"Gay" Gene?

The American Psychological Association recently revised their view of whether or not there is a "gay" gene and homosexuality is genetically determined.  Eleven years ago, their official statement was that there was such a genetic link.  Now, they've revised that statement reflecting the lack of research confirming such a gene.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.... [Emphasis mine]

Comments

[John Hannaford]

I think it only fair to complete the quote: " ... most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

If this last statement is true, what does this mean for our understanding / approach to the issues involved as a Christian?

[BillyHW]

Many people are born with disorders of one kind or another John. It's all a part of our fallen human nature. What we don't do as Christians is celebrate these disorders.

[Prince]

Of course I think we are all born innocent. I don't rule out the possibility that maybe some people have more "demons" or "temptations" to fight than others. I know a guy that recently "came out of the closet" and his reply was simply, "I have had both and I just perfer men". I think he let his demons get the best of him... Sad but true! Maybe some are born with stronger temptations than others but I think if they truly seek God they are strapped with the ability to overcome them weather it be drinking, drugs, homosexuality, etc... But saying "I was born that way" seems to be the easy way out to me....

[Olivia]

Moving article about being Christian and homosexual:

http://www.ransomfellowship.org/articledetail.asp?AID=506&B=Wesley%20Hill&TID=7

[Giles Corey]

"It's all a part of our fallen human nature."

"Of course I think we are all born innocent."

Ref, can I get a doctrine call here? Whose theology are we using here?

While we're at can we be clear where the Christian beef with homosexuality comes from? Last I checked Jesus expressed no opinion on homosexuality. Are Christians drawing from the old covenant or the new?

[Giles Corey]

"I think it only fair to complete the quote: '... most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.'"

Greg's disappointing selective quotation notwithstanding there is significant evidence there is a biological - if not genetic - predisposition to homosexuality, so isn't it God making them that way?

[Ryan]

>>'... most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.'">>

This may not necessarily mean it is genetic. Someone can be "nurtured" into responding to certain stimuli, even indulging it, to the point where the response is no longer a "choice". We call this habit. Vice, as well as virtue, is a habit.

>>Greg's disappointing selective quotation notwithstanding there is significant evidence there is a biological - if not genetic - predisposition to homosexuality, so isn't it God making them that way?>>

God may have "made" someone with a disposition toward alcoholism, does that give them license to drink to excess every day? God made me heterosexual...does that mean I get to act on it whenever I want? The issue here is not "orientation", but morality. Homosexual acts (and indeed heterosexual acts outside marriage) are sinful.

[Giles Corey]

"This may not necessarily mean it is genetic."

Agreed. There are biological predictors of homosexuality, such as birth order, which suggest a hormonal variable during pregnancy.

"Someone can be 'nurtured' into responding to certain stimuli, even indulging it, to the point where the response is no longer a 'choice'."

And there are conservative, traditional marriage oriented, and Christian homes that give rise to homosexual children.

"The issue here is not 'orientation', but morality. Homosexual acts...are sinful."

Why do you say so?

[Mo]

@ John Hannaford -

" ... most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

We are not commanded to live our lives based upon what we feel, one way or another. Therefore, just because people might not feel like they have a choice in this matter, this does not excuse their behavior.

People might not feel they have a choice to abstain from sexual relations before marriage. That doesn't change the fact that God commands us to do so.

[Topher]

But in a way was not marriage created to allow some kind of release for these powerful biological desires? Paul says it is better to marry than to burn, in other words, one of the purposes of marriage is to satisfy these desires. Why would we deny this same gift to homosexual couples? Whatever the cause of homosexuality it does not seem to be a conscience choice(as the rest of the quote indicates.)

I always thought one of the many differences between Protestants and Catholics was the rejection of celibacy as an ideal for the majority of believers. The church provides a way out for heterosexuals to express their sexuality in an approved manner, why not the same for homosexuals?

[Jesse]

>> While we're at can we be clear where the
>> Christian beef with homosexuality comes from?
>> Last I checked Jesus expressed no opinion on
>> homosexuality. Are Christians drawing from
>> the old covenant or the new?

Have you tried searching the New Testament for keywords related to homosexuality?

