Homosexuality: Genetic or Emotional

[Napromedstudent]

**I didn’t say the brains functioned differently, I said they are structurally different. There is no evidence that this is the result of abuse. **

If brains are structured different, the will function differently. “Form follows function” This is a very basic concept of physiology. Not only that, but how a person uses his body will lead to a difference of structure within his or her body. This is very evident in our society, exercise diet etc. Its not hard to see how one’s environment will have real “biological” or physical impacts on one’s body. And all this with no genetic component.

Bluegoat, I have to say I agree with White Sheep. You tell him that he doesn’t have a good understanding of Genetics in Populations, but I see otherwise. You are confusing Biological effects with Genetic effects, and this is after you tried to distinguish between the two. Oh and what exactly are the differences between male and female brains on a gross dissection, besides size? I have dissected quite a few myself in med school, and I don’t remember much difference on a gross level. Maybe if you got down to a molecular level you could distinguish some. Even on a histological level you’d be hard-pressed to find well defined differences.

 

[Bluegoat]

**
Bluegoat, I have to say I agree with White Sheep. You tell him that he doesn’t have a good understanding of Genetics in Populations, but I see otherwise. You are confusing Biological effects with Genetic effects, and this is after you tried to distinguish between the two. Oh and what exactly are the differences between male and female brains on a gross dissection, besides size? I have dissected quite a few myself in med school, and I don’t remember much difference on a gross level. Maybe if you got down to a molecular level you could distinguish some. Even on a histological level you’d be hard-pressed to find well defined differences.**

THe IPL is larger in men, and larger on the right side than on the left. This is reversed for women.
Broca and Wernicke areas larger in women
There are differences in the hypothalamus
Men have more naurons in the cerebral cortex
Women have more neuropil

As for populations, I gave an example in an earlier post which I thought was clear. While a particular trait may not be particularly advantageous to an individual, it may be an advantage in a population. An individual with sickle cell disease will die young. But it is advantageous for the population to have those genes in place.

As well, many diseases have genetic components. By the logic expressed here, they should all have disappeared if they are not advantageous.

Genetics does not control everything that happens in the body. There are all kinds of reasons a male baby might not be exposed to testosterone in the womb. Maybe there were other compromising chemicals present. Maybe mom was taking medications, or she was older and something didn’t work properly. In the case of a woman, she could have a twin who was a boy and be exposed to greater than normal amounts of hormones, which would be unusual but possible.

 

[BobObob]

I’ve studied this a lot in the past and have come to the conclusion that eroticized same-sex attraction is usually caused in part by both biological factors and psychological factors. By biological factors, I mean mostly indirect biological factors, like biological factors that cause a person to be tall will predispose him to be good at and enjoy basketball.

For an excellent short video (about 15 minutes) on the subject and other information, see www.homosexuality101.com.

In the first Letter of Paul to the Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God."

I just briefly wanted to say that a careful examination of Cor 6 will show that Paul is talking specifically about those who practice homosexual behavior, not those who merely experience same-sex attraction. Some people use Paul’s writings to say that merely experiencing SSA is sinful in itself, I wasn’t sure if that’s what you were doing.

 

[WatchingMedia]

I would expect that homosexuality is an addiction, like many other sexual or habitual addictions - pornography, etc.
There is zero proof that it is a physcial illness, or any other type of illness. Anything else is mere speculation.

Like all addictions, it can be over-come, but requires a resolve on the part of the individual. And an effort not to relapse. So getting back to the OP Title, - homosexuality is emotional, not genetic. Any other conclusion is speculation.

By the homosexual lifestyle constantly in the face of the affected individual such as gay parades, TV programs about gay lovers, porn, potential legalization of gay marriage, gay bars, being OPENLY gay in the military, etc - Society makes life that much more difficult for the individual to break away from this lifestyle. Society keeps reinforcing and telling the individual that homosexual acts are OK.

“Homosexual Acts” are a mortal sin, against the Natural and Moral laws.

We are charged by Jesus to love our neighbor which means that we want them to get to Heaven.
In the first Letter of Paul to the Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God."

By promoting homosexual acts in any way - such as supporting gay marriage, supporting gay parades, or anything which would be construed to be supportive of the gay lifestyle, people violate the love of neighbor demanded by Jesus. We must do what we can to help all our Neighbors get to Heaven.

