Homosexuality and genetics

[Agnostic75]

Another example of picking and choosing in terms of who you want to believe. Apparently the APA didn't consider the results of this peer reviewed study.

Comparative data of childhood and adolescence... [Arch Sex Behav. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.

But that does not show a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality. An article by an expert at A major study of child abuse and homosexuality revisited shows that there is not any such correlation. The article was written by college psychology professor Warren Throckmorton. He has written and studied about sexual identity extensively. In one of my posts, I quoted him regarding his review of the Danish study that you mentioned.

Even if there was such a correlation, children who are victims of child molestation and turn out to be homosexuals did not choose their sexual identity, and the main options that they have are 1) engaging in same-sex behavior, which has proven benefits if it is practiced safely, 2) trying reparative therapy, which is a proven failure, and 3) trying long term abstinence, which has proven health risks.

Research has shown that many homosexuals are not victims of child abuse, so you cannot claim that child abuse had anything to do with their sexual identity. Even your study shows that 54% of gay men, and 78% of lesbians, were not victims of child abuse.

Since you used PubMed as a source, consider the following from another one of their articles:

The ethics of research into the cause(s) of homose... [J Homosex. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

This paper gives a brief overview on the current state of the art of biomedical research on homosexuality. It concludes that so far the cause(s) of homosexuality is (are) unknown and that biomedical research has failed to provide evidence for a possible causation of homosexuality. We do think, however, that homosexuality is not merely a social construction and the quest for its cause is intelligible. It is less clear, however, whether research into the cause(s) of homosexuality should be done at all. We explore the different arguments brought forward in favor of doing this research and reject all of them. Furthermore, we argue that research into the causes of homosexuality is at the present time unethical and should not be undertaken. Research into the causes of homosexuality assumes more often than not that homosexuality is one or another form of mental illness or undesirable deviance from the heterosexual norm, and should be cured. These views will be criticized as heterosexist.

Now isn't that interesting? I do not necessarily agree with them that the causes of homosexuality should not be studied. My main interest in the quotes is their claim that the causes of homosexuality are unknown.

The PubMed article that you mentioned is dated 2001. Consider the following from one of their articles that is dated 2013:

Homosexual Orientation-From Nature, Not Abuse... [Arch Sex Behav. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen (2013), using instrumental variable models, argued that child abuse causes homosexual orientation, defined in part as any same-sex attractions. Their instruments were various negative family environment factors. In their analyses, they found that child sexual abuse (CSA) was more strongly related to homosexual orientation than non-sexual maltreatment was, especially among males. The present commentary therefore focused on male CSA. It is argued that Roberts et al.'s "abuse model" is incorrect and an alternative is presented. Male homosexual behavior is common in primates and has been common in many human societies, such that an evolved human male homosexual potential, with individual variation, can be assumed. Cultural variation has been strongly influenced by cultural norms. In our society, homosexual expression is rare because it is counternormative. The "counternormativity model" offered here holds that negative family environment weakens normative controls and increases counternormative thinking and behavior, which, in combination with sufficient homosexual potential and relevant, reinforcing experiences, can produce a homosexual orientation. This is a benign or positive model (innate potential plus release and reinforcement), in contrast to Roberts et al.'s negative model (abuse plus emotional compensation or cognitive distortion). The abuse model is criticized for being based on the sexual victimological paradigm, which developed to describe the female experience in rape and incest. This poorly fits the gay male experience, as demonstrated in a brief non-clinical literature review. Validly understanding male homosexuality, it is argued, requires the broad perspective, as employed here.

Please note "it is argued that Roberts et al.'s 'abuse mode' is incorrect," and "the abuse model is criticized for being based on the sexual victimological paradigm, which developed to describe the female experience in rape and incest. This poorly fits the gay male experience......."

Either PubMed has changed its position since 2001, or they were never trying to establish a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality in the first place. I suspect that they were never trying to establish a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality in the first place. If they were, reference their 2001 article that you mentioned, they have changed they minds.

