Study says genetics does have a role in sexual orientation

[SMGS127]

Yeah, well, the way people talk about the question of how homosexuality is evolutionarily advantageous, you would think that we have some sort of objective statistic proving that same-sex attraction IS more common now than in previous centuries. But we have absolutely no proof of that. Nor do I know how we could prove it.

Perhaps the existence of widespread pornography and the social acceptance of homosexuality just makes it more likely for people to be open about their attractions.

If homosexuality hasn’t increased or decreased, then it seems less pressing to find an evolutionary cause. Is there an evolutionary explanation for, say, left-handedness?

True. And left-handed people used to face a ton of flak for it, so I get your point. I was just arguing that, if indeed there was a spike, that it doesn’t prove evolutionary advantage either and that there are alternative explanations. I wasn’t making the case myself that there has been a spike; as you say, it’s impossible to tell.

However…if it isn’t evolutionarily advantageous, then we have to explore all forms of genetics that would lead to constantly recurring, for lack of a better word, abnormalities that permanently causes the brain to dysfunction in a morally disordered manner yet shown no parent → child relationship. This could be epigenetics (current medical theory), embryonic hormone exposure, etc., but obviously it’s SOMETHING and I think they’ll eventually discover it.

As a point of addition, I do find it interesting that the embattled Methodist pastor that presided over his son’s same-sex “wedding” has four children and three of them are gay. The odds of that happening randomly are extremely miniscule.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

True. And left-handed people used to face a ton of flak for it, so I get your point. I was just arguing that, if indeed there was a spike, that it doesn’t prove evolutionary advantage either and that there are alternative explanations. I wasn’t making the case myself that there has been a spike; as you say, it’s impossible to tell.

However…if it isn’t evolutionarily advantageous, then we have to explore all forms of genetics that would lead to constantly recurring, for lack of a better word, abnormalities that permanently causes the brain to dysfunction in a morally disordered manner yet shown no parent → child relationship. This could be epigenetics (current medical theory), embryonic hormone exposure, etc., but obviously it’s SOMETHING and I think they’ll eventually discover it.

As a point of addition, I do find it interesting that the embattled Methodist pastor that presided over his son’s same-sex “wedding” has four children and three of them are gay. The odds of that happening randomly are extremely miniscule.

Personally, I think we might be looking at this whole homosexuality-as-a-disorder thing in way that is precisely backwards. Gay people tend to have characteristics that are abnormal to their culturally-defined gender – for men, higher voices, interest in dance/theater/poetry, fashion sense, that kind of thing. Are these manifestations of a moral disorder? Of course not. There is nothing about being a man that excludes liking the color pink or enjoying ballet. Nor is there – dare I say it – anything unmanly about enjoying the appearance of another man’s body. (Gee, I wonder whether Michaelangelo sculpted David without any interest in the details at all).

But, culturally, these things have been taken to be unmanly. And perhaps this is where the moral disorder comes in. When we marginalize people, they tend to explore the margins. And the margins have all sorts of casual forms of sex that tend to destroy the soul.

What I’m trying to separate here is (a) a possible genetic disposition to find people of the same sex attractive – a disposition that is neither morally problematic nor evolutionarily unadaptive, and (b) a culturally-induced system of marginalizing people such that they define themselves by their attractions.

I am very interested in the question of whether “homosexuality” is based on a God-given and good set of distinctive characteristics that have been perverted by the Fall.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Sheesh, a whole lot to read in this thread, and I’m sure I missed some really important points.

Nonetheless, one of the things I’ve learned from CAF, at least my own interpretation of what I think I’ve learned, is that the source of homosexuality, whether it’s nature or nurture, genetic or learned, biological or psychological, is mostly irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter how a person came to identify him or herself as homosexual. What matters is how that person acts–specifically how that person chooses to act.

So no matter how many studies show one thing or another, even if there can be totally irrefutable evidence once and for all: our God-given free will determines how we act (absent mental illness, of course. If a tree tells you to step in front of a bus, you’re not acting of your free will).

Bingo.

