Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?

[Accountable]

I really didn't want to start a fresh thread about this, but I couldn't find a suitable one to attach it to because so many people use 'gay' instead of 'homosexual' and the search engine here doesn't look for three-letter words.



This is a commentary leaning decidedly against the idea, but it brings up good points and sites. I disconnected all links, but the article is here.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



ABC Follows 'Born Gay' Script to a T

By Robert Knight

Saturday, March 29, 2008



ABC’s Good Morning America hit a grand slam today for the homosexual activist movement by airing a profoundly misleading segment that asks, “Can a Baby Be Gay?”



A longer segment is slated for tonight’s 20/20.



Convincing the public that some people are “born gay” is a central strategy of homosexual activists, who are being aided by a compliant media that routinely fails to examine such claims. If sexual behavior is hard-wired like race, then moral considerations can be swept aside, homosexuality declared a “civil right” and governments can move against people who believe homosexuality is wrong.



The Good Morning America story follows the script proposed in the gay strategic manual After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. The two Harvard-trained PR experts set out to “overhaul straight America,” which was the title of an article out of which After the Ball was born as a full-length book in 1989.



The authors tell activists to use the media to portray homosexuality as in-born, and homosexuals as victims. The heavies in the drama are proponents of traditional morality –especially Christians—who are to be depicted as ignorant at best, and haters and bigots at worst. The authors further advise that under no circumstances should the public be informed of actual homosexual behavior. Over the years, the media rarely have veered from the script, and Good Morning America is no exception.



Host Diane Sawyer begins the Good Morning America segment by proclaiming the advent of a “truly landmark study” (whose results won’t come out until later this year) about “biology and being gay.



And of course, what about the people who still believe that homosexuality is a choice?” Wink, wink. These are the same folks who still believe in a flat earth.



The report is framed around a boy named Zack, who, along with his parents, believes he was “born gay.” The lone dissenter, Dr. Stanton Jones, is introduced as “a clinical psychologist and evangelical Christian.” No one else’s religious beliefs are mentioned. The message: Pay no attention to this man. His views are religious, not scientific.



Here’s a portion of the transcript of the 4-minute, 19-second segment. Parentheses are added:



(reporter) LYNN SCHERR: …Zack's parents both believe that homosexuality was probably in their son's DNA. For them, there is no medical mystery. But might a proven genetic link help other parents understand what they saw with their own eyes? Dr. Alan Sanders, a psychiatric geneticist at Northwestern Healthcare Institute, is currently heading the biggest study ever undertaken on sexual orientation. Do you believe you're going to find a gay gene?



SANDERS: I think the evidence is pretty convincing already that a substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics. It’s probably the single biggest factor that we do know about. (Sanders is shown in a lab with lots of technical stuff around him.)



SCHERR: But Dr. Stanton Jones, a clinical psychologist and evangelical Christian, says genetics plays at best, just a small role. (Jones is shown typing on a computer in an office.)



JONES: The major misunderstanding in public awareness is that people are gay when they’re born and it’s just a matter of acknowledging that after you’ve developed the initial awareness.



SCHERR: (quick cut, confrontational tone) And what's wrong with that position?



JONES: That the evidence doesn't support it. The scientific evidence doesn't support it.



Instead of exploring Jones’ contention, for which there is ample documentation, Scherr instead turns to Zack’s parents to pose a question that has the effect of ridiculing Stanton’s position:



SCHERR: But if science does find that genetic link to homosexuality, could there one day be a test that could tell parents about their baby’s sexual identity in the womb, so they could perhaps change it? Cindy O'Connor would never have considered it.



SCHERR off camera to Zack’s parents: If they offered you a patch – a hormone patch?



ZACK’s DAD, laughing: A vaccine?



SCHERR: To say, well, we think he's going to be gay, would you rather take this and we know he’ll be straight.



CINDY O’CONNOR: No, I wouldn't have cared. He’s who he is, it doesn’t matter. You know, it’s not relevant.



Diane Sawyer then says, in studio with Scherr, “Really, interesting. Interesting study they’re doing. And when’s it coming out?” Scherr answers that they “hope to have the first results at the end of the year.”



But why wait until then? Why not continue to stack the deck for the “gay gene.”



Since 1991, the media periodically have reported scientific claims of a genetic component to homosexuality, often on the front page of newspapers like The New York Times and in evening newscasts. Although none of the studies has held up under scrutiny, and none has been replicated—a necessary element for scientific validity—the media continue to sing from the gay songbook.



