Gay gene: Real or fictitious?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Larry1700
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Larry1700

Guest
My SIL emailed me an ifunny video (sorry, can’t access my email from this computer), with a title something like “What NOT to say when your son tells you he’s gay.”

Without going into detail, the son seems to be arguing with his mother, father, and one or more other people. His parents are telling him they are cutting off his support. (Not relevant to my question, but I’m just providing a little context.)

Anyway, the son says he has learned in biology class and psychology class that your sexuality is formed by age ??? (I don’t remember the age mentioned). My response to my SIL included, among other things, that I’m not convinced yet that people are born gay. I seem to recall reading that the so-called “gay gene” was not actually what the PC folks said it was.

So, is the “gay gene” real, or fictitious?
 
This doesn’t seem to be very charitable to those who really do struggle with this most difficult issue. 😦 It is a huge cross for those who have to face its daily challenges. Whether it is genetic or environmental is beside the point. The point is they got it and now they have to learn to live a chaste single life with little or no support from fellow Christians. 😦
 
When I was in college, with was a good decade ago now so probably the research has progressed, the thinking was that sexuality was not a specific gene, but rather a combination of different in utero processes.

Specifically, there are several “waves” of hormones that the fetus is exposed to early on in development, and the different levels of exposure to different hormones in utero affect gender identity, sexual orientation and to some extent physical anatomy (although obviously the whole X/Y thing is the more important feature there.)

Wikipedia isn’t the best source, but this explains it a little more in-depth at least: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
 
Convert_in_99 said:
This doesn’t seem to be very charitable to those who really do struggle with this most difficult issue. 😦 It is a huge cross for those who have to face its daily challenges. Whether it is genetic or environmental is beside the point. The point is they got it and now they have to learn to live a chaste single life with little or no support from fellow Christians. 😦
Click to expand...
A *question *to learn more about a topic is not charitable???
 
Larry1700 said:
A *question *to learn more about a topic is not charitable???
Click to expand...
It might even help someone who is not sure about this. If I know something might not be in my genes, it might help me vs thinking that it is definitely in my genes (something I cannot change/control).
 
I’m bipolar. My doctor has said that I was probably born with the possibility of developing this disorder and life events/upbringing likely triggered it. I think that this line of thinking could possibly be applied to people who are gay. Not necessarily a “gay gene.”

It needs to be noted that I can do very sinful things because of my disorder and I am still held accountable for it. For an example, in a manic cycle I crave sex. That doesn’t give me the right to go out and have sex.
 
It’s worth noting too that – if that line of research is correct – there’s a certain evolutionary value in homosexuality that I would love to see the church acknowledge someday. (It’s not so much disordered as differently ordered, serving a very important natural purpose in LIMITING procreation).

Take for example, the evidence that suggests men with a lot of older brothers are more likely to be gay, and the theory that this is due to higher in utero exposure to androgens built up from all those previous male pregnancies.

This could be like an evolutionary release valve: More male babies = more competition for mates, territory, etc. So you reach some critical mass and the hormones tip toward creating homosexual males to lesson the burden.(Similar to how maternal stress causes miscarriages, or how rabbits can actually re-absorb their fetuses when facing harsh conditions).
 
QuasiCatholic said:
It’s worth noting too that – if that line of research is correct – there’s a certain evolutionary value in homosexuality that I would love to see the church acknowledge someday. (It’s not so much disordered as differently ordered, serving a very important natural purpose in LIMITING procreation).

Take for example, the evidence that suggests men with a lot of older brothers are more likely to be gay, and the theory that this is due to higher in utero exposure to androgens built up from all those previous male pregnancies.

This could be like an evolutionary release valve: More male babies = more competition for mates, territory, etc. So you reach some critical mass and the hormones tip toward creating homosexual males to lesson the burden.(Similar to how maternal stress causes miscarriages, or how rabbits can actually re-absorb their fetuses when facing harsh conditions).
Click to expand...
Of course this is all theory. I know 4 or 5 families that have 7+ boys. Not a one of those families have a gay son out of 30 some boys. If that theory had a strong correlation you would expect atleast one or 2 homosexual in there at a minimum. It also does not explain occurrences of lesbianism, bisexuality, etc.

There may be a biological component, but it is likely simply a predisposition and not a cause. If it was an evolutionary adaptation the adaptation should only appear in times where there is a great imbalance or resource shortage, yet we tend to see the highest instance of homosexuality in developed countries where resources and mate selection are plentiful. Adaptations based on some environmental trigger would imply we should see less homosexuality in these areas, not more.

All that being said, even if one was born gay it doesn’t mean they should act on it. We are all born with some predilection to sinful behavior. That doesn’t mean it’s right to engage in violent acts, lying, cheating, or what ever immorality predilection we are born with.
 
QuasiCatholic said:
It’s worth noting too that – if that line of research is correct – there’s a certain evolutionary value in homosexuality that I would love to see the church acknowledge someday. (It’s not so much disordered as differently ordered, serving a very important natural purpose in LIMITING procreation).

Take for example, the evidence that suggests men with a lot of older brothers are more likely to be gay, and the theory that this is due to higher in utero exposure to androgens built up from all those previous male pregnancies.

This could be like an evolutionary release valve: More male babies = more competition for mates, territory, etc. So you reach some critical mass and the hormones tip toward creating homosexual males to lesson the burden.(Similar to how maternal stress causes miscarriages, or how rabbits can actually re-absorb their fetuses when facing harsh conditions).
Click to expand...
Sounds like a load of garbage!
 
