Homosexuality and genetics

[satori8]

I'm going off of what is recorded in the bible. It is not an assumption that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality in the bible, nor is it an assumption that he did speak about adultery. Those are biblical facts! The question is whether or not you believe that the bible is TRUE, accurately rendered, and the inspired word of God. I sense that in some of these areas at least, you don't (which if fine). But that's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

From a scientific perspective, I do think that it is POSSIBLE that there is a genetic link between genetics and homosexuality. There is some evidence to suggest a correlation, which might lead someone to that conclusion (though it is not necessarily a proven fact yet). There are many possible factors that influence sexuality (including environmental). Everyone is not the same, and until we know everything there is to know about genetics, sexuality, the brain and the human psyche, it would be unreasonable to try to come up with one scientific formula for what produces a homosexual.

Jesus did not speak out against homosexuality at all. He only spoke of men and women and divorce (the two will become one flesh).

This does not mean it is ok by Christian standards. But I would not put words in Jesus's mouth that did not get said.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is not an assumption that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality in the Bible, nor is it an assumption that he did speak about adultery. Those are biblical facts! The question is whether or not you believe that the bible is TRUE, accurately rendered, and the inspired word of God.

It is reasonable for people to assess the probability that any particular ancient writing from any religious book was inspired by God. I believe that I made a good case that God did not inspire anything about adultery. If I am probably right, there must be other examples of interpolations, and forgeries, some that are obvious, and others that are not obvious. Today, it would be easy for some skeptics to change parts of the Bible, take the changes to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least some people some of the time. Even the Bible itself implies that tampering with the texts is possible since the last page of the book of Revelation warns against tampering with the text. If tampering with the texts was not possible, there would not have been any need for the warnings.

You mentioned faith as evidence, but everyone has faith of some kind. A mere declaration of faith by anyone about anything never accomplishes anything except for a person making a claim of faith that is already obvious to everyone. Quite obviously, every Christian in the world has faith. In order for public discussions to ever get anywhere, Christian apologetics needs to get discussed. Consider the following:

Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence") is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections. Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle in the early church and Patristic writers such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, then continuing with writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury during Scholasticism, Blaise Pascal before and during the Age of Enlightenment, in the modern period through the efforts of many authors such as G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis and in contemporary times through the work of figures such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation and arguments from other disciplines. Christian polemic is a branch of apologetics aimed at criticizing or attacking other belief systems, e. g. the Disputation of Barcelona at the royal palace of King James I of Aragon (July 20–24, 1263)..

Regarding "historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation and arguments from other disciplines," those are the kinds of evidence that I, and most other skeptics, are interested in discussing. If you are not interested in Christian apologetics, just say so, in which case, there is no need to have any discussions about the Bible since faith, and personal experience are evidences that anyone can use to try to back up what they believe.

From a scientific perspective, I do think that it is POSSIBLE that there is a genetic link between genetics and homosexuality. There is some evidence to suggest a correlation, which might lead someone to that conclusion (though it is not necessarily a proven fact yet). There are many possible factors that influence sexuality (including environmental). Everyone is not the same, and until we know everything there is to know about genetics, sexuality, the brain and the human psyche, it would be unreasonable to try to come up with one scientific formula for what produces a homosexual.

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.

The following is from the second post:

"This data was integrated with recent findings from the epigenetic control of gene expression, especially in embryonic stem cells. This allowed the researchers to develop and empirically support a mathematical model of epigenetic-based canalization of sexual development, or the tendency of heredity to restrict the development of some characteristics to just one or a few traits. Their model successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality in both sexes when canalizing epi-marks carry over across generations with nonzero probability.

"In their study, the team writes that they 'tracked changes in chromatin structure that influence the transcription rate of genes (coding and noncoding, such as miRNAs), including nucleosome repositioning, DNA methylation, and/or modification of histone tails, but not including changes in DNA sequence.'

"The resulting model predicted that homosexuality can be produced by transgenerational epigenetic inheritance."

 

[captainbryce]

Jesus did not speak out against homosexuality at all. He only spoke of men and women and divorce (the two will become one flesh).

This does not mean it is ok by Christian standards. But I would not put words in Jesus's mouth that did not get said.

Why tell me? I'm pretty sure that was the point I was making.

 

[captainbryce]

It is reasonable for people to assess the probability that any particular ancient writing from any religious book was inspired by God. I believe that I made a good case that God did not inspire anything about adultery.