The focus of the GMA segment, the young man, Zack, says he felt different from a very young age. Although this in no way lessens the credibility of competing theories that environmental factors are paramount in the formation of sexual desires, it stands as given: He felt “gay,” so he must have been born that way.



Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist with degrees from MIT, the University of Texas and Harvard, has written extensively about problems with genetic research on homosexuality, and also about professional organizations’ refusal to consider opposing evidence. In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Satinover says genetic factors might contribute “not to homosexuality per se, but rather to some other trait that makes the homosexual ‘option’ more readily available than to those who lack this genetic trait.”



He notes that most basketball players tend to be tall, but that this does not mean that they have a “basketball gene.” It only means that they might gravitate toward that sport because of their height. Similarly, a young boy might be more sensitive than other boys, be less athletic, be rejected by his father and peers, and hence be starved for male approval. An early sexual experience could then take him down a path he might not necessarily have taken.



Satinover notes that cultures worldwide historically have varied greatly in terms of homosexual practice and that this indicates that “environmental” factors are at work.



Given that such cultures have existed where the incidence of homosexuality is far greater than at present, the incidence of homosexuality is clearly influenced by mores.



Good Morning America could have made their story more balanced, also, by including an interview with a former homosexual who once believed he or she was “born gay.”



By ignoring scientific articles and books—and the existence of people—that effectively rebut the “gay gene” theory, and presenting homosexuality as something in-born and no more consequential than being right-handed or left-handed, Good Morning America continues to distort public understanding of a complex issue.



The authors of After the Ball, wherever they are today, must be smiling.

[Clodhopper]

Seems to me the main issue here is bad journalism, not homosexuality.

So far as I'm aware there has been no provable reason why some are homosexual, some are bisexual and some are het.

Last I can heard about is some study suggesting younger siblings in families with lots of children were more likely to be gay than the older children, or childern in families with few children. Not worth much, since I can't recall where I heard it!

[Accountable]

Clodhopper;819930 wrote: Seems to me the main issue here is bad journalism, not homosexuality.



So far as I'm aware there has been no provable reason why some are homosexual, some are bisexual and some are het.
That's the point of the commentary. A TV news magazine 20/20 took an ongoing study too new to announce results and made it sound like fact.



I don't get the fascination, frankly. We're supposed to be a monogamous society, so why should we care about who anybody else (besides our own parner) is having sex with?

[Clodhopper]

Accountable;819977 wrote: That's the point of the commentary. A TV news magazine 20/20 took an ongoing study too new to announce results and made it sound like fact.



I don't get the fascination, frankly. We're supposed to be a monogamous society, so why should we care about who anybody else (besides our own parner) is having sex with?


chuckle. You're being FAAAR to logical about this. It's not a subject where logic applies! Look at dear old cherandbuster - happily married by all accounts, but starting threads on the most intimate of subjects :yh_blush and the incredible amount of sex scandal that gets into the news!:rolleyes:

(that's not a criticism, cher, I'm just not used to it. It's probably good for me:D)

Partly, I suppose, sex is where grown-ups play, and involves a whole set of behaviours we'd never let even close friends see: It's both intensely private and at the same time, shared - even if only in our heads!

But then of course, I'm British, and we don't believe in it.:yh_liar

[cherandbuster]

Clodhopper;820007 wrote: (that's not a criticism, cher, I'm just not used to it. It's probably good for me:D)


No offense taken, my new friend CHopper

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;819914 wrote:

The authors tell activists to use the media to portray homosexuality as in-born, and homosexuals as victims. The heavies in the drama are proponents of traditional morality –especially Christians—who are to be depicted as ignorant at best, and haters and bigots at worst. The authors further advise that under no circumstances should the public be informed of actual homosexual behavior. Over the years, the media rarely have veered from the script, and Good Morning America is no exception.




Now that's rich. "Christians" actively attack gay people, then turn around and try to paint themselves as the victims.

[yaaarrrgg]

Jester;822121 wrote:

Please note in the article the hiding of the truth, the PR gurus do not want under any circumstances to have anyone in the media show the truth of homosexual activity. (HIV, STD, sodomy, medical problems associated with anal penetration) All that is to be kept secret.


Believe it or not, lesbians have lower HIV rates than heterosexuals. Does that mean God prefers watching lesbian action?