[Giles Corey]

"'Last I checked Jesus expressed no opinion on homosexuality..."

Have you tried searching the New Testament for keywords related to homosexuality?"

I'm open to influence Jesse. Whatcha got?

[John Hannaford]

"We are not commanded to live our lives based upon what we feel, one way or another." Mo, I take your point on one level but profoundly disagree on another.

The greatest commandments - those that take preceedence over all others - are to Love.

If you can read the article Olivia pointed us to and not feel compassion and moral obligation, I seriously doubt that .... I'll leave that thought right there.

The Pope sees homosexuality as one of the biggest threats to Christianity in the modern world. Perhaps it is in fact it's biggest challenge to step up and really be the Church.

[Prince]

Giles,

Jesus did express an opinion on sexual immorality though...

[David Hawkins]

>>"...so isn't it God making them that way?"

This is an age-old copout.

Most who take issue with God's morality as set forth in the Scriptures do so not to glorify His power, but to justify a behavioral choice.

I may have an impulse to cheat in some way...whether or not I follow up on that impulse (be it on my taxes or on my wife)is all mine. As a free moral agent, I own it. We have tendencies and proclivities to do all sorts of things. When I elect to follow through with an immoral one, it's also my proclivity to blame someone else. And when that someone else is my Creator, well...that makes it all the easier to justify doing it again and again.

The will to resist some inclinations and curiosities is the mark of genuine moral maturation.

The idea of a "gay gene" is, thus far, wishful thinking. There are no untainted, unbiased studies...nothing...to suggest it is biological (i.e. genetic). One must look at the organizations' interests who pay for studies that suggest it is genetic.

(What if a guy is genetically predisposed to bestiality? Does he get a social pass?)

Almost 60% of new AIDS cases are the result of male-to-male homosexual contact. That's staggering. The recent staph infection outbreak (Jan. 08) surrounding a portion of San Fran's male homosexual population (and Boston, New York, and L.A.)was largley suppressed and given other excuses in attempts to be save face (instead of lives.) Science herself is more concerned with being politically correct than informing the masses.

"S.F. gay community an epicenter for new strain of virulent staph" -

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/MNI5UE0L8.DTL

[Gile Corey]

Seems we'd have to review the studies on a case by case basis to determine bias, but your categorical rejection of all the studies may betray some sort of bias on your part as well.

There are twins studies that suggest a predisposition. As noted earlier a detectable birth order correlation - specifically the more sons a mother has the more likely her younger sons are to be gay - has been noted. The suspected mechanism of action a maternal hormonal reaction to repeated exposure to testosterone while carrying previous sons to term.

As for the rapid spread of disease, one can argue that sexual promiscuity rather than homosexuality is the cause. If you want less promiscuity you could always let homosexuals marry...

[Giles Corey]

"Jesus did express an opinion on sexual immorality though..."

Agreed. You can use Jesus' words to condemn homosexuals for having sex outside of marriage, or you can let them lie with those God shaped them for by allowing gay marriage...problem solved.

[Prince]

So what point were you trying to make Giles???

[Shame and Dishonour]

Giles, do you take issue with the passage in corinthians (1 6:10 i believe?) as well as the passage in romans regarding 'homosexual offenders'? (I am aware of the debated aspects of these passages)

Furthermore, what biblical case would you build to justify homosexual sexual actvity, in light of the fact that sexual promiscuity is unacceptable? This may be an argument from silence, but does the silence on pro-homosexual behavior in the bible in contrast with strong passages against homosexual behavior atleast give pause to any attempt to biblically justify homosxuality? And by homosexual behavior, I am speaking strictly to sexual acts.

[Joe]

Giles is right about the spread of HIV. The problem is sexual promiscuity combined with the failure to use condoms. World-wide, the majority of new HIV infections are infections of heterosexual women. That is, world-wide, almost all HIV transmission involves heterosexuals. The statement that "almost 60% of new AIDS cases are the result of male-to-male homosexual contact" is not accurate when one considers the populations of less developed countries where the vast majority of new HIV infections occur.

[Brad]

Hi Giles, I think you'd benefit from or maybe just enjoy this article:
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

From it you'll see how in the same reasoning that basketball players were born that way.

