This past week in St. Louis, two ex-gay organizations, Exodus Intl. and Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out held a Love Won Out conference at a church in MO. What is interesting, though, is this perspective from Alan Sanders, director of behavior genetics at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute in Illinois.
Based on the studies, Sanders estimates that genes account for about 40 percent of homosexuality.
Wow, someone who is quantifying it. Finally, something more than rhetoric.
Uh-oh! God created gays! Oh no! What happens now?
As I said, just because something is genetic doesn't mean it's good – cancers, depression, and aggression have biologic roots, but we still treat them as disorders.
And more importantly, if 60% is environmental, what if it is true that the environmental factors are actually related to gender identity traumas?
BTW, your underlying assumption appears to be that if it's genetic, God made it that way. So I guess your theology would then say that God intends cancers too.
If you are thinking you are presenting a Christian view, you most certainly are not.
If homosexuality is genetic, then that means some people are born with a propensity or tendency to a form of sin.
If the Bible is true, then that means that all people are born with propensities to various forms of sin.
So what do we know now that makes a real difference in the discussion?
Very good question. As I wrote in Is Man Basically Good or Evil, we are both made in the image of God, yet marred by (original) sin. That means some of our genetics is part of God's beautiful creation, and some of it is damaged by generations of genetic degradation from sin.
So how do we determine what is immoral or sinful? Well, first off, whatever leads to sickness and disease and death. Second, we can argue from design in nature, and what leads to life and progeny. Lastly, we can see what leads toward happy, healthy society.
You people are weird.
I wonder why conservative Protestants in the US are so concerned about homosexuality and ignore issues that Jesus actually cared about, like poverty?
My personal explanation is simple: they're not Christians. They only think they are. If we had the rapture so many of them appear to be dreaming about tomorrow, they would fry. Sizzle, actually. Because with the mindless support for "conservative" causes, their hatred and mistrust of gays, minorities, women and social justice they fail the test:
Matthew 7:15-20.
If Christ really was the Son of God, I have a strong feeling there are going to be a lot more flamingly queer secular humanists in heaven than any this lot.
I think this has been addressed previously. The answer is not so simple. Christians are called to salt and light, and they are responding to the more pernicious attacks on our culture, like abortion, homosexual rights (trying to devalue marriage, the foundation of a stable society ;), science's newly adopted materialist views which hinder discovery.
And xians are very involved in feeding the poor and hungry. Liberals would like to cow them into just doing that so that they were inert in other realms of public life. But it's a both and, not an either or.
As I said, just because something is genetic doesn't mean it's good – cancers, depression, and aggression have biologic roots, but we still treat them as disorders.
And more importantly, if 60% is environmental, what if it is true that the environmental factors are actually related to gender identity traumas? -SEEKER
One could also argue ,"is left handedness bad or immoral" it has its roots in genetic and invitro development. Placing value judgements on anything that is genetic in origin is rather arbitrary. I would argue that something is bad if it causes harm to yourself or others. Does left handedness cause harm?..no. Does homosexuality cause harm?…no!
As for the 40% issue, the other 60% is accounted for in how the gene is expressed in utero, not whether the child had an absentee father or not.
May I remind you that 50% of all identical twins are both Gay and 20% of fraternal twins. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/article…
Twin studies are contorversial and probably not conclusive. http://www.google.com/u/NARTH?q=twins&domains=nar…
And comparing sexual activities to left-handedness is probably not a good comparison. Again, you are arguing from genetics as if it is good, while I am not saying that if it is genetic it is bad.
Here is the answer to the question of, Homosexuality – Genetic or Environmental.
Click here
Seeker, I'll move our discussion to this thread since it seems to fit better.
Do hermaphrodites differ from homosexuals from a moral standpoint; and therefore it's not a sin for them to choose their sexual orientation whereas it's a sin for homosexuals to choose theirs? -Cineaste
That's a great question, one I have pondered a bit, but don't have a clear answer for. I doubt that their "abnormality" would be considered sinful. But if not, why not gays who are also genetically determined? That's the question, eh? This is probably why xians push for the environmental cause, because that way, they don't have to deal w/ the complication of genetic causes. -Seeker
But let me ask you a question. Moral values aside, do we think that hermaphrodites have a genetic abnormality, or are they a "normal variation"? See where I am going? -Seeker
I think it's akin to asking whether being left handed is normal or abnormal. I wouldn't characterize hermaphrodites as either, I would say the hermaphrodite condition simply is. Why you ask? Because as soon as we start categorizing them as "abnormal" they become less human than "normal" people, hence easier to marginalize. I realize that what you are really asking is if their genetic code differs from from the majority of humans but I think it's irrelevant because so do left and right handed people. The term "abnormal" worries me because it's as if you are saying, "people born defective."
