -> no testes -> development of female organs -> 'femaleness'

You see where I'm going with this? There is no simple 'switch' that tells human brains to be male or female. It's
exposure to hormones during development, where those hormones are produced by tissues that develop
under the direction of many different genes.

Depending on the genetics, tissue development, and hormones, it's easy to imagine an entirely male brain, and
entirely female brain, and lots of types of brain in between.

That's why the paper Ankit referred to in his answer suggested that there were genetic contributors to
homosexuality, but it obviously wasn't clear what they were or how much they contributed.

But no matter how you slice it, the 'maleness' or 'femaleness' of our brain is due to biology.

So... sexual preference is all nature, right?

Nope. It's not so easy.

When we encounter a potential sex partner, and become aroused (or not), we're not just responding based on
gender. Not all males turn females on, and not all females turn males on. Whether or not we become aroused
depends on a complex mix of sensory stimuli, some of which have to do with indicators of partner gender,
some of which have to do with indications of fertility, some of which have to do with context, some of which
have to do with social conventions, and some which have to do with past experience.

Supposedly perfectly normal heterosexual guys are routinely aroused only by a voice (phone sex), or image
(porn). Those are the basis of multi-billion dollar industries. 'Normal' guys are also routinely aroused by sex
dolls or even just plastic artificial vaginas. Someone is buying this stuff, right? In some cases, the triggers for
arousal are not even representations of people. High-heeled shoes or women's underwear, for example. These
are just things, fragments, triggers.

Obviously, there is no 'attraction to high-heeled shoes' gene that is turned on in these guys. The arousal in
these circumstances must be due to some past association or experience.

Things associated with rewards (or punishments) are powerful stimuli. Orgasm is a reward. It's like eating
fatty sweet things, or social approval. Does your mouth water when you think of your favorite restaurant? Do
you find yourself doing more and more often the things that bring you praise and attention?

Of course, getting excited by shoes and pictures might seem a little artificial. But what about long hair vs short
hair? Thin versus muscular/buxom? Light or dark skin? Loud and outgoing or quiet and thoughtful? These
things are too variable to be genetically determined. These preferences are things that we all just sort of 'pick
up'.

So... OK. It's nurture too.

But acknowledging that, can we measure how much nature and how much nurture? Can we say that it's (for
example) 70% Nature and 30% Nurture?

Unfortunately, I don't think we can even do that, since sexual arousal is so developmental stage-dependent
and context-dependent. The stuff that turns you on when you're young isn't necessarily the same stuff that
turns you on when you're older. And stuff that turns you on in one situation might not turn you on in another
situation. For example, we know that people will do stuff after drinking at wild parties when they're young
that they wouldn't do in many other times and places. So when we figure out your 'preferences', do we do it
with your beer goggles on or off? Do we measure your inclinations when you're 13 and at summer camp or
when you're 60 and have been happily married 40 years? Do we measure it with someone you hate or with
someone you love?

And what about in-betweeny situations? How do we separate 'sexual preference' from sexual activity?

What if a heterosexual guy meets a really sexy transexual, and has sex with her? But otherwise he isn't
attracted to men. Is the guy gay?

What about a woman who is normally attracted only to men, but finds herself aroused by a really romantic
steamy lesbian scene in a movie? Is the woman gay?

Are homosexuals who marry and have kids due to societal pressures heterosexual? Or are they still
homosexual?

Porn producers (and they should know!) believe that images of male ejaculation (the 'money shot') are
incredibly important revenue-generating elements of pornography directed at heterosexual men. Why would
this be, unless men are sexually aroused by other men (at least in certain contexts)?

Does all this make sense?

AGRESSION

Are bullies products of nature or nurture?

-Let’s suppose that: “Humans are born with bullying behavior, bullying behavior is due to nature, bullying
behavior is not learnt from the society we live in.”

-If that is so, those who blame nature as the decisive factor of bullying behavior will lack the impulse and effort
to change behavior in present lifetime. Other people should not criticise those people with bullying behavior,
because it is not their fault (to have bullying behavior).

-Suppose that: “Humans are not born with bullying behavior, bullying behavior is not nature, bullying
behavior is learnt from the society we live in, nurture.”

-If that is so, those who believe nurture as the decisive factor of bullying behavior will have the impulse and
effort to change bullying behavior in present lifetime.

-Let’s suppose that: “Humans are born without bullying behavior, without bullying behavior is due to nature,
without bullying behavior is not learnt from the society we live in.”

-If that’s so, we should not praise those people without bullying behaviors because those behaviors are not due
to their effort.

-In short answer if we praise the people with without bullying behaviors and we criticize, blame, or punish the
people with bullying behaviors, it becomes discrimination by behaviors which those people cannot control.

-But if we do not praise the people with without bullying behaviors and we do not criticize, blame or punish
the people with bullying behaviors, there may be more and more people with bullying behaviors and less and
less people with without bullying behaviors appear in future because bullying behaviors are easy and no need
to take responsibility.

-According to philosophy of Theravada Buddhism, those behaviors are nurtured. If those behaviors are
present since birth, those behaviors are nurtured in previous lifetime.

-Human beings are not blank slate at birth. According to philosophy of Theravada Buddhism, some people are
born (with) good (behaviors) regardless of their good or bad environment or good or badbehaviors of their
parents. Some people are born (with) bad (behaviors) regardless of their good or bad environment or good or
bad behaviors of their parents, too. Those good and bad attitude, character, behavior, action are not inherited
from genes or parents.

-That does not mean their good or bad behaviors, attitudes are fixed since birth. They can change from good to
bad or bad to good during their lifetime. During the growing period from childhood to adulthood, they can
become good or bad (especially bad if environment encourages) according to influence of environment
(parents, teachers, surrounding people, etc). But it is easier to change from good to bad than bad to good. It
takes more effort to change from bad to good than vice versa.

-According to philosophy of Theravada Buddhism, those habits, behaviors, personality are learned as they
were acquired from previous lifetime (his/her repeated actions at that life). In one person's life, his/her actions,
which he/she repeatedly does, become his/her habits, behaviors, and then become personality.

I believe nature plays a significant role through genetic processes, but I also believe that nurture has the slight
upper hand. As humans, we can learn about some genetic influences and alter or counter them. 'Nurture' is a
huge category; of course we can't much alter physical characteristics. But depending on our accumulated
knowledge, we can change our behaviors in spite of genetic tendencies.

For example, a person may be genetically predisposed towards alcoholism, but that tendency can be overcome
by actions taken from awareness of the potential problem.

We might be biologically programmed to use our brains in certain ways to promote survival of the species, but
we can change our thinking patterns to escape such narrow constraints and grow our potential.

The very fact that we are able to ask questions about 'nature vs. nurture' is proof that the knowledge we have
gained through reaction to environmental influences has shaped our lives and understanding to the point
where nurture ultimately has the edge.