I don't know what you mean when you say "inspired adultery". Adultery is a sin and God did not "inspire" any evil or sin, and I think every Christian would acknowledge this point.

If I am probably right, there must be other examples of interpolations, and forgeries, some that are obvious, and others that are not obvious. Today, it would be easy for some skeptics to change parts of the Bible, take the changes to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least some people some of the time. Even the Bible itself implies that tampering with the texts is possible since the last page of the book of Revelation warns against tampering with the text. If tampering with the texts was not possible, there would not have been any need for the warnings.

Be that as it may, unless you're trying to point out a specific example of "tampering", I fail to see just how this is relevant. Are you suggesting that the words of Jesus have been "tampered" with? And if so, to what end? What exactly are you alleging Jesus' position on homosexuality was?

Consider the following:

Regarding "historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation and arguments from other disciplines," those are the kinds of evidence that I, and most other skeptics, are interested in discussing.

I'm not so sure that this is indeed true. But in your case, I'll assume it's true and try to keep an open mind. Rest assured, I have no problem in engaging in such conversations.

Apparently, the scientific evidence in the opening 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.

I don't know why you keep bringing up NARTH. I think I've made it clear that they do not represent "most Christians" and that I am not endorsing their position at all.

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.

You are drawing absolute conclusions from incomplete data. You have some studies (the ones you choose to highlight) that indicate that sexuality is usually (but not always) cause by A rather than B. These were the studies you chose to accept.

"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." - American Psychological Association

Children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than those growing up in intact families; however, little is known about other childhood factors affecting marital choices. We studied childhood correlates of first marriages (heterosexual since 1970, homosexual since 1989) in a national cohort of 2 million 18–49 year-old Danes. In multivariate analyses, persons born in the capital area were significantly less likely to marry heterosexually, but more likely to marry homosexually, than their rural-born peers. Heterosexual marriage was significantly linked to having young parents, small age differences between parents, stable parental relationships, large sibships, and late birth order. For men, homosexual marriage was associated with having older mothers, divorced parents, absent fathers, and being the youngest child. For women, maternal death during adolescence and being the only or youngest child or the only girl in the family increased the likelihood of homosexual marriage. Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood.
- Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes - Springer

That was just ONE example. There are in fact MANY studies that all show various explanations for homosexual development, including that environmental factors OUTSIDE THE WOMB may play a role. You choose to ignore those studies and focus on the ones that support the theory you want to believe.

 

[Agnostic75]

I don't know what you mean when you say "inspired adultery". Adultery is a sin and God did not "inspire" any evil or sin, and I think every Christian would acknowledge this point.

I am amazed that you missed something that is so obvious. How much more simply can I state it? Either a God inspired the Bible, and preserved it, or he didn't. In my opinion, he did not inspire any of it because he does not exist, although some God might exist. Even if the biblical God does exist, and inspired the originals, that does not reasonably prove that the originals said anything about homosexuality.

You are drawing absolute conclusions from incomplete data. You have some studies (the ones you choose to highlight) that indicate that sexuality is usually (but not always) cause by A rather than B. These were the studies that you chose to accept.

"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." - American Psychological Association.

You left out the first sentence of the paragraph that says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation."

Although exact reasons are not known, I think that the American Psychological Association would agree with me that what you quoted does not necessarily disagree with what I quoted in my first, and second posts. The words "nature and nurture" is not a valid case for environmental factors outside of the womb. I will contact the American Psychological Association and ask them if they believe that there are important environmental factors outside of the womb.

The evidence that I quoted in my first and second posts was not exact, but it was easily good enough to make a case that genetics is a very important part of homosexuality, which is the main reason why I started this thread as a response to a Christian who claimed that genetics is not an important part of homosexuality.

Consider the following from an American Psychiatric Association website:

http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

Please note that "no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."

The American Psychological Association usually goes along with the American Psychiatric Association regarding matters like this.

Children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than those growing up in intact families; however, little is known about other childhood factors affecting marital choices. We studied childhood correlates of first marriages (heterosexual since 1970, homosexual since 1989) in a national cohort of 2 million 18–49 year-old Danes. In multivariate analyses, persons born in the capital area were significantly less likely to marry heterosexually, but more likely to marry homosexually, than their rural-born peers. Heterosexual marriage was significantly linked to having young parents, small age differences between parents, stable parental relationships, large sibships, and late birth order. For men, homosexual marriage was associated with having older mothers, divorced parents, absent fathers, and being the youngest child. For women, maternal death during adolescence and being the only or youngest child or the only girl in the family increased the likelihood of homosexual marriage. Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood.

Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes - Springerv

Consider the following review about the study that you mentioned:

Warren Throckmorton: Environmental factors relate to homosexual and heterosexual marriage: Danish study

While we cannot generalize to unmarried people, these data give support to the role of environmental factors in the formation of marriage relationships. The authors of the study say this about their work and causation of sexual orientation:

Because we do not know how representative men and women in same-sex marriages are of homosexuals in general, our findings should not be used incautiously to define childhood determinants of sexual orientation.

So the authors of the study said that people should not jump to conclusions like you did.

That was just ONE example. There are in fact MANY studies that all show various explanations for homosexual development, including that environmental factors OUTSIDE THE WOMB may play a role. You choose to ignore those studies and focus on the ones that support the theory you want to believe.

One of the Danish study's authors, Dr. Frisch, says that environmental factors are important, but he also says that genetic factors are important, so even if there are important environmental factors outside of the womb, there are still important genetic factors. The Danish study was published in 2006. Since then, new research in epigenetics, as an article at http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167 from the "Quarterly Review of Biology", December, 2012, shows, has given even more good reasons not to overemphasize environmental factors. However important environmental factors are, no valid scientific research shows that they can be manipulated in any fashion to prevent homosexuality.

No matter what, sexual identity is not a choice, and homosexuals can only do the best that they can do with the cards that they have been dealt, and for most of them, the best that they can do is to practice monogamous sex in a loving relationship.

 

[dgirl1986]

In light of the last post I think it is important to state that just because you believe something to be true, doesnt mean that it is true or that others should believe it to be true also. You can disagree with a point of view or discussion point without claiming that your belief is fact if you get my drift.

 

[captainbryce]

I am amazed that you missed something that is so obvious. How much more simply can I state it? Either a God inspired the Bible, and preserved it, or he didn't. In my opinion, he did not inspire any of it because he does not exist, although some God might exist. Even if the biblical God does exist, and inspired the originals, that does not reasonably prove that the originals said anything about homosexuality.

Bringing up the fact that you take an atheistic perspective is irrelevant and pointless to the discussion. Your opinion is noted, but it is hardly conclusive. What happened to wanting to have an honest discussion about "science, homosexuality and genetics"? Now it seems you want to proclaim the falsehood of Christianity. And if that's what your motivation is, then I have little interest in continuing.

You left out the first sentence of the paragraph that says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation."

Thank you for pointing this out. However, I fail to see how it helps your case. If anything, it supports mine, which is that you have no case!

Although exact reasons are not known, I think that the American Psychological Association would agree with me that what you quoted does not necessarily disagree with what I quoted in my first, and second posts.

Nor does it necessarily AGREE with it, or endorse your conclusions. What's your point?

The words "nature and nurture" is not a valid case for environmental factors outside of the womb. I will contact the American Psychological Association and ask them if they believe that there are important environmental factors outside of the womb.

You do that. And please get back to us with your findings. But until then, try not to put words in their mouth.

The evidence that I quoted in my first and second posts was not exact, but it was easily good enough to make a case that genetics is a very important part of homosexuality, which is the main reason why I started this thread as a response to a Christian who claimed that genetics is not an important part of homosexuality.

Fair enough. But this fact was never in dispute by me. My point is, you DID go well beyond that by suggesting that environmental factors OUTSIDE THE WOMB were not a factor at all. But that conclusion cannot really be drawn from either the studies you posted OR other studies which seem to indicate otherwise.

Consider the following from an American Psychiatric Association website:

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.

Let me just pause to highlight the portion that I believe is relevant to the point I'm making (which you seem to be ignoring).

Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

Please note that "no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."

The American Psychological Association usually goes along with the American Psychiatric Association regarding matters like this.

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.

http://donalditempler.com/assets/templer_7.pdf

Consider the following review about the study that you mentioned:

Warren Throckmorton: Environmental factors relate to homosexual and heterosexual marriage: Danish study

So the authors of the study said that people should not jump to conclusions like you did.

Nor should they jump to conclusions like YOU DID either.

One of the Danish study's authors, Dr. Frisch, says that environmental factors are important, but he also says that genetic factors are important, so even if there are important environmental factors outside of the womb, there are still important genetic factors.

MAYBE! We don't know for sure yet. Either way, THIS was essentially the point that I was making. I never said that genetic factors were NOT a factor. You are the one who was claiming that environmental factors outside of the womb were not a factor.

However important environmental factors are, no valid scientific research shows that they can be manipulated in any fashion to prevent homosexuality.

