Covered by Agape Press and followed, of course, by the requisite bleating press release from Warren Throckmorton, denouncing the reported findings. Blah, blah, blah.
On a philosophical level, getting bogged down in the genetics debate will get us absolutely nowhere. Is homosexuality genetic? I believe it to be, but until someone proves (or disproves) it definitively the argument is a dead end. For now, who cares?
That conversation is fruitless because it’s simply hair-splitting about how we got here. I’m far more interested in the fact that we ARE here…and now that we are, what everyone is going to do about it. Let’s try to stay grounded in reality here.
You hit the nail on the head on this one.
Personally, I don’t buy any of the studies that say that homosexuality is genetic (they are all seriously flawed in one way or another). If you read the actual studies, you will find that the conclusions of the researchers are actually quite modest and conservative–its the media that distorts the conclusions of the studies into giving the false impression that a “gay gene” has been isolated.
However, this is not the relevant point. The point is that there are people who are homosexual–they exist–and they did not “choose” to be that way. Even if they did “choose” to be that way (as few homosexuals will admit), it would be a crime not to love them and respect them as human beings.
From a social justice standpoint, who cares? From a science standpoint, potentially very interesting. On the other hand, I find studies of the genetics of perfect pitch interesting too.
I don’t find these studies very persuasive either, although I don’t completely count them out. I have a feeling that the cause of homosexuality will not be so clear cut. It may be possible that for some people it’s genetic; for others, it’s hormonal, neurological, or even evil stepmothers. For most, it is probably a combination of these and other factors. In other words, there are probably as many “types” of homosexuality as there are gay people.
But my question is this: Instead of learning what causes homosexuality, why don’t anybody study what causes heterosexuality? I think a strong argument can be made that the effort to learn what causes homosexuality is fixated on finding out “what went wrong”, with all of the inherent biases lurking behind that assumption.
Re: “I’m far more interested in the fact that we ARE here…and now that we are, what everyone is going to do about it. “
Same here. I’m positive that this is what NARTH et al will do about it: If the day should ever come when a study conclusively proves a genetic link for some gay people, they will immediately begin offering gene therapy to “cure” homosexuality.
But in the meantime, as long as there is no biological possibility to treat homosexuality, they will continue to pooh-pooh the biological theories. Meanwhile, our trying to hang our hat on these theories is counterproductive.
I’m tempted to agree with the above posts. I, myself, don’t particularly care if my sexual orientation was determine by the 23rd X chromosome, testosterone levels inutero, or a combination of genetic switches so complicated that Intel couldn’t decode it. I tend to favor the “nature” arguements more than “nurture” simply because I didn’t have a distant (or submissive) father, an overbearing mother, abuse of any kind, a profound lack of dextural ability (I wasn’t great at sports but was never picked last), or any of the other pop psych ex-gay movement answers.
However, this question is extremely important from a religious point of view. If irrefutalbe proof were given that there is a biological cause to sexual orientation, many religious leaders would be forced to change their tune. If God, in his devine wisdom, created you gay then there is no religious support for changing God’s creation.
There would always be some that claim it’s a disease which must be fixed, but the VAST majority of protestant churches (including evangelicals) would have to condemn conversion therapy. (The Catholic church does not rely at all on logic to support it’s dogma and so would probably be centuries in following).
And politically this would be revolutionary. Removing “choice” as an excuse for discrimination would leave reasonable people without an arguement.
So, although it has no real importance to the mental well being of the average gay person, this quest for “a cause” has a far reaching impact on our lives.
Jim, I find myself agreeing strongly with you on the following:
“I have a feeling that the cause of homosexuality will not be so clear cut. It may be possible that for some people it’s genetic; for others, it’s hormonal, neurological, or even evil stepmothers. For most, it is probably a combination of these and other factors. In other words, there are probably as many “types” of homosexuality as there are gay people.”
This is basically what Freud (and the APA of today) believes: that homosexuality is most likely due to nature and nurture, with the proportion of nature to nuture most likely being different among different individuals.
However, I believe that the above can also be applied to heterosexuality; that is, some people’s heterosexuality is strongly biological (due mainly to nature), while others may be more psycho-sociological (due more to nurture).
This would seem to explain the apparent fluidity in some people’s sexuality as well: a person whose heterosexuality/homosexuality is due mainly to psychological factors may have a sexuality that is more susceptible to changing due to environmental differences (just check out the guy’s story from the website yestergay.info).
