Large scale evaluation of Homosexual genetics and the politics of representing findings

[Quid est Veritas?]

No single gene associated with being gay

"The Harvard and MIT researchers concluded genetics could account for between 8-25% of same-sex behaviour across the population, when the whole genome is considered."

I read this, and thought, that is interesting, so it supports psychosocial factors or developmental ones being the primary cause in most cases. But the article concludes:

"Fah Sathirapongsasuti, senior scientist at 23andMe, added; "This is a natural and normal part of the variation in our species and that should also support precisely the position that we shouldn't try and develop gay 'curism'. That's not in anyone's interest."

--

Okay, but that doesn't follow from your study, which concluded as low as 8% of same sex behaviours could be construed as genetic variants. If anything, it supports Psychosocial factors at play therefore, so theoretically Cognitive Behavioural Therapy should be able to alter the behaviours if someone so wishes, in most of the population in question.

Further:
"David Curtis, honorary professor at the UCL Genetics Institute, University College London, said: "This study clearly shows that there is no such thing as a 'gay gene'.

There is no genetic variant in the population which has any substantial effect on sexual orientation.

Even if homosexuality is not genetically determined, as this study shows, that does not mean that it is not in some way an innate and indispensable part of an individual's personality."

--

Yes, true. However it argues against an innate developmental natural variance, usually allied to genetic expression or epigentics, and more towards the personality having been formed by society or upbringing. Personalities are forged by your circumstance, your 'nurture' too.

Finally:
"Zeke Stokes, from the LGBT media advocacy organisation GLAAD, said: "This new research re-confirms the long-established understanding that there is no conclusive degree to which nature or nurture influence how a gay or lesbian person behaves."

--

Yes. No conclusive manner, though it argues far more strongly for Nurture than Nature, but the entire article was written in such a way to muddy that simple fact. This study frankly says nothing about Nurture, so why does it 'reconfirm' that we don' t know its influence? If we must have a cause, if not genetic in at least 75%, then it must be Psychosocial or Developmental ie Nurture or factors around it. If sexual attraction and gender is merely a construct, as many on the left seem to argue, why are they so reticent when it comes to same sex attraction?

Here is the original study:

Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior | Science

It has just under a half million participants, with fairly good confidence intervals.

 

[mama2one]

"We found several personality traits (loneliness and openness to experience), risky behaviors (smoking and cannabis use) and mental health disorders, but not physical traits, to be significantly genetically correlated with same-sex sexual behavior. We found in both sexes that same-sex sexual behavior was positively genetically correlated with several psychiatric or mental health traits [for example, depression, rg = 0.44 in females (95% CIs, 0.32 and 0.55), rg = 0.33 in males (95% CIs, 0.22 and 0.43); schizophrenia, rg = 0.17 in females (95% CIs 0.08 and 0.35), rg = 0.13 in males (95% CIs, 0.05 and 0.26); all Wald test P < 0.001]. We emphasize that the causal processes underlying these genetic correlations are unclear and could be generated by environmental factors relating to prejudice against individuals engaging in same-sex sexual behavior, among other possibilities, which we discuss in (14). Some associations were sex specific. In particular, the genetic correlations with bipolar disorder, cannabis use, and number of sexual partners were significantly higher in females than in males (Wald test P = 0.001, 1.47 × 10−6, and 3.13 × 10−5 respectively) (table S19)."



according to above findings, would treating mental health disorders such as depression and bi-polar make a difference in same sex behavior? many people do not get treated for these conditions especially since there is still a stigma on mental health issues

 

[JIMINZ]

With all of these so called Psychosocial Studies, all of them regardless of who runs it, have always managed to leave God out of the equation, by doing so the results always have been and are always going to be skewed.

The Issue of Homosexuality, is not an Issue of the Individual and how or what caused him to be a Homosexual, it's and Issue of the Moral condition of the Society in which they live.

The more Decadent, Immoral a Society becomes, the more prevalent the occurrence of Homosexuality will be in that Society.

Pure and simple, it's a CURSE from God on any Society, to expose their Decadence, and Immorality as a sign to them, as to where they as a Society are headed.


Rom 1:22-27
22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

"We found several personality traits (loneliness and openness to experience), risky behaviors (smoking and cannabis use) and mental health disorders, but not physical traits, to be significantly genetically correlated with same-sex sexual behavior. We found in both sexes that same-sex sexual behavior was positively genetically correlated with several psychiatric or mental health traits [for example, depression, rg = 0.44 in females (95% CIs, 0.32 and 0.55), rg = 0.33 in males (95% CIs, 0.22 and 0.43); schizophrenia, rg = 0.17 in females (95% CIs 0.08 and 0.35), rg = 0.13 in males (95% CIs, 0.05 and 0.26); all Wald test P < 0.001]. We emphasize that the causal processes underlying these genetic correlations are unclear and could be generated by environmental factors relating to prejudice against individuals engaging in same-sex sexual behavior, among other possibilities, which we discuss in (14). Some associations were sex specific. In particular, the genetic correlations with bipolar disorder, cannabis use, and number of sexual partners were significantly higher in females than in males (Wald test P = 0.001, 1.47 × 10−6, and 3.13 × 10−5 respectively) (table S19)."



