THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Web Reports 1997
From Serendip
THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did (5).
One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified (7). Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful (7). The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth. Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality (8). As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.
Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a Ò52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men (8). These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and PillardÕs by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a personÕs sexual orientation (8).
Looking at the results of many of the other studies I have discussed, it seems a little strange to me that the student of homosexual siblings who were both male and female came up with similar result as the studies that looked exclusively at male homosexuality. Hamer's study, along with others, have tried to located a gene that influences female homosexuality, but they have been unsuccessful. More importantly, the region of the X chromosome that very possibly could influence male homosexuality does not influence females in the same way. Female heterosexuals merely pass the gene sequence on to their sons. Knowing this, it seems odd to me that there would be such a high percentage of male and female homosexual siblings. Perhaps this suggests that if genetics are responsible for homosexuality, we have a long way to go before we completely understand the gene loci that determine sexuality.
Aside from the scientists who are researching the topic of homosexuality and genetics, there are many other people who have concerns and vested interests in the topic. The information that is being discovered has been used by people in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, there are members of the gay community who are very excited to find that the life-style they live is not entirely a choice that they made, as homophobic people often like to believe. Some homosexuals feel that if the world realizes that homosexuality is something people are born with, just like the color of your skin or your eyes, then people will begin to be more accepting of the homosexual life-style (5). However, on the other hand, there is also a group a people who believe that if homosexuality is in fact genetically linked, then there should be a way to genetically alter homosexuals in order to make them "normal" (3).
Before I started researching this topic on the world-wide-web, I did not realize what a new and controversial issue the genetics of homosexuality was. From tid-bits of news that I had picked up along the way, I thought that scientists had located, without a doubt, a gene that plays a role in influencing sexual orientation. From the research that I have discussed above, that is obviously not the case. I am eager to follow this subject more in the future and see what biology will discover next.
References
1) Genetics and Homosexuality, from the Gene Letter
2) Homosexuality: Genetics and the Bible, by Tom Terry, Cutting Edge Magazine
3) Statement on NIH Genetic Study on Homosexuality, from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
4) New study says genetics influences homosexuality, from St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1995
5) Homosexuality and Genetics, one person's views
6) A commentary on "Research on Sex Orientation Doesn't Fit the Mold"
7) Genetics Press Cuttings, from The Knitting Circle, South Bank University, London
8) The Hypothetical Genetics of Sexual Orientation, by Keith Bell, a Boston University undergraduate
9) Is there a genetic basis for sexual orientation?, from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
10) Lesbianism/homosexuality - a human surival trait, a commentary on the Queer Resources Directory
11) Homosexuality: Its in Your Genes, an article posted on QRD
12) Genetics and sexuality, a news report
Comments made prior to 2007
I am iranian gay in a gay family, my dad was gay and my brothers and the sons of my brothers all are gay, o know something about the homosexuality factors that is can be proven, i have some ideas so i ll be glade if i receive a comment from a scientist working in this area, by the was i am also aducated person and can help more in this matter ... Kamyar, 28 December 2007
Comments
Genes
Hi Bobby,
I just wanted to explain a few things, there are several studies that suggest it even now that the gay gene very much exists in one of the chromosomes. Just because you are not gay does not mean that this is a genetic issue. As you know when your DNA is being made up or being copied mistakes can occur. With those mistakes mutations can happen. Now this small mutation could affect wether your interested in men or women. Some studies even suggest that this gene is dominant. Meaning even if you have a straight Alea (you get one from your mother and father) the gay alea will over power it. Just like with blue eyes. If a blue eyed alea and a brown eyed alea get put together a brown will occur because blue is recessive. But people with brown eyes still have blue eyes? This is because you may not have gotten the same aleas as your brother or sibling. I hope this explains what you were asking about the gay gene.
The flaw in your argument is
The flaw in your argument is that you seem to think everyone is saying "if you have this gene, you will be gay." That's not the case at all. The point is that perhaps if you have a certain gene, you are more likely to be gay. For that statement, at least, there is a significant amount of evidence.
If you believe that being gay is a choice, then why don't you ask your brother when he chose to be gay? And for that matter, when did you choose to be straight? I, myself, am bisexual. I didn't choose to be. It just happened that when I hit puberty, I started thinking, "hey, look at that hot guy" and "hey, look at that hot girl."
That "Gene" ideology can be
That "Gene" ideology can be applied to "Hey look at that hot anything!" . . . Yes, with some people; no male or no female is "hot". People who are like that are not sick; however, those people who go ape-shit crazy over sex with someone has got to need personal professional medical attention. I love NCAA Football; but I bet you that I was NOT born that way, either. I hate to disappoint you but I have watched a lot of College Football in my life, and THERE IS NOTHING sexual about any of it; whether the Quarterback is in the shotgun-position or not . . . And that could even be with the tight-end-in too. There are homosexuals every, every, everyday, going back to normalcy. As far as bi-sexual ANYTHING goes; that has got to be a real correctable mental illness. It just doesn't make any sense to claim that some kind of genetic-mutation could have ever caused such a thing. Medical Science would have discovered something on that by now. It is really an issue to do with nothing but PERSONAL CHOICE!!!
