Being gay is in your genes

[frobert]

I didn’t say it is not important. However, all sin is important. It is what stains our souls - all of us. However, the Holy Father has indicated that we can be overly focused on this one sin (or anyone sin).

I don’t remember God saying this, or indicating homosexuality to be worse than adultery. Here are seven things God hates:

There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Seven abominations God hates, not even one is sexual. Imagine that. We should not rank sins in ways that neither God nor the Church ranks them. Furthermore, we need no rank them until our own eyes are clear of our own beams. It should suffice to say that homosexuality is gravely disordered and the acts that arise from it, gravely sinful.

Are you implying we are due for priorities adjustment?

Excellent post! The source is: Proverbs 6 (I looked it up–it’s a good read.)

Also in Proverbs 6 verses 20 through 36: “Warning Against Adultery”

Nowhere in Proverbs 6 is there any mention of homosexuality.

In case there is any doubt, I am not implying homosexual behavior gets a free ride.

 

[manualman]

Actually, you’ve misunderstood the research. Being gay is entirely in your jeans. Heterosexual people wear straight jeans, bisexuals wear slim jeans, and skinny jeans are worn by homosexuals.

What does the fact that I prefer CHEAP jeans say about me then??

 

[Coatimundi]

Anyways, according to the article, genetics doesn’t explain most of homosexuality. Is that correct? If genetics doesn’t explain most of homosexuality, then what are the other factors?

I haven’t read the actual study, so have to rely on MSM accounts. However, what has been published suggests that genes are involved, but that epigenetic factors also play a big role.

An important caveat is that the study points to how much is not understood. It doesn’t offer complete explanations of how sexual orientation develops. An additional caveat is that this is only one study, and like all scientific research, the results will need to be replicated before they can be taken too seriously.

Quoting from one news story:

*A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight.

A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men’s sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.*
theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

 

[Catolico65]

I don’t remember God saying this, or indicating homosexuality to be worse than adultery.

Let me refresh your memory:

Gen. 18 - So the LORD said: The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave,* 21that I must go down to see whether or not their actions are as bad as the cry against them that comes to me. I mean to find out.

Furthermore, given the clear example of the unique punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah not to mention the fact that practicing homosexuals and cross dressers were executed in the OT we know by inference how much God hates this sin. On the other hand, adultery of unwed persons is only payable by a fine. Adultery between wedded persons was punishable by death because of the serious effect it has on society but still God never destroyed a city the way He did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[JamesCaruso]

My goal is never to split hairs but the origin of homosexuality should not be overlooked as not important. The fact is there is a very well developed logical argument used by the gay lobby to promote homosexuality as normal based on the assumption that it is biological. I have been aware and been part of many discussions for almost 25 years in person and on forums where this argument is first planted and then followed up with relentless pseudo science and supposed “consensus” to try to sway public opinion. This is clearly evident on protestant websites that have embraced homosexuality. The first step of course is to convince the audience that homosexuality is biological or at the very least “the possibility” that it could be. The second step after establishing enough consensus of the probable biological origin of homosexuality is to propose that all that God has created is good, and thus since homosexuality is innate it must be good. The third step is of course embracing homosexual doctrine.

Understanding this nefarious, well developed and very, very successful argument by the gay lobby to convert people to their cause it is only prudent to investigate the facts thoroughly before assuming that homosexuality could be innate:

1. Anything ordained by God’s plan is good, such as heterosexual desires, with qualifications of course. Homosexuality, on the other hand is not ordained by God under any conditions but is an unnatural psychological condition.
2. There is absolutely no definitive scientific evidence that any biological condition can cause a person to sin, none. Certainly here are many suggestive studies about homosexual, alcoholic and “murder” genes but these are very speculative and not definitive.

Furthermore, in the case of a truly biological condition, such as severe mental retardation, the person cannot sin. Using the same logic if homosexuality were biological it would not be a sin to manifest it in certain situations. Nonetheless, the Bible is clear, God hates homosexuality - even much more than many other sins, such as adultery, because He is certainly aware of it’s overwhelming corrosive effects to the person and society. The fact is that homosexual sex does not fulfill but rather creates spiritual desolation which causes the person to become even more desperate for false fulfillment inducing them to find more partners. This is truly a downward spiral with no positive end.

Finally, I think it should be self evident to my Christian brothers that these tactics which I have discussed are used frequently here on CAF with no doubt similar objectives and as such we need to be prepared to withstand this barrage of pseudo logic, pseudo science and neglect of Scripture in order that people aren’t misled. Paz.