Isn’t it fascinating how so many people require irrefutable scientific proof of a gay gene while requiring no real evidence at all for their religious beliefs? Isn’t it just bizarre to require irrefutable scientific proof about a group of people that have no real impact on one’s own life, while religious belief, which has a profound impact, requires no real evidence?
That’s precisely the point, Richard Rush.
Whether homosexuality is genetic or not, or changeable vs. unchangeable,
these musings are beside the REAL point.
haha, such irreverence for Warren
Covered by Agape Press and followed, of course, by the requisite bleating press release from Warren Throckmorton, denouncing the reported findings
Hey, whatever. This is nothing more than silliness from a pseudo-scientist like Throckmorton. Let’s get something straight. He’s nothing more than a charlatan.
…BTW, I’m speaking as someone who actually studied a real science (physics).
Question is: what does Dean Hamar actually say about his study? It was pretty clear from the actual study that Hamar did not find anything definitive; rather, he found a few more cookie crumbs (clues, if you will) which he FELT might someday lead to the isolation of significant genetic determinants.
In a way, Throckmorton’s criticism was right to point out this more subtle point. However, I sense a sort of unfounded paranoia coming from him; that he is afraid that Conservative Christian views on homosexuality might some how be threatened by this study, when in fact, the findings were fairly benign and unimpressive.
A lot of you aren’t aware that it could also be more epigenetic, meaning that it could be an biologically inheritable phonotype outside of the DNA code. Anyhow, the dichotomy of nature and nuture isn’t as black and white as most would believe. Also, the cause of a same sexual orientaton among individuals may vary.
But I agree with Joe to a certain point that it matters towards the discussion on wherter queers should have rights. ONly one thing is needed to clear and that is if we can lead normal, happy and stable lives which the answer is clearly yes.
I love the way the right-wing nuts, like Throckmorton et. al., twist science… It goes something like this:
Study 1: It has a beak.
Wing-nut: Careful review of study 1 shows that the researcher did not conclude it was a duck.
Study 2: It has webbed feet.
Wing-nut: Careful review of study 2 shows that the researcher did not conclude it was a duck.
Study 3: It quacks.
Wing-nut: Careful review of study 3 shows that the researcher did not conclude it was a duck.
Study 4: It flys and migrates.
Wing-nut: After four studies there are still no research claiming it’s a duck. That goes to PROVE that it most categorically is NOT a duck.
It would be comical if it wasn’t used on a regular basis as a political tool against my life. But “thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” seems to have dropped off most christian churches’ “thou shall not” list.
“A lot of you aren’t aware that it could also be more epigenetic, meaning that it could be an biologically inheritable phonotype outside of the DNA code.”
Something that’s “inheritable” but is not found in the genotype? Sounds very iffy to me. The reason why a phenotype (like blue eyes) is inheritable (if we go by the strict, scientific sense of the word) is precisely because it is coded by genes that are part of the genetic code. Now, given that the homosexual phenotype is NOT inherited, this does not mean that it is NOT biological. After all, a growing body of research seems to show that prenatal hormones influence the brain, giving the individual a predisposition to homosexuality. This has nothing to do with genetic inheritance. This hormonal influence does NOTHING to the DNA code of the individual.
Now “Epigenetic” literally means anything pertaining to “epigenesis,” and the definition of epigenesis is” “The theory that an individual is developed by successive differentiation of an unstructured egg rather than by a simple enlarging of a preformed entity.” So I’m exactly how you are using the term “epigenetic” to relate it to something having to do with genes.
“Also, the cause of a same sexual orientaton among individuals may vary.”
This seems to be closer to the truth. The cause of homosexuality need not be purely biological, or purely psychological. Like I said before, it is most likely a complex blend of both, with psychological and biological contributions weighted differently for different individuals.
Timothy,
Throckmorton is not the only one who is skeptical of so called “gay gene” studies. A lot of academics in the science field are skeptical as well.
HOWEVER (and it is a big “however”), the difference is that Throckmorton makes certain philosophical/political conclusions based off these weak studies that fall outside of the mainstream.
And we should all be skeptical… as you said, the studies are very weak. I don’t think any true determinations can be made. But the ex-gays seem to draw conclusions that are contrary to the rules of logic and statistics. And frequently they outright lie.
