Is Homosexuality Genetic?

[PerryJ]

Twin studies have shown that someone who has a gay twin is more likely to be gay than someone who is not, even if the two are brought up in different households. The same is true for non-twin siblings. This demonstrates a genetic factor.

Other sibling studies have shown that someone who is brought up in a household with a gay sibling is more likely to be gay than someone who is not. This demonstrates an environmental factor.

There are a lot more of these, but the summary is that we have a great deal of research data which demonstrates that human sexuality is genetic, that your genes make you a sexual creature, but that specific orientation is the result of a host of factors both chemical (including genes) and psychological (including culture).

What I find amusing about this is that, while there is no gay gene, there is no straight gene either, which throws the whole discussion back into the realm of whether or not there is a reason to vilify loving someone who happens to be of the same sex.

I do not concede the point that if it is genetic that it is not a sin. I would argue the falling of mans occurs as the man is being created. For example God did not create man to have disabilities. This is the result of sin in the world. Death is the result of sin in the world. Man now ages and dies. Adam was not made this way. Sin created death. From the time of birth man is slowly dying. It doesn’t matter if it is genetic or not.

We do not vilify homosexuals. We point out that it is contrary to the Universe that God created and it is a sin and just like other sins it should not be condoned.

 

[ladybri77]

Twin studies have shown that someone who has a gay twin is more likely to be gay than someone who is not, even if the two are brought up in different households. The same is true for non-twin siblings. This demonstrates a genetic factor.

Other sibling studies have shown that someone who is brought up in a household with a gay sibling is more likely to be gay than someone who is not. This demonstrates an environmental factor.

There are a lot more of these, but the summary is that we have a great deal of research data which demonstrates that human sexuality is genetic, that your genes make you a sexual creature, but that specific orientation is the result of a host of factors both chemical (including genes) and psychological (including culture).

What I find amusing about this is that, while there is no gay gene, there is no straight gene either, which throws the whole discussion back into the realm of whether or not there is a reason to vilify loving someone who happens to be of the same sex.

I’ve also heard of twins growing up in the same household, one is straight, the other gay, so there goes that theory to confirm a “gay” gene. This gay gene theory has never been proven.

God created man to be heterosexual, (opposite sex sexual organs being made to fit together), and it was only after the fall, that sin and the homosexuality disorder, and disease entered into the picture.

 

[Mystophilus]

I do not concede the point that if it is genetic that it is not a sin. I would argue the falling of mans occurs as the man is being created. For example God did not create man to have disabilities. This is the result of sin in the world. Death is the result of sin in the world. Man now ages and dies. Adam was not made this way. Sin created death. From the time of birth man is slowly dying. It doesn’t matter if it is genetic or not.

We do not vilify homosexuals. We point out that it is contrary to the Universe that God created and it is a sin and just like other sins it should not be condoned.

Um, I think that you may be reading into my comment things which other people have said, because I never said that homosexuality is genetic, that it is not a sin, or that you vilify homosexuals.

To summarise, what I mean is this:

• Homosexuality is genetically-influenced, but is not genetically-determined.
• Whether or not it is a sin depends upon how your belief system happens to define it, and that choice is not much related to genetics at all.
• Vilifying love which happens to be directed towards someone else who happens to be of the same sex does not appear to me to be at all justified. Vilifying the people who act upon such love is another matter, and, while it is not Catholic policy, it certainly does happen, and the vilification of their love does contribute to that.

I do understand the Catholic position on this issue. Fairly obviously, however, I do not agree with it: what matters is how you love someone, not what sex they happen to be.

 

[ladybri77]

Um, I think that you may be reading into my comment things which other people have said, because I never said that homosexuality is genetic, that it is not a sin, or that you vilify homosexuals.

To summarise, what I mean is this:

• Homosexuality is genetically-influenced, but is not genetically-determined.
• Whether or not it is a sin depends upon how your belief system happens to define it, and that choice is not much related to genetics at all.
• Vilifying love which happens to be directed towards someone else who happens to be of the same sex does not appear to me to be at all justified. Vilifying the people who act upon such love is another matter, and, while it is not Catholic policy, it certainly does happen, and the vilification of their love does contribute to that.

I do understand the Catholic position on this issue. Fairly obviously, however, I do not agree with it: what matters is how you love someone, not what sex they happen to be.

What is your proof that it is genetically-influenced?

 

[Mystophilus]

I’ve also heard of twins growing up in the same household, one is straight, the other gay, so there goes that theory to confirm a “gay” gene. This gay gene theory has never been proven.

