It's funny that some here are so sure it's genetic. Firstly, why is there even a discussion if there's scientific proof supporting it? Secondly, if it were scientific fact, why isn't there more of an impact on legislation than we're seeing presently? The scientists who proved it would be famous, and information about the proof would be readily available. Is that the case now? The geneticists I knew when I worked at MDAndersonCC (1998) didn't believe anyone would interpret DNA code within the next two generations. (Even though it has been entirely mapped already, genomes identified to functionality comprise about 1% of the entire human DNA, not even counting the chance of interdependancies.) (Hey Outlaw, thanks for the reply. It may take a while to get back to you about that author since I didn't put much credence into his hypothesis in the first place. I'm inclined to trust your understanding over his anyway.)
Mr. Gootan, Please reread the following excerpt from an excellent quote by Gutter Snipe (ahem) that appeared in this thread. I don't follow Mr. G's logic at all, what with all the rambling about scientists becoming famous. Very few scientists become famous, but there is lots of fantastic and convincing scientific work in the world! Mr. G, do you read "New Scientist," "Science News," or "Scientific American?" Maybe the science section in Tuesday's New York Times? I'm not saying you should, but most people just don't care to keep up with what's going on in science, unless the 5 p.m. news carries a random story about colon cancer or purple carrots or SARS. And that's fine. But don't then use the logic that if there was any relevant science concerning sexual orientation that you would have heard of it! That's absurd.
B-Bob --the original study done that said there was a genetic connection to sexual orientation was all over the front page of the news...some 5 years later there was a story saying that they have been completely unable to repeat the results of that test, despite numerous attempts. I never read science journals...believe me! But I knew of both of these developments.
Thanks, MadMax. I'd like to emphasize three points: that some combination of biology and environment is at work in nearly every human characteristic of any sort (see the recent book by Pinker, "The Blank Slate." absolutely the book we need for this topic), that I don't think it matters what the exact combination is for sexual orientation, and that (as others have posted) we all exist on some sort of spectrum between completely gay and completely straight. The final bottom line for me is that, of all gay people I've spoken with, each has stated more or less what we're hearing from folks here: "I have made absolutely no choice on this matter." I for one believe people when they say this. Would you ever hear someone say that about drinking Dr. Pepper or living in a certain city? Or would you be more likely to hear them say that about their height or body shape? As for media splashes... Not to be snotty, but since I've dealt with the science news media from both sides (reporting and being interviewed), I have a natural distrust of it. The popular media process does not convey the scientific process accurately and it does not even convey the bottom line facts and experimental results. (The sources I mentioned in my previous email are, IMO, the unusually good and trustworthy sources. You can trust what you get there... But evening news or AP articles? fuhgetaboutit).
did you ever read the study about toothpaste?? what kind of toothpaste do you use?? chances are...and i mean overwhelming chances are...that you use the toothpaste your parents bought for you growing up. i prefer colgate...know why? it's what I've always used. my parents bought it...i "choose" it now...but it is a choice that has certainly been influenced by the environment i grew up in. my dad convinced me that pepsi was "evil"...it was for yankees! i drink coke. wonder if my experience would be different if my dad had convinced me that coke was evil...that it was for yankees!?
If this is the evidence that Vegan was referring to as having proven homosexuality to be genetic over and over again, I'm not impressed. It obviously does suggest there is a genetic element to homosexuality, but leaves a garage door open for environmental or other factors. Gutter Snipe, a reason homosexuality might not be bred out of the species is because it could be the result of a simple genetic mutation. If a genetic difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is a simple one, you could expect it to resurface in mutations on a regular basis. As a result, even as some lines of homosexuality get snuffed out, new ones are born from nothing. There might also be issues of dominance traits in which a gene from one parent is overridden in its expression by the gene from the other parent. Another possibility (the one that fits my theories on the subject), is that homosexuality itself might not be inherited, but a tendency or capacity towards that behavior is. That capacity is then sometimes exploited and sometimes not, depending on factors of enviroment and will. So, just as there is a large pool of homosexuality, there would be another pool of heterosexuals who could have been homosexual under a different set of circumstances. This would also suggest that there is no homosexual who was genetically dictated to be gay regardless of circumstance.
I don't think I got my point across. Or maybe I did. These sorts of choices are, yes, influenced strongly by environment. For the record, I literally get a different kind of toothpaste each time I have to buy it. I like the variety. JV, I don't know what to say. If 50% correlation for identical twins versus 10% for siblings doesn't "impress" you, then you would not be persuaded by 99.8% of genetics research to date, including many experiments that have garnered Nobel recognition. (If you wanted 100% correlation, I'd have to refer you to a Intro Genetics textbook, and I mean no insult. The topic is incredibly difficult, if you ask me!) Again, as I laboriously typed, I believe this issue, as with nearly all characteristics, have a mix of influences. This fits well with your "pool" scenario, in some sense, and we're almost on the same page there. But I want to reinforce that to say that people simply sinfully choose their orientation, or were molested into it by "bad" environments (as some, not you, would have us believe), flies in the face of strong scientific evidence.
