Chilling Interpretation on Genetic Data about Gays

[Cider]

That is quite the spin article. If you talk to geneticists that don’t have an agenda they will tell you that they do not truly understand, at this point, the totality of factors that interplay to cause most diseases that have a genetic component, let alone something like desires and talents. It’s just not there. Understanding how genetics plays out in peoples lives in still in it’s infancy. We feel like we know a lot now, because it’s more than we’ve ever known but in the grand scheme we know very little.

 

[phil19034]

Only repeating what I have heard:

There are many in the gay rights movement who believe this is when the Catholic Church will finally come out in favor of abortion as a solution to homosexuality!

Science can work both ways!

Only if the Pope stopped being Catholic… When will people learn that we love the sinner, but hate the sin?

 

[Cricket2]

This is one of the most chilling things I have ever read. While the concluding quote was that “If someone is gay, then they deserve respect and equality regardless,” a researcher who points out that certain DNA sequences give a 30-40% that a male will be homosexual had this to say:

*"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,” Dr Bailey 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.”*

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/male-homosexuality-influenced-by-genes-us-study-finds-9127683.html

Whether or not you believe that all people who believe themselves to be homosexual have a genetic predisposition of some kind or not, that quote ought to make chills run up your spine!

Oh, the terror of it. Why or why is abortion always the answer that seems to come out of discovering a “problem” we don’t want?

I am not sure I am going to say this as I hope, given the short space allowed. But, I can guarantee anyone that all this “elimination” of unwanted pregnancies and apparently “less than viable or desirable” human traits is going to backfire so badly it will shock people. And I don’t mean the obvious we have more females versus males, but more on the lines of an accidental, self inflicted genocide.

By “selecting” what we think is best, we are going to come up with something much worse than what can happen via nature. There will be worse birth defects, new types of genetic disorders and vastly different and unexplainable mental health problems. It is just a matter of time.

 

[EasterJoy]

Ok, since two people have called me out on naming Southern Baptists, I’m going to go ahead and say that I was just using them as an example. And yes, there are evangelical Baptist groups that do believe that homosexuality should result in the death penalty. I know this because I’m related to some of those people. I could definitely see a big internal conflict for people who do hold those extreme views. And when I say extreme, I mean very extreme. No need to get defensive, I haven’t seen anyone on this site that wasn’t an obvious troll that even comes close to the hateful, angry, religious zealot relatives that I have.

As for whether or not I agree or disagree with these choices, that was not in response to you. It was in response to the notion that people like me, who support both the rights of gays and women, would have an internal conflict. I don’t see a conflict because the reason that the woman is having an abortion is none of my business and not something that I care to find out.

Let us just say that if there were a gene that gave you a 30% chance of being a psychopath, there aren’t many sane people in favor of the death penalty for murder who’d say it is OK to drown babies with that gene.

 

[St_Francis]

You’re right, most can. I would say that this wouldn’t be an issue for many pro-life people, particularly Catholics. But believe it or not, there are people out there with far more extreme, hateful views than the Catholic church has. And a few of them might find themselves in a pickle.

Oh, there are extremists everywhere. I’m sure there are some so extremely pro-homosexual that this might give them pause abot their advocacy of abortion as well.

 

[HJ3822]

I wonder if they Gay Rights movement will still support Abortion when babies begin to be aborted because they think they will turn out to be Gay?

The gay rights/pro-choice movement, assuming you have a pro-gay and pro-abortion advocate, will probably criticize the anti-gay rights movement that they are being hypocritical: that abortion is not okay unless the baby is gay. Then, the gay rights/pro-choice movement will probably say that the intention of the abortion is important, which falls right in the line of pro-life thinking. So, hypocrisy on both sides!

A practicing Catholic would probably not abort a child on the sole grounds that it might be gay, because in Catholic teaching, homosexual orientation is not sinful. Only homosexual behavior is.

 

[TRH1292]

The gay rights/pro-choice movement, assuming you have a pro-gay and pro-abortion advocate, will probably criticize the anti-gay rights movement that they are being hypocritical: that abortion is not okay unless the baby is gay. Then, the gay rights/pro-choice movement will probably say that the intention of the abortion is important, which falls right in the line of pro-life thinking. So, hypocrisy on both sides!

A practicing Catholic would probably not abort a child on the sole grounds that it might be gay, because in Catholic teaching, homosexual orientation is not sinful. Only homosexual behavior is.