I wish that these debates, on both sides, were held with more intellectual integrity. This is especially important on the ex-gay side as they claim to speak for God.
Unfortunately, with the complexity of sexuality, and with so much riding politically on the results, I suspect we’re in for many more years of spin from both sides.
But I agree with Joe to a certain point that it matters towards the discussion on whether queers should have rights.
Conservative christians have rights even though there is no evidence that adherence to conservative christianity has a genetic component. Why shouldn’t gay people have equal rights, regardless of whether there is evidence of a genetic component to homosexuality?
Heck, straight people have rights. If there is no genetic component to homosexuality it seems manifestly obvious that there would be no genetic component to heterosexuality.
BTW, some people have opined (although I haven’t seen it here) that the genes can’t influence behavior–that the genes only influence structure. That’s silly. It would be evident to any dog breeder that the various breeds of dogs have been bred to exhibit various behaviors. The differences among the various breeds of dogs is manifestly in their genes, since all dogs evolved from wolves.
Personally, I am a big fan of the”nature” camp, if only because so much of our personalities (whether we are shy or gregarious, for example) appear to be in-born and not created by parents. It almost seems as if the default assumption should be that something as complex as sexuality is organic and biological in nature, and those who believe it is a “choice” should have to prove their side of the argument.
But it is also a misnomer to call it “genetic” as our genes are really only part of the picture. If it is true, as some researchers have posited, that homosexuality occurs when a child has both a) the genes that lead to the trait AND b) the hormonal levels in utero to trigger those genes, in whole or in part, then you really have a biological/organic trait in which both nature and environment (but not necessarily nurture) play a role.
The “ex-gay” movement really makes mistakes when they point out that scientists have never said “I have found the gay gene” or other such certain statements. That is part of science – one does not draw any strong conclusions until the research supporting those conclusions is strong and replicable. That is not the case for the genetic evaluation of homosexuality, and likely won’t be for the future. They also make mistakes when they take researchers comments that both genes and environment play a role in the development of homosexuality, and then assume “environment”=”parental influence” or “gender conformity.” It may be, and is likely if sexuality is a biological trait, that the environmental influences are largely chemical and occur before birth.
One note of dissension on one of Timothy’s comments above. Although I grant you it is illogical, the Catholic church does not hold that homosexuality is a choice. I believe their exact wording is “it is experienced as given.” However, they still preach nothing but abstinence for gay people, holding that loving, committed gay relationships are as much a sin as adultery or murder (hence the lack of logic).
I LOVE YOU JOE!!! 🙂
Seriously, I completely agree with you. For myself, I think there is an environmental aspect to my bisexuality, and being bisexual, of course I have a choice. But we *all* have choices. We also see that some people will hate others for traits that are undoubtedly genetic, like race. So I think the best thing is to teach respect for others and their non-violent choices, period.
Benny:
Actually epigenetics is also defined as the “the study of heritable changes in gene function that occur without a change in the sequence of nuclear DNA.” Essientially they are ‘coding’ outside the DNA, like methyl tags which can control the influence of gene pairs as if they were volume knobs. An example of epigenetic effects would be why some inheritable traits can skip a generation or why some monozygotic twins don’t share the same type of phenotypes that are proven to be inheritable, such as bipolar disorder.
My point is that genes isn’t the sole code that can be inherited biologically and it’s quite possible that this new field may give us a lot more insight on what causes sexual orienation on a genetic level.
Just to let you know, and to put a long story short, the fact is that the differentiation between “nature” and “nurture” is bogus. Nature begets nurture, and nurture begets nature. That should be clear from Darwin’s (largely obvious, and amazingly well evidenced) theory of evolution. It is incredibly difficult to impossible to distinguish between the two.
Nature begets nurture, and nurture begets nature. That’s the long and the short of it. Quibble around the edges, but them’s the facts.
Several good intentioned folk here have taken very true positions regarding whether the “cause” of sexual orientation really matters.
Although they are right in a more general sense that it shouldn’t matter, when it comes to politics it matters. A lot.
In Minnesota this week an anti-gay legislator pushing an anti-marriage amendment met with some gay constituents. Then she brought in some ex-gays and argued “you choose your lifestyle and can change”.
For people like this, the issue of “choosing” is everything. Many legislators are not cruel heartless people, just uninformed. If they are told “see, sexual orientation is caused by a distant father or sexual abuse and is changeable” they believe it. And then they don’t understand why gay people don’t want to change and become good responsible citizens. If, however, they believe that one’s orientation is innate and immutable, they are more likely to support legislation geared toward equality.