B-Bob, you're right that 99.8% of genetics research is not persuasive for me. I've seen too much propagandization in the sciences -- and especially genetics -- to accept it so lightly. It's not that I don't think the research is legitimate, but only that biologists have lost their authority with me from over-abuse. So, when someone tells me that there is a 50-50 chance that a gay man will have a gay twin, that mostly just tells me that haven't accounted for half the incidents. If that's good enough for geneticists, I either have not been given enough information about their findings or their standards are too low (and, yes, I understand it is complicated work and, no, I don't care how hard it is). As for your estimation of science as the source of truth in this and (it seems like) every matter, we've had the conversation before and without any success. So, I don't want to repeat it. But, I did want to say that because I don't hold science in as high a regard as you do, I find the idea that a sin-origin of homosexuality could be scientifically disproven to be laughable. Can you also prove whether God exists?
To scientifically prove that a certain behavior as complex as sexuality is genetically determined is extremely difficult. As mr. gooten's geneticist friend pointed out, we still don't know how to read the DNA codes. So you have to rely on statistical studies such as the study of identical twins and the study of tendencies in ancestral lines. Statistical studies, unfortunately, can never decidedly prove it. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to separate environmental factors from genetic factors. In the end, whether it is genetic or not doesn't determine whether homosexuality should be practiced. Comparing, say, skin color with homosexuality is wrong. Even though both may be genetically determined, they are not the same. Skin color is a physical attribute which is with a person no matter what. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a behavioral tendency. One doesn't have to practice homosexuality even if he is genetically determined to have that tendency. A better comparison is alcoholic tendency. Like homosexuality, I don't know if it can be 100% proven to be genetically related. From what I heard, it seems to have more evidence than the homosexual case. Anyway, I've never heard anybody say that if it is genetic, alcoholism should be practiced without discrimination. What if we find out that the tendency of child molestation is genetically determined? Should we legalize it? It is clear that why we believe some behaviors are acceptable and others aren't has nothing to do with genetics. These beliefs are grounded not on science but on ethics. Genetics do give the behavior some psychological edge. It makes it more understandable and thus commands more compassion, which is good.
This is science gone nuts, if you ask me. The AMA came out with a study that basically said this...and went on to say that most kids really aren't all that negatively affected by their experiences from these people. Sick. There is a group of pedophiles out there that is touting this garbage like crazy...it's called something like the Man/Boy Love Group or some crap like that.
Alcoholism? Child molestation?? I find it very interesting (not to mention quite telling about your personal belief system) that you choose to compare homosexuality to behaviors that are both personally harmful and detrimental to society. A sexual relationship between two consenting adults has absolutely nothing in common with an addiction like alcoholism or a crime like child molestation. Your logic is seriously flawed. It is clear to me why society deems alcoholism unaccaptable -- drunk driving fatalities, personal harm, negative impact on the workforce. And it is clear to me why society deems child molestation unaccaptable -- personal violation of a child and lifelong trauma from the abuse. But it is not clear to me why certain members of our society deem homosexuality to be unacceptable, other than their own religiously based views of how the world should be.
I don't think that's what he's saying. What he's saying is that it's different from skin color. Skin color just is. You can't stop being black one day. You can't control the melanin. People control their sexuality every day. People choose not to have sex with other people because they're committed to monogamous relationships...people choose not to have sex in certain situations...etc. even if they really want to. Some take vows of chastity and never experience sex in their lives. I don't think Easy was comparing harms stemming from these behaviors...or the lack thereof stemming from homosexuality...I just think he was saying that homosexuality (as an inherited trait) woud have more in common with alcoholism (as an inherited trait) than skin color. That the former are tendencies...while the latter is not a tendency.
I understand that it is possible to alter sexual behavior (if not the impulses behind it), but my question in relation to homosexuality is why should they? Why should homosexuals attempt to change who they are attracted to? Bottom line: what is the "problem" with homosexuality? I'm curious to find out why some people believe so deeply that this behavior must be changed. If, as Max pointed out, Easy wasn't implying that homosexual behavior is detrimental to society, then what reason is there for wanting gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation?