Medical research HAS, for 60
Medical research HAS, for 60 YEARS on the genetics end, been uncovering biological roots to homosexuality that range from a factor of 5.8 in the lowest study, meaning individuals with the biological (in this case a specific gene, q21 on the 2nd X chromosome if memory serves me right, in the mother--see, it's passed through MATERNAL patterns, and it's not surprising that a gay child would have gay uncles on their mother's side at all) pattern happened to report as gay 5.8x as much as the average (that's WELL beyond statistical anomalies, dearie) to... and try not to flip here, TWIN STUDIES that show with the same chromosome a full fledged 100% of the truly identical twins reported being either homosexual or bisexual... the study with the 5.8x excluded anyone with attraction to the opposite sex as it basically was more data than they wanted to deal with, similar to "we'll include in this study Asian teenagers but not Asian teens adopted by white or other-race families" as criteria... so, with 11.4% of the population overall reporting in as homosexual, you think having a study show 66% with that genetic factor be 100% all homosexually oriented and another showing all 100% of TWINS--INCLUDING THOSE NOT RAISED IN THE SAME HOME--being homo/bi... that's not medical science?
Maybe you don't realize it's been discovered because it was before you were born that they laid the groundwork, but Northwest University released their 6th study, which wrapped up in 2009, just a year ago... it included lesbianism, which is still explored;because of women's cycles, face it, the spikes of estrogen-testosterone-aldosterone along with stress hormones ie cortisol across the month, females are very tough to test as they have more "fluid" sexuality and nearly all have attraction to people at certain times of the month that are normally absolutely not their "type" or a good fit, only when their hormones spike... you know, when females go after "bad boys" who usually repulse them etc... that risk taking comes with testosterone spikes; the maternal nurturing and self-preservation is estrogen at work...
Please stop wasting your time with science-void right-wing bigots. They're fighting SO hard to protect a system that only protects one group: WHITE MEN. Frankly, women, ethnic minorities, and gay people all need to take their nations back and stop settling for half the pay because dirty scumbags (and I'm not anti-man; they're my preference, but I'm very anti-power-tripping-anyone and testosterone is the major drive there)... have ruined our culture, taken the freedom of natives and other non-whites, females, anyone perceived as a threat or simply not-a-dumb-fool-like-them getting eradicated, even through suicide or "let her bleed to death; if she can't carry a child to term, God's not going to waste our time with her presence" tactics that sound outrageous but are the current right-wing candidates, Huntsman an exception I think (certainly not "let them die; they chose to be poor/sick/denied coverage" Ron Paul and NEVER Santorum/Perry/Romney or holy crap hypocrite Bachmann... good grief, it's no wonder people have such lack of curiosity about anything but a book full of contradictions that mind you a MONARCHY explicitly altered to favor only their political policies, that bible that doesn't condemn consent-based homosexuality... it condemns PEDERASTY, which btw was common the entire time its contents were being shared down... but hey, no biggie, I only learn FROM THE SOURCE, the HEBREW and ARAMAIC and GREEK sources... if you aren't reading the real thing, please don't be its spokesperson, and likewise, I spent a decade getting medical education (the rest was required at the religious undergrad uni), as have my colleagues... want to start playing with "Medical Science" as if that vague term means anything? Go ahead, dear... tell me what causes fat buildup in the outermost layer of tissue? What about surrounding our vital organs? What dietary modifications are absolutely crucial for preventing obesity and the related diabetes? I'll give a hint: EMF: EAT MORE FAT. That's one thing we're doing wrong... but what is the REAL killer? Your turn. I've got all the textbooks I teach from near-breaking my bookshelves. Please do share your "Medical Science" expertise about the "something" it "would have discovered...on that by now."
The issue for you is ignorance and willful ignorance at that--you're a loaded weapon, and sadly, being part of the majority at the moment, the blood of Billy Lucas and the other rash string of suicides is on YOUR ignorant hands. You aren't ignorant anymore. Go do something to CORRECT YOUR ERRONEOUS WAYS and SAVE THOSE KIDS FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU already.
Please, please do...
Actually, because
Actually, because homosexuality is so rare, in this case the whole gay brothers thing would lend itself to suggesting that homosexuality is genetic. I say this in light of the fact that there is no statistic correlation between. Being raised by gay adoptive parents.
You contradict yourself to say "you were influenced at a youn age to be gay" and "you made the choice to be gay".
I never made a choice to be straight. When I was in kindergarten, I though girls were pretty and it never crossed my mind that men were good looking.
Maybe that was just influenced upon me, but it was never a choice that I was in control of. If you can't control the choice, it's not a real choice now, is it.
Agree but Disagree
We actually agree that homosexuality is not a choice, and that you don't learn it at a young age but that rather it is inherent. It can't be "influenced upon" a person because people experience so much of the same stimuli, and in a straight world, everyone would choose to be straight. We don't see gay parents producing gay children, so it is not learned. It is genetic.
However, homosexuality is not that rare. I believe from what I have read, heard, and experienced that at least 10% of the population is gay.
Whether Homosexuality Is Natural
rebll: I actually wasn't saying I agree with you that homosexuality isn't a choice - I was saying that to a different poster. Of course with your views, we will disagree.
To say that homosexuality is immoral, offensive, and perverted is just an opinion, of course. Just like calling me an idiot. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Here are some facts. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is a genetically-influenced trait. You relate it to celibacy and vegetarianism. It's slightly different but in a way the same. Allow me to explain:
The choice to remain celibate and the choice not to eat meat are choices. Those choices may be influenced by certain genetic patterns or traits: perhaps a low sex drive that makes it easier to refrain from sex, a natural aversion to meat products, what have you.
Now the choice to have homosexual sex is also a choice - just like any kind of sex - you don't HAVE to do it. But the choice of homosexual sex is influenced by the genetic trait of homosexuality. And your statement that "Homosexual parents DO produce homosexual children at least twice as much as hetrosexual parents" supports that.