To John, yes, to love your neighbor is a high commandment, but giving permission to engage in what is so clearly and obviously a dangerous, unhealthy lifestyle is not an act of love. It would more accurately be characterized as an act of disregard--far from a loving act.

[Giles Corey]

"Do you take issue with the passage in corinthians...as well as the passage in romans regarding 'homosexual offenders'...?"

I don't take issue with them per se, I was simply commenting that Jesus said nothing against homosexuality. One might presume he'd have said something if it was supposed to be burning priority.

[Ryan]

>>And there are conservative, traditional marriage oriented, and Christian homes that give rise to homosexual children.>>

Yes, but why mention that?

>>"The issue here is not 'orientation', but morality. Homosexual acts...are sinful."

Why do you say so?>>

Scripture, Tradition, Church teaching, Natural Law...to name a few sources.

[Gravis]

Gilles: "... allow .. gay marriage ... problem solved."

What makes you think so?

Do you think legalized marriage reduces promiscuity?

We've had heterosexual marriage for centuries in the west - would you say promoscuity has risen or fallen? And is there any correlation?

Has homosexual promoscuity dropped in places where gay marriage was legalized?

Do you think legalizing gay marriage will reduce promiscuity among homosexuals? That's a claim I've never heard even gays themselves make.

[Giles Corey]

"So what point were you trying to make Giles?"

It all goes back to my original questions. Why do Christians draw selectively from the Old Covenant when it suits them? Seems to me there are plenty of orphans to clothe, starving to feed, widows to care for, and prisoners to visit - obligations your personal Lord and Saviour said were His explicit expectations for you - before making sure unmarried consenting adults don't do stuff you think is nasty.

[Ryan]

>>...Jesus said nothing against homosexuality.>>

The argument from absence is pretty weak. He was also a Jew who upheld Jewish Law. Judaism is pretty clear on the issue. Is your argument, "Jesus didn't tell me not to, therefore it's ok"? Weak sauce.

One might presume he'd have said something if it was supposed to be burning priority.>>

Why? He didn't come to spell out morality for us. He assumed what had already been revealed through Moses. Who said anything about it being a "priority"?

[Ryan]

>>The Pope sees homosexuality as one of the biggest threats to Christianity in the modern world.>>

Really? Where did he say this? I know he's spoken quite a it about irreligion (specifically in Europe) and the "Dictatorship of Relativism", but I rarely if ever hear him speak on homosexuality.

>>Perhaps it is in fact it's biggest challenge to step up and really be the Church.>>

What does this mean?

[Mo]

@ John Hannaford -

"If you can read the article Olivia pointed us to and not feel compassion and moral obligation, I seriously doubt that .... I'll leave that thought right there."

You seriously doubt what? Moral obligation to do what?

You began a sentence but left me with no opportunity to respond fully since I do not know the rest of the thought you were getting at.

Yes, the article was sad. My heart goes out to this man in his pain. The article would have been more effective had it not used the term "homosexual Christian" REPEATEDLY, reinforcing this idea in the culture that homosexuality is something you basically are and cannot change, like having brown eyes. (Perhaps this was not the author's deliberate intent, but the effect was that it desensitizes us from calling sin what it is - sin.)

We all have desires that do not magically go away. I know I do. I'd give anything to be zapped and changed instantly. Maybe there are a few exceptions, but for the most part, God chooses not to work with us that way. And yeah, it's painful to no end.

But just because we have these desires, that is no excuse to indulge in sin, excuse it or minimize it.

The bible is very clear on its teaching on homosexuality. It seems to me that by pointing out this article, your half-sentence and your going on about compassion that you are attempting to shame me - as though upholding the bible's view is in itself a mark of having no compassion.

I do not appreciate it.

[Giles Corey]

"'And there are conservative, traditional marriage oriented, and Christian homes that give rise to homosexual children.'

Yes, but why mention that?"

I was responding in the context of Ryan's post:

"Someone can be 'nurtured' into responding to certain stimuli, even indulging it, to the point where the response is no longer a 'choice'."

If homosexuality is "environmental" then conservative, traditional, Christian families might be expected to have an incidence rate of zero or so.