So while some of you are bisexual and therefore believe that you have a choice, or while some of you don’t think it matters if it’s a choice and that all choices should be respected, please remember that Joe Republican, the state senator from some rectangular Midwest state, cares very much about the “cause” of sexual orientation. That’s why people like Sheldon, Cameron, etc. place so much emphasis on “there’s no genetic cause”.
If there is (as there appears to be) some genetic, in-utero, or other biological component to one’s sexual orientation, then we have an obligation to make that public knowledge.
It may gall you to say that the factors driving you to love Sam instead of Sally are the cause of some mix of genes, hormones, etc. But for the sake of Fred in Minnisota’s partner’s insurance, just do it.
timothy, i think your post helps to prove the original point. politically, the genetics argument is one we cannot win. we can’t *prove* a genetic cause, and it only serves the other side’s purposes to have us get bogged down in that debate. it keeps us from talking about the real issues–constitutional guarantees of equal protection, “life, liberty the pursuit of happiness,” etc.
the response to this anti-gay legislator ought to be, so what? the fact that you’ve produced someone who says they are ex-gay proves nothing about what is possible or desirable for anyone else. it’s a completely irrelevant non-argument.
Re: “It may gall you to say that the factors driving you to love Sam instead of Sally are the cause of some mix of genes, hormones, etc. But for the sake of Fred in Minnesota’s partner’s insurance, just do it.”
I absolutely cannot go along with this as a tactic. Not only is it wrong, but it is bad politics and even worse logic to boot. Maybe it’s the engineer in me, but if the data doesn’t support a theory, then you must revisit the theory. Credibility is everything. Just because they don’t exhibit it doesn’t mean we should discard it ourselves, especially when the evidence simply doesn’t support such an assertion. There are far, far better ways to fight for Fred’s partner’s insurance.
Yes, because they claim it’s nurture, their tactic right now is to tout “cures” involving psychological counseling. But even if it turns out to be nature, their tactics will shift towards finding a biological cure. They may even have telethons and foot races and ribbons and everything, raising all kinds of money. And at some point, they will tout gene/hormonal/who-knows-what therapy to address these biological shortcomings. You can count on it.
As Raj points out, nature and nurture don’t stand apart in some sort of vacuum. But even if they did, the nature vs nurture argument is still a dead end philosophically, politically, ethically — every way you want to look at it. This is true not only for sexuality, but nearly every other behavioral, relational and psychological aspect of the human experience. The outcome of this argument — if there could ever be one — settles nothing, simply because they oppose us not for scientific reasons but religious ones. If their scientific assumptions change (from nurture to nature) they will only change tactics, not their fundamental position that homosexuality is wrong.
In Minnesota this week an anti-gay legislator pushing an anti-marriage amendment met with some gay constituents. Then she brought in some ex-gays and argued “you choose your lifestyle and can change”.
Apparently nobody ask this “legislator” why she isn’t pushing an anti-marriage amendment that would deny Jews the right to marry christians. Jews can change. They can become Christian. They can “choose their lifestyle and change.” Why are gays supposed to change, but not Jews?
BTW, I’m being very sarcastic here. Why are these people picking on gay people? You know why as well as I do. It’s because gay people are surrogates for Jews and Negroes, who these people used to pick on. It has become unfashionable to pick on Jews and Negroes–at least not publicly–but it is still OK to pick on gay people. So they pick on gay people as a substitute.
Gents:
If you re-read my post you’ll see that I’m not proposing that we diminish our integrity or make claims that are inaccurate. That would be unethical.
I don’t think we have any obligation to prove that sexuality is genetically based. However we do have an obligation to challenge the statement that it is NOT genetically based. And we do not need to make wild claims to simply refute their wild claims.
To allow a lie to be said and not refute it is also unethical. The anti-gay movement consistently makes claims that there are no biological components to sexual orientation.
I do not suggest that we say that orientation is nature based rather than nurture based. However it absolutely true to say that the limited science currently available supports the notion that there is at least some biological component to sexual orientation. If we do not say so, then we are responsible for letting their lie stand.
They also consistently claim that “change is possible”.