Now your jailhouse example doesn't provide any evidence to the contrary. Here is why people may be more likely to "become" homosexual in prison. Men don't have the option to have sex with women, so their only choice for any kind of interpersonal sexual pleasure is to have relationships with other men. The environment promotes more of the genetic influence of homosexuality and bisexuality to manifest, hence why there appears to you to be more "choice" of homosexuality in prison, or what you call "perversion."
When it comes down to it, everything we do is a choice, right? But also everything we do is influenced by our genetics, so you have to put it in perspective. Now whether you agree with something or not, that's your opinion. And with your opinion that homosexuality is perversion, of course you will be more likely to say it is a choice.
Finally, I simply don't follow your effort to suggest a "similarly possible genetic link" between homosexuality and pedophilia. I thought you didn't think homosexuality was genetic.
The Genetics of Homosexuality
Unfortunately you're an idiot. We do not agree that homosexuality is not a choice, it most certainly IS a choice, just as celibacy, or vegitarianism is a choice. Homosexual parents DO produce homosexual children at least twice as much as hetrosexual parents. Homosexual parents just make the choice easier because the children ARE TAUGHT that homosexuality is okay simply because the parents ARE homosexual. In prison it is quite common for a weak, "pretty" man to become homosexual from the "influence" of other homsexual inmates and once turned, these people rarely, if ever, go back to being straight. However, the influencing homosexual inmates are almost never homosexual before or after incarceration. This is highly suggestive that homosexuality is really merely perversion. It's immaterial whether homosexuality kills or not, many genetic diseases don't necessarily cause death. It also makes no difference what percentage of the population are queer, 1% or more of the population are pedaphiles, of which there is a similarly possible genetic link as with homosexuality. Pedaphilia doesn't in itself cause death, does that make it okay? There is a very high correlation between xyy chromosomes and violent behavior in men, especially in the case of rapists (whether of men or women), does this make violent behavior such as rape acceptable as long as one has the xyy chromosome? The point is, no excuse, including genetics, can justify immoral, offensive, or perverted behavior.
Oh come on.. This is absolute
Oh come on.. This is absolute bogus. Does science use the Bible or any other religious text to support any of its arguments? The christians believe God frowns upon such relationships and as such, they will be smited. Let me ask you this, why is there such thing as a gay strip club. Wouldn't 'God' be able to look down upon this and with one almighty foot just step on it? If being Gay is genetic, which new research is supporting, then the Bible as the world knows it would be rocked to its core. Australia has just started to allow gay marriage in the Capital and I hope to see it spread to the outside world. Does society think that Insanity is something to be shuned at? No. It accepts it as nothing more than something that people can not control. Why isn't homosexuality viewed in the same light.
I hope that the Chrisitans can grow up and stop playing this immature game of, "Ew. You're gay. Stay away from me."
Medical Science Uses Prayer . . .
Medical Doctors have from time-to-time turned to their patients who have strong Christian Morals and asked them to pray. They have readily admitted that many times when medical science could no longer be depended on, the patient would do more than just survive; history has shown that several times the patient would come out with a strong bill-of-health that would shock the medical field; if only medical science would admit it, outright. They usually don't for political reasons.
Genetics and Homosexuality
What IS absurd is saying that because homosexuality is genetically linked (which has NOT been proven) it is therefore perfectly natural and permissible and that nothing should be done to alter these people "born" to be gay. If this IS anything but a complete absurdity, then WHY do people try to find cures for the approximately 142 genetic disorders like cancer? Weren't these people "born" to have these diseases? Why should we seek to change this? Aren't we just being 'disorderaphobes'? Further, what possible justification can there be for the transgender, if they were female in a male body (or vice versa) it was a matter of genetics and they should just live with it because that's the way they were "BORN"! As for the derision of religious beliefs opposed to homosexuality, where do you get off judging them, when you deny them the same right?!? As the character on the Seinfeld show said, "Why should I care if you're not religious, I'm not the one going to hell." Now, I'm not religious, but they have a right to their beliefs as much as you do. Especially, since your belief that homosexuality is based on genetics and vis a vis unavoidable, is not any more rooted in fact than the religionist's belief that it is an aboration (although, I don't know of ANY religion that accepts homosexuality as natural and not an aboration). Therefore, IF cancer and other diseases are genetic aborations that should be cured, why NOT homosexuality? Just because YOU think homosexuality is not an aborant disease, DOESN'T make it so.
Faulty Reasoning
Your position is flawed. The comparison to cancer and other 'diseases' is inaccurate. Cancer kills, diseases injure the functioning of the human organism. Homosexuality does not. The only "malfunction" associated with homosexuality is that it would not encourage reproduction of the species. And to the contrary, what if Homosexuality is one advantage that our species has developped to curb over population?
As an aside, I dont agree that religious people should have the "right to believe" anything they want. Belief in something does not make it true. (For centuries man believed, as religion had professed, that the sun revolved around the earth). Should we be protecting that belief? Teaching it? I much prefer a society that promotes accuracy, reality -- truth! Shouldnt we be seeking the truth and proctecting that? Shouldnt we be trying to establish (and evolve toward) a better society that incorporates the best circumstances possible for all humans--based on real analysis of actual causes and effects? Rather than protecting ideas--just because they believed?
