Proof that homosexuality is a matter of conditioning

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

There was a very good interview about the causes of homosexuality (same sex attraction) on Catholic Answers Live yesterday. There is no gay gene.

How is it known that homosexuality is not genetically determined?

 

[sw85]

How is it known that homosexuality is not genetically determined?

He didn’t say homosexuality is not genetically determined. He said there is no “gay gene,” i.e., no one gene which, when turned “on,” 100% causes homosexuality and when turned “off” produced heterosexuality.

Moreover, the evidence to date indicates homosexuality springs from alterations in the prenatal milieu – essentially an antitestosterone immune response on the mother’s part which interferes with testosterone-induced sexual differentiation in fetuses and which strengthens with each successive male child.

There is also some evidence that male homosexuals improperly inherit a genetic disposition to desire and enjoy sex with men from their mothers. Not a “gay gene” per se because it doesn’t induce homosexuality in the women who possess it but, on the contrary, extreme heterosexuality.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

All the psychologists and psychiatrists have found they’ll state 100% of the time that the male homosexual cannot describe his relationship with his father as “loving and respectful”. 100% is pretty strong statistics.

For good or ill, I don’t know that any scientist or researcher worth his or her salt would be comfortable with speaking in absolute terms regarding such a thing. That 100% figure is either 100% fallacious or 100% misinterpreted or misread–either way, though, it’s wrong.

Until there is conclusive biological evidence, we can only treat this like any other behavior issue.

I don’t think so, Rustie. There’s a lot more going on than merely a “behavioral issue”…and biological discoveries (including the impact of hormones on the developing fetus) are supporting that.

By “original” heterosexuality, I meant as biologically designed by your gender. I think we can all agree that male parts are designed to fit with female parts.

I know what you meant. But what I was pointing out is that there is a difference between the sexual appetite being oriented toward a body and being oriented to the marital act. Biology is important to all of this, granted, but biology alone does not determine the moral nature of the sexual appetite. If biology were our only clue, we would indeed come to the conclusion that since tab A fits into slot B, males and females are oriented toward each other, which is two say, toward different goods when it comes to the sexual appetite. That’s problematic enough in terms of where that leads us with regard to positing two separate human natures (a male and a female). But it’s also problematic in that it doesn’t lead us to an understanding of marriage and the marital act as the proper goal or fulfillment of the sexual appetite.

Which is, in some ways, to say this: I’m beginning to come to the belief that our original sexuality is oriented toward the marital act in its wholeness (necessarily including male, female, marriage, love, etc.) and that homosexuality and heterosexuality (which seem to be body-oriented, not act oriented) are just related expressions of universal human sexual concupiscence. Clearly I need to wrap my head around this more and think through the various consequences of such an understanding, but however you look at it, an original heterosexuality just doesn’t make sense…not even (and perhaps surprisingly) for heterosexuals. And I would argue that this is why the catechism doesn’t affirm that original sexuality=heterosexuality. (Also, an original homosexuality doesn’t make sense in this scheme either!)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

I believed I was only speaking from science. There is no evidence of a biological cause, but tons to support a psychological one. All the psychologists and psychiatrists have found they’ll state 100% of the time that the male homosexual cannot describe his relationship with his father as “loving and respectful”. That is pretty strong statistics. Noone said anything about ‘trauma’. I was simply referring to a coping mechanism to respond to some detachment. Until there is conclusive biological evidence, we can only treat this like any other behavior issue.
“unless you can provide evidence that reparative therapy actually changes a person’s sexual orientation (as opposed to simply their behavior or their reporting of their behavior)” That confuses me. Isn’t sexual orientation defined by the “behavior”? If the behavior changes, could the person still call themselves “homosexual”? As I understand they still may have SSA, but not “homosexual”. Please correct me if my thinking is misguided. By “original” heterosexuality, I meant as biologically designed by your gender. I think we can all agree that male parts are designed to fit with female parts.

These are exceptionally strong statistics! Can you identify a peer-reviewed study that gives similar statistics? And can they answer alternate studies that find the percentage to be far below 100%?