I do not suggest that we call their ex-gay examples frauds or challenge their integrity. Nor should be say change is NEVER possible. However it is absolutely our obligation to refute the notion that change is ALWAYS possible. The statistics and statements from the ex-gay leaders themselves show that some people will always be gay and we have an obligation to point that out.
Finally, I propose we recognize our audience. Some anti-gay activists would not care in the slightest if God were to come down from Heaven and announce that we’re gay because he desperately wanted us to be so. Nothing we say will impact them. But, then again, they are not our audience.
There are, however, a great many people who have decision making ability over our lives that are not hostile. To these people “cause” and “change” matter. They are not bigots, simply uninformed.
It is simply impractical to fool ourselves into thinking that we can ignore their legitimate questions or change the subject. If we start talking about religion being changeable they will know we are just changing the subject. If we say “so what” we will find out what (I’ll give you a hint, it has something to do with legislation that would take away your rights).
What we can and must say is:
CURRENT SCIENCE SUGGESTS THAT FOR AT LEAST SOME GAY PEOPLE THERE IS SOME BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT THAT PLAYS INTO DETERMINING THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION
And also:
AT LEAST SOME GAY PEOPLE CANNOT BE SUCESSFULLY CONVERTED INTO HETEROSEXUALS
Those are both supportable statements and just those two statements alone would have a significant impact on compassionate legislators, be they liberal or conservative.
Hi Timothy,
—-“However it absolutely true to say that the limited science currently available supports the notion that there is at least some biological component to sexual orientation. If we do not say so, then we are responsible for letting their lie stand.”
The more sensible re-orientation advocates actually take a position that is identical to the APA’s, that sexual orientation is a Bio-Psycho-Social phenomenon, that biological factors (not necessarily “genetic” per se) combine with psycho-social factors in an idiosyncratic way (that may differ from individual to individual) to produce a homosexual or bisexual orientation. It’s usually the more hard core religious fanatics who would look at homosexuality as purely a psychological phenomenon.
The point is, everything about us as human beings have some sort of biological component. To deny this is to be naive.
—-“I do not suggest that we call their ex-gay examples frauds or challenge their integrity. Nor should we say change is NEVER possible. However it is absolutely our obligation to refute the notion that change is ALWAYS possible.”
I’d totally agree with you here. The above statement is perhaps one of the more open minded ones that I’ve encountered. And it is a statement that I find myself repeating to both gay and ex-gay advocates.
—-“AT LEAST SOME GAY PEOPLE CANNOT BE SUCESSFULLY CONVERTED INTO HETEROSEXUALS ”
Very good point. Such people need to be taken into account. I tend to believe that those that can never change probably have a stronger biological component to their sexual orientation.
Thus, it is true, some gays can change and become “more” heterosexual, while some gays cannot, and will forever stay on one end of the Kinsey scale. So, how do we distinguish between these two types of gays? Martin Seligman, who was the 1998 APA president, actually stated that those who exhibit degrees of bisexual thoughts and behavior usually have a better chance of re-orienting themselves than individuals who are rigidly gay–the Kinsey 6’s and beyond. Seligman’s thought has also been echoed by Douglas Haldeman, a prominent homosexual psychologist who specializes in gay-affirmative therapy. He feels that gays who are heterosexually responsive to a degree can build upon this small degree of heterosexual potential, and perhaps over time, develop a “more” (but not completely) heterosexual orientation.
Only problem is, Ex-gays naively believe that every gay has heterosexual potential, when it is clear that a majority do not.
“Actually epigenetics is also defined as the “the study of heritable changes in gene function that occur without a change in the sequence of nuclear DNA.” Essientially they are ‘coding’ outside the DNA, like methyl tags which can control the influence of gene pairs as if they were volume knobs. An example of epigenetic effects would be why some inheritable traits can skip a generation or why some monozygotic twins don’t share the same type of phenotypes that are proven to be inheritable, such as bipolar disorder.”
Very interesting. I will look into this.
Thanks
timothy, thanks very much for your clarifications–extremely helpful and i think you’re dead on.
I entered this movement to love my way and to proclaim the truth about myself and those I love, not to pretend to think things I don’t and be forced into another closet. Any tactic that forces closeting of any kind deserves a second and a third look, in my opinion.
I also think that if anti-gays are going to talk about “choice” as a reason to deny others rights, we should smack them in the faces with their half-logic at every opportunity. After all, they also have an undisputedly chosen lifestyle, don’t they? Their religion! And they expect society to accommodate their choice to the exclusion of all others, too!