Respect
I am a highly religious Christian, and I care deeply for people, but what I have found in the mist of all this argument is that it does nothing. Everyone makes their own choices, everyone has their own beliefs, all you can do sometimes is love one another; you cannot press your own beliefs onto someone else. If certain individuals just had respect for peoples personal choices/beliefs, there wouldn't be so much conflict. Not everyone thinks the same, and you just have to deal with that.
respect
I totally agree with you, I'm not a strict christain but I do believe everyone has a right to believe what they want, I respect everyone, I dont like issues. Disrespect causes wars, which I am against cuz people get hurt and so will the environment I just glad there are other people who actually respect others :) And I heard, not sure if it correct or not, but i when the females body gets pregnant for the first time the body doesnt know what it is and feminizes it and the more kids you have, like guys for example, can turn out gay, dont know if it true but in a way i can see that as happening too, i like to research lol sorry
No, I don't have respect for
No, I don't have respect for people's beliefs if those beliefs are:
-based on faith
-involve harming others
-limit free speech
-hateful
Also, the idea that "not everyone thinks the same" is irrelevant.
If what you belief has no basis in fact, you have no reason to believe it, regardless of "how you think".
Muslims can't except this
Muslims can't except this scientific fact, because all religious bigots who follow their holy books which was written by holy men are all straight thus why religion promotes heterosexuality and death to the gays.
I was once amongst those religious bigots, but now i understand people is people, its none of my business what a gay man does behind closed door although it is annoying to see all that homo crap on tv all the time.
lol. i see more hetero crap
lol. i see more hetero crap the gay on tv. seems a little hetero-sexist me thinks. lol. turn the gay channel off and you might see something else instead.
To begin with, there is no
To begin with, there is no such thing as "hetero" anything unless you have a homo something. It's like saying the opposite of a door is what? . . . A wall? I don't think so. You don't have an opposite unless the door is OPEN and then the opposite is CLOSED. Nice try. No one is heterosexual. Everyone is as is. If they are not then there is something wrong with them. They are probably homosesual; but who's to say? If they are NOT homosexual, then of course, if that is the topic; then they are heterosexual. But you can't have heterosexuals if everyone is the same and they are NOT homosexual. It's impossible.
Christianity
Christianity is a cult, a cancer and to allow it into your life is like allowing a serial killer in, eventually it will destroy you.
Wow
That's an extremely broad comment to make. You can't just make an assumption about an entire group of people just because you think it's true. That's just as wrong as saying "all gays try to rape little boys" or saying "all athiests eat babies and worship satan". I'm proud to say that I consider myself a Christian, and I feel insulted that you would say that. I would also just like to say that I accept homosexual people, and I even have homosexual friends.
Right the wrong.
I've been the way I am since as far back as I remember. Feminine, exclusively sexually attracted to men, always preferred womens clothes, and when I was old enough, i had a sex change operation to "right the wrong" that I felt had been cast upon me.
Your should consider my testimony in this discussion because I have lived these issues. I write not for my own convenience, glory, or recognition, but to inform those who question why and how this condition comes upon a person.
I've had to dig my way through the influences of the church, the world, my family, the medical community, and the Bible to come to the great peace of mind I have today about who I am and why I was given this partiucular "cross to bear".
Because death has befallen all of us, it is the responsibility of us all to find out why death came to the human race, and in turn brought all manner of destructive conditions upon us. We know there is great meaning in our lives, just as there is great pain. There are many out there with their own brand of "answers". But until you get down to the brass tacks of why we live and why we die, a discussion of whether one chooses what sex they are attracted to, or whether it is assigned at birth, is just folly and conjecture.
I challenge all who read this to search for the reason they have been born to die. Then the answers to questions of sexuality, and so much more will be revealed.
I've dedicated my adult life searching for the answers to these very basic questions, and the answers haven't come easily. I know now that there are forces in the way of clear answers. These obstacles can be overcome. If you are reading this you are searching.
A good place to begin is the beginning. One of the great keys to understanding why genetics are the way they are is the Book of Enoch. Great forces have kept this knowledge hidden through the ages, but a greater force has made sure it is available for our consideration. Read it and follow where it leads you, and you will find your answers, your purpose, and your peace on earth.
homosexuality, genetics, Nephilim
In response to "acceptance and decline", posted 12/29/2009: I tend to agree with this position. I am an RN, and my son, now deceased, was gay. I saw his struggles and his heart wrenching attempts to become straight. I am also a born-again Christian, as was he. I believe that the blood of Christ covers all sin if we believe in Him and ask for forgiveness. However, I also believe that sin is basically a choice: gay or straight, it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage. Period. I will also admit that I am as guilty as the other guy in this; I am not proud of this behavior, but I made the conscious choice to engage in it.
Anyway, I agree with the genetics explanation given in this post. I want to add one more thing. What if, just what if?? transgenics comes into play here? Every heard of the nephilim and what happened between women and angels before the flood? Why was Sodom and Gomorrah supposedly destroyed? What if the pure genetic code created by God was corrupted in this way back to nearly the beginning of mankind? What if, in fact, this corruption continues in some forms today? Look up transgenics and what scientists are doing in this field- you may be appalled.
I do NOT believe that ALL homosexual activity is generated by genetics. I am convinced that in many cases it is either a conscious choice to participate in an "off-limits" sexual thing just for the thrill, a result of some early physical or psychological trauma, or other unknown (to us) cause.