according to above findings, would treating mental health disorders such as depression and bi-polar make a difference in same sex behavior? many people do not get treated for these conditions especially since there is still a stigma on mental health issues

We can't tell. As the article emphasised, the causal factors are unclear. Essentially we are stuck with multiple possibilities - that these other genetic correlations aren't unequivocally associated directly with same sex behaviour has however been shown here. Potentially maybe; but as they note, the correlation could run the other way, that those with a genetic predisposition developed depression or so as partial consequence of same sex behaviour or social or personal factors relating thereto. I do find it worrying that physical and emotional abuse are far more prevalent in homosexual couples, along with lack of monogamy. These must certainly contribute to mental health issues. Further, Religion tends to be protective for long term mental health, and Homosexuals tend to be less religious than the population in general that they reside in.

Most likely if same sex behaviour is mostly Nurture as this suggests, though of course does not absolutely prove, the causation thereof would be multifactorial; and in most cases, targeting one factor alone would not alter it, one assumes. Far more study is required, but I doubt people would investigate along such hotly political lines - the same reason why we consider homosexuality a risk factor for domestic abuse, but don't seem to be investigating why this is so. Political manoeuvring muddies everything, as this article itself indicates.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The idea of proving a genetic cause is an attempt to pull these behaviours out of the realm of sin.

In reality a generational spiritual cause can modify the DNA so one can be born with spiritual baggage that gives you this disposition anyway.

Some are fully released from this spiritual grip.

I would love to see the church be more empowered and active in breaking the power of this curse of the adversary.

 

[Aussie Pete]

No single gene associated with being gay

"The Harvard and MIT researchers concluded genetics could account for between 8-25% of same-sex behaviour across the population, when the whole genome is considered."

I read this, and thought, that is interesting, so it supports psychosocial factors or developmental ones being the primary cause in most cases. But the article concludes:

"Fah Sathirapongsasuti, senior scientist at 23andMe, added; "This is a natural and normal part of the variation in our species and that should also support precisely the position that we shouldn't try and develop gay 'curism'. That's not in anyone's interest."

--

Okay, but that doesn't follow from your study, which concluded as low as 8% of same sex behaviours could be construed as genetic variants. If anything, it supports Psychosocial factors at play therefore, so theoretically Cognitive Behavioural Therapy should be able to alter the behaviours if someone so wishes, in most of the population in question.

Further:
"David Curtis, honorary professor at the UCL Genetics Institute, University College London, said: "This study clearly shows that there is no such thing as a 'gay gene'.

There is no genetic variant in the population which has any substantial effect on sexual orientation.

Even if homosexuality is not genetically determined, as this study shows, that does not mean that it is not in some way an innate and indispensable part of an individual's personality."

--

Yes, true. However it argues against an innate developmental natural variance, usually allied to genetic expression or epigentics, and more towards the personality having been formed by society or upbringing. Personalities are forged by your circumstance, your 'nurture' too.

Finally:
"Zeke Stokes, from the LGBT media advocacy organisation GLAAD, said: "This new research re-confirms the long-established understanding that there is no conclusive degree to which nature or nurture influence how a gay or lesbian person behaves."

--

Yes. No conclusive manner, though it argues far more strongly for Nurture than Nature, but the entire article was written in such a way to muddy that simple fact. This study frankly says nothing about Nurture, so why does it 'reconfirm' that we don' t know its influence? If we must have a cause, if not genetic in at least 75%, then it must be Psychosocial or Developmental ie Nurture or factors around it. If sexual attraction and gender is merely a construct, as many on the left seem to argue, why are they so reticent when it comes to same sex attraction?

Here is the original study:

Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior | Science

It has just under a half million participants, with fairly good confidence intervals.

The Bible states clearly why. Rebellion. All people are born with the sinful human nature. The sinful nature manifests itself in different ways. No sin is worse than another. The consequences may differ. Obviously a thief is not going to contract AIDS because of his behaviour. 1 Corinthians 6:9 lists sinful lifestyles that disqualify a person from inheriting the Kingdom of God. The world system may try to excuse sin but God is not impressed.

 

[pitabread]

With all of these so called Psychosocial Studies, all of them regardless of who runs it, have always managed to leave God out of the equation,

The supernatural is not subject to scientific testing since the supernatural is not bound by the natural world.

Unless you have invented some methodology for defining, constraining and measuring the interactions of the supernatural in the natural world, then it will never be subject to scientific testing.

Consequently, complaining about it is irrelevant.

 

[Ophiolite]

The Issue of Homosexuality, is not an Issue of the Individual and how or what caused him to be a Homosexual, it's and Issue of the Moral condition of the Society in which they live.

Well, that's one view.

The idea of proving a genetic cause is an attempt to pull these behaviours out of the realm of sin.

Well, that's one view.

 

[Prodigal Son returns]

A lame attempt to get more people into a passive position on the issue.
Trying to use science to support the sin

 

[Ophiolite]

A lame attempt to get more people into a passive position on the issue.
Trying to use science to support the sin

Well, that's one view.

