Is there a gene for ignorance?
I was searching for the studies I mentioned, but my computer crashed. I found lots of references to them, though, in publications including some from major universities, so these data are still widely accepted.
Since even identical twins of homosexuals are more often than not heterosexual, the “gay genes” are just one factor in the individual’s adulthood sexual orientation. The more factors, the greater the chance. Another factor is molestation or other extreme childhood trauma or stress, which not all gays experienced, but so many do compared to straights that it makes no sense to deny the connection. An abnormal genetic predisposition is more likely to be expressed when stress alters childhood brain development. Anotehr is social acceptability. Finally, there is a factor of choice. Many people go through an adolescent bisexual stage, during which they often find that the experiences they have affect the direction they drift in as they reach adulthood. I remember going through that myself. It was the relative availability of the opposite sex and the relative convenience of heterosexuality that settled the matter for me.
Now I’m straight.
It’s a lot like aggression, alcoholism and sleep disturbances, to name a few things. I inherit a gene; it raises my chance of being an alcoholic from one percent to ten percent, say. I grow up under extreme stress and learn insecurity and confusion. That raises my odds from ten to 33 percent, perhaps, and then I also see people around me drink, hear songs that normalize a drunken way of life, and smell alcohol until it becomes familiar and comforting. Then my odds of alcoholism become two in five. So then, adolescence is chaotic and a drink is presented as a normal consolation and anchor to normality. I now have even odds of alcoholism. Should I resist diligently while still a teenager, I will overcome it but never quite be the same as someone who had never craved a drink. It is the path of least resistance not to resist, by definition, so I drink. Each time I drink, switching my brain chemistry and structure to that of a nonalcoholic becomes harder. Eventually, it takes a miracle to make me the same as if I’d never been a drinker, and a lifetime of struggle just to stay sober. But as I go on it gets easier. If I get overconfident I can slip. If I hang out wth friends at a bar, I take care to ask the bartender never to serve me alcohol no matter what I say.
The fact that ex-gays tend to relapse is no surprise, since some misunderstand the nature of conversion and do things like stay over at each other’s houses alone, which is sometimes triggering. Choice sometimes means choice not to feel a temptaion, but far more often it means choice to resist until the determination becomes stronger than the habit and breaks it.
This paper cites 1(one) article (a little less than 1000 I might say) and the link provided for the published study is actually a link to the journal itself, thus, not having any relevance.
As APA is against NARTH, why do you bother posting irrelevant articles posted by the NARTH stuff which cite and distort real psychology articles that have actually been published?
NARTH has quite a history on distorting information and lying to people, that I am surprised that anyone would give it such credibility.
One example. There are A LOT:
Its also true that in the animal kingdom there are few commitments amongst them.
And many wander from place to place and the males of most species do not ever meet their ‘offspring’ nor nurtur them.
And comparing the animal kingdom, there aren’t ‘weddings’ and permanent homes.
Every creature sleeps around and none of them have the aptitude or the intelligence to build houses, create some sort of commerce, rely on other species [except to eat them] and so forth.
So why does the human community compare itself to the animal kingdom time and again.
FWIW - i havent yet heard of animals doing any studies.
When they can compare to our intelligence and skills to build elobrate homes, vehicles, movies, and other technologies such as cell phones and internet…then we’re talking.
But since animals are different from mankind in respect to worshipping God, intellectually understanding what is or is not moral - means comparisons are moot point.
How many humans have intercourse while walking down the street in front of others and keep walking with another hanging on ?
Or how about leaving a lame child on the side to be eaten by predators because they need a hospital?
Sorry - humans really shouldnt compare themselves to the rest of the animal kingdom since we are advanced in many ways.
Even if a ‘gene’ existed - it would be morally perverse.
AND animals do not need to think things thru - but on the off chance one is ‘gay’ or mutated, their species discontinue. [Their own genetics]
Animals usually avoid same sex because their genetics wouldnt pass on any other way.
One other thing regarding the animal’s…
Most will ‘dominate’ another of the same sex. But that could be equivalent to rape. [done to over power] but not for pleasure…
A certain number of ethology studies would contradict you. Are you aware of the exposition held last year by the University of Oslo called “Against Nature?” proving with extensive studies the presence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom? I was fortunate to attend.
Sex without will to bear and raise children is sin.
If you think you cannot help it because of your predetermination I do not understand this.
If a husband can refrain from violating his wife by lust, him being predermined by your very own assumption, too, then why should a homosexual not be able to perform his/her will likewise, given Jesus has the first place!
Well, if you had read my previous post - you would have understood that [imo] the animal kingdom is moot point, because if we compare ourselves to them - and acted as they did, we would all be far removed from morality as taught by Christ.
Animals do not have shame - as humans do - because they didnt partake of any sins nor do they reason like mankind.
As I said - you can see them walk down the road having intercourse in front of all the other animals.
Do humans do that? Wouldnt that be obscene?
Animals procreate and leave [the males] and in some instances [such as sharks] females will leave their young to fend for themselves.
Some animals eat their babies.
Some will leave an injured animal to die or be fed to predators.
So what if the animals can and do all of this - even if humans could probably do the same - we are still held to a higher moral standard…
Yes I read that study, Swedish scientists, It was in a Scientific America issue a few months back, or was it New Scientist. I’ll find it and report back.
You shouldn’t always think in the sense gene. Bio chemical environment in the mothers wombs seem to play a significant role in determining sexual orientation. Or so last I read.
Also by studying twins we can slightly determine how much genetics effects an outcome and how much environment effects an outcome.
IQ for example is only 40 - 60% genetic with the rest being environmental.
It is possible that homosexuality could also be similar.
Surely you know that the brain changes quite a bit over the course of a person’s life, right? Consider: is a depressed person born with a deficit of serotonin?
What, no faith in the scientific community?
I think your simplifying genetics a bit to much. There is no single gene for complicated behavior and environment usually plays a role in most things.
There could be a set of genes that determine sexuality.
But from what the evidence tells us and from observations of other animals. homosexuality is most certainly natural. I don’t think we have yet worked out how sexuality in general is determined.
I could be wrong. I will know more at the end of the year.
Good to see someone who understands on the boards.
Remember environmental also includes biochemical responses and alterations. Even pre-birth.
Yes. They can be.
Wow, public apologies from “ex-gay” ministries.
But we do have the genetic, biochemical and biological structures, responses and progressions similar to other animals. We are animals, we are apes. Why do you think we can do, and do do tests on animals before testing on humans.
So understanding animals sexuality can help us understand our own.
Here it is:
There are also a couple of images of the Brain using a PET scan which demonstrate some of the findings.
Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds
Science Daily (June 18, 2008)
— Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Some psychological tests have shown differences between men and women in the extent to which they employ the brain’s hemispheres in verbal tasks. Other research has hinted that homosexuals may exhibit the tendencies of the opposite sex in brain behavior unrelated to sexual activity.
Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, now report that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women are slightly asymmetric—the right hemisphere is larger than the left—and the brains of gay men and straight women are not.
Positron emission tomography (PET) scans taken by the researchers also show that in connectivity of the amygdala (which is important for emotional learning), lesbians resemble straight men, and gay men resemble straight women. The researchers analyzed the brains of 90 subjects, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess brain volume and PET data partly gleaned from previous olfactory studies.
One possible interpretation of the connectivity pattern in straight men and lesbians is that the amygdala is wired for a greater fight-or-flight response, the authors say.