Study says genetics does have a role in sexual orientation

[Rau]

…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).

Yes, true. The additional point to be borne in mind is that while the “Acts” are a choice, the SSA (regardless of cause) is not. Further, the extent of SSA then influences the degree of culpability for the acts that may arise.

 

[Rau]

If they are not trying to mislead then why do they play around with the results? In the study that established that children of lesbians fare better than children of heterosexual they took a group of white, wealthy lesbian women to compare it to a group of black and hispanic women with very low incomes living mostly in poor areas. Why didn’t they compare similar groups? And why the lesbian women who knew about the study filled out the forms while in the case of the other group they weren’t told about about the study and the forms were given to the teachers? Shouldn’t the forms be given in both groups to the teacher? Why does the person that has a personal interest in the outcome of the study gets to call the shots? If you don’t think that that is intent to mislead then what do you call it? Then you get headlines in all newspapers saying that lesbians are better parents than heterosexuals but they don’t tell you the groups were not similar. Again if that is not to advocate a cause then what is it?

I’m sure everyone has been persuaded that lesbians make better parents!

My point is that claims such as you make should be directed to a specific study (where the grounds exist), not fired broadly.

 

[Rau]

… I follow the teachings of the Church on sexual activity and belief that it only belongs in marriage…

I am called to be celibate and I believe that those who are gay or homosexual are called to be celibate as well. … If I were homosexual or gay I would choose to be celibate because of my belief in that teaching, but I would not go around apologizing or counting myself as sick because of my sexual preferences. I would simply practice celibacy…

This is all good. By being “called to a celibate life” - I assume you mean you are single? I assume that you’d agree that you seek to live a moral life, by avoiding sins against purity, such as fornication and masturbation.

The SSA person ought properly to face the same challenge to avoid sins against purity as you, so should they not be equally successful? I can well imagine that the circumstances tilt the odds against the SSA person:

• The SSA person may well suffer great internal conflict from his condition, including a quite profound loneliness, or worse. They will be drawn to seek out persons who experience similar circumstances
• The SSA person - should they find themselves attracted to another, where the attraction is mutual, may face great temptation to sin against purity. For them, there is no avenue to retain the relationship, and their purity.

Some will view this as “excuse-making”. But I only write the above to highlight the issue of culpability. Morality is **not **in question - a sin against purity remains that - an immoral act - regardless. But culpability is not black and white, and something we leave to God to judge on the Last Day.

 

[Rau]

This illustrates the irresponsibility of so much that passes for “science”, which wishes to ignore reality.

**Little Recognition Given To Study of Sexual Reorientation Therapy at APA Convention
Findings contradict the APA position that homosexuality is not changeable.
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski **
Extract:
TORONTO, August 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Stanton Jones and his research partner, Dr. Mark Yarhouse, were given the opportunity, on Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m., to present their findings on a study of sexual reorientation therapy, at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association (APA) in Toronto.

The paper titled, “Ex Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,” was presented as a part of an APA symposium titled Sexual Orientation and Faith Tradition Symposium.

The six year study concluded that there is evidence that homosexual tendencies can be controlled and redirected toward normal sexual attraction.

Drs. Jones and Yarhouse conclude that their findings contradict the APA position that homosexuality is not changeable.

“In conclusion, the findings of this study would appear to contradict the commonly expressed view of the mental health establishment that sexual orientation is not changeable and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an attempt.”

The report also stressed the need to keep “a range of professional and ministry options open to clients who experience same sex attraction, are distressed by this because of their moral or religious beliefs, and who may benefit from hearing about a number of intervention modalities.”

We on CAF cannot in general do justice to any of the studies we quote “in passing”, and we are likely to misrepresent and mislead as a result. [Perhaps the source of the LifeSiteNews.com article above is doing the same - who knows?].

Some may think the article above “proves” that “re-orientation therapy” works (whatever “works” means). To get a glimpse of the subtleties however, review this:patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2011/10/27/the-jones-and-yarhouse-study-what-does-it-mean/

And this provides criticism of the quality of the study referenced above:
truthwinsout.org/blog/2009/09/4247/
**

 

[Abu]

Homosexuality 101: What Every Therapist, Parent, And Homosexual Should Know
Julie Harren, Ph.D., LMFT, 9 April 2008
“What, then, are the causes of homosexual attractions? These feelings typically stem from a combination of temperamental factors and environmental factors that occur in a child’s life. According to Whitehead and Whitehead (1999), “Human behavior is determined by both nature and nurture. Without genes, you can’t act in the environment at all. But without the environment your genes have nothing on which to act” (p. 10).

“While environmental factors may include experiences of sexual abuse or other traumatic events, a common contributor to same-sex attractions is a disruption in the development of gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s view of his or her own gender; that is, his or her sense of masculinity or femininity. Gender identity is formed through the relationships that a child has with the same-sex parent and same-sex peers.”