God created man to be heterosexual, (opposite sex sexual organs being made to fit together), and it was only after the fall, that sin and the homosexuality disorder, and disease entered into the picture.

There is no gay gene, which demonstrates the orientation is not genetically-determined, but that is not the same as orientation not being genetically-influenced: the genes do play a part, but a lot of other things do, also.

As for homosexuality being a disorder, that is something upon which I am going to have to disagree with you: I consider it no more disordered than liking coffee.

 

[Mystophilus]

What is your proof that it is genetically-influenced?

Sorry, I missed this one because I was replying to your other comment, on rather a slow connection.

The genetic influence is, as I mentioned, demonstrated in the sibling studies which have shown that someone who has a gay sibling is more likely to be gay than someone who is not, even if the siblings are not brought up in the same household. I do not have the references for these studies on me, but they are fairly easy to locate in a decent university library.

 

[estesbob]

What I find amusing about this is that, while there is no gay gene, there is no straight gene either, which throws the whole discussion back into the realm of whether or not there is a reason to vilify loving someone who happens to be of the same sex.

Amusing only to those who want to define people by their sexual behavior. Most of us to figured out the difference between the genders by the time we ended kindergarten-. Although there may be some evidence that same-sex attraction has a genetic component it is obvious that homosexual behavior is a pure choice.

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with loving a member of the same sex-the problem arises when one believes that love can be expressed by deviant sexual behavior.

 

[ladybri77]

There is no gay gene, which demonstrates the orientation is not genetically-determined, but that is not the same as orientation not being genetically-influenced: the genes do play a part, but a lot of other things do, also.

As for homosexuality being a disorder, that is something upon which I am going to have to disagree with you: I consider it no more disordered than liking coffee.

Yes, it MAY be genetically influenced. Too bad it’s not that simple - preferring coffee. If one has these feelings, it indicates something deeper is going on in the person whether emotional (I’ve seen evidence of this) or biological.

Either way, something happened here to try to destroy the person spiritually, emotionally or physically which is not from God.

 

[NoMoreGames]

God

The teachings of the Church are not from man.

Protestants could just as easily say the same thing. All truths come from God, but all truths have been handled by man, who is inherently flawed.

 

[ladybri77]

Sorry, I missed this one because I was replying to your other comment, on rather a slow connection.

The genetic influence is, as I mentioned, demonstrated in the sibling studies which have shown that someone who has a gay sibling is more likely to be gay than someone who is not, even if the siblings are not brought up in the same household. I do not have the references for these studies on me, but they are fairly easy to locate in a decent university library.

Well, genetically influenced or not, the reasons could be purely environmental also for this to have occurred. Like I said before, twins growing up in the same household, one straight the other gay, has also been seen.

 

[ladybri77]

If you have accepted Christ, you are New in Him. “I have come to make all things NEW”, He says. We no longer have to identify with our old sin nature of which homosexuality is a part of…

Again, if you read in Roman’s, the one that says “…homosexuals, effeminate,” etc, will not inherit the kingdom of God, but that is what you WERE… so you will go to heaven if you have accepted Him in your heart. The Holy Spirit will reveal this truth to you if you invite Him to live in your spirit. I pray that the Holy Spirit’s power will work in you.

This is not to say not to accept yourself with the feelings you have, this is to say that if we saw ourselves as God sees us, it is as a “New creation”. If you read these scriptures I’m speaking of and ask the Lord to reveal His truth to you, I’m sure He will when you’re ready. I’m not talking about man-made reparative therapy. I’m talking about the transforming, redemptive power of Our Lord Jesus Christ!

Lord, please help us to see ourselves as You see us, through Your eyes as precious, loved and special. Help us to see our new identity which You gave us through Your death and resurrection on the Cross. Thank you, Jesus! In the name of Jesus.

Hi GoofyJim, I’m sending this post again so that you can read it since there have been many posts written since I wrote this, so hopefully you will see it. Thanks.

 

[goofyjim]

I am asking if you believe God created people with a dispostion to test them. If you state yes then God has created man to be tested, as he is all knowing, he knows some will fail and will go to Hell. In essence God created some men with the intent that they go to Hell.

If you answer no then the result is something else caused the disposition. A disposition to refute God’s natural order. Some would state that it is original sin. If original sin created the disposition then one can make the statement that the disposition was created by the original evil act. If this is how it was created then would not one have to try and refute the disposition? Not just homosexuality. Any sin one would have to try and change the disposition?