Another example of picking and choosing in terms of who you want to believe.

But I just picked your own source, which is an article from your source that is dated 2013. In addition, the American Psychiatric Association is an excellent source.

What do you want to believe about the causes of homosexuality? You obviously have some motives for choosing your sources. My motives are quite simple. I believe that either naturalism is true, or that a God exists who does not oppose homosexuality. I also believe that from an entirely scientific, and medical perspective, monogamous same-sex relationships are generally far superior to trying reparative therapy, or long term abstinence.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to captainbryce: Regarding the issue of factors outside of the womb, I remind you that my main interest in the opening post was the following comment by a Christian:

"I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality."

I have reasonably disproven that claim. Rather, most experts have reasonably disproven that claim.

In my post #13, I said:

"Regarding homosexuality and genetics, I think that a sizeable majority of experts believe that genetics, and environment both play an important role in homosexuality, and that few experts believe that genetics is not an important part of homosexuality."

You quoted that in one of your posts, so you knew what my position was.

Also, in the opening post, I quoted scientific research that says that homosexuality is caused by genetic, and environmental factors.

I just found out that I did get off track later with the following:

"Apparently, the scientific evidence in the opening post, and in the second post, shows that it is very probable that genetics is an important part of homosexuality, and that the environmental parts of it are not the kinds of environmental evidence that some conservative Christian experts such as NARTH claim. As my second post shows, environmental factors include epigenetic factors inside the womb, not, as NARTH et al partly suggest, how much rough housing young men do with their fathers. So, the fact that some environmental factors are involved is not helpful at all for people who claim that environmental factors outside of the womb are an important part of homosexuality. If you did not read all of the second post, please read it. Apparently the scientific evidence shows that it is very probable that genetics is an important part of homosexuality, and that environmental factors occur inside of the womb, not outside of the womb."

I temporarily got confused about the epigenetic research, and later realized that the articles that I quoted about environmental factors inside of the womb were not implying that there were not any environmental factors outside of the womb.

The major issues for me regarding factors outside of the womb are claims by some Christians that 1) factors outside of the womb primarily determine a person's sexual identity, that 2) those factors can be manipulated in formative years of sexual identity to produce a heterosexual sexual identity, and that 3) reparative therapy, or abstinence for life are the best solutions for homosexuality. Regarding those issues, all major medical associations agree with me, and oppose those claims.

That's because such research [regarding manipulating sexual identity outside of the womb] hasn't been attempted yet. The field of study is still "new" and we don't know enough either way to draw conclusions yet.

New? No, not new. Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., psychology, co-founded NARTH in 1992, which was over 20 years ago, and ever since has been trying with his colleagues to prove that environmental factors outside of the womb are predominantly responsible for homosexuality. Nicolosi has written at least eight books, starting in 1991. All major medical organizations strongly oppose his claims.

I read two of Nicolosi's books many years ago. The books contain many claims that environmental factors outside of the womb are the predominant cause of homosexuality. NARTH has many members who are medical doctors, or who have a Ph.D. in psychiatry, or a Ph.D in psychology. For over 20 years, NARTH has devoted lots of time, money, and scientific expertise to trying to reasonably prove that environmental factors outside of the womb are the predominant cause of homosexuality.

Perhaps you would be pleased if Nicolosi is right. Then you could make a case that parents should take measures to try to prevent their children from becoming homosexuals.

The predominant theory today is a combination of genetics and environment, with genetics being a very important part of homosexuality. Even if environmental factors outside of the womb are important, recent epigenetic research has used mathematical models to empirically show that epigenetic factors are an important part of homosexuality. Since such research is empirical, and testable by using mathematical models, I think that most experts will agree with me that it will probably never be reasonably proven that genetics is not an important factor.

When teenagers develop a homosexual sexual identity, their sexual identity is not their choice, and they should not be ashamed of their sexual identity. All major medical organizations say that sexual identity cannot be changed. Reparative therapy is a proven failure, at least in most cases, as even the former head of the recently disbanded organization Exodus International admitted, and long term abstinence has proven health risks. Thus, it is reasonable for homosexuals to enjoy monogamous, loving relationships.