 

[Cricket2]

I think that current genetic thinking would tend to assert that there is no such thing as altruism, on the level of gene survival. A gene that survives is one the maximizes its own survival. Organisms are simply gene carriers which perpetuate the information which is passed down through generations. The theory is that genes are essentially immortal, and through the course of evolution have created various vessels to carry them from one generation to the next.

The traditional theories of altruism for the survival of the group, or individual altruism are not currently in vogue. What appears to be altruism is subjected to mathematical analysis to determine what the gene survival value of the behavior actually is.

Actually this particular report on these birds referred to this behavior as altruism, thus my use of the term. I agree that pure altruism probably does not exist, except in the case of Jesus…a much more profound giving of self for the benefit of all of us.

 

[epan]

Personally, I think we might be looking at this whole homosexuality-as-a-disorder thing in way that is precisely backwards. Gay people tend to have characteristics that are abnormal to their culturally-defined gender – for men, higher voices, interest in dance/theater/poetry, fashion sense, that kind of thing. Are these manifestations of a moral disorder? Of course not. There is nothing about being a man that excludes liking the color pink or enjoying ballet. Nor is there – dare I say it – anything unmanly about enjoying the appearance of another man’s body. (Gee, I wonder whether Michaelangelo sculpted David without any interest in the details at all).

But, culturally, these things have been taken to be unmanly. And perhaps this is where the moral disorder comes in. When we marginalize people, they tend to explore the margins. And the margins have all sorts of casual forms of sex that tend to destroy the soul.

What I’m trying to separate here is (a) a possible genetic disposition to find people of the same sex attractive – a disposition that is neither morally problematic nor evolutionarily unadaptive, and (b) a culturally-induced system of marginalizing people such that they define themselves by their attractions.

I am very interested in the question of whether “homosexuality” is based on a God-given and good set of distinctive characteristics that have been perverted by the Fall.

Well, Michelangelo was attracted to men. There is quite a bit of evidence for that, which in itself is pretty strong, since little of that sort is usually known for people who lived at that time.

As for the genetic argument, the increased incidence in identical twins may gave some merit. If one twin procreates, and the uncle assists in rearing the children, then there may be advantage to both, since each is genetically identical. However, I would expect this argument to be most plausible for lesbian twins, since males may gave many partners. Nor does this reflect on non twins, the majority.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I think that the desire to find a single cause for a complex human behavior, such as having sex with members of one’s own sex either exclusively, predominately, or partly, is probably doomed to failure, in the same way that trying to find a single cause for alcoholism is pointless. Complex human behaviors tend to have multiple causative factors, and some of those factors can act in combination, or can have completely distinct etiologies.

Those causative factors could include genetics, the prenatal environment, mutation of a gene, longterm childhood sexual molestation that leads to psychological normalization, societal factors, peer group environment, early psychological imprinting of a paraphilia through exposure to erotic or pornographic material, a tendency to thrill-seeking/risk-seeking behavior, or the expression of thwarted desires, either positive or negative - a young man with an understandable desire for emotional intimacy and sexual contact may not be able to form a relationship with a young woman, and if his social contacts provide the opportunity for homosexual behavior, he may experiment and then ultimately normalize such behavior in his own mind. Some people with numerous bad experiences with the opposite sex (childhood abuse, prostitution, sexual assault, domestic abuse) may turn to their own sex as a “safe harbor” against the perceived danger of the opposite sex. A psychopathological desire to establish and exert control over another may manifest itself as homosexual rape in prison, or in pederasty with the young. Economic circumstances may force the marginalized young (such as the poor, the homeless, the runaway, and the drug-dependent) into homosexual acts with older men for pay or shelter, and the normalization of such behavior over time. Clinical levels of depression can lead some to express a sense of alienation or degradation by assuming the role of a societal “other,” and substance abuse problems could also be a contributing factor in predisposition in leading one to behavior that one would usually avoid. Some people with a weak sense of gender identity and an exploratory nature that sees “transgression” as a positive, may do it out of choice - they are just curious, have heard it is exciting in the media or pornography, and decide to experiment.

Not all of these biological, psychological or sociological pathways to behavior fit the accepted popular culture narrative that is formed by watching shows like “Modern Family,” but all have probably been factors in the behaviors of individuals.

