Can You be Born Gay? Charles Dobson doesn't think so.

[BelindaP]

I have always thought that one's sexual orientation as governed by genetic factors as well as environmental factors. However, given that a significant portion of gay people do not choose to be gay, why do some Christians not believe it could be genetic.

Here is an article from the Focus on the Family Website that seeks to debunk the research in this field.

www.family.org/lifechallenges/A000000186.cfm

Any thoughts?

Note: I'm seeking to keep this discussion separate from the question of whether homosexual behavior is moral or not.

 

[sinneD]

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Dobson.
That does not mean that I necessarily agree with everything he has to say.

 

[BelindaP]

I was interested in what you might have to say about the article itself. Do you think there is any validity to the claims that attempt to debunk the research in this area?

 

[Texas Lynn]

BTW, your title says "Charles Dobson". Is there nepotism going on over there? Wonder what is the "cause" of that?

 

[kopilo]

I think any research in this sort of area is shady and they all hide some sort of hidden agenda... I'd say some are more hidden then others. Also I ask myself, why is there so much money/time/effort spent on this.. Seriously there are larger issues all this time/effort/money could be put into.

 

[BelindaP]

No, I was just having a momentary lapse into senility. I'm not sure why the name 'Charles' came up when I was typing it.

 

[Robinsegg]

Well, if his quotes are right . . . the researchers themselves said they hadn't found a biological cause for homosexuality.

Rachel

 

[imind]

I think any research in this sort of area is shady and they all hide some sort of hidden agenda...

on what evidence are you basing this opinion?

Also I ask myself, why is there so much money/time/effort spent on this..

actually, comparitively speaking, there is very little money being spent on this.

I was interested in what you might have to say about the article itself. Do you think there is any validity to the claims that attempt to debunk the research in this area?

well, he really isn't disproving anything, and he doesn't pull from sources any earlier than the 90's. though, as i've said before, not a great deal of money is being spent in this area.

a note on the twins study. from the article...

Dr. Whitehead further explains, "Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual in 100 percent of the cases his brother would be too. ... Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite."14

the key here is the bolded area. just because two people are clones at birth, doesn't mean that genes can't play a role in determing sexuality (see below), more importantly, there pre-natal experiences were definately not identical. for instance, one twin can weigh more or less than the other. IOW, not all biological conditions are resultant of genetic makeup, as pre-natal experiences, though not as influential as the genetic print, can affect differences in the two.

also, imprinted genes might influence one and not the other...

So how might imprinted genes help explain why one identical twin would be straight and the other gay? Say there's an imprinted gene for attraction to females, and there's something atypical in the copy the twin brothers get from mom. As all that replicating is going on, the imprinting (to keep the copy from dad shut down) proceeds as expected in one twin, and he ends up gay. But somehow with his brother, the coding for the imprinting is lost, and rather than remain shut down, the fuel flows to fire up the backup engine from dad. And that twin turns out to be straight.

link

the article linked to above is an exceptional look at the work currently being done in this area, and explains in greater detail the passage above. i would highly recommend it to anyone interested in this debate. human sexuality and its root causes are far more complicated than any discussion on this board has revealed.

 

[Ave Maria]

Well Charles Dobson is at least partially wrong. I do believe that genetics plays a part in whether someone is homosexual. However, I also believe that the environment one is raised in also plays a part. I do not believe that genetics is entirely responsible for whether one is a homosexual or not. So yeah, Charles Dobson is partially wrong.

 

[SallyNow]

That isn't a very thorough article. Its sources are mostly out-of-date, and it discusses no newer studies. It also tries to discuss identical twins with no mention that even identical twins are not truly identical - one may be artistic, the other scientific. One may be predisposed to schizophrenia while the other is not. One twin may be a great writer while the other is a great musician. Same genes do not equal the same brain or the same personality. They do not mean the same experiences in the womb or the same reaction to hormones.

This article may be at least interesting if it was "no one is concieved as a homosexual" or if it used more current, wider-ranging studies.

 

[Bombila]

Animals in the wild who indulge in same sex sexual behaviours must be 'choosing' to be sinful.

We don't understand a lot about human sexual attraction, which I suspect is more a continuum of attraction, from strongly heterosexual to strongly homosexual, rather than the 'either-or' most people assume.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I have always thought that one's sexual orientation as governed by genetic factors as well as environmental factors. However, given that a significant portion of gay people do not choose to be gay, why do some Christians not believe it could be genetic.

Here is an article from the Focus on the Family Website that seeks to debunk the research in this field.

www.family.org/lifechallenges/A000000186.cfm

Any thoughts?

Note: I'm seeking to keep this discussion separate from the question of whether homosexual behavior is moral or not.

