Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Gay teens account for 30 - 50% of all successful suicides among American youth - approximately one every 6 hours (Gibson, 1989)

1899 - Germany’s pioneering researcher Magnus Hirschfeld writes that being gay or lesbian is biologically determined.

**1993 ** - In a major study researchers say they have identified a gene pattern that determines male homosexuality. A National Cancer Institute geneticist suggests that a gay gene resides in the X-chromosome which men inherit from their mothers

2003 - Psychologists conclude that a person’s sexual orientation is determined before birth

2005 - A genome researcher in Chicago says he has found a group of genes and not a single ‘gay gene’, that strongly affect whether a man is homosexual. The University of Illinois at Chicago and the NIH scientists report having looked at the genes of 456 men, each of whom had at least 2 gay brothers, from 146 families. The finding that a variety of genes are common to most gay men echoes other recent gene research.

 

[Evenprimes]

**1993 ** - In a major study researchers say they have identified a gene pattern that determines male homosexuality. A National Cancer Institute geneticist suggests that a gay gene resides in the X-chromosome which men inherit from their mothers

Could you give a citation for this study please? Thanks in advance.

1899 - Germany’s pioneering researcher Magnus Hirschfeld writes that being gay or lesbian is biologically determined.

2003 - Psychologists conclude that a person’s sexual orientation is determined before birth

These two don’t actually constitute evidence in themselves. If there were studies that supported those conclusions, I think those should be offered instead.

2005 - A genome researcher in Chicago says he has found a group of genes and not a single ‘gay gene’, that strongly affect whether a man is homosexual. The University of Illinois at Chicago and the NIH scientists report having looked at the genes of 456 men, each of whom had at least 2 gay brothers, from 146 families. The finding that a variety of genes are common to most gay men echoes other recent gene research.

It’s certainly possible that genetics influences homosexuality, but very unlikely that it determines it. Studies of identical (monozygotic) male twins have shown that if one twin is homosexual, the other is about 50% of the time. Since monozygotic twins have the same DNA, this suggests that homosexuality is not (or at least not in a majority of cases) genetically predetermined. Here is an example of such a study:
Bailey, JM; Dunne, MP; Martin, NG (2000): Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(3), 524-536.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

1957: Karen Hooker executes the first psychological test done to test for biological determinism

www.utexas.edu/courses/bio3old/Topics/Gay/Text.html

1973: As a result of Hooker’s findings, the APA removes homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders

**1994: ** APA states “…homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality.”

1993: National Cancer Institute. Study reported in July 16 issue of Science by scientists from the National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. The study is titled “A linkage between DNA markers on the X-Chromosome and male sexual orientation.” The authors are Dean H. Hamer, PhD, Stella Hu, M.A., Victoria L. Magnuson, PhD, Nan Hu M.D. and Angela M.L. Pattatucci, PhD.

“In the past decade, I think the pendulum has swung more toward biological theory and biological causes” (Richard Lippa, a psychology professor at California State University-Fullerton)

The Church appears firm on her opinion on homosexuality. It probably doesn’t matter whether it’s your genetic makeup, it would be considered a disorder that needs fixing and healing.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s certainly possible that genetics influences homosexuality, but very unlikely that it determines it.

Yes, and that is because sexual attraction is complex. Variables include internal (psyche) factors, brain and body chemistry, and external triggers both positive and negative. As the poster references, those variables can differ between twins and among siblings; in addition to the fact that people with identical DNA can respond differently to the same environmental situations.

And in addition to the fact that tendency or attraction does not equal (or mandate) behavior, even behavior is not synonymous with “identity.” When one buys the premise that sexuality = identity, one is more likely to assume genetics as the “cause.” But it was the homosexual population that invented the concept of identity as synonymous with sexual orientation. A suspicious person might logically see a pattern establishing, progressively, attraction, then behavior, then identity as being deterministic – thus controlling the terms for the political argument that a person “born that way” is a victim by definition and thus “entitled to civil rights,” which are further (and uniquely) defined as “all rights which all straights have, whatever those are.”

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Neurological, psychological and social understanding. The ‘self’ and ‘self-identity’: the contested self, self-determination and secession. Heady and philosophical issues. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and questioning are considered normal continuum by all prominent mental health organizations - such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Post 381:

We’re not talking about normalcy, degrees of normalcy, or continuums. We’re talking about so-called determinism: a very different subject. In fact, if anything, it was the gay population (again) who rigidified the discussion when insisting on locating a “gay identity,” for purposes I alluded to. But various branches of science point much more to human sexuality and orientation having many aspects of fluidity in origin, which in turn makes determinism highly unlikely, albeit rhetorically (politically) convenient.

 

[larkin31]

Post 381:

We’re not talking about normalcy, degrees of normalcy, or continuums. We’re talking about so-called determinism: a very different subject. In fact, if anything, it was the gay population (again) who rigidified the discussion when insisting on locating a “gay identity,” for purposes I alluded to. But various branches of science point much more to human sexuality and orientation having many aspects of fluidity in origin, which in turn makes determinism highly unlikely, albeit rhetorically (politically) convenient.

no one here has claimed that genetics “determines” sexual orientation or behavior. We have indeed been talking here about “normalcy” and “continuums,” although perhaps you have not read the posts. We have also been talking about genetics and other factors involved in the complex socio-emotional-biological-behavioral condition called “human sexual orientation.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Look at the title of the thread, to which others have replied, discussing genetic origins of “being gay,” as well as many posts which cite vague, inclusive statements by various assocations, and cite “events” in time as somehow implying that there is such a thing as “being born gay.”