The following organizations have said that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children:

American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Anthropological Association
American Sociological Association

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There is something called a recessive gene. Say for example no one in your family in the last 4 generations have had red hair or have they ever mated with someone who had red hair. Eventually, someone in the family in generations to come will mate with someone with a recessive gene and it will be carried from there on.

Say the family mentioned belonged to Harry. Harry then meets Sally who is Blonde and he great grandmother had strawberry blonde hair. Even though Harry's family all had brown hair, his offspring (lets call the offspring Tommy and Liz) now have a chance of carrying the recessive gene that Sally carries from her great grandmother.
His son Tommy may have red hair while his daughter Liz has brown hair.
Tommy is now the first boy in Harry's family history to have red hair.
However the chance that Tommy's offspring will have red hair is still low because it is a recessive gene.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but still, that implies a homosexual male must have been attracted to and mated with a female in the past, leaving this supposed homosexual as a bisexual. Unless bisexual genes also pass homosexual genes, I don't see how it's possible.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well those who are homosexuals would still have children. By the I would look at Romans who would would have wives but still sleep with men. And who knows how many people simply denied their feelings throughout history.

How would a homosexual be able to have a child, thus implying he be turned on and fully have an ejaculation to a female body?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How would a homosexual be able to have a child, thus implying he be turned on and fully have an ejaculation to a female body?

Gay penguins steal eggs from straight couples - Telegraph

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Gay penguins steal eggs from straight couples - Telegraph

Then it wouldn't be his genetic child...

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's open for debate. But again, beyond your little spat with another so-called Christian on this forum, I fail to see how this specifically relates to Christianity or the bible.

It is? Oh okay, so when did you choose to be heterosexual?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Then it wouldn't be his genetic child...

I was trying to illustrate a concept: artificial insemination of a surrogate, and then taking the baby after birth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't see how it can be possible that genes influence homosexual activity, it in no way can be spread sexually, nothing with a gay gene in the past would have been able to share that gene or procreate before they died.

The exception of bisexuality

Lots of gay people have produced children. My cousin is one of them.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Lots of gay people have produced children. My cousin is one of them.

Completely gay?

Non-personal examples please?

 

[Agnostic75]

I don't know what causes homosexuality, but if it were genes I still don't understand how evolution would allow it to exist, I don't care how evolution caused homosexuality, I just want to know how it would pass on.

Evolution exists. If naturalism is true, it obviously allows homosexuality to exist, or homosexuality would not exist. The fact that we do not understand how evolution allows homosexuality to exist does not change that. If theistic evolution is true, God obviously allows homosexuality to exist, and created it among humans, and among over 1500 species of animals, and birds, and causes all bonobo monkeys to be bi-sexual.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Evolution exists. If naturalism is true, it obviously allows homosexuality to exist, or homosexuality would not exist. The fact that you do not understand how evolution allows homosexuality to exist does not change that. If theistic evolution is true, God obviously allows homosexuality to exist, and created it among humans, and among over 1500 species of animals, and birds, and causes all bonobo monkeys to be bi-sexual.

You're not helping. You're mainly just proving "homosexuality exists" and nothing further. Consider the logic of natural selection, in which those that have sex spread their traits on and those who have died a virgin have not spread their traits on. Eventually, if not enough of that trait is spread into further generations, that trait will die out. Nature considers the trait inferior.

How on earth is it logical that there were thousands among thousands of homosexuals that have had sex with the reproductive opposite sex, each generation, in order to spread that homosexual trait of their's?

 

[Agnostic75]

You're not helping. You're mainly just proving "homosexuality exists" and nothing further. Consider the logic of natural selection, in which those that have sex spread their traits on and those who have died a virgin have not spread their traits on. Eventually, if not enough of that trait is spread into further generations, that trait will die out. Nature considers the trait inferior.