[Joe]

>We've had heterosexual marriage for centuries in the west - would you say promoscuity has risen or fallen?

Do people have more sex partners per year when the are married or when they are unmarried?

[Mike Westfall]

> I think it only fair to complete
> the quote: " ... most people
> experience little or no sense of
> choice about their sexual
> orientation."

Hence the need for The Law.

...and if you say that Jesus did not express an opinion on the subject of homosexuality, then you really do not understand who Jesus is, or what the Bible is. Read the first chapter of John.

[Joe]

It's not hard to figure out what the Bible is. It's whatever you want it to be.

[Jesse]

Giles,

Sorry I've been slow to respond today. Please consider in 1 Corinthians:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

and in Romans,

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

For this to be exactly what you're looking for, we would have to accept Paul's words as speaking with the authority of Jesus (and to be sure, Paul does claim to be Christ's representative).

Jesus does endorse the male-female model of marriage (in Matthew, also in Mark),

"'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.'"

...

Regardless of our reasons, why should we be forced by law to approve and endorse behavior which we believe to be immoral?

[Jesse]

>> It's not hard to figure out what the Bible
>> is. It's whatever you want it to be.

Is that just what it is to you? What if what it is to me contradicts directly with what it is to you? Who's right? Is it both at the same time?

[Joe]

Who's right? Who knows?

But I suppose that this is all a digression from the content of the original post, so in hindsight, I probably should not have introduced a tangential issue.

Speaking of the original post, what's the point of the post? It seems clear from the comments of those who think homosexuality and/or gay marriage is immoral and/or sinful that they are going to hold their position, regardless of the genetics. That is, the for those making the arguments against gay marriage, etc., those arguments are not affected either way by the genetics, so why bother to post something on the genetics? If you're not influenced either way by the findings of geneticists, why bring them up?

>Why should we be forced by law to approve and endorse behavior which we believe to be immoral?

This happens all of the time. There is a long list of behaviors and institutions that one group or another considers immoral, but they're still legal.

[Giles Corey]

"if you say that Jesus did not express an opinion on the subject of homosexuality, then you really do not understand who Jesus is, or what the Bible is. Read the first chapter of John."

I can read the entire Gospel of John and not find there what you do. That what sets me apart from most correspondents here I suppose. Be well.

[Giles Corey]

"Regardless of our reasons, why should we be forced by law to approve and endorse behavior which we believe to be immoral?"

Because there will be times when we are wrong. This may or may not be one of those times, but there have been other times when conventional morality prohibited marriage between races, classes, and castes; endorsed racism, genocide, and slavery; denied women the right to vote because of their sex, men the right to work because of their religion, and children the right to safety because they were treated as the property of their parents. Times change. This may or may not be one of those times, but it might be. Be well.

[Jesse]

The U.S. federal government does not currently endorse or recognize gay marriages. How does this amount to making them illegal? Are there any laws on the books which make homosexual activity a crime punishable by law?

[John Hannaford]

"The bible is very clear on its teaching on homosexuality. It seems to me that by pointing out this article, your half-sentence and your going on about compassion that you are attempting to shame me - as though upholding the bible's view is in itself a mark of having no compassion."

Mo, I accept that homosexual acts are sin, but that is not the totality of "the bible's view" on how we should relate to people who struggle with this or any sin.

If the Spirit of God dwells in us, if we have been born of God, if God lives in us and His love is made complete in us, then we can't help but love our brother and be moved with compassion for our brother as Jesus was.

Our homosexual brothers do not need our pronouncements nor our sympathy. They need to belong, they need us.

[Joe]

>The U.S. federal government does not currently endorse or recognize gay marriages.

Marriage laws are state laws, so I'm not sure that I see the point of this comment.

[Miki]

"Our homosexual brothers do not need our pronouncements nor our sympathy. They need to belong, they need us. "

Acceptance is not an act of love, contrary to popular belief, and in fact you yourself say that homosexuality is indeed a sin, John. so I refer to a verse in the bible...