I will also put in here that I know of one Pentacostal Pastor who is the father of identical twin boys that I met a couple of years ago. They were six years old at the time. One of these young boys already displayed some mannerisms and speech identifiers at this young age. I would bet $100 that child will face the awful existence in the future of being the gay son of a Pastor. I can only imagine what lies in store for him. I am positive he made no choice to be what I am sure he will become. How sad.
check out the statistics on
check out the statistics on one twin being gay and the other being the same. very interesting :)
Just let people be
Everyone should be proud of who they really are, and people should stop trying to push their religion on everybody that does not fit their mold. If you think homosexuality is wrong, then more power to you, but do respect the faith, and the position of those that differ from your standpoint. And, this is for those who believe. Some people do not believe, so what are we going to do, place a gun to their heads? And we should not be so self righteous as to believe we are ABSOLUTELY right.
The Bible is prone to interpretation and much of that interpretation has been made by very conservative thinkers. The most important message is to love one another, and what really matters is what is in your heart. Jesus himself spoke about this in the Gospels. Once a person starts demeaning another person, they are hurting themselves, for only God knows our hearts, and for that matter our biology. Faith, unlike dogma, is ultimately a unique and personal relationship between God and each and every one of us. There are many things that simply we do not know, but what we do know is that is not Jesus like to start demeaning people, or making them less than us, just because we "think," they are sinning. People should mind their own business and look at their own "transgressions." If Jesus did not do it, why should we? He gave the complete opposite example, and that was again, to love one another.
I personally believe that it is genetic in nature. But it should not matter, there have always been GBLT people and there will always be. Let us let them live with all of the rights and privileges that the rest of us have. We need to stop being paranoid, and the GBLT people need to feel proud of who they are and what they can contribute to society, because they are here for a reason and do come to Earth with a purpose. Let us not bring the bulldozer on them, if you do not agree, respect, but do not impose.
WOOT! YOU GO BOY!! Why is a
WOOT! YOU GO BOY!! Why is a belief stronger than scientific facts? hmmmmmm. check out the youtube video "Get Educated About Homosexuality" really really good! love it! :)
acceptance and decline
Is acceptance and non-acceptance of homosexuality the result of influence of strong leadership and public influence or is it a result in the rise and fall of genetic occurrence, or a combination of both?
Here's an interesting observation.
If indeed sexual preference is genetically coded then homosexuality as a percentage of population may be in flux over many generations as the numbers of homosexuals rises and falls with acceptance. If homosexuals are not reproducing due to acceptance then the gene is not being carried forward. If they are being persecuted then they will be forced into heterosexual relationships and the gene occurrence will rise.
Our society today accepts homosexuality. This acceptance may be either that our society is now enlightened and more tolerant to differences or that the percentage of people who are homosexual is sufficiently large enough to sway opinion. Today gay men and women can openly bond without, or at least with much reduced, fear of retribution. Only a few generations ago it was illegal to be gay. Being 'outed' would mean jail and, or, certainly to be ostracized from society. To reduce this risk, gay men would either chose the priesthood or other profession where being single would be normal and acceptable, or marry. And as many did take the marriage option, it would be likely that they would mate. The genetic make-up would then be passed along to the next generation and in time the percentage of gays rises to the point of acceptance.
As we are now in a time of acceptance it will be more likely that the passing of this gene will decline as gay men and women will not be forced into unions with the opposite sex. And over a few generations the decline will mean that the percentage will fall so low as reduce the occurrence of the homosexual gene. And in doing so there will be less gays to defend themselves from religious and, or, societal persecution. Once again gays will be forced to live heterosexual lives and to carry on the gene.
History has shown that acceptance of homosexuality has ebbed and flowed over time and it may be for this reason.
There is always the same
There is always the same debate over a specific question and the relation of it to nature vs nurture issue.
Just look at the cases of twin studies and the correlation found on them, nothing else to say.
Homosexuality and the Bible
I belive there are a couple questions that haven't been asked.
1. Who wrote the bible? (more specifically, the Old Testament)
Men, not God.
2. Who translated the bible?
Men, not God.
3. Isn't it a common belief that the Bible, as we know it and have been
exposed to it (both Old and New Testaments) is incomplete?
There are complete books that "The Church" did not feel were appropriate
and as a result were excluded. (does anyone here know what's missing)
Thanks in advance for the feedback. (both negative and positive)
well done :)
well done :)
Response to your taking issue with the Bible
You seem to take issue with the fact that men wrote the Bible and interpreted the Bible. Have you considered the alternatives? If it were not men, would it be angels who wrote it? Would it be some animal? Or do you take issue with the fact that it was not women who wrote the Bible? Who else would have written the Bible if it were not men? Yes, men are fallible, but the fact that it was written by men over thousands of years and has survived and thrived in many cultures including our own, is an amazing positive aspect not a negative one. Because it was written by men guided in a special way by God, the Bible sill stands. Through the centuries but especially the last two centuries, many have tried to disprove or discredit the Bible only to demonstrate the Bible's authenticity and practicality for people in every culture and era. If you know something about the Bible you know that the Bible itself is a picture of a special relationship or cooperation between God and mankind. It is an example of the Messiah- Immanuel -God with us, God in us, the incarnation of deity. God coming into human form -if you choose to believe this. I have come to believe it was God's intent to make his message understandable and practical for people so He had people write it. Regarding the canon, and other books that have not been included, it is those books that you should target as not having the ring of authenticity. Men through the ages have agreed that those books are the ones that are spurious because of textual criticism -the criteria used to verify a a book of the Bible as authentic (canonical). The Bible itself (as well as many archeological findings: Ebla archive, Dead Sea scrolls, House of David inscription, Amulet scroll, etc.) has this ring of authenticity, but it is more than a subjective aspect. With its message and form it demonstrates that being written by men is not a negative aspect, but a positive one demonstrating that even though it was written by imperfect men over thousands of years, they all say pretty much the same thing -a message that is out of this world- and it has not been disproved, but rather believed and tested for life and "street-toughness" by millions upon millions.