There’s also a chicken-or-the-egg problem: many gays and apologists for gay culture have argued that the documented societal ills - such as increased rates of suicide, depression, substance abuse - and point to societal disapproval and the resulting impact on a gay person’s self esteem as the root cause. To such defenders of homosexual behavior, it seems obvious that if we can just remake society to remove the possibility of any such loss of self-esteem, or potential loss of self-esteem (through means such as legalizing gay “marriage,” removing impediments to gay couples’ adoption, etc.) any such societal negatives will, eventually, evaporate.

But what if they are wrong in their presumptions?

If, as the Church teaches, the disordered nature of homosexual acts is what causes unhappiness - or, to put it in secular terms, homosexual identification may (in many or some cases) arise from deeper psychological issues such as depression and alienation, and from a fundamental recognition that one is not living in the manner that one is designed for, whether by God or nature - no societal remedies will work, and we may be condemning many to much more difficult and troubled lives by encouraging self-destructive behavior.

 

[epan]

Actually this particular report on these birds referred to this behavior as altruism, thus my use of the term. I agree that pure altruism probably does not exist, except in the case of Jesus…a much more profound giving of self for the benefit of all of us.

Yes, there is a lot of confusion about the term. In genetic research, I believe that altruism means a willingness to sacrifice one’s own individual genetic reproduction to some extent, for the benefit of increasing the likelihood of another’s. In the cases which have been well studied this occurs when there will be a net increase in genetic replication of the altruistic individual’s genetic information through offspring or other closely related individuals.

This use of the word is rather different than the sociological/philosophical use. However, the term is expanded into the social sphere by people like Dawkins to include propagation through “memes”. Probably the most striking example is the willingness of a soldier to go to battle, and risk his own life, for the welfare of his country. I have not spent much time understanding it. I can see the analogy. But I am somewhat suspicious that the idea is completely analogous. Dawkins would, of course, assert that religious beliefs are also examples of memes.

If you are interested in this topic from a biological point of view, “The Selfish Gene” is a classic, published in the mid 70’s originally. If the idea of “memes” interests you, then “The Extended Phenotype” would be the book to pick up.

 

[Cricket2]

Yes, there is a lot of confusion about the term. In genetic research, I believe that altruism means a willingness to sacrifice one’s own individual genetic reproduction to some extent, for the benefit of increasing the likelihood of another’s. In the cases which have been well studied this occurs when there will be a net increase in genetic replication of the altruistic individual’s genetic information through offspring or other closely related individuals.

This use of the word is rather different than the sociological/philosophical use. However, the term is expanded into the social sphere by people like Dawkins to include propagation through “memes”. Probably the most striking example is the willingness of a soldier to go to battle, and risk his own life, for the welfare of his country. I have not spent much time understanding it. I can see the analogy. But I am somewhat suspicious that the idea is completely analogous. Dawkins would, of course, assert that religious beliefs are also examples of memes.

If you are interested in this topic from a biological point of view, “The Selfish Gene” is a classic, published in the mid 70’s originally. If the idea of “memes” interests you, then “The Extended Phenotype” would be the book to pick up.

Ah. Some old references. It has been a while since a did a lot of reading in the field. Genetics was my focus of study for my first degree. I found so much going on in the field that seemed to be contrary to God that I never pursued the study outside of using it care for the disabled, and understanding family illnesses.

I wish I would have been more aware of careers in the criminal context. Using genetics to help fight crime and solve crimes would have been fascinating and a good use of the field for me.

 

[frobert]

Just use plain common sense. They are telling you that homosexuality is genetic when 48% of two people who have exactly the same genes, hence they are genetically pretty much the same, are pairs in which one is NOT homosexual. If we are talking about something of genetic origin and people with identical genes…shouldn’t it be 100% for it to be genetic? Or at least 99.9%? The fact that they are bringing your attention to the increasing number in twins versus non twins, while bypassing the fact that almost half of the twins were pairs in which one is NOT gay and that if we are talking about genetics then it should be the same for for all the twins, shows you that they are manipulating the information.

Actually the results are consistent with many other such studies. The results suggest sexual orientation cannot be attributed solely to genetic factors. That is not to say that genetic factors are ruled out. There are many variations in heterosexuality and in homosexuality so its reasonable to expect that there is an interplay of several factors.

