Has the 'gay gene' been found?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaSalle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mikekle said:
I think its something ‘learned’, I met this one guy recently, he was new employee at one of our stores, he was a guy, in his mid 30s, and when I heard him talking, before I had been introduced, I knew he was gay…Im sure many of you know what Im talking about, most gay men, have this certain ‘manner’ of speaking, its not an accent, Im not really sure what is, but Ive heard this type of speaking many times, and every single time, the guy turned out to be gay.

Now, I have a feeling, they did not talk like this when they were young kids, it was something, they picked up, somewhere along the line.

Does anyone else know what Im talking about? anyone have an theories on how/when they start talking like this?
Click to expand...
It’s my understanding (from some gays) that some of that is “learned behavior” and that it’s picked up being around other gay men.
D0UBTFIRE said:
Once, when I was atheist 10 years ago, there was a man who spoke like that where I worked and assumed he was gay so I made a joke about religious people who oppose homosexuality (I know, inappropriate, but I was young!), and the guy got mad at me because he thought homosexuality was evil and against God. So, I don’t think he chose to talk that way nor that he practiced homosexuality…but that was the way he talked. I would assume since his youth.
Click to expand...
I didn’t choose to talk that way and I don’t have SSA, but I’ve been made fun of because I “talk like a f*g.”

So, we agree, that’s a poor assumption to make.
 
nuntym said:
+JMJ+

On the contrary, I thought about that a lot. That is why I will never ever consider homosexuality to be genetic in origin unless incontrovertible proof is provided.

Besides, congenital means “present from birth.” Congenital problems do not necessarily mean that they are genetic in origin.
Click to expand...
Hmm… Seems that either way it’s “born that way”…
 
+JMJ+
D0UBTFIRE said:
Hmm… Seems that either way it’s “born that way”…
Click to expand...
Nonetheless there are differences. If the congenital cause of infertility is non-genetic, then the cause is due to extrinsic factors. The organism had a fighting chance to pass on its genes, but lost due to factors from its environment. On the other hand, if the congenital cause of infertility is genetic in nature, then the cause is due to its most intrinsic factor: its genes. In a sense, it was doomed to fail from the beginning of conception.
 
LaSalle said:
I don’t think you thought that through … Infertility, for a myriad of reasons, can be congenital too.
Click to expand...
Suppose it is a gay gene or congenital, what would the Church position be on it then?
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Fr.Scalia gives a good talk about same sex attraction, people are not born with it.

youtube.com/watch?v=wUXqgpbua9k
Click to expand...
LGBT people claim they’re born with it. Most science I’ve seen on the matter agrees that this is very likely and that it’s certainly not a choice. I don’t understand why Christians fight that statement… It’s almost like they intuitively know or believe that the moral teachings on this don’t carry as much weight if this is something that has biological origins in nature.
 
Chances are that it is probably genetics. I’m pretty sure some of you have seen some young boys who seemed too effeminate. I’m not saying that they will automatically have SSA, but that sure points to the high chance that there’s a gene involved here.

Some people are born with exceptional intelligence, others not so much; some are born with exceptionally high libidos, for others it may seem almost non existent; some are born with a high propensity for violence, while others are born push overs. How surprising would it then be to find that some are born with SSA while others are born straight?

Well, the Church’s stand will not change. She recognizes that this is a disorder, even if it was caused by genes, and as such, the afflicted will have to refrain from acting out that attraction. As unfair as that may seem, the Lord has plans for such people. I’ve always associated SSA like any other handicap one is born with … some are born blind, without limbs, deaf etc … unlike those with handicaps which we recognize, and who have no say in how the handicap handicaps them, those afflicted with SSA can decide whether they will be handicapped by this handicap or not.

The real problem with finding conclusive proof that there is a gene responsible (whether in part or fully) for SSA is that many will naturally draw the conclusion that since they are born with it, people with SSA will have no choice in who they are attracted to, just like they would have no choice in what race they are born into. What we’ve termed unnatural, turns out to be ‘natural’ because of that disordered state. To then deny them the loving partnerships that they long for would be akin to denying them rights because of their race.

In all honesty, From a secular POV, I don’t see the harm in allowing them to get married too, although, I do see the harm if this movement subsequently attacks religious freedoms aggressively. Wouldn’t it be ideal if they could just stop at being able to marry and not push the envelope?

I really don’t buy the argument that SSM will destroy the institution of marriage. How? 98% of guys will still be attracted to 99% of the girls and they will still want to get married. Allowing people with SSM to get married is not going to do a thing for heteros.

What is destroying the institution of marriage seems to be the callous attitude in which marriage is entered into these days. Very few people go in with the intention of sticking with their spouses through thick and thin any more. A lot just go in because of infatuation rather than for a deep self sacrificing love.