A true Catholic would not abort an innocent Child for any reason what so ever. And if they do, they are met with the dreadful penalty of automatic excommunication.

 

[HJ3822]

A true Catholic would not abort an innocent Child for any reason what so ever. And if they do, they are met with the dreadful penalty of automatic excommunication.

Catholic churches can be big in population and building size, or at least the one in my neighborhood is so. Surely, a priest wouldn’t really be bothered with a pregnant female in the congregation who chooses to abort a child secretly.

The only penalty of the abortion would probably not come from the priest or the church but from God, since God would be able to dig into a person’s feelings and thoughts and make a judgement.

 

[TRH1292]

Catholic churches can be big in population and building size, or at least the one in my neighborhood is so. Surely, a priest wouldn’t really be bothered with a pregnant female in the congregation who chooses to abort a child secretly.

The only penalty of the abortion would probably not come from the priest or the church but from God, since God would be able to dig into a person’s feelings and thoughts and make a judgement.

That is silly. The excommunication is automatic.

 

[JimG]

Oh, the terror of it. Why or why is abortion always the answer that seems to come out of discovering a “problem” we don’t want?

I am not sure I am going to say this as I hope, given the short space allowed. But, I can guarantee anyone that all this “elimination” of unwanted pregnancies and apparently “less than viable or desirable” human traits is going to backfire so badly it will shock people. And I don’t mean the obvious we have more females versus males, but more on the lines of an accidental, self inflicted genocide.

By “selecting” what we think is best, we are going to come up with something much worse than what can happen via nature. There will be worse birth defects, new types of genetic disorders and vastly different and unexplainable mental health problems. It is just a matter of time.

This is quite possible, and not just as a result of abortion; the entire contraceptive mentality plays a part. Already much of the world has a fertility rate less than replacement level.

As for genetic testing, if the only solution medicine can offer to potential genetic problems is to kill the baby, then genetic testing should not even be done.

 

[millstreet]

When will people learn that we love the sinner, but hate the sin?

I admit I struggle with this concept in reality. Although I have a problem with this, the fact is many gay people define themselves by their sexual orientation. It’s more than who they have sex with, really, but it includes that aspect, certainly. So if they define themselves this way, “by the sin” so to speak, how is that we should hate the sin but can still love the sinner?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I admit I struggle with this concept in reality. Although I have a problem with this, the fact is many gay people define themselves by their sexual orientation. It’s more than who they have sex with, really, but it includes that aspect, certainly. So if they define themselves this way, “by the sin” so to speak, how is that we should hate the sin but can still love the sinner?

By refusing to define them by their sexual acts and attraction, even if they define themselves like that. Always remember that the person is a beloved child of God and that their sin is what they do, not something they are. It is difficult, especially because the world likes to define people by what they do, so we must un-learn this unhealthy way of defining humanity.

This goes for everything, not just sin: what people do for living, their social status, their health, etc. We must look beyond the surface.

 

[Nacho45]

Only repeating what I have heard:

There are many in the gay rights movement who believe this is when the Catholic Church will finally come out in favor of abortion as a solution to homosexuality!

Science can work both ways!

Why in the world would they believe that nonsense?

 

[Nacho45]

If and when homosexuality is ever actually shown to be genetic, please let me know. Until that time all of their rhetoric is nothing more than hypothetical philosophy.

 

[EasterJoy]

If and when homosexuality is ever actually shown to be genetic, please let me know. Until that time all of their rhetoric is nothing more than hypothetical philosophy.

The point remains that a genetic predisposition to commit an immoral act does not make the act moral. If the scientists were to show that we’re genetically predisposed to commit fornication or adultery, what news would that be? What if they find a gene that makes a person more prone to lie in order to escape correction? Unless the brain were wired so strongly as to make moral behavior impossible (that is, unless the person in some sense has an uncontrollable compulsion to act in a certain way), then the person still has to attempt to follow moral law. None of us do it perfectly, because all of us have pressures of some sort to do otherwise, even if it is just out of our inborn ignorance and self-centeredness. That does not mean we have no duty to act in a supernatural way instead of according to what our fallen nature prompts us to do.