Thank you, my friend,well said. Something along the lines of what you said should be a sticky note on any thread discussing homosexuality.

The real horror of the biological argument for homosexuality is that it wrenches away from the victim, the homosexual, all hope of deliverance, leaving them helpless to fend for themselves once they swallow this poisoned potion.

I can only hope that the earnestness of their false belief, like St. Paul, will serve to mitigate their culpability. But I am persuaded that believing sin virtue, does not exempt it from the agonies and effects that must surely accompany it.

Christians should increase their prayers for the conversion of avowed homosexuals now more than ever before.

 

[Suudy]

I don’t remember God saying this, or indicating homosexuality to be worse than adultery.

Aquinas did some great work on this exact point.

crisismagazine.com/2012/human-nature-and-aquinas-taxonomy-of-sexual-sins

From most serious to least serious:

Bestiality
Sodomy
Unnatural coitus (contraception)
Masturbation
Incest
Rape
Sacrilege (breaking vows of chastity)
Adultery
Seduction
Fornication

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m sure there were studies of identical twins that indicated their was no genetic link and that their sexual orientation was a choice. Not really a good research piece, as the two sets of genes ‘at play’ could have resulted from epigenetic changes due to the participants living a homosexual lifestyle.

I’m not quite following this comment. Can you expound on what is an “epigenetic change” and why that would debunk the non-genetic indicators of many one-gay, one-not-gay twins?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Regardless of whether or not a person is born with attraction to the same sex that does not mean that “gay marriage” should be legalized. People can be born with tendencies towards all sorts of sin but that doesn’t mean that the sin should be endorsed in law.

Quite true and it is telling that so many people are under the impression that if it were influenced by a birth trait it would therefore be moral.

 

[frobert]

I can only hope that the earnestness of their false belief, like St. Paul, will serve to mitigate their culpability. But I am persuaded that believing sin virtue, does not exempt it from the agonies and effects that must surely accompany it.

Thank you for your concern, I know your intentions are good, but please excuse my confusion. Can you explain how there is culpability due to a belief on something that CC teaching do not condemn and that the CC clearly states it doesn’t know?

 

[zab]

So, the theory has been reversed. I’m sure there were studies of identical twins that indicated their was no genetic link and that their sexual orientation was a choice. Not really a good research piece, as the two sets of genes ‘at play’ could have resulted from epigenetic changes due to the participants living a homosexual lifestyle.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2559021/Being-gay-DNA-researchers-claim-controversial-new-study.html

That research, the first to find evidence of a ‘gay gene’, created a storm of controversy, which was further fuelled when other scientists failed to find a genetic link.
Dr Michael Bailey from Northwestern University in Illinois, who contributed to the latest study, said it is the biggest of its kind.
He added: ‘Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.
‘Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.’
Despite this, he would not would not object to a prenatal test being developed.
He said: ‘Clearly parents should not be allowed to torture or kill babies. But they can currently choose to terminate a pregnancy early on, so they should be allowed to have as much information on the future child as possible.’

 

[John_Savage]

But, what could be the other factors?

 

[pepipop]

I’m not quite following this comment. Can you expound on what is an “epigenetic change” and why that would debunk the non-genetic indicators of many one-gay, one-not-gay twins?

From what I recall, studies carried out on identical twins indicated there was no genetic link to homosexuality, as one twin could be hetero and the other gay. This latest ‘research’ was carried out on gay men, and as far as I am aware already living the gay lifestyle. Hence the environmental/societal changes they have met - either prior to their lifestyle choice, and/or by living the gay lifestyle could have induced epigenetic changes that may always be induced by homosexual males living out the gay lifestyle. Hence the gene pair ‘discovered’ may be a result of an epigenetic change that occurs in nature.

No genetic markers were apparent in female homosexuals.

I hope that makes sense.

science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/epigenetics.htm

Obviously, if one identical twin grows up in the castle slums and the other grows up in the king’s palace, they’re liable to develop into rather different people, no matter how similar their genes are. The field of epigenetics adds new fuel to this issue by shedding light on how environment, nutrition and social conditions affect how genes are expressed. Was the twin in the palace brought up by an abusive stepmother? Did the twin in the slums have to contend with a house full of pipe smoke? Did one eat gruel while the other feasted on fatty desserts? These factors can cause epigenetic changes that alter how each twin’s genes are expressed. Even a difference in diet could put one twin at risk for cancer and leave the other in the clear.

