Being gay is in your genes

So, the theory has been reversed. I’m sure there were studies of identical twins that indicated their was no genetic link and that their sexual orientation was a choice. Not really a good research piece, as the two sets of genes ‘at play’ could have resulted from epigenetic changes due to the participants living a homosexual lifestyle.

*dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2559021/Being-gay-DNA-researchers-claim-controversial-new-study.html

That research, the first to find evidence of a ‘gay gene’, created a storm of controversy, which was further fuelled when other scientists failed to find a genetic link.
Dr Michael Bailey from Northwestern University in Illinois, who contributed to the latest study, said it is the biggest of its kind.
He added: ‘Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.
‘Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.’
Despite this, he would not would not object to a prenatal test being developed.
He said: ‘Clearly parents should not be allowed to torture or kill babies. But they can currently choose to terminate a pregnancy early on, so the**y should be allowed to have as much information on the future child as possible.’*

I am not sure if the research is bad, or if the reporting is bad. For example, the Daily Mail says the study was authored by “Chicago University” researchers. However, I have never heard of such a school.

The Daily Mail also quotes Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, as one of the authors. In a different news article about the research, he addresses the twin studies you mention:
The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact. Not all of the gay men in Bailey’s study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.
*
The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother’s DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin.*

While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb. “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice,” said Bailey. “We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved.”

theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

The research seems (I haven’t read the study, so am relying on news reports) to say that genes may be involved, but epigenetic factors are involved as well. The research seems to say that those factors are present in the prenatal environment.

Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds

Homosexuality is only partly genetic with sexuality mostly based on environmental and social factors, scientists believe.

A study found that, while gay men shared similar genetic make-up, it only accounted for 40 per cent of the chance of a man being homosexual.

But scientists say it could still be possible to develop a test to find out if a baby was more likely to be gay.

Dr Alan Sanders, associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University, who led the study said that it was it was an 'oversimplification’ to suggest there was a 'gay gene.’

“We don’t think genetics is the whole story. It’s not. We have a gene that contributes to homosexuality but you could say it is linked to heterosexuality. It is the variation.”

Interestingly no similar genes have been discovered which influence female homosexuality.

“No-body has found something like this in women,” he added.

Dr Bailey said environmental factors were likely to have the biggest impact on homosexuality.

He added: “Don’t confuse “environmental” with “socially acquired.” Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth, and that includes a lot of stuff that is not social.”

I don’t know anyone in my field (mental health) who ever believed that homosexuality was solely attributable to biological factors. THat would be pretty odd as almost nothing in the psycho-social realm is- including heterosexuality.

Homosexuality, like nearly every other psychological schemata is the effect of bio-psycho-social factors formed over a lifetime.

That being said being gay is not a “choice”. It is not something people fall into due to peer pressure. It is a deep seating and fixed orientation.

Yes, you are quite right it is not a choice.

Well, that is one of two possible opinions. What an irony it would be if parents could check for genetic disposition and abort babies they think will be gay. I bet abortion would be illegal within five years.

That’s a cynical (and trumped up) notion I believe.

This thread is a good example of what is wrong in the scientific community and the MSM. The article clearly states that “Being gay could be in the DNA” yet this thread is titled “Being gay is in your genes”

Furthermore, the objectivity of the lead researcher should be questioned given that he states:

‘Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice."

quickly followed by this statement:

"Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.

Furthermore, this study is only preliminary like so many that have purported “suggested genetic” origins of homosexuality yet sold as something more definitive and as such cannot be considered scholarly work.

The behavior is.

Certainly.

For at least some it does involve choice(s).

I am not sure he was the lead researcher, so much as one of the researchers who contributed to the study. That he was willing to speak to the press about the study may have more to do with his personality, which seems inclined to be daring. After all, he is the guy who hired people to engage in live sex shows in front of his classes.

But, yes, I would question his objectively, too.

Well stated.

The flip side of that irony, of course, would be that some of those people who are horrified, disgusted, angered about homosexuality but are against abortion now…may then want it to be legal, so that they won’t have to have a gay child.

.

The operative word is “believe”. I am not a cynic with regard to homosexual temptation. I am a skeptic. I do not believe all that I read. I am also a fellow sinner and I know that my actions, especially sinful ones, can influence my moral compass. It is often pointed out here, and rightly so, that the sin of homosexuality is but one of many sins. I believe this and try to understand that such people who fall in this manner are not necessarily worse than other sinners who fall in other grave areas. Since that is what I believe, I also view it as other sins when it comes to what is genetic, what is something we are “born with”, what extent we are influenced by others, and to what extent we can increase or decrease our desires.

Homosexual promoters in the Church can not have it both ways. If one is just born gay in a way in a that differs from the rest of humanity just being born sinful, then then the claim that it is just one sin among many, the same as adultery, heterosexual lust, greed, etc., is a hypocritical claim. Since I believe the latter, I am a skeptic as to the former.

I prefer less dramatic and what I believe to be a more accurate understanding that one may have a genetic disposition (yet to be proven, but still a matter of science not faith) to sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, or opposite sex, or child, etc., just like one may have a genetic predisposition to violence. Saying one is born gay is too akin to saying one is born a murder, a womanizer, or a child-molester.

Regardless of whether or not a person is born with attraction to the same sex that does not mean that “gay marriage” should be legalized. People can be born with tendencies towards all sorts of sin but that doesn’t mean that the sin should be endorsed in law.

Touche

I went to a clothing store a chose some jeans!:slight_smile:

Being gay is in your spiritual state!

Thank you for stating the Catholic Church’s teaching and approach so clearly. The only thing I would add is a restatement of CC’s position, to treat homosexuals, as we do everyone, with the dignity and respect that ourselves like to be treated with regardless of sins.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.