 

[leonie]

The point remains that a genetic predisposition to commit an immoral act does not make the act moral. If the scientists were to show that we’re genetically predisposed to commit fornication or adultery, what news would that be? What if they find a gene that makes a person more prone to lie in order to escape correction? Unless the brain were wired so strongly as to make moral behavior impossible (that is, unless the person in some sense has an uncontrollable compulsion to act in a certain way), then the person still has to attempt to follow moral law. None of us do it perfectly, because all of us have pressures of some sort to do otherwise, even if it is just out of our inborn ignorance and self-centeredness. That does not mean we have no duty to act in a supernatural way instead of according to what our fallen nature prompts us to do.

Amen.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I wonder if they Gay Rights movement will still support Abortion when babies begin to be aborted because they think they will turn out to be Gay?

Those are actually separate groups.

Only repeating what I have heard:

There are many in the gay rights movement who believe this is when the Catholic Church will finally come out in favor of abortion as a solution to homosexuality!

Science can work both ways!

Heard from who?

 

[manualman]

Over 80% and some estimate that up to 90% of children with Down’s Syndrome never get born due to prenatal testing. It’s extremely deeply rooted in the medical community. Virtually any woman over 40 or with other risk factors for Down’s will be pressured to get amniocentesis to check for Down’s. Here’s the usual dialogue:

Doctor: We recommend amnio to check for Down’s Syndrome due to the risk factors here.

Patient: If the results are positive, are there treatment options or actions that can be taken to reduce the risk for Down’s or reduce the symptoms?

Doctor: No, just to identify the condition.

Patient: Huh? You want me to have a test that involves risk to my baby and the results will not allow ANY improvement in treatment either way? What’s the benefit then?

Doctor: Um, well you’ll know ahead of time so you can make certain decisions…

See where that leads? It’s practically an abortion sales pitch, with predictable results. Expect the same for pre-natal “gay” testing. Prediction: Secularized people will opt to abort on that basis more often than believers will. BEL can put that prediction in her pipe and smoke it… The Down’s scenario already plays out that way: pro-life believers are the majority of those actually having Down’s babies these days.

 

[EasterJoy]

Over 80% and some estimate that up to 90% of children with Down’s Syndrome never get born due to prenatal testing. It’s extremely deeply rooted in the medical community. Virtually any woman over 40 or with other risk factors for Down’s will be pressured to get amniocentesis to check for Down’s. Here’s the usual dialogue:

Doctor: We recommend amnio to check for Down’s Syndrome due to the risk factors here.

Patient: If the results are positive, are there treatment options or actions that can be taken to reduce the risk for Down’s or reduce the symptoms?

Doctor: No, just to identify the condition.

Patient: Huh? You want me to have a test that involves risk to my baby and the results will not allow ANY improvement in treatment either way? What’s the benefit then?

Doctor: Um, well you’ll know ahead of time so you can make certain decisions…

See where that leads? It’s practically an abortion sales pitch, with predictable results. Expect the same for pre-natal “gay” testing. Prediction: Secularized people will opt to abort on that basis more often than believers will. BEL can put that prediction in her pipe and smoke it… The Down’s scenario already plays out that way: pro-life believers are the majority of those actually having Down’s babies these days.

“Certain decisions” can have to do with making career adjustments, altering financial plans, or just, as one parent put it, to get used to the idea that your trip is not going to be to Italy, but to Holland, which while it is a great place is a very different place than you might have assumed you were going.

With regards to Downs, there is an ultrasound test that is less invasive than amniocentesis, and so less likely to introduce harm in order to get the information. It is not done until 12 or 13 weeks. We had it done simply in order to be able to educate ourselves about what a Downs child would need that might be different than a typical child, if that is what we would be having.

 

[manualman]

“Certain decisions” can have to do with making career adjustments, altering financial plans, or just, as one parent put it, to get used to the idea that your trip is not going to be to Italy, but to Holland, which while it is a great place is a very different place than you might have assumed you were going.

Yes, that’s what is said. But couple the almost insistent recommendations for testing to the fact that the great majority of Down’s babies are aborted in the womb these days and I end up just a little bit less than convinced that “mental preparation” is the primary reason for this level of testing. Especially the amnio which poses real physical risks and zero physical benefits in the case of a Downs finding. Color me suspicious.

But the idea here is not to tangent into Downs, but to illustrate that the facts on the ground today suggest that people of faith are LESS likely to abort a child with characteristics difficult for a parent to deal with, not more likely as accused by BEL.