What if a "Gay Gene" exists?

[voctor09]

Does that change how we have to look at homosexuals?

The way it would appear to me is that if homosexuality is genetic, then it is not chosen or caused by outside factors. Would that mean that God has made someone gay? And if so, does that mean we have to acknowledge that homosexuality is natural, since how could we question the intentions of God if he chooses to make people gay?

Edit: I don’t intend to make all my posts here about homosexuality. Just an issue that has raised a lot of questions concerning my faith.

 

[Poseidon]

It’s a well-established fact that homosexuality is not chosen, so that leaves genes and other outside factors. However, I believe that the Catholic position would probably not change, since it would require a big change in several major Catholic doctrines on sex.

 

[Stylites]

Suppose there’s a genetic component to anger and having a short fuse, but that doesn’t forgive someone for acting on their impulse and lashing out. Suppose there’s a genetic component to being a big bully and making everyone else frightened of them; again that doesn’t forgive those who are compelled to act like bullies.

 

[underacloud]

There are all sorts of physiological disorders that are passed on through genes. The Church considers homosexuality to be a disorder, but it’s not really relevant whether it’s passed on genetically or influenced by environment, or a bit of both.

So, nothing changes.

Certainly our charity towards gay people should not change, regardless of how we view the specific physiological and psychological mechanisms and the morality of it.

 

[voctor09]

There are all sorts of physiological disorders that are passed on through genes. The Church considers homosexuality to be a disorder, but it’s not really relevant whether it’s passed on genetically or influenced by environment, or a bit of both.

So, nothing changes.

Certainly our charity towards gay people should not change, regardless of how we view the specific physiological and psychological mechanisms and the morality of it.

I guess that is where I tend to question the church. The church says homosexuality is a disorder based on what? I support the church on 90% of its teachings but I start to question when the Church starts making claims on things based on what it considers science since it has a dodgy record in that regard. I don’t believe the bishops are scientists who are qualified to make claims whether homosexuality is a disorder, disease, or an act of free will.

I’ve read many comments on these boards that say homosexuality doesn’t actually exists because it isn’t “natural” and can’t be deemed a form of “sexuality” because it violates the natural law of man. But I tend to think that the evidence is pointing toward the fact that homosexuality is an innate trait just like heterosexuality and that the homosexual is hard-wired to be gay, therefore meaning that cohabitation and sexual relations with the same gender are natural and intentional.

 

[underacloud]

I guess that is where I tend to question the church. The church says homosexuality is a disorder based on what? I support the church on 90% of its teachings but I start to question when the Church starts making claims on things based on what it considers science since it has a dodgy record in that regard. I don’t believe the bishops are scientists who are qualified to make claims whether homosexuality is a disorder, disease, or an act of free will.

It’s not a matter of science for the Church. It’s a matter of morality that has been passed to us by divine revelation in the bible. Homosexuality is consistently consider sinful and disordered. The bishops haven’t made this stuff up, they merely uphold what the Church…and prior to the Church, the Jews…has always taught.

It’s a difficult issue and one I too struggle with, becasue I have several gay or lesbian friends. But ultimately I cede to the teaching authority of the Church on this issue, as with any other moral issue that they teach on via the magesterium.

 

[voctor09]

It’s not a matter of science for the Church. It’s a matter of morality that has been passed to us by divine revelation in the bible. Homosexuality is consistently consider sinful and disordered. The bishops haven’t made this stuff up, they merely uphold what the Church…and prior to the Church, the Jews…has always taught.

It’s a difficult issue and one I too struggle with, becasue I have several gay or lesbian friends. But ultimately I cede to the teaching authority of the Church on this issue, as with any other moral issue that they teach on via the magesterium.

You are right. I struggle with blindly observing the magesterium. I know they are guided by the Holy Spirit but I have a hard time accepting it because it goes against what I feel is right.

I can’t shake thinking that they’ve supposedly been wrong before. Weren’t the bishops and the pope in complete agreement on geocentrism based on the their knowledge of science of the time? Why weren’t they guided by the Holy Spirit when they condemned Galileo because they believed it morally wrong to believe the earth moved around the sun? If they were wrong based on their lack of science then, why can’t they be wrong again?

Arg this is frustrating

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Does that change how we have to look at homosexuals?

The way it would appear to me is that if homosexuality is genetic, then it is not chosen or caused by outside factors. Would that mean that God has made someone gay? And if so, does that mean we have to acknowledge that homosexuality is natural, since how could we question the intentions of God if he chooses to make people gay?

Edit: I don’t intend to make all my posts here about homosexuality. Just an issue that has raised a lot of questions concerning my faith.

the church acknowledges or accepts that some people are born gay or have these tendencies through no fault of their own. hence the teaching that they are deserving of our love and not our hatred, as they were made by god. because it is condemned in the bible they assert that it is a struggle to live their way of life just as it is a struggle for the blind or the deaf or the disabled.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m just curious… why would the existence of a “gay gene” necessarily mean that homosexuality is natural and good? There are many genes that exist and are the cause of all sorts of disorders, downs syndrome being the first example I can think of. Does that mean that Downs syndrome is perfectly good and natural? We can’t use the existence of a gene as proof of what is or is not natural.

 

[itullian]

I’m sure there are many gay Genes.

 

[Rolltide]

Why weren’t they guided by the Holy Spirit when they condemned Galileo because they believed it morally wrong to believe the earth moved around the sun?

The church never condemned Galileo for believing that the Earth moved around the Sun. In fact, they encouraged his research. They condemned him for interpreting the theological implications of his discovery without consulting the church.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

You are right. I struggle with blindly observing the magesterium. I know they are guided by the Holy Spirit but I have a hard time accepting it because it goes against what I feel is right.