I don’t adhere to JUNK Science. So without FACTS, the above post stands. Personal opinions mean nothing, and are merely speculation or an excuse.

Same sex attraction although disordered is not sinful in itself, as long as someone does not dwell on impure sexual thoughts.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”, 2357-2359 gives the best explanation.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[stephe1987]

So far, no gay gene has been found, but there are genes that make people more susceptible to alcoholism. However, even with the “gene” for something, people still need to be responsible for their behavior. The gay lifestyle is not safe.

Early reports in the 1980’s suggested that male homosexuals had an average life expectancy of less than 50 years - more than 20 years less than the overall male population. With the push for “safe” sex and improved treatments for AIDS, one would expect that the life expectancy might have increased since then. However, a Canadian study in 1997 found that male homosexuals have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the general male population (based upon a prevalence of 3% of the male population).1 Using several different measures, including life expectancy determined from obituaries, two large random sexuality surveys (in the USA and Great Britain), and a survey of those never married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, indicated an average age of death of less than 50 years old. A third study, published in 2002, found that the median age of death of 88 homosexually partnered men was 45 years, while for 118 unpartnered homosexual men it was 46 years. This latter study put the average life expectancy of male homosexuals nearly 30 years less than the general male population. Another study showed that, on average, ever-married men outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered by 23 years in Denmark (74 yr. v. 51 yr.), and 25 years in Norway (77 yr. v. 52 yr.) Ever-married women outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered in Denmark by 22 years (78 yr. v. 56 yr.), and in Norway by almost 25 years (81 yr. v. 56 yr.).

How does the average homosexual lifespan compare to the average life expectancy of smokers? On average, a lifetime smoker can expect the smoking lifestyle to reduce his life expectancy by only 10 years.5 However, smoking is vigorously condemned by the medical community and press, although it reduces life expectancy by less than half of that caused by a gay lifestyle.

Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide.

godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html

 

[white_sheep]

As well, many diseases have genetic components. By the logic expressed here, they should all have disappeared if they are not advantageous.

Who expressed such logic? Do you have any proof of this claim?

 

[white_sheep]

As for populations, I gave an example in an earlier post which I thought was clear. While a particular trait may not be particularly advantageous to an individual, it may be an advantage in a population. An individual with sickle cell disease will die young. But it is advantageous for the population to have those genes in place.

The only thing that this example makes clear is that you do not understand population dynamics. Sickle cell anemia is not an advantageous trait in a population wide manner. This is taught in every genetics course. Individuals who are homozygous recessive for sickle cell will likely die young, but there is ~equal selection against those who have none of the genes for sickle cell, so they die young as well. The people who do well are those who are heterozygous for sickle cell. They do not have the disease but are better protected against malaria. They have the most fit genetics for their environment. They will do well and pass on their genes to their offspring. This is very much on an individual basis, not a population wide basis. Those who are not heterozygous for sickle cell see no benefits from the others being resistant to malaria.

 

[Ahimsa]

The only thing that this example makes clear is that you do not understand population dynamics. Sickle cell anemia is not an advantageous trait in a population wide manner.

Bluegoat said that “it is advantageous for the population to have those genes in place”, not that “it is advantageous to have sickle cell anemia”. You can’t have heterozygotes without the presence of the sickle cell mutation.

 

[manualman]

At risk of revealing myself as a biological ignoramus, why does it matter?

We’ve known for quite some time now that alcoholism has a genetic predisposition risk factor. Anybody tell an alcoholic “Celebrate who you are and bottoms up!?”

Like alcoholism, it appears to me that homosexuality comes in a variety of forms and manifestations. Some may be pushed towards it hard by genetics. Others may have developed the inclination over time and poor choices. But regardless of why one is drawn to it, the behavior is still self destructive.

I’ve heard Dr. Fitzgibbons speak on catholic radio a few times and think some of his ideas make a lot of sense. I can relate to a LOT of what he says about our culture today making FAR too much emphasis on male hand-eye coordination (i.e. sports talent) in its male identity formation. What you do with a stupid little ball has NOTHING to do with how much a man you are. I’m thankful I had an intact family and found other ways that I could identify with my dad (fixing machines, building things, camping and fishing…) than just sports. I’m not sure I’m ready to make the jump that he seems to and claim that ALL homsexuality comes from this poor formative years male confidence development. But I suspect that he is known for that opinion and tends to draw patients that can relate to that model. No wonder he has success with them.