If this is what marriage is all about, it’s no wonder there is so much support for SSM. SSM is thus the symptom of this mentality rather than an active agent that will destroy marriage.
 
“Born that way”? Not likely.

At the risk of becoming a target, I just need to be one example of NOT being born that way.

Back in the early 90’s, I acknowledged having SSA, declared I’d felt this way since childhood (and I had), and began marching, rallying, performing (i.e., singing at the rallies), and dating women. I spoke to the press, supported political campaigns, and volunteered at the GLBTTQ community center. I dated several women, and had one long-term relationship, including a “commitment ceremony.”

A series of life events gradually began to draw me out of the lesbian lifestyle. For a very short time, I called myself bisexual. I married a man (a childhood friend), we had a son, we got divorced (still on good terms with him, though). Our marriage wasn’t terrible or great. The marital embrace was nearly non-existent (my ex’s choosing, not mine).

But at some point in our marriage, I realized that I no longer had even the slightest inkling of SSA. In fact, the memories of my times with women absolutely disgusted me.

Some people like to say that sexual orientation is fluid. Others like to say it’s more fluid for women than for men (I guess my experience is more common among women) 🤷 Whatever.

All I know is that I cringe when people start talking about and defending, without clear scientific evidence, people being “born this way.” So then, what am I – a miracle? Well, all grace is a miracle, if it comes down to that. But the change in me had to do with healing the past and being supported and things I can’t quite identify. It was about healing though, of that much I am certain.

And incidentally, I had no intention of changing my orientation. I was not a practicing Catholic through all this – I was a die-hard liberal who voted for gay marriage.

Anyway, just wanted to be a voice against the “born that way” argument. It’s simply not that simple.

God bless you all.

Gertie
 
Faith1960 said:
Because if its a gay gene, the person couldnt help how they feel?
Click to expand...
The Church’s position **right now **doesn’t assume that a person can “help how they feel”. How would the Church respond differently if the origin was known to be genetic?
 
Corki said:
The Church’s position **right now **doesn’t assume that a person can “help how they feel”. How would the Church respond differently if the origin was known to be genetic?
Click to expand...
So the Church thinks that a gay person might not be able to help how they feel? If so, i get what you’re saying.
 
Faith1960 said:
So the Church thinks that a gay person might not be able to help how they feel? If so, i get what you’re saying.
Click to expand...
Right. We often cannot help how we feel regarding many things. Sin is a choice. That is why the Church has always taught that it is the actions that are sinful, not the feelings.
 
LaSalle said:
I was having a discussion with a friend and he claimed that it has been proven that homosexuality is caused genetically. Is this correct? I thought it was nurture rather than nature.
Click to expand...
No, that is not correct. Modern science is telling us that sexual identity is a complex thing and is more of a continuum than an absolute and is influenced by many factors. All the science can do is find a correlation to certain genes but not a cause.The genes are a slight disposition, or slight tilt in one way. We should resist labels that try and put people into tight little packages and just be honest that there is a real complex nature to our sexuality, even a continuum, with most of us bunched up on either ends of that spectrum.

But in the end, we must admit that the fundamental purpose of our sexuality is reproduction. The reason for its existence is reproduction. That is a biological fact.

Without the fundamental urge to reproduce, none of us would be here. Our species would have died out long ago. The way this gets expressed is complicated and get can distorted, and these distortion can even be passed down. Nature contains the nurture of the past.

There is no single ‘cause’ for someone being gay. It is genetic,developmental, behavioral, all of the above. There are multiple causes. But perhaps for some it is very cut and dry. You can’t generalize.
 
Gertabelle. Amazing post. Interesting first hand information.

Stories such as this are never allowed at “Tolerance Conferences” (it wouldn’t be “tolerated”) or at a “Hearing All The Voices Day” at Universities (They would not want to “hear” that “voice”).

Thank you for posting/sharing your experience.

God bless.

Cathoholic
. . . . All I know is that I cringe when people start talking about and defending, without clear scientific evidence, people being “born this way.” So then, what am I – a miracle? Well, all grace is a miracle, if it comes down to that. But the change in me had to do with healing the past and being supported and things I can’t quite identify. It was about healing though, of that much I am certain.
Click to expand...
And incidentally, I had no intention of changing my orientation. I was not a practicing Catholic through all this – I was a die-hard liberal who voted for gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Anyway, just wanted to be a voice against the “born that way” argument. It’s simply not that simple.
Click to expand...
God bless you all.
Click to expand...
Gertie
Click to expand...
 
LaSalle said:
I was having a discussion with a friend and he claimed that it has been proven that homosexuality is caused genetically. Is this correct? I thought it was nurture rather than nature.
Click to expand...
I hear they have recently discovered the gene which causes people to think everything is caused by genes 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top