Convert_in_99 said:
This doesn’t seem to be very charitable to those who really do struggle with this most difficult issue. 😦 It is a huge cross for those who have to face its daily challenges. Whether it is genetic or environmental is beside the point. **The point is they got it and now they have to learn to live a chaste single life with little or no support from fellow Christians. **😦
Click to expand...
The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church, ELCA, United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ and many in the Roman Catholic Church and many non-Denominational Churches / members have disregarded Scripture in order to support them.

Please describe what you mean by “little or no support from Christians”.

That’s all.
 
QuasiCatholic said:
It’s worth noting too that – if that line of research is correct – there’s a certain evolutionary value in homosexuality that I would love to see the church acknowledge someday. (It’s not so much disordered as differently ordered, serving a very important natural purpose in LIMITING procreation).

Take for example, the evidence that suggests men with a lot of older brothers are more likely to be gay, and the theory that this is due to higher in utero exposure to androgens built up from all those previous male pregnancies.

This could be like an evolutionary release valve: More male babies = more competition for mates, territory, etc. So you reach some critical mass and the hormones tip toward creating homosexual males to lesson the burden.(Similar to how maternal stress causes miscarriages, or how rabbits can actually re-absorb their fetuses when facing harsh conditions).
Click to expand...
The underlying concept of evolutionary theory is that nature works to pass along those traits which are strongest and help the species to survive. By nature, the “homosexual trait” stops the evolutionary process, so I would think this is a tough argument to make.

Thanks.
 
Usige said:
Of course this is all theory. I know 4 or 5 families that have 7+ boys. Not a one of those families have a gay son out of 30 some boys. If that theory had a strong correlation you would expect atleast one or 2 homosexual in there at a minimum.
Click to expand...
Not if the positive, masculinizing influences of one’s brothers make one feel perfectly manly despite one’s lack of a vigorous attraction to women. Such a young man would have all the necessary resources to have a successful marriage, and few people would ever know about his attraction to men.
 
Bruised_Reed said:
I don’t think it’s charitable to think that video is funny.
Click to expand...
I absolutely, positively, agree with that!

My SIL sends me things he sees on the ifunny.com website. Most of the things are actually funny, but this is perhaps the second or third one he has sent me that is anything but funny. I don’t know why or how it made its way onto the ifunny.com website.
 
To Convert in 99 and BruisedReed:

It just dawned on me that when you (and perhaps others) viewed my original post, you might have missed the “i” in front of “funny,” and thus thought that I was saying that my SIL sent me a “funny” video.

My apologies…
I should have somehow emphasized the “i” or made a point to indicate that it was from the ifunny.com website.

It certainly is NOT a funny video!

Sorry about that!
 
QuasiCatholic said:
It’s worth noting too that – if that line of research is correct – there’s a certain evolutionary value in homosexuality that I would love to see the church acknowledge someday. (It’s not so much disordered as differently ordered, serving a very important natural purpose in LIMITING procreation).

Take for example, the evidence that suggests men with a lot of older brothers are more likely to be gay, and the theory that this is due to higher in utero exposure to androgens built up from all those previous male pregnancies.

This could be like an evolutionary release valve: More male babies = more competition for mates, territory, etc. So you reach some critical mass and the hormones tip toward creating homosexual males to lesson the burden.(Similar to how maternal stress causes miscarriages, or how rabbits can actually re-absorb their fetuses when facing harsh conditions).
Click to expand...
The research I’ve heard about specifically noted a high incidence of same-sex attraction in younger brothers who’d had a poor relationship with older brothers, or were made to feel that they compared poorly with them in the eyes of parents.
Naturally, boys without brothers wouldn’t be subjected to such an effect. If the research is valid, then simply having brothers isn’t the issue. Do you know if the research you’re citing tried to make this distinction?

Apart from that, this theory of evolutionary value seems to have nothing to do with natural selection. How does an evolutionary effect weed out, over the millenia, homo sapiens whose large families don’t produce homosexual boys, in favor of those who do produce them?

Peace.
John
 
QuasiCatholic said:
It’s worth noting too that – if that line of research is correct – there’s a certain evolutionary value in homosexuality that I would love to see the church acknowledge someday. (It’s not so much disordered as differently ordered, serving a very important natural purpose in LIMITING procreation)…
Click to expand...
The Church has no interest in denying the evolutionary value of all sorts of habits, tendencies, urges, predispositions. It’s of course a fact that we all have many characteristics whose purpose is survival of us as individuals and as a species. BUT, it doesn’t follow that the behaviors they encourage are all moral, or morally neutral (use your imagination).

So of course, the Church isn’t likely to randomly start making proclamations like, “A man’s desire to sleep with many women who are not his wives, has a natural evolutionary value to it.”
Even less is the Church going to affirm unproven theories about the value of homosexuality.

Peace.
John
 
I believe that homosexuality is a polygenitically inherited trait, or, a trait that results not from a single gene but rather a set of genes. That being said I also believe that there are environmental factors that might regulate this set of genes. While my answer is rather commonplace I do think that the causality of homosexual urges is a combination of both nature and nurture.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
The underlying concept of evolutionary theory is that nature works to pass along those traits which are strongest and help the species to survive. By nature, the “homosexual trait” stops the evolutionary process, so I would think this is a tough argument to make.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Evolution is about the gene pool of the population, not the gene pool of a single person. If a reproductive trait results in one sibling being take out of reproduction duty, but allows more of that person’s nieces and nephews with that same genetic code to survive, it will be passed on.

I’m not saying that’s definitely the case here (although I think it is) I just hate how little understanding of the evolutionary process most people have.
 
I’ve often wondered if there were a gay gene identified, what the consequence would be in terms of abortion.

Would there be a meeting of the minds between LGBT activists and pro-life advocates?

Would there be new laws about abortion on demand, like: you can still choose abortion, except in cases where the abortion would discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top