Reply to reply on taking issue with the Bible
The fact that the Bible has stood for centuries is no testament to it's correctness, nor truth. Many other religions have stood for millenia, not just centuries, does this give them greater weight? It is impossible to defend something that must be accepted on faith. Muslims believe that the Pentateuch is true, but they also believe that the Jews falsified much of the books in order to establish themselves as "God's chosen people." Both the Jews and the Muslims say you must accept what they say as true "because God said so." Well, God hasn't spoken to me at all, so how do I decide who's right? Therefore, even though neither the Jews nor the Muslims accept homosexuality (nor Christians), it is not possible to make a social judgement based on those beliefs. However, it is interesting to note that homosexuality has rarely been accepted as natural in ANY society or by ANY religion.
I truly mean no disrespect
I truly mean no disrespect and can only imagine some of the heartache that people who are gay have gone through. I am heterosexual and am in no position to dispute anything. However, I must take issue with the position that there is a gay gene. There may be - there may not be. However, as of today there is no scientific study that has been replicated to indicate with 100% accuracy that there is a genetic reason for one's sexuality. Just because you'd like something to be true doesn't make it true.
will be soon enough :) thanks
will be soon enough :) thanks for the comment though :)
There have been very few
There have been very few replicable studies that have been able to pinpoint with 100% accuracy the location and effect of genes on certain psychological or personality characteristics. One needs to keep in mind that all organisms on earth are incredibly complex beings--and that sexuality and the choices we make can be determined by a number of biological factors. Even wild animals in nature experience attraction to members of the same sex. Due to the fact that a great deal of wild animals act mostly on instincts, we can assume that a sexual preference can be attributed to an innate sexual instinct towards members of the same species.
It seems there are far more correlations supporting the theory that genetics can effect sexuality. I don't think anyone is saying there is a "gay gene." I think they are saying that your genetics effect the way you perceive the world: your likes, dislikes, moods, emotions, etc. In addition, there is a great emphasis on nature-nurture in today's society. The fact that today's society is more accepting of homosexuality and that it is increasingly seen in mainstream media can account for more homosexuals feeling comfortable with expressing their innate sexual feelings--which may even be mixed between both sexes--explaining how people who have been closeted homosexuals in the past have had families and sexual relationships with those of the opposite sex.
I don't think anyone "wants" or "doesn't want" any of this to be true. But I think the ultimate question is why do we like the things we like? Yes, animals are generally created to be attracted to the opposite sex for reproductive purposes (in our genes). This can also account for homosexuality. Perhaps some were created by a genetic defect (defect merely meaning deviation from the norm) to be attracted to the same sex.
If someone asked you, as a heterosexual male, why are you attracted to women? What would you say? Because it's right? Because you made the choice? No--you'd say it's simply the way you feel.
AS OF 10 YEARS AGO WE WERE
AS OF 10 YEARS AGO WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE GENE THAT INDICATED ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE. RESEARCHERS ARE NOT ALWAYS WILLING TO COMMIT TO 100%, KIND OF LIKE THE WEATHER MAN. MOST PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T FOUND IT, DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST. AS TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT IS DISCOVERED.
What?
I still don't understand why some people can't get over the fact that not everyone likes what they like or are how they are. It doesn't matter if it's genetics or whatever. How you feel about someone, regardless, isn't because it was your decision, you just do.
...and the ancients probably just married and had children because they HAD to. And in those days if you didn't belong you ended up dead.
Just ignore this... I mean,
Just ignore this... I mean, Homosexuality is not a gene, as I think it's merely a choice. BUT! I believe it's how you think of the same sex. All I have to say is, you can't help on who you fall in love with, whether it be male or female. I find it really terrible to be commenting on such things. I mean... What if you were gay, but you were scared to admit due to death in some countries?
Sadly, it's really sad not to be able to accept the fact we have been changing since the beginning of time...
I Have to Agree
I have to say when I started reading what you said I got mad, but I agree with you. I am a homosexual male. I don't know if its a gene or not, but what I do know is that no matter how hard I tried all my life, I felt disgusted by women when it came to sex. I'm not trying to argue it's a gene. I had to comment though because you're right. Even if it is a choice, why does everyone care so much? If I choose to go to Hell for eternity because an all mighty being tells me how I feel is wrong, okay. Chances are if I told you that smoking a cigar was unhealthy, or eating a McDonald's cheeseburger will make you fat, you would still smoke and eat. The only difference I see is that my side doesn't hold meetings once a week and stand on street corners handing out health bibles making everyone feel bad about themselves.
I have known I was gay since
I have known I was gay since I was 4 years old. It was probably the very first thing I learned about myself. My brother is gay. My maternal cousin is gay. Paternally, I have both a gay aunt and uncle. You think it's just coincidence?
Sexuality is without a doubt fluid. I have enjoyed sex with and have loved both men and women. But when I fantasize... it's always the ladies. Quit worrying about falling in love with a penis or a vagina. When the right human being comes along, you'll know. Don't settle- you'll end up breaking that person's heart.
So what all of the tests
So what all of the tests have proven thus far is that there might be a chance of genetics possibly having an effect on homosexuality kinda sorta?