Patterson, Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1052 (2000) on their pages 1063-1064, “Research on Other Family Relationships”, list a few studies about relationships between parents and their gay children. None of these studies finds nearly 100% negative relationship.

Where do you get your information?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

He didn’t say homosexuality is not genetically determined. He said there is no “gay gene,” i.e., no one gene which, when turned “on,” 100% causes homosexuality and when turned “off” produced heterosexuality.

I agree that it would be highly unlikely for such a gene to exist. Often the phrase ‘gay gene’ refers to a dominant genetic determination. Maybe the person I asked does not intend the phrase in this way, but uses the phrase more literally, as you do. In that case, it will be very easy for the person to answer my question. It was, after all, just a question.

Moreover, the evidence to date indicates homosexuality springs from alterations in the prenatal milieu – essentially an antitestosterone immune response on the mother’s part which interferes with testosterone-induced sexual differentiation in fetuses and which strengthens with each successive male child.

So a biological, but not genetic, determination? I am unfamiliar with the studies in this area. Where do you find this information?

There is also some evidence that male homosexuals improperly inherit a genetic disposition to desire and enjoy sex with men from their mothers. Not a “gay gene” per se because it doesn’t induce homosexuality in the women who possess it but, on the contrary, extreme heterosexuality.

This also is fascinating. How do you know that this is true?

If true, this could provide an evolutionary argument for homosexuality.

 

[sw85]

So a biological, but not genetic, determination? I am unfamiliar with the studies in this area. Where do you find this information?

This also is fascinating. How do you know that this is true?

If true, this could provide an evolutionary argument for homosexuality.

I wish I could tell you. I read them in college during various classes (I was a psychology major) and briefly considered launching a line of research related to it. It’s sufficiently well-known that if you google long enough, you’ll find it. Relevant indices include things like birth order and finger ratio (gay men tend to have more feminine finger ratios, e.g., a longer index finger and shorter ring finger).

There can be no evolutionary argument “for” homosexuality, if you mean an argument concerning its moral worth, I’m afraid. There can only be an argument showing that the disorder of the homosexual impulse originates chemically rather than genetically. Because the disorder, after all, relates to human nature, and human nature is constant even if certain people fail to instantiate it perfectly.

 

[BenedictFTW]

Could be a generational sin.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

I wish I could tell you. I read them in college during various classes (I was a psychology major) and briefly considered launching a line of research related to it. It’s sufficiently well-known that if you google long enough, you’ll find it.

Thank you. I will search for these terms.

Relevant indices include things like birth order and finger ratio (gay men tend to have more feminine finger ratios, e.g., a longer index finger and shorter ring finger).

Looking at my fingers, I would make a good data point.

There can be no evolutionary argument “for” homosexuality, if you mean an argument concerning its moral worth, I’m afraid.

Not at all. I mean an evolutionary reason why homosexuals continue to exist. The naive understanding is that gays would be less likely to breed, and if there were a genetic predisposition to being gay, that disposition would eventually vanish from the gene pool. If homosexuality is a secondary effect to the hyper-heterosexualization of women, then this would provide the beginning of an evolutionary explanation.

There can only be an argument showing that the disorder of the homosexual impulse originates chemically rather than genetically.

Or arguments that sexual orientation is determined genetically, and not in the prenatal environment. But this is still, it sounds, open for debate. I’m looking for the literature. It seems most references I find favour at least a partial genetic explanation.

Because the disorder, after all, relates to human nature, and human nature is constant even if certain people fail to instantiate it perfectly.

I do not see it as a disorder. It is diversity, not disorder.

 

[BenedictFTW]

It is definitely a cross, one, which, if borne in a spirit of holiness, will gain many graces from God. Only God can see into the human heart. Only God knows how much we are tempted by the devil. God allows many things in order to teach the rest of us that we can do nothing without Him.

 

[BenedictFTW]

Thank you. I will search for these terms.

Looking at my fingers, I would make a good data point.

