Gay gene: Real or fictitious?

[Mystic_Banana]

I don’t think that even medical experts know the answer to that question for sure. I have read that there is probably a mix of both nature and nurture (i.e., genetics and upbringing/environment) involved in sexual orientation, but I don’t think that science has a definitive answer to your question.

However, why does it matter if there is a “gay gene” or not? If we find out that there is such a gene, or if we find out that there isn’t, how would that change the moral dimension of homosexuality one way or the other?

If sexuality is predetermined, then people are responsible for the management of it, rather than the orientation itself. Otherwise, orientation would be also be our own responsibility. Also raises/quashes the question “but how can it be wrong if God made me gay?”

 

[Havard]

Perhaps. But the post stands. I do understand the difference between sexual orientation, and choice of sexual activity.

Chris62 was kind enough to tell me what my understanding is. His understanding of my understanding is incorrect, and apparently was internally generated in his (or her) own mind, and is not applicable to me.

Right, and I don’t want to get in the middle either spirited discussion, I just wanted to clarify who’s who.

 

[PaulGH]

If sexuality is predetermined, then people are responsible for the management of it, rather than the orientation itself. Otherwise, orientation would be also be our own responsibility. Also raises/quashes the question “but how can it be wrong if God made me gay?”

I’m not sure if I understand your first sentence. I think you are saying that it is a question of whether people choose the orientation itself, or whether they choose only how they respond to the orientation. Is that right?

If so, I see a problem with this line of reasoning, because something can have a non-genetic cause, and still not be a choice. Let’s suppose scientists discover that there is no genetic component at all to homosexual orientation. That still doesn’t necessarily mean that a person with a homosexual orientation chooses to have that orientation. Maybe the orientation was caused by environmental factors outside the person’s control, for example.

I don’t know what causes homosexual orientation (though I suspect that it is a mix of genetics and environment), but I also don’t see why it matters. Whether or not it is caused by genetics, I don’t think that it is freely chosen, except perhaps in very rare and unusual cases.

As to the argument “but how can it be wrong if God made me gay?”, that argument doesn’t hold water even if homosexual orientation does have a genetic cause. It is not hard to think of other inclinations or conditions which have a basis in genetics, but which nevertheless are seen as negative or harmful. So why would homosexual orientation be automatically positive, just because it has a genetic component?

 

[Rau]

I’m not sure if I understand your first sentence. I think you are saying that it is a question of whether people choose the orientation itself, or whether they choose only how they respond to the orientation. Is that right?

If so, I see a problem with this line of reasoning, because something can have a non-genetic cause, and still not be a choice. Let’s suppose scientists discover that there is no genetic component at all to homosexual orientation. That still doesn’t necessarily mean that a person with a homosexual orientation chooses to have that orientation. Maybe the orientation was caused by environmental factors outside the person’s control, for example.

I don’t know what causes homosexual orientation (though I suspect that it is a mix of genetics and environment), but I also don’t see why it matters. Whether or not it is caused by genetics, I don’t think that it is freely chosen, except perhaps in very rare and unusual cases.

As to the argument “but how can it be wrong if God made me gay?”, that argument doesn’t hold water even if homosexual orientation does have a genetic cause. It is not hard to think of other inclinations or conditions which have a basis in genetics, but which nevertheless are seen as negative or harmful. So why would homosexual orientation be automatically positive, just because it has a genetic component?

Perhaps there is a genetic element in the homosexual orientation, and further research may clearly answer the question. If there is, then to that extent, we can say there is something “natural” about the orientation. But given the orientation is in contradiction to the body, I can’t help but see the condition as a defect in some way. *

The means by which this particular orientation / desire arises does not have a bearing on the morality of actions pursuant to the orientation. Arguably, there may be some reduced culpability if such actions are succumbed to by a person with such an orientation - after all, I think the challenge to chastity may be greater than that faced by a single person without that orientation - but that’s a matter for God.

The important observation I think is to recognise that the orientation does arise by some means not under the choice or direction of the person concerned. But the orientation does not change what is moral - rather, it presents another challenge to chastity.*

 

[epan]

I think it is safe to say we hold differing views on the subject of the thread.

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, of course that’s true.

However, if you are going to cite research, first check to see if it’s peer reviewed, and if so what the consensus is as to its relevance and accuracy. Simply posting garbage that you find on a religious propaganda site, or (alternatively) some garbage from some other propaganda site, does not exactly support your point.