 

[white_sheep]

Bluegoat said that “it is advantageous for the population to have those genes in place”, not that “it is advantageous to have sickle cell anemia”. You can’t have heterozygotes without the presence of the sickle cell mutation.

It’s effect is at an individual level. Anyway, enough conflating the issue, I want to know how having homosexuals in society improves the survivability or fecundity of the rest of the population. That was the assertion and I’d like to see it substantiated.

 

[white_sheep]

At risk of revealing myself as a biological ignoramus, why does it matter?

Ultimately, I don’t think it does. I just prefer to keep things honest. The whole “is it genetic?” argument doesn’t really matter either way. I don’t think it is genetic.

 

[Bluegoat]

The only thing that this example makes clear is that you do not understand population dynamics. Sickle cell anemia is not an advantageous trait in a population wide manner. This is taught in every genetics course. Individuals who are homozygous recessive for sickle cell will likely die young, but there is ~equal selection against those who have none of the genes for sickle cell, so they die young as well. The people who do well are those who are heterozygous for sickle cell. They do not have the disease but are better protected against malaria. They have the most fit genetics for their environment. They will do well and pass on their genes to their offspring. This is very much on an individual basis, not a population wide basis. Those who are not heterozygous for sickle cell see no benefits from the others being resistant to malaria.

Yes, this is what I said. In order to have people who are protected from malaria, there is always the possibility of having people who will succumb to sickle cell disease. For the population the benefits of having that genetic material present (many people are resistant to malaria) outweigh the disadvantages (some individuals die young). For an individual it is either an advantage or a disadvantage, but for the population as a whole it is advantageous.

 

[Bluegoat]

It’s effect is at an individual level. Anyway, enough conflating the issue, I want to know how having homosexuals in society improves the survivability or fecundity of the rest of the population. That was the assertion and I’d like to see it substantiated.

No, I didn’t say that. A post said that because homosexuals are less likely to reproduce, it seemed unlikely that homosexuality could be genetic, as such a gene would tend to be selected against. I was simply pointing out that it is not that simple. One possibility I mentioned, among others, might be if such a gene were associated with other desirable traits for the group.

Genetics within populations is complicated. Did you know that with some deer, the most fit males tend to father less fit females, but less fit males tend to father more fit females? In such a population it would be silly to suggest that only the most obviously advantageous genes would be passed on. The less fit males are actually important to the survival of the population.

 

[bluelake]

Hello, I have heard various arguments as to the cause of homosexuality. Some claim genetics, very few claim it is the result of emotional abuse. I did find the following article as a result of a link given on another thread. I have given only a small part of what was written. To get the full substance go to: www.narth.com/docs/catholic.html

The following letter was sent to the Catholic Bishop’s meeting in Dallas in June, 2002 to discuss the Church’s sexual abuse crisis. It was also published in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review in November, 2002. The authors are Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons and Peter Rudegeair, MS.

The authors offer suggestions for improved methods of screening and training candidates for religious life, including those candidates who are homosexually oriented.

Your Excellencies:
As a Catholic psychiatrist and psychologist who have treated a significant number of priests from various dioceses and religious communities over the past 25 years for same-sex attraction (SSA or homosexuality) and for pedophilia and ephebophilia (homosexual behavior with adolescents), we believe that our particular expertise and those of our colleagues in the Catholic Medical Association may be of help to the American bishops as they seek to create effective long term strategies to prevent the recurrence of the problems in which the Catholic Church in the United States now finds itself enmeshed.
Many have pointed out that solving the problem of sexual abuse by clergy will necessarily involve addressing the problem of SSA among priests. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, admitted at a press conference in Rome on April 23 the existence of an ongoing struggle to ensure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men.

As the revelations of abuse have become public it has become increasingly clear that almost all the victims are adolescent males, not prepubescent boys. The problem of priests with same-sex attractions (SSA) molesting adolescents or children must be addressed if future scandals are to be avoided.

In treating priests who have engaged in pedophilia and ephebophilia we have observed that these men almost without exception suffered from a denial of sin in their lives. They were unwilling to admit and address the profound emotional pain they experienced in childhood of loneliness, often in the father relationship, peer rejection, lack of male confidence, poor body image, sadness, and anger. This anger, which originated most often from disappointments and hurts with their peers and/or fathers, was often directed toward the Church, the Holy Father, and the religious authorities. Rejecting the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, these men for the most part adopted the utilitarian sexual ethic which the Holy Father so brilliantly critiqued in his book, Love and Responsibility. They came to see their own pleasure as the highest end and used others – including adolescents and children – as sexual objects. They consistently refused to examine their consciences, to accept the Church’s teachings on moral issues as a guide for their personal actions, or regularly avail themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation.