As the study states, homosexuality has been around for a long time. Roman, Greek, Sailors and countless other cultures and societies use to practice it. HOWEVER, these occurrences took place mostly in the absence of women or when there were too few women for the men and vise verso. but when the chips were on the table, the men still married and had children with women.
three main reasons ancient cultures used homosexuality are: (this applies to both men and women)
1) humiliation
2) to establish dominance
3) to satisfy carnal needs in the absence of women
I am a woman and I was in a
I am a woman and I was in a homosexual relationship. I was certainly in love, did not want to be gay, but I ended up sleeping with a woman for a full year. I could not help it.
However, I traveled in the summer and worked in a place with more guys around my age. There I realized that I was developing real sexual interest and desire for these men. Changing my environment and interacting more with guys have definitely affected my sexuality. I broke up with my girlfriend. Of course, when I know that I can be straight, I would not want to choose to be gay.
I have been in contact with one of the guys and I am even thinking of settling down with him and getting married. (I have never had sex with anyone other than that one woman, because I did not want to).
Here is the question: Is sexuality fluid? If my environment changes and I am around more women, will I find women attractive again? Am I doing any injustice to the man I am planning to marry?
I am sorry, but in my case, I just don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. Though I definitely believe that I can't help who I develop sexual desire for. It can be a specific man or a specific woman.
It doesn't matter
whether a person is homosexual because of genetics, environment and learned behaviors, or choice is irrelevent. if homosexuality is what makes an individual happy then the rest of us should accept that with no questions asked. we should each live our lives for what we feel is right and let others do the same.
Having a hard time understanding...
I've been reading on this for a while now. Some say they have definitive proof through research that homosexuality is purely genetic. There are others who claim the opposite with similar experiments. There are those who take the middle ground and say there is a genetic element but environment/experiences/relationships play a large factor also.
I am sick to death of hearing all of these people who have "decided" that research shows one or the other when there is CLEARLY contradictory evidence on BOTH sides in MANY countries through MULTIPLE tests and surveys and experiments.
Would you open your minds please and stop acting like children? There is too much contradictory evidence to know for sure! STOP picking the side that works best for you just because you want an excuse to feel the way you do. STOP IT. You are not helping your cause by looking like a fool.
In the long run, it will be nice to know. BUT WE DON'T KNOW YET. I for one have seen evidence on both sides of the argument and then seen it flipped completely around. If you are all gonna pick sides on scientific evidence that has yet to securely hold it's conclusion, we may as well bring religion back into the conversation and argue over whether God exists or not. Hell, lets argue over the gender and sexual orientation of the higher power. The arguments will be the same. "GOD IS. I've seen evidence." and "GOD IS NOT. I have seen evidence."
For what it's worth, I believe most of us are born with a predisposition to swing one way or the other on that orientation chart. I believe that predisposition solidifies more firmly as we age but I believe that trauma can offset the balance (as evidenced by research on abused children). BUT THAT DOESN'T ENCOMPASS EVERYONE. There is still so much we don't know.
Science is always a compilation of fact and theory...
The facts will always be there, it is just the theories that may differ based upon the observations. In many cases, whence you add up a number of complimentary theories, science fact is made. For example, say 10000 years ago, "science" accepted the fact that the sun rose and set with a predictable rhythm, but had many "theories" about how many times, how long, etc.. Some centuries later, adding to the incontrovertible fact of the sun, observations were made proposing a geocentric view of the solar system thus debunking previous theories. Some years later heliocentric theory came next, which turned into fact, so now we had two facts: the predictability of the sun and the fact that it was the center of the solar system. But we had no facts of the heavens other than the theories that abounded. In time, with the proper heliocentric and sun observation facts, we came to accept the fact that the heavens did not revolve around us but that in fact the heavens were composed of trillions of stars. But many centuries of accepted fact led up to (taking the scientific method into account here) that our observed universe was the Milky Way galaxy (a theory as it turns out). Up until the early 20th century the facts led to the theory that the Milky way was our entire universe, and we were alone. Edwin Hubble quickly discovered that there were galaxies outside of our own, thus taking all the existing facts (and throwing out now debunked theories) and creating the new fact that we live in an expansive universe.
I don't think there is anyone in this world (that is in their right mind at least) that does not accept that the universe is indeed real, and there are 100%, incontrovertible scientific facts about it. Over the centuries, what we have discovered is that theories will come and go, and often many of the complimentary theories form facts down the line (take the search for background radiation using early radio telescopes -- the so called calling card of the birth of big bang). And at some point, we will find out that indeed we are not alone in this universe.
In summary, homosexuality obviously has a genetic connection. There is not a SINGLE ONE connection. That theory, when put to the test and scientific method, would (and has I believe) fail(ed) horribly. That is what the religious right clings to and THAT is what they teach and want the world to believe. What ever happened to Jesus' love and acceptance for all mankind. Sin or not, we are all sinners in God's eyes, and no sin is worse than the other so long as you accept that Jesus the Lord "died" for your sins. Remember that the bible is man-made, and man-authored by men who depended upon memories reaching only as recent as 30 years from their discussions with Jesus, thus no man can tell another what is right or wrong based on their interpretation of the bible. We are all sinners, but it is our duty to live the best life possible in service to our fellow man and live by the Golden Rule. Now THAT is incontrovertible FACT.
Everyone has choices and my worldview
I would like to pre-face this with: I am a Bible-believing person and a chemist. The comments that I am about to make are sure to draw ire and ridicule from both side of this discussion, so ... here goes.