I do not need to change the disposition. End of story.

 

[goofyjim]

If you have accepted Christ, you are New in Him. “I have come to make all things NEW”, He says. We no longer have to identify with our old sin nature of which homosexuality is a part of…

Again, if you read in Roman’s, the one that says “…homosexuals, effeminate,” etc, will not inherit the kingdom of God, but that is what you WERE… so you will go to heaven if you have accepted Him in your heart. The Holy Spirit will reveal this truth to you if you invite Him to live in your spirit. I pray that the Holy Spirit’s power will work in you.

This is not to say not to accept yourself with the feelings you have, this is to say that if we saw ourselves as God sees us, it is as a “New creation”. If you read these scriptures I’m speaking of and ask the Lord to reveal His truth to you, I’m sure He will when you’re ready. I’m not talking about man-made reparative therapy. I’m talking about the transforming, redemptive power of Our Lord Jesus Christ!

I ahve been transformed yet am still homosexual in oreintation. Why must every transformation overcome the orientation when there is nothing wrong or sinful about it? End of story.

Lord, please help us to see ourselves as You see us, through Your eyes as precious, loved and special. Help us to see our new identity which You gave us through Your death and resurrection on the Cross. Thank you, Jesus! In the name of Jesus.

 

[goofyjim]

If you have accepted Christ, you are New in Him. “I have come to make all things NEW”, He says. We no longer have to identify with our old sin nature of which homosexuality is a part of…

Again, if you read in Roman’s, the one that says “…homosexuals, effeminate,” etc, will not inherit the kingdom of God, but that is what you WERE… so you will go to heaven if you have accepted Him in your heart. The Holy Spirit will reveal this truth to you if you invite Him to live in your spirit. I pray that the Holy Spirit’s power will work in you.

This is not to say not to accept yourself with the feelings you have, this is to say that if we saw ourselves as God sees us, it is as a “New creation”. If you read these scriptures I’m speaking of and ask the Lord to reveal His truth to you, I’m sure He will when you’re ready. I’m not talking about man-made reparative therapy. I’m talking about the transforming, redemptive power of Our Lord Jesus Christ!

Lord, please help us to see ourselves as You see us, through Your eyes as precious, loved and special. Help us to see our new identity which You gave us through Your death and resurrection on the Cross. Thank you, Jesus! In the name of Jesus.

What you refuse to accept is that I can still retain a homosexual orientation, which is not sinful and therefore not wrong, yet experience the transforming power of Jesus Christ. You keep on implying that one cannopt be transformed unless one becomes 100% heterosexual. Untrue.

 

[goofyjim]

Hi GoofyJim, I’m sending this post again so that you can read it since there have been many posts written since I wrote this, so hopefully you will see it. Thanks.

And I will reply again that I can experience just as transforming power of Christ while retaining a homosexual orientation. Transformation means from sin. The orientation is not sin.

 

[pathia]

Can you post their obits so we can pray for them?

The person responsible for a suicide is the person committing the suicide, for it is that person’s choice. Even then it may questionable.

I challenge you to prove what you are saying for it seems to me you have claimed a least a dozen freinds lost to suicide in the last year, either that you are serial killer?

In this thread you have claimed at least three or more. Now two friends to NARTH, “many” freinds to the stopping of sex-change operations at John Hopkins, probably.

If you are in mental anguish over your particular situation seek professional help.

I am 28. Outside of the recent ones, most took place over a decade ago when I was a child, just like them. Perhaps I am not referencing the past tense with enough timelines, for that I apologize. When I said ‘50% of those that I knew are dead now’ I’m talking about something that took place almost 20years ago. It started about 1988 and went on until about 1995ish.

Is a child of 11 responsible for their suicide? 12? 13? When do they become responsible for that action? I tried the first time at 8.

Let me make a fictitious example: Someone drugs another individual, the drug makes the person extraordinarily drunk acting. That person has no idea why, may not even know why, they may have even started driving before the drug hits, but eventually they hit a tree and die.

Who is at fault? The person that did the drugging? Or the individual who had no control over their actions, feelings and self, because of an external person/source?

My point is to do the therapy on adults, if they wish to and if they personally feel the desire. Forcing it on children seems to cause greater harm.

And as I have repeatedly said, I AM in therapy, I have never left therapy. I don’t actually recall a time in my life when I did not have a therapist or I was not on anti-psychotics and anti-depressants. They are my life. My therapy now is to deal with the living hell my life was turned into by the ‘therapy’ I had as a child.