 

[ringil]

Aquinas did some great work on this exact point.

crisismagazine.com/2012/human-nature-and-aquinas-taxonomy-of-sexual-sins

From most serious to least serious:

Bestiality
Sodomy
Unnatural coitus (contraception)
Masturbation
Incest
Rape
Sacrilege (breaking vows of chastity)
Adultery
Seduction
Fornication

Aquinas is a Doctor but he is not doctrine.

He makes numerous other “interesting” statements in his works as well.

You have to pick and choose with Aquinas.

 

[ringil]

But, what could be the other factors?

Everything, anything.

 

[Suudy]

Aquinas is a Doctor but he is not doctrine.

Fair enough. The Church doesn’t rank them. But when a Doctor of the Church makes an argument for the ordering of the seriousness of sin, something of which the Church is an authority, we should probably take it quite seriously.

He makes numerous other “interesting” statements in his works as well.

You have to pick and choose with Aquinas.

Ignoring his obviously ignorant physical science errors, which “interesting” statements do you “pick and choose” to ignore?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Thank you for your concern, I know your intentions are good, but please excuse my confusion. Can you explain how there is culpability due to a belief on something that CC teaching do not condemn and that the CC clearly states it doesn’t know?

Read my meaning as “their [practicing homosexuals’] culpability for the practice of homosexual sex based on their belief that it is genetically caused and therefore not their fault.” . Does this clear it up?

 

[ringil]

Ignoring his obviously ignorant physical science errors, which “interesting” statements do you “pick and choose” to ignore?

I don’t want to speak disparagingly of the Angelic Doctor as I wouldn’t feel right doing so. His works are magnificent and divinely inspired.

But one misstatement congruent with his era stands out: his statements that the woman is a defective male- a “lesser-than male”.

And surely, Suudy, you can see some problems with his ranking of sexual sins.

He lived in the 13th c… Doctrine doesn’t change but, like a tree, we learn more and more. We see this especially with the sin of masturbation. Rightly so the CCC has emphasized the issue of habit and reduced culpability in adolescence. Aquinas elucidated none of that as folks in the 13th. C. didn’t know a whole lot about the complexities of psychology.

 

[frobert]

Read my meaning as “their [practicing homosexuals’] culpability for the practice of homosexual sex based on their belief that it is genetically caused and therefore not their fault.” . Does this clear it up?

Thank you for clearing that up. Let me make sure I have it correct this time; you are saying culpability for the sexual behavior sin and not for the belief that homosexuality is genetic?

I know sometimes I am dense and get confused easily but its best to clear things up and not take away a misinterpretation of what is being said or implied.

Thanks again for you patience.

 

[Trader]

Fair enough. The Church doesn’t rank them. But when a Doctor of the Church makes an argument for the ordering of the seriousness of sin, something of which the Church is an authority, we should probably take it quite seriously.

Saint Paul managed to include them all in one long sentence. It gets chopped into two verses:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

To me, it is pretty hard to argue that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he meant to say that any of these is a good thing.

 

[MarcoPolo]

From what I recall, studies carried out on identical twins indicated there was no genetic link to homosexuality, as one twin could be hetero and the other gay. This latest ‘research’ was carried out on gay men, and as far as I am aware already living the gay lifestyle. Hence the environmental/societal changes they have met - either prior to their lifestyle choice, and/or by living the gay lifestyle could have induced epigenetic changes that may always be induced by homosexual males living out the gay lifestyle. Hence the gene pair ‘discovered’ may be a result of an epigenetic change that occurs in nature.

No genetic markers were apparent in female homosexuals.

I hope that makes sense.

science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/epigenetics.htm

Obviously, if one identical twin grows up in the castle slums and the other grows up in the king’s palace, they’re liable to develop into rather different people, no matter how similar their genes are. The field of epigenetics adds new fuel to this issue by shedding light on how environment, nutrition and social conditions affect how genes are expressed. Was the twin in the palace brought up by an abusive stepmother? Did the twin in the slums have to contend with a house full of pipe smoke? Did one eat gruel while the other feasted on fatty desserts? These factors can cause epigenetic changes that alter how each twin’s genes are expressed. Even a difference in diet could put one twin at risk for cancer and leave the other in the clear.

Isn’t this a roundabout way of saying they aren’t born gay by nature?