 

[Belk]

Standing above the crowd
He had a voice that was strong and loud
Ranting and pointing his finger
At everything but his heart
We'll miss him

 

[JIMINZ]

The supernatural is not subject to scientific testing since the supernatural is not bound by the natural world.

That is soooo correct, it is the Understanding, The Super Natural as you like to call it is in reality God, and not Super Natural at all but the Spiritual.

Therefore as you have said The Spiritual Realm is not subject to the Natural world, and neither indeed can be, because the Natural world is a Creation of God and is a lesser reality than His.

Unless you have invented some methodology for defining, constraining and measuring the interactions of the supernatural in the natural world, then it will never be subject to scientific testing.

It does not have to be constrained, measured or tested, it only needs to be believed, "It's Truth" it is the ultimate reality, therefore everything else is secondary and subject to it.

Consequently, complaining about it is irrelevant.

No complaint, just fact and when people have the truth, they don't need to rely on such things as Scientific Theory.

 

[Belk]

With all of these so called Psychosocial Studies, all of them regardless of who runs it, have always managed to leave God out of the equation, by doing so the results always have been and are always going to be skewed.

The Issue of Homosexuality, is not an Issue of the Individual and how or what caused him to be a Homosexual, it's and Issue of the Moral condition of the Society in which they live.

The more Decadent, Immoral a Society becomes, the more prevalent the occurrence of Homosexuality will be in that Society.

Pure and simple, it's a CURSE from God on any Society, to expose their Decadence, and Immorality as a sign to them, as to where they as a Society are headed.


Rom 1:22-27
22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

That is soooo correct, it is the Understanding, The Super Natural as you like to call it is in reality God, and not Super Natural at all but the Spiritual.

Therefore as you have said The Spiritual Realm is not subject to the Natural world, and neither indeed can be, because the Natural world is a Creation of God and is a lesser reality than His.




It does not have to be constrained, measured or tested, it only needs to be believed, "It's Truth" it is the ultimate reality, therefore everything else is secondary and subject to it.



No complaint, just fact and when people have the truth, they don't need to rely on such things as Scientific Theory.

If it is not measured it can't be "part of the equation". That is how science works. It either is measurable and testable or it gets left out.

 

[pitabread]

It does not have to be constrained, measured or tested, it only needs to be believed

For scientific investigation there needs to be way of constraining, measuring and testing. This is how the scientific method works. The base line for using the scientific method is the objective universe (e.g. basic physical properties of the universe). Without that, science is meaningless.

No complaint, just fact and when people have the truth, they don't need to rely on such things as Scientific Theory.

Not true in the slightest. In fact, the technology you are currently using to communicate this message is a result of an accumulation of knowledge derived from scientific inquiry and resultant scientific theories.

If you were to expunge the results of scientific inquiry from your lifestyle, you probably wouldn't enjoy the results.

 

[Rubiks]

I'm pretty sure "homosexuality is completely caused by genetics" is a straw man for the most part.

 

[Rubiks]

No sin is worse than another.

..and we a Christians wonder why many don't take us seriously

 

[Ophiolite]

If you were to expunge the results of scientific inquiry from your lifestyle, you probably wouldn't enjoy the results.

Since science has permitted (through medicine and agriculture) the planet to sustain a 7 billion plus population, compared with a pre-industrial revolution population of well under one billion, there is only around a 10% chance he would even exist.

 

[pitabread]

The world system may try to excuse sin but God is not impressed.

I'd imagine that an all-powerful omnipotent creator of the entire universe probably has more important things to concern themselves with than what goes on in people's bedrooms.

 

[JIMINZ]

If it is not measured it can't be "part of the equation". That is how science works. It either is measurable and testable or it gets left out.

Which go's right back to my original post.

Science has always managed to leave God out of the equation, by doing so the results always have been and are always going to be skewed.

You see, God has looked at our Society and determined, it (Society Itself) is the root cause of the Homosexual issue in the first place, which was demonstrated and explained, the effect is, God has therefore Cursed our Society with the Proliferation of Decadence and Immorality which brought about the Homosexuality issue in the first place.

You can believe it or not, you can like it or not, it really does not matter what you think or believe on the matter.

The plane fact of the matter is, God is in complete control of ALL of HIS Creation whether you like it or not, you do not have a say in the matter.

You can analyse it test and measure it, your results will always be wrong.

I'm telling you plain and simple, Homosexuality in our Society is the natural outcropping of the Decadence, Immorality within our Society.

Are you able to give me ONE example within some Strata of our Society, where Homosexuality is not seen, where the conditions unique to itself within that Strata has managed to not produced a Homosexual?

Rich
Poor
Educated
Un-Educated
Black
White
Brown
Christian
Atheist
Male
Female
ETC.

It's not Mental, Physical, Environmental but it most certainly is Spiritual.

I know you will completely discount and disregard everything I have said, but that doesn't matter, because it's the truth.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Science has always managed to leave God out of the equation, by doing so the results always have been and are always going to be skewed.

If I weigh a sack of flour, how is my measurement skewed if God isn't in the equation? Are talking on the order of nanograms? micrograms? milligrams? What?