Not at all. I mean an evolutionary reason why homosexuals continue to exist. The naive understanding is that gays would be less likely to breed, and if there were a genetic predisposition to being gay, that disposition would eventually vanish from the gene pool. If homosexuality is a secondary effect to the hyper-heterosexualization of women, then this would provide the beginning of an evolutionary explanation.

Or arguments that sexual orientation is determined genetically, and not in the prenatal environment. But this is still, it sounds, open for debate. I’m looking for the literature. It seems most references I find favour at least a partial genetic explanation.

I do not see it as a disorder. It is diversity, not disorder.

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is disordered.

 

[sw85]

Not at all. I mean an evolutionary reason why homosexuals continue to exist. The naive understanding is that gays would be less likely to breed, and if there were a genetic predisposition to being gay, that disposition would eventually vanish from the gene pool. If homosexuality is a secondary effect to the hyper-heterosexualization of women, then this would provide the beginning of an evolutionary explanation.

Right. Which simply means that if homosexuality does have a genetic basis it is not for homosexuality qua homosexuality – ergo there is no “gay gene.” Again, one of the current popular explanatory theories of homosexuality states that homosexual men improperly inherit a genetic disposition from their mothers to seek out and enjoy lots of sex with men. This also explains the statistically-observed finding that homosexual men tend to have substantially larger families on their mothers’ side than their fathers’ side. Obviously it is evolutionarily advantageous for women to possess this trait (since it will dispose them to reproduce) and extremely disadvantageous for men to possess it. But if the advantage for women is greater than the disadvantage for men, then the trait will continue to persist in the population, even as homosexuals themselves go extinct every generation.

After all, suppose a woman who has this trait has 5 kids instead of the normal 2. Of those 5 kids, one winds up gay. She’s still having twice as many kids who will reproduce as the average person: therefore her traits propound in the population even though the one kid in whom this trait manifested improperly almost certainly won’t reproduce.

I do not see it as a disorder. It is diversity, not disorder.

Well, that’s an assertion, not an argument. The Catholic Church uses “disorder” to mean, literally, contrary to the normative order. I don’t think there can be any argument that sexual complementary is the normative order. That some people’s impulses don’t line up with that normative order doesn’t prove there’s no normative order, it only proves that, for whatever reason, that order does not prevail uniformly. (Only nearly-uniformly).

 

[Ender]

I do not see it as a disorder. It is diversity, not disorder.

Is there any behavior you consider disordered and how do you distinguish between disorder and diversity?

Ender

 

[BenedictFTW]

There is an assumption here that Darwin’s ‘THEORY’ of evolution is right. It is merely a theory and imho misses something essential. There is much darkness around this theory. It is easier to see homosexuality from a spiritual perspective. This is of the flesh. There is nothing spiritual about homosexual relations. God has already told us that to practice such is an abomination before Him. Reason also tells us that homosexuals are focused on the flesh. Any observation of how they even speak to each other or anyone else, one is able to see that their focus is on the flesh. There is also nothing of life to come out of such disordered relations. Having said all of that, they are our brothers and sisters and also God’s children. It is a terrible cross to bear and they need our prayers.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Perhaps you aren’t aware, but that is normally considered to be a rather impolite expression.

I wasn’t aware people still used the term

He didn’t say homosexuality is not genetically determined. He said there is no “gay gene,” i.e., no one gene which, when turned “on,” 100% causes homosexuality and when turned “off” produced heterosexuality.

Moreover, the evidence to date indicates homosexuality springs from alterations in the prenatal milieu – essentially an antitestosterone immune response on the mother’s part which interferes with testosterone-induced sexual differentiation in fetuses and which strengthens with each successive male child.

There is also some evidence that male homosexuals improperly inherit a genetic disposition to desire and enjoy sex with men from their mothers. Not a “gay gene” per se because it doesn’t induce homosexuality in the women who possess it but, on the contrary, extreme heterosexuality.