I am in therapy, to reverse my therapy, if that makes sense. I have been institutionalized multiple times, I cannot legally own a gun, all sorts of lovely things. So when people go ‘you must be delusional’ or ‘you must be crazy’, I’m like ‘So what? I am’. It means nothing, I am well aware of my mental problems. How I differ from people that have to be locked up, is that I know I am not sane. The dangerous ones are the ones that think they’re fine.

 

[Pellman]

Having red hair is genetic. Should that be cured?

The issue is not simply what causes a certain trait, but whether or not that trait is bad.

I made my post in a separate thread because it was at best a tangent and I didn’t want to jump in here. But some mod moved it here.

Anyway, I’m not saying whether it should be cured or shouldn’t. Of course, I do have an opinion on the matter, but it is beside the point. I am simply making a prediction that it will happen, whether you think it ought or not.

The irony is that, I think, ultimately, the identification of a biological cause for homosexuality will not help the cause of the pro-gay.

As an analogy, consider racial differences. Racial differences have always been known to be wholly biological in origin. Yet that did not stop (does not stop, in some places) people from doing all sorts of harm to each other on its basis. People of a different race were not marginalized because they were blamed for being “bad.” They were marginalized simply because “we don’t like your kind around here.”

The analogy with race breaks down if you try to push it further. I only bring it up to illustrate the possibility that biological-cause is just a red herring. As a traditional Christian, I would say that the genetic question has no real bearing on the matter. But I also see that, not only does the possibility of a biological-cause not hurt my side’s case, if true, it will eventually lead to very serious setbacks to the pro-gay cause in its practical effects.

Therein is the irony.

Similar to the irony in how, if the pro-gay-marriage attitudes about marriage are ever widely adopted by the non-gay public, it will demolish the very idea of marriage. Nevermind if you can show such is not *logically *necessary, that logically the notion of “gay marriage” can be accomodated within the existing understanding of what marriage means. I’m talking about what would actually happen to the culture, not what ought to happen. If they are successful in their attempts to change attitudes, they will not only not get marriage for themselves–marriage no longer existing in a meaningful way–but they will have done harm to the very society in which they live, hence harming themselves. The situation, from the pro-gay point of view, is hopeless.

Notice I am not making a case based on right or wrong, or what I think anyone *ought *to do. It’s just what I think really would happen.

 

[Bennie_P]

The dangerous ones are the ones that think they’re fine.

This is one point we are in total agreement. I prefer not to be fine, that is Freaked Out, Insecure, Neurotic and Emotional. And is very dangerous not to accept the fact we all get freaked out, are insecure, become neurotic and act out emotionally and we should be on guard of the triggers which make us “fine”.

You really have me worried sometimes being what seems to me focused on others’ suicide. Myself I am a childhood survivor of sucides and for many years I use to falsely blame myself. The point I was getting at is you are not to blame or at fault for someone else’s suicide. Don’t hold on to the guilt of others’ actions, it doesn’t belong to you. Like I qualified my statement about responsibilty, it may be questionable who is at fault, but one thing fo sure you are not responsible for any of your friends actions, perhaps others such as misguided parents, over zealous therapists, but not you.

Thanks for answering, I really appreciate your honesty.

 

[pathia]

This is one point we are in total agreement. I prefer not to be fine, that is Freaked Out, Insecure, Neurotic and Emotional. And is very dangerous not to accept the fact we all get freaked out, are insecure, become neurotic and act out emotionally and we should be on guard of the triggers which make us “fine”.

You really have me worried sometimes being what seems to me focused on others’ suicide. Myself I am a childhood survivor of sucides and for many years I use to falsely blame myself. The point I was getting at is you are not to blame or at fault for someone else’s suicide. Don’t hold on to the guilt of others’ actions, it doesn’t belong to you. Like I qualified my statement about responsibilty, it may be questionable who is at fault, but one thing fo sure you are not responsible for any of your friends actions, perhaps others such as misguided parents, over zealous therapists, but not you.

Thanks for answering, I really appreciate your honesty.

You are right, that is why it is so heavy on my heart. I moved away from there. If I was still there, if I stayed with them, if I talked to them more often. If I had been a better friend. Would they have still done it?

Those questions haunt me constantly.

 

[Bennie_P]

You are right, that is why it is so heavy on my heart. I moved away from there. If I was still there, if I stayed with them, if I talked to them more often. If I had been a better friend. Would they have still done it?

Those questions haunt me constantly.

I know, I understand. I will pray that you will someday soon gain the power to let the ghosts go home. PAX.