Are you trying to make a case that naturalism via evolution could not have accounted for homosexuality, or that naturalism cannot exist, or that theistic evolution does not exist? I do not think that we can get anywhere unless you state what your motives are, what you are trying to show, and how you believe life started on earth.

If you are merely a curious skeptic who accepts evolution, you already know that experts do not understand how evolution allows homosexuality to exist, but they do know that since homosexuality exists, it would not exist unless evolution allowed it to exist. The lack of an understood mechanism does not change that. If we do not know, then we do not know, and there should be no further need to state that again. There are many things about evolution that experts do not understand. Evolution is not in trouble because we do not know how evolution allows homosexuality.

We agree that homosexuality exists. Can we agree that evolution exists? If so, can we agree that somehow, evolution allows homosexuality to exist, or it would not exist?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Are you trying to make a case that naturalism via evolution could not have accounted for homosexuality, or that naturalism cannot exist, or that theistic evolution does not exist? I do not think that we can get anywhere unless you state what your motives are, what you are trying to show, and how you believe life started on earth.

If you are merely a curious skeptic who accepts evolution, you already know that experts do not understand how evolution allows homosexuality to exist, but they do know that since homosexuality exists, it would not exist unless evolution allowed it to exist. The lack of an understood mechanism does not change that. If we do not know, then we do not know, and there should be no further need to state that again. There are many things about evolution that experts do not understand. Evolution is not in trouble because we do not know how evolution allows homosexuality.

We agree that homosexuality exists. Can we agree that evolution exists? If so, can we agree that somehow, evolution allows homosexuality to exist, or it would not exist?

I'm suggesting that it is not genetic, but something separate so evolution can not exactly eliminate it (e.g. some hypotheses that come to mind are: influenced by surroundings while growing up, sexual preference is a matter of something psychological, etc)

 

[Agnostic75]

is

I'm suggesting that it is not genetic, but something separate so evolution can not exactly eliminate it (e.g. some hypotheses that come to mind are: influenced by surroundings while growing up, sexual preference is a matter of something psychological, etc.)

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, and can be prevented by controlling children's environments? If so, please provide documented research that supports your claims.

How can you deny the scientific evidence in the first and second posts that shows that genetics is an important part of homosexuality?

Do you oppose homosexual acts?

Do you have a religious motive for your posts?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, and can be prevented by controlling children's environments? If so, please provide documented research that supports your claims.

How can you deny the scientific evidence in the first and second posts that shows that genetics are an important part of homosexuality?

Do you oppose homosexual acts?

Do you have a religious motive for your posts?

The American Psychological Association stated, "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." However, according to Royal College of Psychiatrists, there is "no substantive evidence" which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role.

- wikipedia

Environment and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This whole page is about things researchers have found that point towards it being an environmental factor.

 

[Agnostic75]

The American Psychological Association stated, "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." However, according to Royal College of Psychiatrists, there is "no substantive evidence" which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role.

- wikipedia

Environment and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This whole page is about things researchers have found that point towards it being an environmental factor.

The following is from the article that you mentioned:

Sexual orientation is theorized as possibly being a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

Results from a 2008 twin study were consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.

Your own source agrees with what I have been saying in this thread, that genetics, and environment are both important factors regarding sexual identity. I never said that environment is not involved. I have said on many occasions that it is involved. However, no major medical organization makes a case that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, but all major medical organizations believe that genetics is an important part of homosexuality.

Please note that part of the environmental evidence that the quotes mentioned is biological, meaning environmental evidence inside the womb. All environmental evidence is not outside of the womb. Some is inside the womb. My second post discusses that.

The article that you quoted says that "no substantive evidence.......suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role."

How does that make a case for environmental evidence?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How would a homosexual be able to have a child, thus implying he be turned on and fully have an ejaculation to a female body?

I think your question was how would the "gene"propagate and evolution not get rid of it?