1 Corinthians 5:1-5
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord."

Sorry for the long quote, but i felt all was needed. No the truest act of love is to tell them they are wrong, and NOT to accept them. Why is this an act of love? Because out of this they will be forced to rely either on themselves or God, and not on anyone in the church approving of their behavior which would help them continue in their sin. In this way, if a person overcomes themselves and trusts in God, he can be forgiven, and have place in eternal life. Which sounds more like an act of love, making a person feel accepted while they are alive? Or helping a person have eternal life by not accepting their behavior?

[John Hannaford]

"Acceptance is not an act of love ...No the truest act of love is to tell them they are wrong, and NOT to accept them."

Miki, I am not talking about homosexual acts, I am talking about Christian homosexual persons. You speak not just of rejecting their acts but of rejecting them. Do you really mean that?

And while we are speaking about Eternal Life: "This is how we know we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers" 1 John 3:14

[Prince]

Giles,

I'm not sure about your appraoch if that was your point you were trying to make above. But whatever... Who are you to say in what order Christians should do their good deeds...

You said..."Seems to me there are plenty of orphans to clothe, starving to feed, widows to care for, and prisoners to visit - obligations your personal Lord and Saviour said were His explicit expectations for you - before making sure unmarried consenting adults don't do stuff you think is nasty". That is strickly an opinion on your part and I believe it is a pointless one at that.

... "It all goes back to my original questions. Why do Christians draw selectively from the Old Covenant when it suits them"? How do you come to this conclusion in the discusion of gay marriage? The NT is very clear on it. Nobody is taking this moral belief from the OT. I'm not sure where you are getting this...

[Mo]

@ John Hannaford -

"Our homosexual brothers do not need our pronouncements nor our sympathy. They need to belong, they need us."

I'm not really understanding what you mean by this. Can you be more specific?

[Mo]

@ Giles -
"Last I checked Jesus expressed no opinion on homosexuality. Are Christians drawing from the old covenant or the new?"

Here's a good post on this:
http://benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2006/03/03/myth-jesus-never-addressed-homosexual-behavior/

The NT also clearly addresses it in Romans. (Unless for some reason you only read the gospels and dismiss everything else in the NT unless Jesus himself spoke it?)

[Jesse]

>> Marriage laws are state laws, so I'm not sure
>> that I see the point of this comment.

OK, so neither do most states endorse or recognize gay marriages. The point is, I still don't see how this amounts to making such unions illegal. Last I checked, homosexuals don't get arrested for holding a ceremony, pledging their love to each other for so long as both shall live.

[Joe]

Yes, two people can declare their love for each other. But it would be illegal for the members of this pairing to claim the rights and benefits that I have as a result of my marriage to a woman. You can say that you are married, but it is essentially illegal to act like you are married or to expect to be treated like you are married. It's nice that the state won't throw these people in jail for expressing their love, but that's a very small comfort to the couples in question.

But to take this back to where this started...

You said, "why should we be forced by law to approve and endorse behavior which we believe to be immoral?"

This is exactly what was done when interracial marriages were recognized as legal. Your argument is identical to one of the arguments used against interracial marriage. There were a significant number of people who thought that such marriages were immoral, and when interracial couples were allowed to enter into the same legal arrangement that I enjoy with my same-race wife, the state was "forcing" them to "approve and endorse behavior which they believed to be immoral". Now, is it right for the state to force people to approve and endorse interracial marriage when many people consider this illegal?

As I said, there is a long list of behaviors and institutions that one group or another considers immoral, but they're still legal.

[Joe]

Sorry, next to last sentence should end...

"....when many people consider this immoral"?

[Jesse]

Really? In reading the case of Loving v. Virginia, when interracial marriages were legalized, I find the situation was quite different from the modern homosexual scenario:

"...having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime)." (wiki)

The above is a clear example of prosecution for an illegal act. How can one say that failure to endorse a particular type of relationship is equivalent to punishing those relationships? But it seems to me that few gay-marriage advocates recognize this distinction.

[David Hawkins]

>>"Now, is it right for the state to force people to approve and endorse interracial marriage when many people consider this immoral?"

No.

The state is never justified in forcing approval or forcing endorsement of any view on a citizen who does not hold that particular view.

What they can do, however, is force compliance.

Mao Tse-tung - "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."