 

[TheHolyTrinity]

Here is some research … identifying a combinations of gene changes common in men.

Largest study of gay brothers homes in on ‘gay genes’
17 November 2014 by Andy Coghlan

Research conducted by the North Shore Research Institute in the US found clear links between male sexual orientation and two specific regions of the human genome, with lead scientist Alan Sanders declaring that the work “erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice”.

Xq28 and 8q12 were the two regions that were most frequently identified as home to genetic markers common among the 818 gay men, three other SNPs were also highlighted. As seen below:

View attachment 21598 View attachment 21599

 

[chris62]

Apparently, you don’t know what I understand, or don’t understand.

Of course, it is a choice to commit a sexual act. You failed to respond to my question.

The claim is often made that human sexual orientation is a “choice”. Do you agree with that statement, or do you not? I ask you because it seemed to me that you were making the case that sexual orientation is a choice. You challenged my statement that it is not.

If sexual orientation is a choice, then there must be a discrete moment, or series of choices. Since this is such a large decision in life, I believe that anyone who made such a choice would remember the process of arriving at choosing one’s sexual orientation.

I concede, and always have conceded, that particular sexual acts are made by choice.

Do you agree with me that sexual orientation is not a choice? If you disagree, then I would like to understand how your arrived at your opinion. Is it because you consciously made such a choice, or do you have some legitimate research (in large quantities) to back up your claim?

It appears reading isn’t your strong suit.

 

[Nelka]

What are you responding to?

There is no gay gene, no obesity gene, no racist gene.

Ecclesiasticus 15:14-20

14 He himself made human beings in the beginning, and then left them free to make their own decisions.

15 If you choose, you will keep the commandments and so be faithful to his will.

16 He has set fire and water before you; put out your hand to whichever you prefer.

17 A human being has life and death before him; whichever he prefers will be given him.

18 For vast is the wisdom of the Lord; he is almighty and all-seeing.

19 His eyes are on those who fear him, he notes every human action.

20 He never commanded anyone to be godless, he has given no one permission to sin.

 

[Rau]

There is no gay gene, no obesity gene, no racist gene

Well, I think racism is wholly learned, like any prejudice. But no genetic influence on obesity or on sexual attractions? How can you know that?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

There is no gay gene, no obesity gene, no racist gene.

Ecclesiasticus 15:14-20

14 He himself made human beings in the beginning, and then left them free to make their own decisions.

15 If you choose, you will keep the commandments and so be faithful to his will.

16 He has set fire and water before you; put out your hand to whichever you prefer.

17 A human being has life and death before him; whichever he prefers will be given him.

18 For vast is the wisdom of the Lord; he is almighty and all-seeing.

19 His eyes are on those who fear him, he notes every human action.

20 He never commanded anyone to be godless, he has given no one permission to sin.

There are no genes that always cause obesity, but there are numerous documented genes that make it substantially more likely.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Pope Paul VI predicted all these problems when he was warning the world not to use the pill.

 

[on_the_hill]

Pope Paul VI predicted all these problems when he was warning the world not to use the pill.

Because gay men started using it?

 

[PaulGH]

I don’t know how credible this information is, but I saw this on Fr. Z’s blog today:

wdtprs.com/blog/2015/03/8-major-studies-of-identital-twins-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/

But again, even if homosexual orientation turned out to be 100% genetic, I still don’t understand why that would necessarily tell us anything about the morality of homosexual acts. For example, one could argue that most men have a drive to mate with multiple women, and that this drive has its root in genetics. But that doesn’t make promiscuity or adultery morally acceptable.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I’m not sure if I understand your first sentence. I think you are saying that it is a question of whether people choose the orientation itself, or whether they choose only how they respond to the orientation. Is that right?

If so, I see a problem with this line of reasoning, because something can have a non-genetic cause, and still not be a choice. Let’s suppose scientists discover that there is no genetic component at all to homosexual orientation. That still doesn’t necessarily mean that a person with a homosexual orientation chooses to have that orientation. Maybe the orientation was caused by environmental factors outside the person’s control, for example.

I don’t know what causes homosexual orientation (though I suspect that it is a mix of genetics and environment), but I also don’t see why it matters. Whether or not it is caused by genetics, I don’t think that it is freely chosen, except perhaps in very rare and unusual cases.

