Homosexuality genetically determined. Implications?

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... G0qDcn-slI

If conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined emerges how will Christian fundamentalist respond

I'd love to hear from the christian members here. I will not be held morally responsible for any flaming that may occur.

Last edited by Ectryon on 19 Nov 2014, 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Homosexuals are defective.

It'd be proof that it's physical rather than a choice. Pretty much what most gay people say.

The male/female attraction and behavior parts get mixed up. Just like any other "disorder" out there. I, for example, have messed up social and emotional parts of my brain. Same thing (though being gay doesn't affect all that much outside of gender and sex if the society is tolerant).

How is being gay a disorder? Seriously, explain that one. It occurs in animals as well, so it's not just related to humans.

Also I would hope Tea is joking.

I have heard of studies saying that the more females that are born from a woman prior to the birth of a male child the more likely a male child of that mother will be homosexual. I don't know. The article posted here gives no details on how these conclusions point to genetics. It only says that these are the findings. I would like to see some information on the groups studied. Are there gay parents in the study? There just is not enough information provided for me to give credibility to the article.

I dont want this thread to be derailed into talk about the probability that homsexuality is biologically determined. That's not really a PPR topic. This is more about how Politico religious homophobes would react

I think the fundamentalists from Christianity, Islam and Judaism would react pretty much the same as they do now, that they think it's a "choice".

Hell, even trying to convince fundamentalists that evolution happened is even harder.

Fair point I suppose, but it does challenge the "crime against nature" idea in a big way. It cannot be an unnatural act if there are biological causes

I fancy myself a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is a matter of biology and genetics rather than choice. Nor do I believe gays are at all defective.

I have talked to fundamentalists that say 'they don't care whether one is born with same sex attraction or not, if God says the act is a sin, then don't do it.' I guess you'd hear more opinions along that line. Then of course, a lot of fundamentals also like to deny science, so why would they start to accept it now.

I'd say because it's counter to species survival and since it's rare.

Hence, disorder.

I was. I'm not straight.

Doesn't matter to religious fundies, facts are not important to them. The only way you can convince them is by Holy Book quotes, and that is going to be difficult here (the whole "it is an abomination" crap for example).

Getting back to it from a biological standpoint (sorry). Of the instances I've heard of homosexuality occurring in other species it has been due to a lack of the opposite sex being available (for example, lionesses have been known to resort to lesbianism when the pride's male is killed). It's kinda like a sexual surrogacy type thing.

Way back when we were carving stone wheels we might have done the same thing. Maybe somewhere in evolution our brain wires got crossed somewhere and some still had a tendency to desire the same gender even after numbers of the opposite gender in their tribe were replenished. And then that may have slowly evolved into some people desiring the same gender full stop.

The initial research was done many years ago so this already came up and was discussed by Christian fundamentalists*. Google found me a response to the research that I suspect is representative. Note that the article is from 2010.

This was a reaction to the initial research, which wasn't overly convincing. Thus the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph makes a good argument for why it would not be acceptable even if genetic. Note that when I say "good", that does not mean I agree with it (I don't). It means that I think it would be convincing for the faithful. It accepts the validity of the science (so can't be counter-argued with "science proves....") while rejecting the implications.

*You did specify "fundamentalist" which is why I'm going with this rather than Kraichgauer's more accepting reply.

It's not counter to species survival. In social species (such as humans), it is common for some individuals to not reproduce. Their relatives seem to benefit from this as they can provide extra-parental care. Source.

There are species - and indeed, cultures - where homosexual activity is the norm and sex with females is only performed out of necessity. For example, there's a species of waterfowl where 20% of pairs are male-male. These significantly outperform male-female pairs in terms of chicks reared to adulthood, even though they need to find a female for short periods or steal eggs.

Rarity is irrelevant.


You haven't remembered quite correctly - the number of older brothers is more important.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.long