The more we realise the facts associated with homosexual tendencies, the more can we seek the remedies that can help us to live as God intends.
narth.com/docs/hom101.html

 

[Rau]

Which facts? That “nature and nurture determine human behaviour”? Or all positions advocated by NARTH?

Which remedies?

[Rhetorical questions - I’m not seeking a response…]

The debate about homosexuality causes and treatments is highly polarised (maybe there are even multiple camps?). I’m OK with saying “I don’t know”, but I recognise that many ordinary people (ie. non-specialists) feel it is important to take a position. Frankly, I just don’t see a need to take a view on the scientific questions, where the experts are yet to arrive at consensus.

 

[Abu]

Is homosexuality essentially genetically or biologically determined?
No. Attempts to demonstrate that homosexuality is simply a matter of genes or biology have been unsuccessful. For example, among identical twins, if one twin identifies as gay, only about one in nine twin siblings will also identify as gay (Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000). Although some in the media have used various studies to attempt to support a simple genetic or biological theory, the authors of these research articles have refuted these overreaching claims. Regarding homosexuality, there are simply no variables that are by themselves exclusively predictive of the development of homosexual feelings. On this point, NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association (2008) statement that, “…no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors” for a given person.
narth.com/docs/hom101.html#!faq/cirw

The sensible NARTH Position Statements may be found at:
narth.org/menus/positionstatements.html

 

[Rau]

Why’s is this subject important to you? **

 

[Cricket2]

Or, if you have two identical human beings and apply the same upbringing and experiences to them, they end up with slightly more similar minds and personalities than any other two human beings, and are slightly more likely respond to all kinds of things the same way, than any other two human beings might be.

For our next trick, a study using statistical tendencies between identical twins to show a genetic factor in preferring one soap opera, style of music, or particular shade of blue over another.

Why would it be a trick? And why couldn’t there be a genetic factor in preferences for food, music, color etc. Certain forms of dyslexia result in the effected person having very strong likes and dislikes for certain foods based on texture, smell and taste. Go figure!

 

[epan]

I think you are actually touching a key point: the word “behavior”. I totally agree that homosexuality is a behavior, and just like any other behavior is completely subject to our free will – hence the hormonal imbalance is irrelevant as it is a behavior --, it is caused most likely by many factors being many of those external factors and that was the reason why psychiatrist before 1970 considered it as a disorder.

The issue with these studies is that what they are trying to prove is exactly the opposite, that is something you are born with it that you have zero control over it and can’t be changedtherefore everyone has to accept it. My problem with these specific studies re homosexuality is that they are not really made to actually study anything but to push the acceptance of homosexual acts in society and to make people accept gay marriage. That is a big problem if you ask me.

Obviously, sexual activity is behavior. Sexual and emotional attraction are something else. There is also, quite obviously, a relationship between all of them.

My point was that genetics is more like Statistics, when it comes to behavior or sexual attraction. There may well be a genetic predisposition, which can be clearly identified, or there may not be such a clearly identifiable genetic link. As far as I know, such a genotype (or collection if them) has not yet been identified, but I would not be surprised if they are identified one day. I would also not be surprised if that doesn’t happen. Sexuality is complicated.

 

[Cricket2]

Sorry, if I have started a new thread in the wrong place. For the life of me I can’t figure out how to do this exactly.

I am discouraged to the Core. My brother has been hospitalized. My sister is in end stages of her illness, and every day it is a challenge to know she could die at any moment or know that she could suffer longer. My dad is elderly, and very tired. It is sad to see my father have to worry about all his adult children being so ill they can’t work or can just barely keep a job, and if it were not for his help we one and all would land up on the street.

My own health is very poor, but I am the healthiest of us and the one who has become the primary care giver for the entire family. In all of this I wonder what God wants from us. It appears that all He wants is our suffering. We (none of us) never married, got to have children, were always poor and underemployed, and any money we might have been able to save had to be used to pay medical bills. I am just so tired of all of it.

It is like being a slave, a prisoner in a little box with no other purpose than to exist and suffer, while others get to live. Where is God in all of this misery?

 

[epan]

I haven’t thought about this topic for a while, but it seems to me that the genetic causation seems unlikely to me, unless someone could come up with a reason that the gene’s chances of being reproduced in a new person were good. I suspect that homosexual behavior would inhibit that, and that a genetic expression of homosexuality would be selected out over time… unless someone has an idea to advance, as to how homosexuality would confer an advantage in terms of Natural Selection. Otherwise, I would consider the likelihood of pinning the cause on a genetic origin to be unlikely.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

These sorts of evolutionary discussions have always kind of puzzled me. Everyone assumes that homosexuals would tend not to reproduce. But this is a strange assumption. Historically, I see absolutely no evidence that homosexually inclined people have fewer marriages or children than those without such inclinations.

Mind you, in the modern era, it *might *be that those with SSA reproduce less than those without SSA. I’m not even sure of that, however, since SSA does not excluse OSA, and plenty of men who aren’t particularly attracted to women have children with women.