This is coming late, but Dr. Throckmorton’s school, Grove City College, has 2 articles about him in the student-run paper, the Collegian.
https://www.gcc.edu/news/collegian/3.11.05/0311Collegian.pdf
He is quoted as saying, “that psychological findings about gays should not be the foundation for either public policy or moral views.
“The whole notion of change is unrelated to
what you think or believe about homosexuals,”
Throckmorton said. “What people do is
different from what they ought to do.
Psychology can’t tell you what ought to be.”
So, on this assertion, 1) His findings, pro- or anti-gay qua impermeable identity, are really of no relevance to the public policy debate. 2) Science itself, the study of what is, has no bearing on morality or ethics, whatsoever. I hope I’m not taking him out of context, but that is how it seems.
If this is the case, then why not argue merely on grounds of biblical revelation? What is the relevance of his chosen profession? These statements have me confused.
And I have half a mind to write a letter to the editor of my alma mater counting up the number of students that have graduated from there gay….
Throckbottom’s college published another bloviation by him? One seriously wonders why they bother. Who is sponsoring this silliness?
Note to the WebMeister: my mangling of Throckmorton’s name was intentional.
ck,
I think you’ve pretty much got the idea of Throckbigot’s position: policy should be based on belief regardless of whether supported by fact.
But it’s hardly a new idea. Listen to the rantings of the opposing talking heads on TV and you realize that facts are always trumped by TRUTH (ya know, the kind God has revealed to you and the people who agree with you)
Raj, the article is in the student-run newspaper, and is about Throck, not by him.
Timothy, yes, but I was surprised to hear him say what he did and be happy to be quoted, after all the energy he puts into making his views on psychiatry public. He at least hopes it will influence people, even if he thinks that it shouldn’t really, since revelation is the final arbiter.
Does science really have the final say in morality? It is philosophy/faith-based-world views (which trickles down into societal opinion) that ultimately dictates what is right or wrong. Science is an influence, rather than the prime determinator of what is seen as morally “good,” or right.
That is why even if a gay gene was conclusively found, the religious right most likely would not change their opinion of gays. They would probably look at homosexuality as a congenital deformity, much like being born without a leg. Their philosophy that homosexuality is sinful would remain the same, that I am sure of.
That being said, Throckmorton isn’t too far off. However, I question his “philosophy” regarding how society should approach gays.
It would be nice to depolarize the debates. In an ideal world: the gays would have all the rights that conservative heterosexual Christians have, and ex-gays would have proven, effective therapies that would give them what they want.
Of course, as of now, this seems to be a distant Chimera.
Jeb | April 14, 2005 09:53 AM
Does science really have the final say in morality?
This is a joke, right? For those of us who actually have a background in real science, it is clear that science attempts to describe what is. What some people believe ought to be is a very different issue.
Why the beliefs of those “some people” should rule others of us is a different issue. Perhaps Jeb or Throckmorton might want to tell us.
That’s my whole point Raj (it was a rhetorical question). I was responding to someone else’s post. Science describes what is. As to what is right or wrong…it has no say.
Several things struck me as odd about the student articles on Throckmorton.
First, they quote Throckmorton as saying that “sexual orientation is very fluid.” However, I wonder if “very fluid” is too strong of a statement. Also, I wonder if Throckmorton gave any studies as to how effective “change” seems to be for people entering treatment.
Secondly, I certainly appreciate Throckmorton saying that the ability to change should not be brought into political discourse or morality debates. However, I agree with CK’s musings over why Throckmorton would choose this line of work if he believes homosexuality to be morally neutral, and from reading his website, it looks like he does do a bit of dabbling into public policy and moral issues. I also find it odd that another psychologist brought Christianity into the mix. To have him say, “[homosexuals] are people in need of Jesus’ love, forgiveness and healing,” strikes me as moving into the “moral debate” that Throckmorton stated shouldn’t be brought into all of this.
The only thing I can say about this topic is that it makes no difference to me whether a person is born homosexual or chooses to become a homosexual. If there is a genetic reason, all that means to me is that it isn’t the choice of the person who is homosexual as to their orientation. However, whether it is a choice or a genetic predisposition caused by a gene, that person can still make choices with what they are to do with their life.