I am, I believe different from many "true" followers of Christ in that I do think genetics plays a part in homosexuality. That comes as a great shock to many I am around, so I rarely discuss it, but I do when I see fit. However, I also, believe that God's word is infallible, so how can I reconcile these differences. Genes are said to be the root cause of many things in our society. Some families have strong predisposition to drink alcohol or engage in risky behaviors. Some families' genes predispostion them for heart disease, etc. My family is one that has an extremely high rate of diabetes, type 1 and 2, and as a precaution I have chosen to be more careful in my diet and exercise. This is something I find very difficult. But, the choices are mine to make. As far as homosexuality goes, I think myself and some others may feel like the choice isn't in what or who you are, but how you chose to live your life. For a Bible believing person, who feels that they are gay or is gay, however you want to say it, that person either chooses to live within God's law or not. The alcoholic has the same choice, the adulter too. It isn't who we are that is the problem sometimes, because God say that we are all sinful and fall short of his glory. To NOT participate in behaviors contrary to His word take stregth that we do not have on our own. It take a relationship with Him through Jesus.
Thanks for letting me post. I appreciate you reading even though I know I am probably making many of you angry. Please know though that I keep homosexuals in my thought often. I feel they do need the true love of Christ, not some man's made up version of Him. Thanks again!
In reply: I believe very much
In reply: I believe very much in Jesus. I also believe the Bible is an amazing tribute to God and his works. I also believe we need much of the guidance and wisdom listed within its pages. However, to accept all of the words written within "literally" is not rational. The Bible should be taken as a historical reference, not as an all-encompassing view of what God has done for us.
Please bear in mind that the present bible was written thousands of years after the occurences within transpired. Additionally, there is over a four hundred year span of time between the old and new testament.
The old testament was written first, from an oral passing of knowledge from one generation to another. Then, recorded in "runes". Then, runes interpreted and written by the hand of man. It is simply not possible for "vagrancies" and "emotionally influenced interpretations" to have occurred. So far as I know the only thing written by "God" in the old testament is the "Ten Commandments" and I see no reference to homosexuality or alcoholism listed in said. Additionally, man edited, reviewed and chose which "books" should be included in the Bible.
The new testament does not support your emotional bigotry and that is in essence what you are expressing. Just because you cannot understand something gives you no right to tell others they are not living within God's Law. Do you walk on water, have a crown of thorns, or holes in your hands and feet? If the answer is no then you are not in a position to judge anyone, only God can do this.
When considering homosexuality remember your own words. Watching your diet and exercise program may help with type 2 diabetes however it will not prevent type 1. There is no "choice" offered there if you have it you have it. Just as homosexuality is not simply just a "choice."
Homosexuals who have denied themselves often marry and attempt to engage in a "normal" family life. Unfortunately, often this family will be torn apart when the homosexual can not longer "pretend." Is this what you are trying to promote?
Many christians promote the notion that people should marry and not "live in sin." Yet this same group will prevent a homosexual couple from marrying. Aren't you then promoting the same thing you are trying to prevent.
I do not care one iota if homosexuality is genetic or not. To not accept the existence of homosexuality is ignorance. To believe that what you do not like about it will "make it go away" is foolish. To discriminate against something you do not understand is pathetic. To claim an understanding of homosexuality is a lie, unless you are homosexual.
You can "choose" to do what you will however, please refrain from the absurd notion that you have a clue what God feels about this. You and I simply are not part of his inner circle.
FYI: I am a heterosexual man (not a chemist however, I a member of MENSA), married with children. None of my children are homosexual (I'm sorry guys, but, thank God they are heterosexual for the heartache this saves them.)
Wait a minute now...
Okay. I CHOOSE not to get cancer.... even though it runs rampant in my family's genetics. Wait, how about this. I CHOOSE to avoid the risk factors that can aggravate my GENETIC predisposition to cancer. You see the paradox here? Some homosexuals simply cannot CHOOSE to ignore their make-up. Sure, some who are genetically predisposed to homosexuality can make life choices that steer away from homosexual trigger points, if you will, but that would still require a level of awareness of the disposition, hence the struggle and paradox at hand! You feel what you feel, and you can't CHOOSE to avoid it. Let us not mince words, err, beliefs here. I am a Christian and a very well educated man in the sciences and I do not confuse the facts with the fictions. Christianity is simply a way to live ones life by the rules set forth in biblical teachings regarding human decency.
CRAZY TALK
I don't know if it is ignorance, religious practices, or selfishness that causes some to believe that homosexuality is a choice. Especially after knowing and reading previous accounts of the hardships associated with being gay. I have a little sister, who I love dearly, and am sad that she has to endure such criticism from people who don't even know her. She has been clearly gay from puberty on. She is a smart, creative beautiful woman who is also a doctor. Those of you are so ignorant to suggest that anyone would live a homosexual lifestyle have already made up your stubborn minds and clearly have issues yourselves. And let me tell you all something, you can't change the fact that homosexuality exists, so you may as well go with the flow. These days, thinking that homosexuality is a choice makes you appear uneducated. I am talking about people who are truly homosexual, not just looking for some attention or satisfying their curiosity.
I've come to think that it
I've come to think that it is ignorance, fiefdom-protection, fear, and control on the part of certain Christian LEADERS that continues the myth that homosexuality is a huge, damn deal in the Bible. These leaders spread ignorance, they are afraid of rocking the boat, and the people think they "have" to go along. If they use the intellectual power that ostensibly would go with most of their high-level of education, they would not come to such outrageous conclusions -- the Bible simply doesn't give a flip about homosexuality one way or the other. It is entirely consistent that one should love ALL, though. You will see more and more religious leaders (Christians and others) taking a courageous stand that exposes the hypocrisy of this current disproportionate emphasis on scapegoating homosexuals.
From this information,
From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did
Post new comment