The idea that homosexuals don’t have children is a myth – or, at best, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Cricket2]

I haven’t thought about this topic for a while, but it seems to me that the genetic causation seems unlikely to me, unless someone could come up with a reason that the gene’s chances of being reproduced in a new person were good. I suspect that homosexual behavior would inhibit that, and that a genetic expression of homosexuality would be selected out over time… unless someone has an idea to advance, as to how homosexuality would confer an advantage in terms of Natural Selection. Otherwise, I would consider the likelihood of pinning the cause on a genetic origin to be unlikely.

Something to ponder: There are birds (can’t remember which ones), that never seek or have a mates. They never have offspring which at first glance seems counter to the concept of continuing the species. What they do however, is help their parents care for the next group of young, or their nest mates with their young. This in turn actually increases the survivability of the species as more young survive than if all the flock had a mate. This is one example of True Altruism…which in reality hardly exists even among humans.

 

[epan]

Something to ponder: There are birds (can’t remember which ones), that never seek or have a mates. They never have offspring which at first glance seems counter to the concept of continuing the species. What they do however, is help their parents care for the next group of young, or their nest mates with their young. This in turn actually increases the survivability of the species as more young survive than if all the flock had a mate. This is one example of True Altruism…which in reality hardly exists even among humans.

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.

 

[epan]

These sorts of evolutionary discussions have always kind of puzzled me. Everyone assumes that homosexuals would tend not to reproduce. But this is a strange assumption. Historically, I see absolutely no evidence that homosexually inclined people have fewer marriages or children than those without such inclinations.

Mind you, in the modern era, it *might *be that those with SSA reproduce less than those without SSA. I’m not even sure of that, however, since SSA does not excluse OSA, and plenty of men who aren’t particularly attracted to women have children with women.

The idea that homosexuals don’t have children is a myth – or, at best, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is true that homosexuals have tended to marry and procreate through history. I was wondering after I typed that if (assuming that there is a genetic component to homosexuality) homosexuals no longer have the social pressure to marry and reproduce, that their numbers may decrease over the coming centuries, leaving bisexuals and heterosexuals in the gene pool. This argument is predicated on the assumption that there is a genetic predisposition to the behavior.

 

[Rau]

These sorts of evolutionary discussions have always kind of puzzled me. Everyone assumes that homosexuals would tend not to reproduce. But this is a strange assumption. Historically, I see absolutely no evidence that homosexually inclined people have fewer marriages or children than those without such inclinations.

Mind you, in the modern era, it *might *be that those with SSA reproduce less than those without SSA. I’m not even sure of that, however, since SSA does not excluse OSA, and plenty of men who aren’t particularly attracted to women have children with women.

The idea that homosexuals don’t have children is a myth – or, at best, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think it reasonable to expect that those experiencing a strong SSA and hence (typically) at most a weak OSA would reproduce (on average) less frequently than individuals experiencing the reverse. Yes of course there are exceptions (arising from SSA persons: that somehow wind up married, that donate semen, those in SS relationships that reproduce via surrogacy). Of course, **if **genetics does have something to do with SSA (which is an unknown), a further unknown is how often the relevant genetic configuration arises spontaneously. We are very far from understanding the broader issue.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think it reasonable to expect that those experiencing a strong SSA and hence (typically) at most a weak OSA would reproduce (on average) less frequently than individuals experiencing the reverse.

As I said, history seems to cut against this theory. If you look at a list of prominent people who are known to have SSA prior to the mid-20th century, you will find that nearly all of them were married with children. Now, in today’s world, you might be right – but why assume this is the rule, and not the exception?

 

[SMGS127]

As I said, history seems to cut against this theory. If you look at a list of prominent people who are known to have SSA prior to the mid-20th century, you will find that nearly all of them were married with children. Now, in today’s world, you might be right – but why assume this is the rule, and not the exception?

You know what I’ve thought of too is whether or not SSA could be caused by external factors such as recent high hormonal dosages in our drinking water as a result of the invention of artificial birth control, hormone therapy, and medicated sexual aids. That would lead to a spike in SSA among adults around the time it started gaining acceptance worldwide.

There’s also the theory, though, that, with gay men, their brains are altered when their mothers’ bodies attack them as “foreign” due to their irregular genetics (Y chromosome in her body, for example). It would explain why a male’s likelihood for having SSA spikes if he has a SS-attracted brother.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You know what I’ve thought of too is whether or not SSA could be caused by external factors such as recent high hormonal dosages in our drinking water as a result of the invention of artificial birth control, hormone therapy, and medicated sexual aids. That would lead to a spike in SSA among adults around the time it started gaining acceptance worldwide.

There’s also the theory, though, that, with gay men, their brains are altered when their mothers’ bodies attack them as “foreign” due to their irregular genetics (Y chromosome in her body, for example). It would explain why a male’s likelihood for having SSA spikes if he has a SS-attracted brother.

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?