Not everyone who is homosexual identifies themselves as such, they may be attracted to men, but they may still hold a physical attraction to women for the sake of duty. I mentioned the romans, because there were people who clearly engaged in homosexual intercourse probably moreso then heterosexual with their mates. They would have children, if there is a gene that gene would be passed to the children, who would continue to pass it on, as they too may have the inclinations or they may not.

 

[Agnostic75]

I don't see how it can be possible that genes influence homosexual activity.......

Actually, you are right, but not like you think. Consider the following:

New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality | TIME.com

Sexual preference may not be written in our genes, but rather in how our genes are expressed

For an evolutionary biologist, homosexuality is something of a puzzle. It’s a common trait, found in up to 10% of the population. It appears to be run in families, suggesting that it is hereditary, at least in part. And yet it defies the very reason why traits are passed on from generation to generation. How could something that hinders childbearing be passed down so frequently from parents to children?
Researchers at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) think they may have an answer. It’s not in written in our DNA sequence itself, they suggest, which explains why scientists have failed so far to find “gay genes,” despite intensive investigations. Instead, it’s written in how our genes are expressed: that is, in certain modifications to how and when DNA is activated. These changes can have environmental roots, so are not normally permanent enough to be passed from parent to child. But occasionally, they are.

“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA. It’s not pieces of DNA. It’s epigenetics,” says Sergey Gavrilets, a NIMBioS researcher and an author on the paper that outlines the new theory of homosexuality, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology. “The hypothesis we put forward is based on epigenetic marks,” he says.

To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” related to sensitivity to hormones in the womb. These are compounds that sit on DNA and regulate how active, or inactive certain genes are, and also control when during development these genes are most prolific. Gavrilets and his colleagues believe that gene expression may regulate how a fetus responds to testosterone, the all-important male sex hormone. They further argue that epi-marks may help to buffer a female fetus from high levels of testosterone by suppressing receptors that respond to testosterone, for example, (thus ensuring normal fetal development even in the presence of a lot of testosterone) or to buffer a male fetus from low levels of testosterone by upregulating receptors that bind to the hormone (ensuring normal fetal development even in the absence of high levels of testosterone). Normally, these epi-marks are erased after they are activated, but if those marks are passed down to the next generation, the same epi-marks that protected a man in utero may cause oversensitivity to testosterone among his daughters, and the epi-marks that protected a woman in utero may lead to undersensitivity to testosterone among her sons.

Gavrilets says that some scientists have already expressed “strong interest” in new experiments that will test the hypothesis, attempting to estimate how often such epi-marks may arise among men and women, and how often they are saved from one generation to the next. The work might also explain the extent to which epi-marks can influence sexual behavior. While experimental evidence is lacking for now, Gavrilets says he is reasonably confident that the theory is sound.

“It’s compatible with the [existing] data. Plus it’s supported by mathematical modeling,” he says.

The new theory is important because it synthesizes well-tested and well-developed evolutionary principles with cutting-edge research in molecular biology and biological computation. Epigenetics is not a new concept exactly, but the field has exploded within the past decade. Where once it seemed that genes and environment were distinct, or that nature and nurture were distinct, now it seems clear that environment itself may change the ways in which our genes function – even though the genes themselves are essentially fixed over time, barring occasional mutations, and conserved across generations.

As the article says, “It’s compatible with the [existing] data. Plus it’s supported by mathematical modeling.”

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The following is from the article that you mentioned:



Your own source agrees with what I have been saying in this thread, that genetics, and environment are both important factors regarding sexual identity. I never said that environment is not involved. I have said on many occasions that it is involved. However, no major medical organization makes a case that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, but all major medical organizations believe that genetics is an important part of homosexuality.

Please note that part of the environmental evidence that the quotes mentioned is biological, meaning environmental evidence inside the womb. All environmental evidence is not outside of the womb. Some is inside the womb. My second post discusses that.

The article that you quoted says that "no substantive evidence.......suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role."

How does that make a case for environmental evidence?

Influenced by genetics is unlike a gene itself.