 

[larkin31]

Look at the title of the thread, to which others have replied, discussing genetic origins of “being gay,” as well as many posts which cite vague, inclusive statements by various assocations, and cite “events” in time as somehow implying that there is such a thing as “being born gay.”

If this is to me, I have been in this thread from the start and have posted on it many times. Who wrote that persons “are born gay”? Which post(s) do you consider closes to this “suggestion”?

So you know, it could well be the case (from the research being done) that humans are born with a combination of genetic factors that influence sexual orientation. Don’t you agree?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have said on this thread and on many others on CAF, over and over, that inborn factors are indeed influences. That’s all they are, though: influences. There is no scientific proof that influences are deterministic. Lots of people are hard-wired with all kinds of tendencies which influence, should logically influence, and have historically influenced others to act on those tendencies – yet they have not assented to those influences, and/or have responded to contrary influences without violence to their essential personalities.

 

[CarlaOLS]

Elizabeth is correct and states it well. Personalities, inborn traits play a role for some, but solo those traits do not cause homosexual drives. They can lay a sort of fertile bed for any number of environmental factors to more or less seed and eventually take root. But unmet homo-emotional needs, and immature or arrested same gender bonding is continually identified in studied cases.

Identifying those unmet homo-emotional needs, working on healing past wounds and realtionahips, forging healthy peer bonding with heterosexuals, and prayer have all been found to control, diminish, and even eliminate the sexual drive toward the same sex.

 

[larkin31]

I have said on this thread and on many others on CAF, over and over, that inborn factors are indeed influences. That’s all they are, though: influences. There is no scientific proof that influences are deterministic. Lots of people are hard-wired with all kinds of tendencies which influence, should logically influence, and have historically influenced others to act on those tendencies – yet they have not assented to those influences, and/or have responded to contrary influences without violence to their essential personalities.

The evidence for some level of determinism is the testimony, from a selection of both heteros and from gays, that our orientation seems to come on very early in life, with no uncertainty, and with very strong power. If gay sexuality is determined in large part by environmental influences, than so is heterosexual orientation, and that typically is not how many people describe the onset of their awareness of their sexuality.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If gay sexuality is determined in large part by environmental influences, than so is heterosexual orientation, and that typically is not how many people describe the onset of their awareness of their sexuality.

Who cares about how anyone “describes the onset of their awareness?” I have no problem including my own heterosexual orientation in the same spectrum of birth + environment in which I place homosexual orientation. Perfectly logical.

Just be careful of accepting at face value these “onset” anecdotes. A whole bunch of them pretend they can “remember” orientations dating back to time periods before long-term memory could even have been operative. A lot of them also confuse gender-role experimentation and attraction-experimentation with time periods that occur in normal juvenile development (such as ages 3-10) for both orientations. (They call that “knowing” or “being sure” simply because that experimentation included role-playing with same-sex attraction, including what was very temporary.) And still others describe adolescence or pre-adolescence as their “onset of awarness.” Part of the fluidity of sexuality pertains to the fact that it occurs over a wide period of time, from pre-birth, to post-birth influences.

(Nice-try, though.)

 

[avflf]

Being born AC/DC
Or wanting so to be
Shouldn’t worry me
As I drop’d from a tree.
I couldn’t blame God
If I turn’d out a sod
From the primeval clod
In the evolutionary pod.
Having more than one mate
Wouldn’t dirty my slate
My desires I could sate
Till I reach death’s gate.
Who can then say
On judgement day
To this piece of clay
I lived in an immoral way?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Post 390:

avflf:

Who can then say
On judgement day
To this piece of clay
I lived in an immoral way?

God can, and may – if you listened only to your urges and behaved like an animal without conscience or consciousness.

Or if you behaved as if you were equal to or superior to God, who ultimately is the source of what is and is not moral.

 

[avflf]

Post 390:God can, and may – if you listened only to your urges and behaved like an animal without conscience or consciousness.

Or if you behaved as if you were equal to or superior to God, who ultimately is the source of what is and is not moral.

Evolution and Creation do not mix, Elizabeth (nice name). Anyway, you must have enjoyed the poem…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Actually, creation and evolution are not incompatible at all. Their origin is still God.

Didn’t much “enjoy” the poem, which is pretty self-serving for those who want a life of unfettered license, which we believers reject as incompatible with a relationship with God.

But thanks for the compliment.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Post 381:

We’re not talking about normalcy, degrees of normalcy, or continuums. We’re talking about so-called determinism: a very different subject.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Identifying those unmet homo-emotional needs, working on healing past wounds and realtionahips, forging healthy peer bonding with heterosexuals, and prayer have all been found to control, diminish, and even eliminate the sexual drive toward the same sex.

What do you see as wrong with homosexuality? It is apparent from your postings you consider homosexuality in need of fixing and healing of wounds. What do you consider the root cause of your view?

 

[avflf]

Actually, creation and evolution are not incompatible at all. Their origin is still God.

Didn’t much “enjoy” the poem, which is pretty self-serving for those who want a life of unfettered license, which we believers reject as incompatible with a relationship with God.

But thanks for the compliment.

Do you believe God has intervened in every little step in the evolutionary scale, every little change in the mutation and adaptation of the most primitive organism, deciding which ones and how many would evolve to a higher form? Like an enormous jigsaw puzzle where he fitted tiny piece by tiny piece? Some scientists believe that evolution has now stopped so he must have completed it. Or do you accept that he provided the basic blocks of life and allowed things to develop by themselves, in which case evolution is still ongoing?