The third paragraph makes no biological sense

I agree that it would be highly unlikely for such a gene to exist. Often the phrase ‘gay gene’ refers to a dominant genetic determination. Maybe the person I asked does not intend the phrase in this way, but uses the phrase more literally, as you do. In that case, it will be very easy for the person to answer my question. It was, after all, just a question.

So a biological, but not genetic, determination? I am unfamiliar with the studies in this area. Where do you find this information?

This also is fascinating. How do you know that this is true?

If true, this could provide an evolutionary argument for homosexuality.

Check via Google Scholar for the studies

It would be hormonal

Thank you. I will search for these terms.

Looking at my fingers, I would make a good data point.

Not at all. I mean an evolutionary reason why homosexuals continue to exist. The naive understanding is that gays would be less likely to breed, and if there were a genetic predisposition to being gay, that disposition would eventually vanish from the gene pool. If homosexuality is a secondary effect to the hyper-heterosexualization of women, then this would provide the beginning of an evolutionary explanation.

Or arguments that sexual orientation is determined genetically, and not in the prenatal environment. But this is still, it sounds, open for debate. I’m looking for the literature. It seems most references I find favour at least a partial genetic explanation.

I do not see it as a disorder. It is diversity, not disorder.

How would you make a good data point?

CAIS individuals make a compelling case that sexual orientation is of hormonal origin.

Right. Which simply means that if homosexuality does have a genetic basis it is not for homosexuality qua homosexuality – ergo there is no “gay gene.” Again, one of the current popular explanatory theories of homosexuality states that homosexual men improperly inherit a genetic disposition from their mothers to seek out and enjoy lots of sex with men. This also explains the statistically-observed finding that homosexual men tend to have substantially larger families on their mothers’ side than their fathers’ side. Obviously it is evolutionarily advantageous for women to possess this trait (since it will dispose them to reproduce) and extremely disadvantageous for men to possess it. But if the advantage for women is greater than the disadvantage for men, then the trait will continue to persist in the population, even as homosexuals themselves go extinct every generation.

After all, suppose a woman who has this trait has 5 kids instead of the normal 2. Of those 5 kids, one winds up gay. She’s still having twice as many kids who will reproduce as the average person: therefore her traits propound in the population even though the one kid in whom this trait manifested improperly almost certainly won’t reproduce.

Well, that’s an assertion, not an argument. The Catholic Church uses “disorder” to mean, literally, contrary to the normative order. I don’t think there can be any argument that sexual complementary is the normative order. That some people’s impulses don’t line up with that normative order doesn’t prove there’s no normative order, it only proves that, for whatever reason, that order does not prevail uniformly. (Only nearly-uniformly).

Inheriting a genetic disposition for engaging in sex with men maKes no biological sense. What does make biological sense is for a gene to cause an individual to be less receptive to testosterone (making them more feminine) or for a gene to cause a them to reject testosterone more. The latter case results in a female carrier of it to have more feminine offspring. This also goes with there being more gay uncles on the mother’s side.

Scientists have found that the amygdala in gays resembles that of females instead of males. The amygdala is the seat of emotion, but also the place for smells including pheremones. In other words a feminine amygdala would cause a biological attraction to males which I suppose explains the attraction to males for females and gays. Mutatis mutandis males and lesbians.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Is there any behavior you consider disordered and how do you distinguish between disorder and diversity?

There are behaviors I consider to be right and wrong. I don’t typically think along the axis or order/disorder.

I do not consider the gay lifestyle to be wrong. I consider murder to be wrong. The reasons for this are both common enough and involved enough that they would deserve a detailed discussion, probably not as a part of this thread. Maybe I will start such a discussion, at some point in the near future. Or you would be welcome to start such a discussion, and I would contribute.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Right. Which simply means that if homosexuality does have a genetic basis it is not for homosexuality qua homosexuality – ergo there is no “gay gene.”

All I mean by ‘gay gene’ is ‘genetic basis for homosexuality’. I have no idea what ‘qua homosexuality’ means. So if there is a genetic basis for homosexuality (period), then there is a gay gene, as I use the term.