Also, the blanket statement that anal penetration is a "gay activity" is also false ... many straight people do this. There's really no such thing as "gay sex" that doesn't also exists in a heterosexual setting.

[yaaarrrgg]

Jester;822311 wrote: The issue is about homosexual activity, anal penetration whether homosexual or hetrosexual in nature has physical/medical consequences. In either case its a bad idea unless you want those problems. But here we are talking about homosexual issues, and how they are portrayed in the media and 'hidden'. Not about the media protrayin the truth that there are health issues regarding homosexual activity.

On the lesbian question, (and I'd like alink for proof of that please, but I'll answer in the negative, no, it means that God preferes men and women to be in committed, opposite gender, married relationships before having intercourse and then to keep the matter of intercourse in its proper format as the human body was created for.

And I want it noted that I was not the first one to mention God in this thread. My intent was to keep my postings non-religious in nature.


On HIV transmission, the two primary means of transmission are blood and semen. How is female-female sex going involve much of either?

I don't know of any links offhand that break down the demographics ... although googled this:

"75 percent of the new infections in women are heterosexually transmitted."

(note the remaining 25% will include transmission from sharing needles, etc ... pushing female-female transmission even lower)

From: http://www.until.org/statistics.shtml

It sounds like you're not really opposed to gay sex, as much as non-reproductive sex (as it's "unnatural"). But what about oral and anal sex within marriage? Seems like there's a double standard regarding the crack down on non-reproductive sex between straight people in a marriage.

The media, I think, has been pretty clear that unprotected sex (esp anal sex), having large numbers of sex partners, and sharing needles are high risk for HIV. That doesn't mean that all gay people do this though. Ironically, many gay people want to form long term relationships within marriage, but many Christians oppose this.

[Accountable]

*SMACKS ruler on the desk*



Neither of you are addressing the homosexual gene question. :yh_wait

[PurpleChicken]

Nature or nuture, the classic question!



For my 2c worth, I would ask does it really matter? Some people are homosexual, some are hetrosexual, some are bisexual (and others, well...). I think we just have to accept that and get on with life. Trying to look for a cause almost seems to give people a reason to discriminate against them.



Maybe we should look for an idiot or redneck gene!



Oh and in response to the ruler on the desk (a classic teacher move!), there certianly do seem to be people out there that display transgender traits from an early age. But I guess we usually just put it down to growing up. I was a hell of a TomBoy during my childhood (and arguably still now), but that certainly doesn't mean I am gay. Maybe my genes are a bit screwed up too!

[yaaarrrgg]

Jester;822448 wrote: Or how about this "World wide 65 million people have the HIV virus, please engage in the 'GAY' life wisely."


Yes, I think that's good advice ... and it goes for straight people too.

Also, on "the" gay lifestyle ... I don't think there's just one gay lifestyle. Many gay Christians buy into the claim that sexual preference is a choice, only making themselves and people around them miserable in the process.

I have a relative that "came out of the closet" years ago. He's an older gentleman who is a catholic and is married (to a female). Both he and his wife seem frustrated with each other, and probably have only had sex a few times in over 30 years of marriage. That's also a "gay" lifestyle.

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;822568 wrote: *SMACKS ruler on the desk*



Neither of you are addressing the homosexual gene question. :yh_wait


Back to the OP, homosexual activity has been observed in other species with about the same frequency as in humans. Wouldn't that point to a biological basis?

However, I think the article in the OP is correct, in as far as not every biological basis is genetic ... for example it could be a function of fetal developmental.

As already noted, it's been shown that younger male siblings are more likely to be gay. It's theorized that younger siblings are built with less testosterone, since it prevents conflict with the older male siblings (increasing the chance of survival of the whole family). That doesn't mean it's a gene, but the function of the mother's reproductive system, and the point in the cycle in which the development occurs.

[sunny104]

I believe we are born that way. Nobody can choose who they are attracted to. :-6

[koan]

Some people may be born that way but some switch or expand horizons.

The only point I can see to even concerning ourselves with the issue is to create public tolerance. Regarding investigative reports, if they can't present a topic with proper, unbiased investigative approaches, they shouldn't cover the topic at all.

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;822998 wrote: No 'gay' gene... its a behavior.

It's an abnormal deviation of the sex drive based on learned and social permisson. When the sex drive is fed to an abmormal state it grows and controls the mind exponentially. When the sex drive is under control and is kept in balance with the other drives in development then we have a balanced mature human being.