That's because such research hasn't been attempted yet. The field of study is still "new" and we don't know enough either way to draw conclusions yet.

No matter what, sexual identity is not a choice, and homosexuals can only do the best that they can do with the cards that they have been dealt, and for most of them, the best that they can do is to practice monogamous sex in a loving relationship.

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.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[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 about that that I quoted that were talking 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, testable, and largely predictable using mathematical models, I think that most experts will agree with me that it will probably never be reasonably proven that genetics are 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

 

[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:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8895026

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:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23519594

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.

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]

No matter what, sexual identity is not a choice, and homosexuals can only do the best that they can do with the cards that they have been dealt, and for most of them, the best that they can do is to practice monogamous sex in a loving relationship.

That's open for debate.

What is open for debate? Sexual identity is definitely not a choice. Reparative therapy is a proven failure, and long term abstinence has proven health risks.

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.

Millions of Christians use the Bible as evidence against homosexuality, including the Christian who I quoted. We need to discuss scientific issues, and religious issues separately. I have already discussed scientific issues. Regarding the Bible, the fact that millions of people use it to criticize homosexuality means that discussing the validity of the Bible is a very important issue since if a God did not inspire the Bible, Christians obviously do not have a valid religious case against homosexuality.

If you are not interested in discussing religious issues, that is fine. I was hoping that the Christian who I quoted would show up and participate in this thread. That way, we could find out what he meant about homosexuality and genetics. When I started this thread, I only discussed scientific issues, but later I discussed religious issues because for millions of Christians, the Bible is a big part of their objections to homosexuality. It is well-known that in the U.S., the chief opponents by far of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and physician assisted suicide are conservative Christians.

Any time that a follower of any religion presumes to speak for God, and criticizes certain behaviors that are often harmless from a medical perspective, it is reasonable for other people to question, and discuss those religious writings. A good example is the issue of divorce. As you know, I made some arguments that I believe reasonably prove that even if a God did inspire the originals, he did not inspire Bible writers to write anything about divorce. If God did not inspire any writings about divorce, it is reasonable to assume that it is at least plausible that he did not inspire any writings about homosexuality, and about many other things. I believe that a moral God would have a good deal of common sense, and would be practical. He would know that divorce is sometimes best even in some cases where there was no adultery, and he would know that sometimes, loving monogamous relationships for homosexuals are much better than trying reparative therapy, or long term abstinence.

Of course, you know that I do not believe that the God of the Bible exists. However, even if he does exist, we cannot reasonably know how much of the originals he preserved.

Actually, since there are currently some other threads about the Bible and homosexuality, such as a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...n-theological-seminary-discusses-whether.html, I think that it would best for purposes of this thread to stick to discussing homosexuality and genetics.

Please reply to my previous two posts.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

My second post shows that genes, and environmental factors in the womb, are partly involved in homosexuality.

If you are concerned about how evolution explains homosexuality, a science article at https://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/ says that there are many theories about that, but that so far, it has not been reasonably proven how evolution caused homosexuality.

What do you believe causes homosexuality?

Over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality. Apparently, genetics is at least partly responsible for that.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

My second post shows that genes, and environmental factors in the womb, are partly involved in homosexuality.

If you are concerned about how evolution explains homosexuality, a science article at https://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/ says that there are many theories about that, but that so far, it has not been reasonably proven how evolution caused homosexuality.

What do you believe causes homosexuality?

Over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality. Apparently, genetics is at least partly responsible for that.

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.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I believe that the explanation in the original post is correct. I do believe that the cause of same sex attraction is partly genetic and partly environmental.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

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.

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.

 

[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.

As I said, that is currently not known, but for purposes of this thread, genetics is an important part of homosexuality even though we do not know why it is an important part of it. Put more simply. when a teenager develops his sexual identity, regardless of his sexual preference, genetic factors are an important partial cause of his sexual identity, along with some environmental factors inside of the womb, and environmental factors outside of the womb.

 

[Warren Clark]

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

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.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

As I said, that is currently not known, but for purposes of this thread, genetics is an important part of homosexuality even though we do not know why it is an important part of it. Put more simply. when a teenager develops his sexual identity, regardless of his sexual preference, genetic factors are an important partial cause of his sexual identity, along with some environmental factors inside of the womb, and environmental factors outside of the womb.

I wonder how epigenetics would play a role

 

[Agnostic75]

I wonder how epigenetics would play a role.

Two articles in post #2 discuss that.