There are homosexuals that practice activities that are not shared by other homosexuals. If a gene is responsible for the orientation of homosexuals, then there must also be a variety of these genes which account for the various areas of interest within the homosexual orientation. If there are not many gene variations that would predispose a person with homosexuality to be interested in activities that other homosexuals do not share in common, that would mean that the variations are the result of individual preferences. And a preference is another way of saying the person made a choice. Choice is preference and vice versa. In example; if I prefer red over orange, I can not pick one over the other unless I have the ability to select or choose between one or the other.
If I could not choose, I would not have a preference for one as opposed to ther other. The mere fact that some homoexuals are attracted to a particular type of person (usually by their appearence) gives indication that there is a process of choice taking place. So, while the orientation of the individual may not be their choice, all decisions made within their life are a result of the choices that they make.
My Chromosome makeup is XXY and this arrangement gives me secondary female characterisrtics. I am genetically both a male and a female. I have Mammary glands/tissue in my chest and I can lactate, I have chosen to allow my chest to become flabby in order to hide this fact from others. I now look like I have man boobs, (flabby chest). I had tried at one time to excercise my chest to build it up so that I would have a nice set of pecs to show off with my toned washboard stomach and biceps.
I stand 6′ 2″ tall and weigh in at 195 pounds. I have golden blonde hair feather cut and that just covers the bottom of my ear lobes. I have Scottish/Irish features and am considered by most to be handsome with a boyish quality. Some have described me as sexy. I am not muscular for as I mentioned earlier, I have female mammary glands that make up the area of my chest where a man would have muscle. When I tried once to strengthen my chest to be more manly I discovered that instead of pecs my chest began to firm out into nice rounded globes and I looked like I had small Grapefruit sized female breasts.
I have a female’s skeleton complete with a small piece of cartledge in my pelvis that softens during child birth to allow the hips to widen so that the baby can exit the birth canal. I have an extra disk in my spine, and wide child bearing hips that affect the way I walk.
I have almost no Testosterone in my body and must inject it once a month in order to have the normal amount required by a man. My body does produce Estrogen and Progesterone at the normal levels required by women. If I do not inject with Testosterone, I do not grow hair in the places men normally grow hair, but only where women grow hair and my voice begins to change pitch.
Other than 6 females in my life, I have been exclusively with men for my sexual activities. This was my conscious choice from an early age (12 years old). I had decided that men were easier to bed than women and so I followed after men for the majority of my life. I dated and slept with exactly 6 women in all this time (I am 45-March 14,1960). I consider myself Bisexual because I am still sexually aroused by either gender. I was once told that I have Satyrism. That is to say, I am a male Nymphomaniac. I have never been satisfied completely.
This is not an ad, it is just me making comments and sharing information with you in context of this post.
I experience a 28 day menstrual cycle even though I do not have the physical ability to discharge the way woman do. However, I do have the bloating and cramping and I get irritable and have an overall achiness. I have had this since I hit puberty at 17 years old (my puberty was delayed due to extremely high levels of Psychotropic medications I was taking that were administered as part of my inpatient therapy when I stayed at a facility run by a Psychiatrist who was later found to be using the chldren under his care as stars in child pornography films he was making and selling through an underground market for such material).
I also lactated at Puberty and have done so on and off since that time. I have exterior male plumbing even though I am genetically sterile.
I can fully comprehend the female point of view and I have disturbed many females because of the fact that I appear to be a male yet I give out signals that tell them I am female. I have female phermones as well as male phermones which I give off in pretty much an equal mix. This has caused me to atract men and repel straight women. Some Lesbian women have slept with me but most are very close friends.
Most straight women, who do not secretly harbor an interest in same gender experimentation, are repelled by me without my having to say a word or look in their direction. I can walk past a straight woman and she will move away from me as though I had just said something terrible to her. They usually have a facial expression that looks like fear mixed with confusion and revulsion even though I am not unattractive in appearence and have excellent personal hygiene at all times.
Anyway, thank you for allowing me to post and share my experiences. I hope that this post will be taken as it is meant which is as another piece to the puzzle.
Bill Mitchelson
So it seems that by tweaking the genes of the fruit fly, you can cause them to demonstrate sexual patterns of the opposite sex.
Of course, this isn’t the gay-gene smoking gun either. But with pheromones, body smells, etc., it seems ever more convincing that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation.
Ya’ll will notice that Doc Throck hasn’t weighed in yet.