NARTH -National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. (do you hear the presupposition there?) Read it a few more times if you can`t!
Yes I ran into this organization when doing research on this issue many months ago. It is a Christian organization that promotes reparitive therapy of homosexuality . This is in spite of the APA ruling on this issue as of 1973. Narth exists because Christians cannot accept homosexuality ,plain and simple . This is called Christian Psychology , which isn`t really science at all ,because it starts with the conclusion and works backward, sound familiar? You got it! … Intelligent Design ! Both rely on cherry picking evidence and general ignorance of what constitutes evidence as well as the scientific method.
Thanx Cineaste for the article , It`s rather funny it involved handedness as an example . I pretty much pulled that out of the air myself as an example,their did seem to be a correlation there! I had never read anything regarding comparisons of this nature before !
NARTH -National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. (do you hear the presupposition there?) Read it a few more times if you can`t!
Perhaps you should respond to their arguments rather than resorting to snorting derision of their purpose – ad hominem attacks to not an argument make.
think it's akin to asking whether being left handed is normal or abnormal.
So, your rule seems to be, if there is no obvious illness, or doesn't lead to violence against others, it is a normal variant. That's not a bad bit of logic.
However, I disagree that it is just as innocuous as handedness – sexual behaviors can not be justified merely on genetics. As I said in My Genes Made Me Do It, it's a small jump from there to justifying polygamy, polyamory, sex outside of marriage, and other behaviors. I don't think homosexuality is as inert and morality free as handedness, and I think your analogy may be as valid as my comparing it to man-boy love and such – they are different animals.
But the hermaphrodite (xxy) stuff is something to think about.
Perhaps you should respond to their arguments rather than resorting to snorting derision of their purpose – ad hominem attacks to not an argument make.
Richards delivery was indeed sarcastic however, you still failed to address a valid point he made, NARTH -National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. (do you hear the presupposition there?)
So, your rule seems to be, if there is no obvious illness, or doesn't lead to violence against others, it is a normal variant. That's not a bad bit of logic.
Seeker, don't put words into my mouth. You are misrepresenting what I said.
I don't think homosexuality is as inert and morality free as handedness
At least you seem to accept that homosexuality is as genetic as handedness (I don't see a denial), you just feel that people born this way are innately immoral? You have no other response to the Chandler Burr's article aside from this?
it's a small jump from there to justifying polygamy, polyamory, sex outside of marriage, and other behaviors. I don't think homosexuality is as inert and morality free as handedness, and I think your analogy may be as valid as my comparing it to man-boy love and such – they are different animals.-SEEKER
The primary agent for justifying polygamy has always been religious belief . The fundamentalist LDS church as well as Islam to name a couple. (not that all Muslim sects adhere to this). This is mainly seen as a compliance with doctrine that subjugates the rights of women . Polyamoury is a rare lifestyle choice made by consenting adults concerning how they view interpersonal relationships. Insofar as it does not exploit or harm any parties involved, it is not a moral issue for those not involved. Man-boy love ,as you put it is a clear violation of a minor and is therefor immoral, as is any form of sexual exploitation. Sex outside of marriage is a moral choice that any consenting adult has the right to make ,whether one is responsible concerning consequences of this is a different matter. Cheating on a spouse is a clear harm factor and is therefor immoral.
Lets not forget the abuses of young boys by priests that are covered up in the Catholic church!
gays are hella chill, so chill.
Homosexuality is not in any way natural because natural selection would have heterosexual outcomes in order for a sexual organism to grow on the population level. A species would grow exponentially if it weren't for environmental factors and limits. Homosexuality would not work in this manner so it is a disorder. Some animals reproduce sexually but don't have sex (external fertilization) so they don't encounter this abnormality, but an organism's environment can play a big role when the organism, like a human, actually has to mate. Also, humans don't always have sex for reproduction which is likely another cause of this as a psychological disorder. It's anyones opinion whether or not it's wrong, but it is definitely not normal.