The catholic position is that most homosexual acts meet the criteria of being mortal sins but there seems to be a morbid fascination with homosexuality absent with other mortal sins such as per-marital and contraceptive sex acts.

 

[frobert]

What I’m trying to separate here is (a) a possible genetic disposition to find people of the same sex attractive – a disposition that is neither morally problematic nor evolutionarily unadaptive, and (b) a culturally-induced system of marginalizing people such that they define themselves by their attractions.

I am very interested in the question of whether “homosexuality” is based on a God-given and good set of distinctive characteristics that have been perverted by the Fall.

Gay and straight men may have different facial shapes, new study suggests

A new study analysing the facial differences between homosexual and heterosexual men has found “significant morphological differences”.

A study conducted by researchers from the Center for Theoretical Study at Charles University in Prague and The Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic examined the possible differences in facial shape between homosexual and heterosexual individuals and found “significant” shape differences in faces of heterosexual and homosexual men.

Their results found that homosexual men were rated as more stereotypically ‘masculine’ than heterosexual men, which they said undermined stereotypical notions of gay men as more feminine looking.

 

[orgasmgeek]

Just think if sexuality is some kind of disorder, then why we keep doing it?. Think about it.

orgasmgeek.com

 

[TheHolyTrinity]

I believe that scientist have been looking into the wrong places. I believe Epigenetics studies are going to be ground breaking for the human race most certainly a parigram shift. I believe that medicine and societies will need to throw away their ancient idea’s around sexual orientation along with many other believes that one may hold.

Epigenetics adds a whole new layer to genes beyond the DNA. It proposes a control system of ‘switches’ that turn genes on or off – and suggests that things people experience, like nutrition and stress, can control these switches causing hidden influences upon the genes -that affects every aspect of our lives. There are other studies investigated the ways abuse, famine and trauma could leave “scars” on DNA, in the form of epigenetic markers.

What is Epigenetics?
The development and maintenance of an organism is orchestrated by a set of chemical reactions that switch parts of the genome off and on at strategic times and locations. Epigenetics is the study of these reactions and the factors that influence them.

I read a recent research article that discussed epigenetic influences acting on androgen signaling in the brain underlie sexual orientation. The article describes epigenetic markers that steer sexual development in males could promote homosexual orientation in females, and vice versa.

That androgens are important factors in molding sexual orientation, and that various genes involved in mediating androgen signaling are regulated by epigenetic modifications. These epigenetic markers can be passed on between generations.

For more understanding on Epigenetics, this documentary via YouTube describes the principles of Epigenetics well.
The Ghost In Your Genes - BBC Documentary (PS - this is not about ghosts )

 

[tskrobacz]

Genetics and epigenetics likely also have a role in Cancer, MS, and a host of other disorders that impact the human condition and demand of us empathy, compassion, prayer and healing.

 

[frobert]

In a psychology class I am taking from a “catholic collage” the course book provides a study that (Baily & Pillard, 1991) Shows that pairs of monozygotic male twins (whose gens are identical), pairs of dizygotic, or nonidentical, twins (whose genes are no more alike than those of any pair of brothers), and pairs of adopted brother (who are genetically unrelated). To participate in this study one brother had to be gay. As it turned out, the other brother was also gay or bisexual in 52% of the identical twins pairs but in only 22% of nonidentical pairs and 11% of adoptive pairs.

The book says the report is by a “respected research group” Is there any surveys contrary and does anyone know if this study is so called “respectable”?

The research quoted is respectable, but even since 1991 there have been no conclusive studies one way or the other that homosexuality is genetic. The reason why identical twins are only 52% is that there are subtle differences in the chromosomes of identical twins. Since 1991 there have been several investigations of these chromosomal differences but none have been conclusive. At most these later investigations are suggestive that there are genetic influences to predisposition and that early child hood environment plays a role in the realization of the predisposition. I have not keep up with the research since completing my post grad studies. As far as I can determine, whether homosexuality is genetic would not influence the CC’s stance on it. The CC does emphasize that homosexuals should be treated with respect, a point that is often disregarded. If anyone is interested, look up religious ethics on natural law and homosexuality.