Would you care to give a substantiation of that very definite statement?

As an opinion it's all fine and dandy - as a statement of fact it needs to be backed up.

[Pheasy]

I wonder if 'murderers' and 'sex offenders' are born with some 'sick b'strd' gene .... an investigation into that would be far more beneficial to society !!

[YZGI]

I have found a "GAY GENE"

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;823115 wrote: Sure, nobodies found a 'gay' gene. That ought to be evidence enough for now. If they can identify one invetro and 100% of those born with it grow up to be homosexuals, then I'll amend my statement.


So you have only a lack of evidence for one of the alternative explanations to fall back on? But you are demanding absolute cut and dried proof of that alternative before you will admit you might be wrong? Hardly a balanced view.

OK, I'll posit another alternative explanation.

I would suggest that about 75% of homosexuals are nurture leaving 25% as nature (figures very much guesses with no documentary foundation but put forward as a basis of discussion).

The figures might well be further skewed by those people whose genetic disposition is to homosexuality but who's lifestyle is not.

I would further suggest that no single gene controls homosexuality - the percentages are wrong even for a recessive and would suggest a combination of, probably, three genes.

The combination of the above makes the isolation of the genetic basis more difficult but not impossible and several studies have shown significant results. a good general overview of recent research can be found at :-

http://alum.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html



Conclusion

A large body of evidence is growing that points to sexual orientation being genetically determined, but not necessarily a completely conclusive one. Replication is severly lacking in many areas of research into sexual orientation, the exception being the famiality studies. Consistently returning the same result of 50% of identical twins being concordant for sexual orientation, these are some of the strongest evidence in support of a genetic theory of sexual orientation. These studies also tend to be the easiest type to carry out, as they do not involve any medical technique any more invasive than the standard questionnaire. All do have the same problem of how their sample was gathered, but with such a similarity of results and such a large total sample, that factor becomes less important.


I agree, nothing definitive but sufficient to suggest that you are in no position to state categorically :-

Jester wrote: No 'gay' gene... its a behavior.

It's an abnormal deviation of the sex drive based on learned and social permisson.

[elixer]

YZGI;823144 wrote: I have found a "GAY GENE"








:wah:

I think I love you...

[YZGI]

elixer;824358 wrote: :wah:

I think I love you...
Whew, had to check your profile and make sure you were female..:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;824713 wrote: Lets use common sense here and bypass this idiotic doublespeak of scientific bababry by those with a bent axe to grind against the neoreligious...

The parts dont fit, and you cant get kids from same sex buggering... period. Its a sheer design problem, the machines do not work together. End of story. If one chooses to use a machine for which it was not designed you get issues, problems and it dont work to its full capacity. You might like to use a screwdriver as a hammer but its not gonna drive nails as well.

When some men are born with functioning vaginas for other men to bugger then I'll amend my statement. When some women are born with a functioning penis to use on other women I'll amend my statement.

And thats just about all there is to the matter.


Sorry - that's using your belief to determine scientific fact. You are perfectly entitled to your belief but it has nothing to do with science.

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;825237 wrote: So your saying the parts do fit then eh... Part of science is observation is it not? Can you not see that the parts do not fit or are being forced to fit and used out of design or intended use? If you can't see that then you, sir, are blind.


Apart from the fact that it is totally irrelevant to whether there is any genetic predisposition towards homosexuality (which is, after all, what we were discussing), have you never seen the Kama Sutra?

It lists many, many positions where the fit is more forced but these positions are accepted because they are heterosexual - or do you subscribe to the belief that the missionary position is the only position acceptable in the sight of God?



As I have said previously, you cannot dictate scientific truth on the basis of religious belief - that sort of thinking was discredited after Galileo. The fit or otherwise of body parts does not determine genetics - if you cannot see that, Sir, then you are the one who is blind.

[sofemme]

hmmmm I don't know about a gay gene....not educated enough to argue scientifically.....not energetic enough to argue religion..... I am a thinking person and offer you another thought or 2....:-3

A symplistic view:

Perhaps homosexuality is simply the next step in evolution or is a natural act that has been twisted until it is no longer acceptable. God is omnipotent and as such doesn't make mistakes....God loves ALL the little children of the world....even the gay ones.

Sorry Accountable....couldn't stay on topic. I just wonder why it matters one way or another. Does it matter? Couldn't those research funds be better spent on something that would actually help society?