“Of course, this isn’t the gay-gene smoking gun either. But with pheromones, body smells, etc., it seems ever more convincing that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation.”
Are you kidding? Just about every thing about us has a genetic/biological component. Sexual orientation (if there is a such thing) is no different.
Duncan
You say “Are you kidding? Just about every thing about us has a genetic/biological component. Sexual orientation (if there is a such thing) is no different.”
And yet this goes to the heart of the ongoing anti/ex-gay argument that gay people can/should change. For decades now we’ve been hearing “Homosexuality is a choice”.
I’m not sure what you mean by “if there is a such thing”. Do you challenge the notion that one has a sexual orientation?
Tim,
Arguing that homosexuality has a genetic component won’t get us anywhere, because may things have a genetic component. Traits such as aggression, psychopathy, and alcoholism have been shown to have a genetic component. Dean Hamar (who started the whole gay gene thing) actually argues that there are “religion genes.”
Even if one was to show that homosexuality is PURELY genetic (which it’s not), I believe that anti-gays would look at us with pity, much the same way someone would look at someone with down syndrome with pity. And, they may even try to find ways to ensure that such “mistakes” never occur. For instance, mother’s are told that the later they wait to have kids, the greater the chances of having a kid with down syndrome. So you know what they do? Everything it takes to avoid such an outcome.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have someone hate me than to lovingly regard me as a defective “mistake” of nature.
“I’m not sure what you mean by “if there is a such thing”. Do you challenge the notion that one has a sexual orientation?”
I’m challenging the notion that it IS A THING. It is more of a human construct to me. The reason why I say this is because there is not one definition of sexual orientation that is agreed upon. Nor is everyone in agreement as to what constitutes it, or even how to measure it.
For example: there are three main scales for measuring sexual orientation: 1) Kinsey’s 2) Klein’s 3) DeCecco’s. All measure different traits, emphasize different things, and operate from different first premises regarding someone’s sexuality. Kinsey believed sexual preference to be biologically determined. DeCecco (a homosexual himself) believed sexual preference is socially constructed. Klein is somewhere in between.
Some may argue that sexual orientation is determined by our attraction, or the type of porn we prefer, but to the three people above, there is a lot more going on than just attractions, particularly with Klein.
Tim,
I forgot to mention in the previous post:
1) Science does not have the final say in matters of morals and ethics. What is needed is a change in people’s philosophical outlook of what constitutes “right” or “wrong.” Science is merely a tool, and can be bent either way. Depending on a person’s philosophical background, he will interpret objective science in a subjective manner that suits his world view. This is very natural.
2) I believe that same sex attractions (SSA) are not a choice. One cannot consciously choose to not have them. Nor can one choose to have them. Any change in our attractions seems to come about naturally, over time, but one cannot, by force of will, change his attractions over night.
Duncan,
“I’m challenging the notion that it IS A THING. It is more of a human construct to me. The reason why I say this is because there is not one definition of sexual orientation that is agreed upon. Nor is everyone in agreement as to what constitutes it, or even how to measure it.”
I’m reminded of the five blind men who went to find out what exactly was an elephant. The fact that they were unable to agree on the nature or description of the elephant did not mean that the elephant was a social construct.
It doesn’t matter to me that there are disagreements on the measure or definition. To argue that there is no such thing as an orientation one way or the other (or somewhere inbetween) seems to deny the experience of a great many people based solely on semantic reasoning. Fine, so you don’t like the word choice (although it does seem to be the shared language descibing persons and the phenominon of same sex attration).
“Even if one was to show that homosexuality is PURELY genetic (which it’s not), I believe that anti-gays would look at us with pity, much the same way someone would look at someone with down syndrome with pity”
Some might. However, there are a great number of people – particularly in the faith communities – for whom this issue is pivitol. If they come to believe that gay persons are created gay, then they would find it immoral and against God’s will to punish people for being gay. This is the current debate raging in most protestant denominations as we speak. The issue to this community is the difference between sin (choosing a life outside God’s will) and a pre-determined orientation (living as God created you).
And the prevailing attitudes of any segment of the community of faith (be they liberal Espiscopalians or conservative Baptists) has a huge impact on politics and thus the world in which we live.
This may seem unimportant to non-religious people, but to the serious truth-seeking religous folk the issue of choice or genetics (to be simplistic) means the difference between the extremes of civil unions and bans on gay books.