My last post in this thread here. Easy, I hope you can see the judgment automatically included in that homosexuality-is-better-compared-to-other-negative-things mode. And JV, yeah, we should really give up in general on the science-religion angle. You might say I believe too strongly in the scientific method, that I can't think outside of that box effectively, and I could say the same thing about those that use the firewall of "well, that's my faith." Let's try this. In my personal view, the view of some others, sin is tied to conscious choice. Yes, there is "original sin," but I have always taken that to be unexamined, inherent selfishness of being a human being. Unexamined action is still a choice. (I acknowledge others take a much more literal or specific meaning to "original sin" that is more difficult for me to understand or use, more philosophical meanings based on certain texts or traditions). You may disagree, but let's take sin for the moment to be tied to actions springing from choice, even if that choice is an unexamined inherent flaw to humanity. If we both take that as a starting point, then I say that the 50% identical twin data (and by the way, the very fundamental nature of DNA replication makes 100% the rarest of exceptions) shows that a lot of people have a different set of god-given proclivities than others, that they are not making a choice other than to act as God made them. That's not a sin to me, at all. And I don't think it's "laughable" to combine morality and science in this seemingly clear-headed way. You may say that God has placed extra "obstacles" to these individuals, and they must overcome them. For me, that's too judgmental, even if one digs something out of the old testament about the sin of coveting another man's butt (doesn't hold much value for me, as homophobia is much older than the Bible, and the Bible was written in an era when overpopulation of the globe wasn't a fact of life). Personally, I believe in a moral and social system that would treat "sin" as any action which harms another human being either directly or blatantly indirectly. Otherwise, the definition will appear arbitrary to great numbers of people. And personally, I would never take you up on your offer to prove anything about a god's existence or lack of existence. That's pretty silly. ... As silly to me as the hubris of some people thinking they are somehow divine enough to even partially understand the nature of some omniscient super-being. I consider many things possible; I wonder at the universe and seek to understand some meager crumbs of it through the tools that are available to me. I try to use my brain (perhaps God given) as much as possible. I think sceintists could stand to be more morally aware, and I think some religious traditions could benefit from being more skeptical and open-minded. That's my sincere take. I don't see it as the best or only take. Cheers. PS -- Madmax, Michael Jackson has controlled the melanin. Seriously, you think what he's done to his skin is somehow less radical than asking someone to suppress their notion of romantic love, to force it into something else? I bet if you were told you had to find a way to start and enjoy having sex with men, you would prefer to change your skin color!
I believe it to be sinful...a further separation from God that's my theology. I'm sinful too...I seek to move away from sin...or at least I try to. I often fail. But that's probably not a good enough answer for the purposes of this board! If it makes you feel any better, I'm not for outlawing sexual behavior between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. I don't believe people should be discriminated against...or treated unfairly. In my view, God loves everyone..how can I do less than that? That doesn't mean that I don't call what I believe to be wrong, wrong...but it does mean I try to treat everyone fairly. So far the conversation hasn't been about attempting to change someone's orientation at all....unless I've missed something, which is quite possible.
As usual, your posts make me laugh. If probabilities are all you need as proof, then I can understand you and others better. Now, using probabilities, let me prove to you that what the Bible says is true
B-Bob, since that was your last on the subject, I'll try to not put too many leading questions into my response. It seems to me that you attempted to take a moment to look at homosexuality through the eyes of a fundamentalist, but wouldn't make the leap complete and got caught between two stools. You start with a (somewhat) Christian concept of sin to examine the issue, but then immediately drop the religion from the rest of the argument, returning to your own, and rather secular, belief system. If you're going to start with a Christian axiom, you have to go the full monty and finish with Christianity as well. Addressing homosexuality as sin makes no sense at all if you only do it in half-measures. For example, after noting that the twin statistics may indicate that people are given different sets of sinful proclivities, I think it would be pertinent to note that Christianity also says that everyone is sinful and everyone is damned to hell for their sin (if it wasn't for the saving grace of Christ) -- and even that they've inherited that sinfulness from Adam. When you put it that way, it doesn't seem so bad to say a homosexual is a sinner when you at the same time are saying everyone else, even yourself and your own mother, are also sinners. Point being that, to talk in the medium of a Christian understanding of homosexuality, you have to be willing first to seriously consider the ramifications of key Christian axioms like the Fall and the Crucifixion. That's not to say science isn't welcome either. You can look at what statistics may imply about nature and God; but you'd have to do look at it through a Christian lens or else you're wasting your time talking about it in the first place.
As far as Catholics are concerned, it is Catholic doctrine that all sex should be for pro-creation, or at least have the possiblity of pro-creation. You probably won't hear that from a priest, but I learned that in Catholic school. BTW, I think that' silly. Silly to the point that it does not only make homosexuality a sin in the Catholic Church, it also makes every sexual act resulting in ejaculation a sin if it isn't "traditional" intercourse.