I wonder if 'murderers' and 'sex offenders' are born with some 'sick b'strd' gene .... an investigation into that would be far more beneficial to society !!:-6

..........i really liked this idea.

[koan]

I'm all for spending money on studies that prevent humans from beating the crap out of each other (with or without heavy artillery). If increasing tolerance towards homosexuals spares some poor souls from being assaulted while going about their day/night then I don't have a problem with it.

Poor investigative skills aren't going to do a damn thing to solve the problem though.

[yaaarrrgg]

Jester;824713 wrote:

When some men are born with functioning vaginas for other men to bugger then I'll amend my statement. When some women are born with a functioning penis to use on other women I'll amend my statement.

And thats just about all there is to the matter.


What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex ?

I recall years ago I asked my mother (a Christian fundamentalist) about hermaphrodites, and how they fit into God's one-man-one-woman plan. She said these people should hide themselves in shame. I think she summed up the fundamentalist view brutally and succinctly, in that people that don't fit the mold are kindly asked not to exist.

If these lines are clearly blurred at the physical level, what's inconceivable about something similar happening at a psychological level?

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;826736 wrote: The part that is a choice. If your a man then we basicly have the inbred desire for women, if a woman then you have an inbred desire for a man, if you choose somthing beyond our basic wiring then thats the choice you make, its morally wrong to go against the nature of the body as designed. The misbehavior then is choosing the same gender in order to engage in sexual gratifiication. The normal behavior then is to seek gratification from your opposite gender.

It is learned behavior to go contrary to opposite gender.

Is that clear enough?


No.

Without giving a basis for your statement "If your a man then we basicly have the inbred desire for women, if a woman then you have an inbred desire for a man" you have said nothing to make anything clear.

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;826742 wrote: As I have said before, misapplied science is one tool man uses to attempt to explain away sin, and Gods law in order to do anything they feel is right in their own eyes and avoid the guilt thats inbuilt to breaking Gods laws, this deep desire to justify sinful behavior is nothing more than attempt to appease the conscience and sear the spirit from working in the heart of a man. Real science will match Gods design and intended use. Religion has nothing to do with it.


Absolute self denial - if it does not match my belief of God's design and intended use then it is not real science. How can that have nothing to do with religion.

There are enough scientists who are committed believers that, if this was false science for the sake of propaganda hten it would rapidly be exposed as such.

You have every right to hold the beliefs that you do but please, admit that your beliefs are held on faith rather than trying to justify them by claiming that everyone who disagrees with them is lying to avoid feeling guilt - that is not a rational argument.

[Accountable]

I've been out for awhile, so save me some reading time please, Bryn & RJ. Have you expressed your opinions on this or have you just been attacking Jester for stating his?

[abbey]

I dont read the bible, never have, never will, but if I find a thread distastful I ignore it,

It's just the polite and right thing to do (imo)

Let us remember folks, it takes all sorts to make up a forum but one remark to stop a valued member from posting.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;827980 wrote: I've been out for awhile, so save me some reading time please, Bryn & RJ. Have you expressed your opinions on this or have you just been attacking Jester for stating his?


My opinion :-

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=25

was dismissed as "idiotic doublespeak of scientific bababry".

Ever since, I've been trying to defend science's right to have a view that does not accord with Jester's view of what's in the Bible.

[Bryn Mawr]

rjwould;828140 wrote: The only one here 'attacking' anyone is accountable attacking us for defending the rights of both ourselves and others. Very predictable and transparent..


Oh, that wasn't an attack - more a friendly poke for us to check our motives.

I'm happy that I'm not attacking Jester for the sake of attacking Jester so no big deal.

I am, however, trying to get Jester to see that his moral views do not determine the findings of properly conducted genetic studies and that, however inconvenient, he cannot dismiss those findings as lies.

[Clodhopper]

Bryn Mawr;828146 wrote: Oh, that wasn't an attack - more a friendly poke for us to check our motives.

I'm happy that I'm not attacking Jester for the sake of attacking Jester so no big deal.

I am, however, trying to get Jester to see that his moral views do not determine the findings of properly conducted genetic studies and that, however inconvenient, he cannot dismiss those findings as lies.


:) Good luck.

[Accountable]

rjwould;828242 wrote: Do you think there are obligations in a marriage? If so, what are they?
Marriage is genetic?? :-2