Because the APA division on human sexuality is rather partisan and has been condemned by not one, two or three but rather four of the APA's former presidents as being biased and scientifically incompetent, the research is this area has been a quagmire that moves forward about as quickly as molasses. One of the few studies that has been done that is conclusive was done by none other than Dr. Robert Spitzer himself, and found that for a very least some, change is a proven possibility. (

Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation (Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2003, p.403-417 ).
​

 

[Robinsegg]

Animals in the wild who indulge in same sex sexual behaviours must be 'choosing' to be sinful.

We don't understand a lot about human sexual attraction, which I suspect is more a continuum of attraction, from strongly heterosexual to strongly homosexual, rather than the 'either-or' most people assume.

Animals can't "sin", as no moral behavior can be understood or expected from them. Sin is a human concept: made for humans by God, as God wants a relationship with us and we are made in His image.

Animals aren't usually condemned for "stealing", "adultery", or "murdering" another animal either.

Rachel

 

[RealSorceror]

I don't care whether its genetic or not. If thats the way they want to live, its cool with me.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Because the APA division on human sexuality is rather partisan and has been condemned by not one, two or three but rather four of the APA's former presidents as being biased and scientifically incompetent, the research is this area has been a quagmire that moves forward about as quickly as molasses.

Can you provide ANY references to support his claim?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Because the APA division on human sexuality is rather partisan and has been condemned by not one, two or three but rather four of the APA's former presidents as being biased and scientifically incompetent, the research is this area has been a quagmire that moves forward about as quickly as molasses. One of the few studies that has been done that is conclusive was done by none other than Dr. Robert Spitzer himself, and found that for a very least some, change is a proven possibility.

More than likely they just confused change in sexual orientation with temporal bisexuality.

Yes, this area does move slowly-which means research is behind the times-and the premise straight=good gay=bad is one of the things behind the times.

Rather than waste research on elusive things like causes of sexual orientations we should devote effort to treating all with dignity and worth. The causes are irrelevant to what's the right thing to do.

 

[JohnLocke]

First,

To say something is genetic but responds or is affected by environmental factors is to say that it is genetic. Even the most basic and wide spread of genetic conditions, sex, is itself subject to environmental conditions (for example, a person who is genetically male with an X,Y chromosome pairing, will none the less develop the sexual characteristics of a female person if that person is insensitive, or has no access to, the "normal amount" of androgen prenatally. So really, what we're talking about when we say something is "genetic" is really to say that the primary factor is genetic and/or that the environmental conditions that are necessary and/or expedient to the expression of the genetic trait are common and regular (like sex, the lack of androgen prenatally is so rare that even doctors routinely determine sex on the basis of external physical sexual characteristics rather than genetic typing; normally this isn't a problem unless you're an international athlete where genetic typing to "qualify" is often required).

But this brings us back to twin studies, which would require a tons of inferential statistics to tease out similarity of genetics and similarity of environment, particularly across subject pairings, assuming such data were available and reliable.

All that said, can anyone tell me why anybody finds anybody else attractive? Why the standards of beauty change generation to generation? (Marilyn Monroe, Twiggy, Carol Alt, etc.) or even within a generation (Sean Connery, Brad Pitt, Ashton Kutcher?)

There's also the normal arguments for genetic origin: despite the fact that homosexuals rarely reproduce, it is observed through history. It is observed and has been observed across the animal kingdom. It remains very resistant to chemical, psychosocial, and physical intervention.

But to critique that article back in Science a good decade ago is poor cricket; it's been done. Wish I had the data though.

Cheers

 

[Texas Lynn]

can anyone tell me why anybody finds anybody else attractive? Why the standards of beauty change generation to generation? (Marilyn Monroe, Twiggy, Carol Alt, etc.) or even within a generation (Sean Connery, Brad Pitt, Ashton Kutcher?)

There are several theories but when phrased as you did one prime element of it is peer pressure AKA groupthink.

Regarding women, more zaftig women are preferred in lean times, but thinner ones in prosperous times.

 

[kopilo]

on what evidence are you basing this opinion?

The number of variables and people's obsession with homosexuality.

actually, comparitively speaking, there is very little money being spent on this.

How about time and effort.

 

[JohnLocke]

There are several theories but when phrased as you did one prime element of it is peer pressure AKA groupthink.

Regarding women, more zaftig women are preferred in lean times, but thinner ones in prosperous times.

Lynn,

Thanks for the observation, and correct though it is, last I checked, it is merely correlation and not necessarily causal. You know the old problem about ice cream sales and beach drownings being positively correlated.

But on a specific level, haven't you ever known someone that you trusted, enjoyed similar interests, who was objectively attractive, and yet you weren't attracted to that person? It's happened to me a fair number of times, and I've even tried, with her support, to try transmuting friends into more than friends, often with dismal results.

I am a heterosexual male, and yet I am not attracted to all women, or even most women. In fact, it would be easier to list the specific individuals that I was attracted to (admittedly a fairly sizable list) than to come up with any kind of rubric which would rationally distinguish those women I am attracted to from those I am not on the basis of universal laws.

Then again, maybe that's just me.

Cheers