As to the argument “but how can it be wrong if God made me gay?”, that argument doesn’t hold water even if homosexual orientation does have a genetic cause. It is not hard to think of other inclinations or conditions which have a basis in genetics, but which nevertheless are seen as negative or harmful. So why would homosexual orientation be automatically positive, just because it has a genetic component?

Although environmental/social influences you would assume we have some ability to resist, assuming we have free will… and if we don’t have free will, well, we’re just all going through the paces anyway, aren’t we? :hypno:

It becomes more complex with that example of the 1 gay/1 straight identical twin - if genetics determines our thinking, how can 2 genetically identical individuals have different sexual orientation? a) It’s not genetically controlled or b) genetics is also not wholly in control, and perhaps can be influenced by both free will and/or social-environmental factors…

… in fact it quite possibly becomes a triangle, which would mean that your point is an even more poignant one. Either we have free will at all, or, well, it doesn’t matter :whacky:

Or in other words, if there are genetic causes of homosexuality, that still doesn’t necessarily mean that people have no control over their own sexuality, because genetic factors may themselves be influenced by social/environmental factors, and/or free will.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Actually, is there any of this stuff that genuinely embodies the old, mythically discovered gay gene? The idea of that was that there was a gene that actually made you gay. Are any of these genes present in all tested gay people? If not, then they cannot be the gay gene as it was described prevalently in the 1990’s, which remains fictitious

Actually, conversely, are *any * of these genes/genetic factors only found in gay people? Just trying out all the factors…

 

[Larry1700]

Did you choose your sexual orientation? I’m so tired of the ridiculous claim that sexual orientation is a choice. There are mountains of research which indicate otherwise. Anecdotally, I have never known a person who “chose” to be heterosexual, or a person who chose to be homosexual.

So, tell me honestly. On what day did you choose to be homosexual, or heterosexual, whichever the case may be? Do you remember that day? Did you intentionally decide one day which gender to be attracted and fall in love with? It’s a big decision in life. I’m sure you can remember the day very clearly, if you did in fact make that choice. I would like to find just one person who did that.

Try to be honest and use some common sense in these discussions.

Interesting question. No, I didn’t choose to be heterosexual. But does that necessarily prove the same thing for homosexuality?

Either way, like I have said before, whether or not the homosexual urge/tendency/orientation is a choice, the action is.

 

[Larry1700]

I just read through the thread to catch up, and chris62 never said anything about sexual orientation. Might you have confused him with Larry1700?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I have claimed with any certainty that homosexuality (the tendency, not the act) is a choice. That’s what my original post was intending to find out. Look at post #27, for example, as well as my other posts.

 

[Larry1700]

I don’t think that even medical experts know the answer to that question for sure. I have read that there is probably a mix of both nature and nurture (i.e., genetics and upbringing/environment) involved in sexual orientation, but I don’t think that science has a definitive answer to your question.

However, why does it matter if there is a “gay gene” or not? If we find out that there is such a gene, or if we find out that there isn’t, how would that change the moral dimension of homosexuality one way or the other?

I agree that whether or not there is a “gay gene,” the moral dimension remains unchanged.

Honestly, it has been so long since I made the original post, I have forgotten what prompted me to post the question. (Ah, the joys of old age!) However, I’m still curious about what the current science shows about it.

 

[Larry1700]

I don’t know how credible this information is, but I saw this on Fr. Z’s blog today:

wdtprs.com/blog/2015/03/8-major-studies-of-identital-twins-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/

But again, even if homosexual orientation turned out to be 100% genetic, I still don’t understand why that would necessarily tell us anything about the morality of homosexual acts. For example, one could argue that most men have a drive to mate with multiple women, and that this drive has its root in genetics. But that doesn’t make promiscuity or adultery morally acceptable.

Agreed.

 

[Rau]

Actually, is there any of this stuff that genuinely embodies the old, mythically discovered gay gene? The idea of that was that there was a gene that actually made you gay. Are any of these genes present in all tested gay people? If not, then they cannot be the gay gene as it was described prevalently in the 1990’s, which remains fictitious

Actually, conversely, are *any * of these genes/genetic factors only found in gay people? Just trying out all the factors…

There is no serious suggestion or claim that there is some single gene that acts like a switch between opposite sex attraction and same sex attraction.

The evidence suggests some level of influence by certain genes. But the effect is not definitive and other factors are believed to be as least as influential.