I can’t shake thinking that they’ve supposedly been wrong before. Weren’t the bishops and the pope in complete agreement on geocentrism based on the their knowledge of science of the time? Why weren’t they guided by the Holy Spirit when they condemned Galileo because they believed it morally wrong to believe the earth moved around the sun? If they were wrong based on their lack of science then, why can’t they be wrong again?

Arg this is frustrating

in the 90’s, when the most recent catechism was written revised and updated, the thinking at the time was that homosexuality was a psychological disorder. at the same time this was occurring, genetic research was discovering that some children were being born with xxx and xxy and xyy sex chromosomes. those are extra chromosomes. i am sure the church has been aware over the last 2000 years that sometimes children are born with both male and female sex organs. there are also people who are born asexual.

i signed the DOMA in the 90’s but after i had a college level class in human sexuality in 2000, when i went back to college, i realized that its more likely that homosexuality is not a choice but rather something they are born with.

gay marriage is a revolutionary idea that has never been thought of before. i think in time gay marriage will be accepted.

saying that gays cannot procreate is irrelevant to me. i know they cannot procreate. that’s not the point. neither could sarah and abraham. that’s not a good enough argument why gays can’t marry. its redundant and sounds like an argument why gays should marry heterosexuals instead of homosexuals, which i would never accept. how many heterosexuals would seriously marry a homosexual knowing they are a homosexual?

i don’t think there is a leg to stand on anymore in these arguments against gay marriage.

the bible supported polygamy, treating women like property, and not having a choice in who women could marry. women caught in adultery were killed but men weren’t. women were always to blame. well if she’s not attracted to you in the first place and she had no choice or was coerced into it, why should she be ‘faithful’? it wasn’t her choice to begin with. the bible allows you to kill adulterers but in modern society that is not allowed. the bible is not the law. it was outlawed. as christians, we are not obligated to follow the jewish law. we are free to follow the new covenant. jewish law is not even followed in modern israel. no one is allowed to do crucifixions anymore either.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

I’m just curious… why would the existence of a “gay gene” necessarily mean that homosexuality is natural and good? There are many genes that exist and are the cause of all sorts of disorders, downs syndrome being the first example I can think of. Does that mean that Downs syndrome is perfectly good and natural? We can’t use the existence of a gene as proof of what is or is not natural.

but there is no prohibition against disabled people marrying or down syndrome people marrying. so its unjust, and illogical, to say that because gay people are disordered or disabled they can’t get married to each other.

 

[wasserfall]

but there is no prohibition against disabled people marrying or down syndrome people marrying. so its unjust, and illogical, to say that because gay people are disordered or disabled they can’t get married to each other.

Not at all. So called “gay people” are not prohibited from marrying a person of the opposite sex.

As for persons of the same sex, it is not possible to marry someone of the same sex any more than it is possible to procreate with someone of the same sex.

 

[Elizium23]

While same-sex attraction is not a choice for people who were born with it, or find themselves struggling with it as they reach adulthood, homosexual behavior is a choice that can certainly be suppressed if one wishes to lead a sinless life of chastity as called by God and the Church. Those with deeply ingrained disordered desires for pedophilia or bestiality or adultery, or masturbation are likewise called to contain those urges, and seek forgiveness and repentance if they do act upon them, so it is the same.

I actually fear what will happen to the unborn if a “gay gene” is discovered. Will selective abortion be chosen for parents who don’t want a gay child? This would be a tragedy in itself if gay people experience a holocaust of their own.

 

[wasserfall]

It’s a well-established fact that homosexuality is not chosen, so that leaves genes and other outside factors.

You sound very sure in your assertion. Yet I know personally know two people who have “switched” so to speak. One from homosexual to heterosexual, and the other from heterosexual to homosexual.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

gay marriage is a revolutionary idea that has never been thought of before. i think in time gay marriage will be accepted.

but it will never be considered sacramental. it will never be accepted in a religious institution. you can get it at a state and federal level but never, i doubt, at a religious level.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Not at all. So called “gay people” are not prohibited from marrying a person of the opposite sex.

As for persons of the same sex, it is not possible to marry someone of the same sex any more than it is possible to procreate with someone of the same sex.

they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex. and why should they? it would also be against canon law for them to marry someone of the opposite sex because the marriage would be based on the wrong reasons. also, you as a heterosexual would not marry a homosexual and if you did your marriage would be null and invalid.

 

[wasserfall]

I signed the DOMA in the 90’s but after i had a college level class in human sexuality in 2000, when i went back to college, i realized that its more likely that homosexuality is not a choice but rather something they are born with.

How interesting that you trust a “college level class” more than you trust the Church.

saying that gays cannot procreate is irrelevant to me. i know they cannot procreate. that’s not the point. neither could sarah and abraham.

Wait a minute. Sarah and Abraham did procreate.

More to the point, God made male for female and female for male. That is the order God created. A homosexual inclination is contrary to the order God created – thus it is a disorder.

To act on a homosexual inclination is a perversion of God’s established order and, of course, gravely sinful.

You chose to name yourself “Vatican2Rocks!”, so listen to Vatican II: And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.

The Divine Redeemer willed the Church to be endowed with infallibility in defining doctrine of faith and morals. The Church has taught infallibly from the time of the Apostles, that homosexual actions are gravely immoral.

Submit yourself to the infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church,

 

[wasserfall]

they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex. and why should they

They don’t have to, but they can.

it would also be against canon law for them to marry someone of the opposite sex because the marriage would be based on the wrong reasons.

This is not true. As long as a person freely and willingly enters into the obligations of marriage, the marriage is valid, no matter what that person considers his “orientation” to be.