These priests either refused to seek spiritual direction or chose a spiritual director or confessor who openly rebelled against Church teachings on sexuality. Tragically, these mistakes allowed these men to justify their behaviors.

The Bishops, individually and collectively, should develop screening protocols which will identify men who may pose a risk to others and who cannot live the chaste celibacy required of a priest. This is essential to protect the Church and her children from further pain, sorrow and future scandals. While no screening system is absolutely foolproof, sufficient research is available to develop efficient tools for this task.

One of the major problems we have discovered in discussing this issue with the clergy and the laity is the enormous amount of misinformation about the nature, origins, and treatment of homosexuality/SSA. This is not accidental. For over twenty years, activists–intent on changing the laws on sexual orientation–have put forward a massive public-relations campaign specifically designed to spread misinformation that will change the social acceptance of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a sin. It is a chosen lifestyle which the bible condemns in Rom.1:26-31
God desroyed Sodom because of this sin. See also, 1Tim.1:10

bluelake

 

[abucs]

Wouldn’t that be true for any number of conditions that exist and are fairly common?

If those conditions directly and overwhelmingly decrease the likelihood of reproduction from one generation to the next, then yes.

 

[white_sheep]

No, I didn’t say that. A post said that because homosexuals are less likely to reproduce, it seemed unlikely that homosexuality could be genetic, as such a gene would tend to be selected against. I was simply pointing out that it is not that simple. One possibility I mentioned, among others, might be if such a gene were associated with other desirable traits for the group.

Genetics within populations is complicated. Did you know that with some deer, the most fit males tend to father less fit females, but less fit males tend to father more fit females? In such a population it would be silly to suggest that only the most obviously advantageous genes would be passed on. The less fit males are actually important to the survival of the population.

The original point was that since society values gay men as hairdressers therefore somehow we keep their genes around because they are useful.

Your deer example doesn’t make any sense. Are you asserting that size=fitness? If elephants are so much more fit than mice why are there so many mice and why have they spread to cover the globe while the elephant has not?

There is no evidence to show that being related to a homosexual gives the relatives increased survivability or fecundity. And yes, it is that simple that when a gene has a strong selection against it, such as in homosexuality, it will become far less frequent. If it is a recessive trait it will not completely go away but simply become very rare. Take a look at the wiki page on autosomal recessive disorders. You will note they are all 1 in 5,000 or 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 2,500 etc. If it is a dominant trait it will disappear completely in a very short time frame. Any possible benefit from being a relative to a homosexual is very slight compared to the selection against such a trait.

 

[manualman]

white sheep

Unless homosexual inclinations sometimes result from dual recessive genes that when only ONE of them is present manifest POSITIVE traits: musical talent, artistic genius, literary aptitude… Those things ARE helpful to society and attractive to women. Genes aren’t so simple as to have only one effect. It’s a cocktail in there!

But again, it’s all moot. Even if there is a genetic predisposition for some, that doesn’t make homosexual behavior any less self-destructive - just like alcoholism.

 

[edwest2]

Why guess when you can find out?

narth.com/docs/hope.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[abucs]

Thanks for the link edwest2.

 

[Bluegoat]

The original point was that since society values gay men as hairdressers therefore somehow we keep their genes around because they are useful.

Your deer example doesn’t make any sense. Are you asserting that size=fitness? If elephants are so much more fit than mice why are there so many mice and why have they spread to cover the globe while the elephant has not?

There is no evidence to show that being related to a homosexual gives the relatives increased survivability or fecundity. And yes, it is that simple that when a gene has a strong selection against it, such as in homosexuality, it will become far less frequent. If it is a recessive trait it will not completely go away but simply become very rare. Take a look at the wiki page on autosomal recessive disorders. You will note they are all 1 in 5,000 or 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 2,500 etc. If it is a dominant trait it will disappear completely in a very short time frame. Any possible benefit from being a relative to a homosexual is very slight compared to the selection against such a trait.

Wow.

If you want to read about the deer, here it is.