Again, one of the current popular explanatory theories of homosexuality states that homosexual men improperly inherit a genetic disposition from their mothers to seek out and enjoy lots of sex with men. This also explains the statistically-observed finding that homosexual men tend to have substantially larger families on their mothers’ side than their fathers’ side. Obviously it is evolutionarily advantageous for women to possess this trait (since it will dispose them to reproduce) and extremely disadvantageous for men to possess it. But if the advantage for women is greater than the disadvantage for men, then the trait will continue to persist in the population, even as homosexuals themselves go extinct every generation.

That’s well said.

Well, that’s an assertion, not an argument.

Yes.

The Catholic Church uses “disorder” to mean, literally, contrary to the normative order.

Oh, so long as that’s all it means, then sure, call it what you will. But if “disordered” is used to mean “wrong”, then I disagree.

That’s also an assertion. Not an argument.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is disordered.

I am not a Roman Catholic.

 

[Publisher]

Darwinian natural selection means that traits which are not conducive to survival and perpetuation of genetic material lead to extinction. Clearly, IF homosexuality were a genetic proposenity, it would be radically contrary to genetic perpetuation. Therefore, the homosexual gene (IF it exists) would very soon have been bred out of the species.

This seems to prove that homosexuality is not a genetic propoensity. Egro, it is a matter of either conditioning, choice or both. Therefore, it can be cured.

Not necessarily…homosexuality could very well be a natural occurance in various species because of natural selection…we may simply not yet understand fully the complexity of human sexualaity. Evolution has occured for billions of years…homosexuality may be one of the natural outcomes of human sexual development…humans have a short history on this world of evolving life.

 

[sw85]

I do not consider the gay lifestyle to be wrong.

Well, I don’t know where you get this sentiment from but it certainly isn’t the Bible, nowhere in which is homosexuality treated with anything but revulsion and scorn.

Inheriting a genetic disposition for engaging in sex with men maKes no biological sense. What does make biological sense is for a gene to cause an individual to be less receptive to testosterone (making them more feminine) or for a gene to cause a them to reject testosterone more. The latter case results in a female carrier of it to have more feminine offspring. This also goes with there being more gay uncles on the mother’s side.

Scientists have found that the amygdala in gays resembles that of females instead of males. The amygdala is the seat of emotion, but also the place for smells including pheremones. In other words a feminine amygdala would cause a biological attraction to males which I suppose explains the attraction to males for females and gays. Mutatis mutandis males and lesbians.

It’s possible I’m recalling it wrong.

Oh, so long as that’s all it means, then sure, call it what you will. But if “disordered” is used to mean “wrong”, then I disagree.

That’s also an assertion. Not an argument.

I’m simply pointing out a fact of what “disorder” literally means.

Of course there is no difference in the long run between “disorder” and “wrong.” Order is a value, after all. Again, God made us with sexual complementarity. Acting in a manner inconsistent with the way God made us is disorder. Disorder freely and knowingly embraced is sin.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Well, I don’t know where you get this sentiment from but it certainly isn’t the Bible, nowhere in which is homosexuality treated with anything but revulsion and scorn.

You are correct. I do not defend my stance biblically. I defend it philosophically.

I do not think that the Bible is perfect.

Of course there is no difference in the long run between “disorder” and “wrong.”

Disorder: Contrary to Normative Order

If ‘normative’ is used as sociologists use it, then what ‘normative’ is can change over time. Therefore acting in a way contrary to the ‘normative order’ is not necessarily wrong. In fact, I would encourage more of it! It makes the world a more exciting place to live in. And sometimes it is morally necessary. If people never acted against the ‘normative order’, in this sense, there would be no United States of America and there would still be slavery, and women wouldn’t be able to vote.

If by ‘normative’ you mean ethically normative, then this is just a fancy way to call something wrong. Since I don’t think the gay lifestyle is wrong, I don’t think it’s disordered in this sense, although it may be disordered, as society sees it (though this seems to be rapidly changing!).