God Genes and Gay Genes - hold the Levis

[Cmass]

Lets assume there actually is a God gene: http://www.entheogens.com/godgene.html
and a Gay gene: http://www.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm
I don't want to get bogged down in the specifics of the research because there are only a few people in this forum I would trust to debate it coherently. Instead, let us assume both these genes exist. (Please try, even if you don't trust the science)

If these genes were proven to exist, would it change your view of Christians, Gays, Gay Christians, Atheists or Gay Atheists?

Why?

Note: Genetic predisposition does not always guarantee a certain outcome, it only increases the likelihood. I am hoping this does not fall too far into a discussion of free will.....I want to know more about why YOU would or would not change your view of either group.

[Cmass]

For those who may not know, the religion I belong to is the Pastafarians:
http://www.venganza.org/worship/guide-t ... farianism/

[methylatedghosts]

Coolies

You should suggest a pastafarian usergroup

[lightingthedark]

Hi! About the God genes/gay genes, I could tell you why I know that they don't exist, but, if (in a make believe, let's play around with accomadating reproachable behavior kind of world), these genes did exist, I would of course change my beliefs about some things. For example, if a belief in God was nothing more than a genetic mishap, why try to live according to Christ's principles or to be just and fair? In the same way, why try to educate people against the dangers of homosexuality if there was nothing wrong with it? It would then, be just a fluke, like believing in God, that people cannot help.

I checked out your pasta belief system. Does this simply mean that pastafarians believe spaghetti created the world, or are they people who are hostile to Christianity? If it is indeed a true religion, I suppose it isn't any more rediculous than others that exist. But why be hostile to an idea that cannot be disproven?

[Lotan]

But why be hostile to an idea that cannot be disproven?

You mean like Islam or FLDS? Christianity is used as a political tool to limit the freedoms of those who don't follow its precepts, and those who do as well.

[Goat]

Hi! About the God genes/gay genes, I could tell you why I know that they don't exist, but, if (in a make believe, let's play around with accomadating reproachable behavior kind of world), these genes did exist, I would of course change my beliefs about some things. For example, if a belief in God was nothing more than a genetic mishap, why try to live according to Christ's principles or to be just and fair? In the same way, why try to educate people against the dangers of homosexuality if there was nothing wrong with it? It would then, be just a fluke, like believing in God, that people cannot help.

I checked out your pasta belief system. Does this simply mean that pastafarians believe spaghetti created the world, or are they people who are hostile to Christianity? If it is indeed a true religion, I suppose it isn't any more rediculous than others that exist. But why be hostile to an idea that cannot be disproven?

How do you know they don't exist? Is that a matter of faith? If it is not a matter of faith, what evidence do you have? How do you explain the results that Dr Persinger, Dr Newberg, and Eugene D'Aquili when imaging people having "mystical experiances" via MRI's, and artifically reproducing those experiances by stimulating the brain? How do you explain the varities of "same/different' gender attractions , that not only goes through the human race, but throughout the animal kingdon?

[lightingthedark]

Sorry for the delay, I've had midterms this week. It's driving me nuts.
Umm, well..... every person (excluding the mentally handicapped) are born with the ability to choose, this ability is free will. People choose their behaviors, they choose what to become desensitized to, they choose what to watch on tv and who to flirt with. It is always a conscious decision. When a man rapes a woman, it is a conscious decision, even pre-meditated. What if convicted rapists in prisons everywhere decided to ban together and declare that it was not their fault that they "had" to rape, it was a need they were born with, perhaps something in their genes caused them to have this tendency? Would you then decide that the man who raped your sister should go free? Should he receive mandatory counseling and then go free? Should the SOB be hung from a tree? This is a game that will continue to be played by those who wish to accomadate reproachable behavior. God would not create people with homosexual tendencies and then condemn them-There are a few different causes of homosexuality, like sexual abuse, but mostly, homosexuality is a state that people pervert themselves to.
Also, God would not create people who would inevitabley worship Him, it would be like forcing His love on someone, like rape. God would never do this, and instead gives us freewill, to serve Him, to be gay, to do what we choose.
sorry so long

[micatala]

People choose their behaviors, they choose what to become desensitized to, they choose what to watch on tv and who to flirt with. It is always a conscious decision. When a man rapes a woman, it is a conscious decision, even pre-meditated.

I would agree, people can in general choose their behavior.

However, there are many aspects of who we are that we cannot choose. Can you choose to have two noses? Can you choose to be left-handed? Can you choose to be heterosexual? Can you choose not to be heterosexual?

God would not create people with homosexual tendencies and then condemn them-There are a few different causes of homosexuality, like sexual abuse, but mostly, homosexuality is a state that people pervert themselves to.

I will be blunt.

IMV, this is pure, made up, fantasized baloney. The objective evidence I have seen indicates clearly that most homosexuals are the way they are through no choice or action of their own. God made them that way, period. Some of it is genetic, some of it is inborn but not necessarily genetic. I would allow that a few people become self-identified gays through sexual abuse or other environmental circumstances or even 'by choice' but the evidence indicates this is a minority within the gay community.

As evidence, I will point to the following.

Gay penguins. This indicates that homosexuality is indeed 'natural.' I'm not sure how anyone could make the case that penguins 'choose to be' homosexual or are 'perverted' through culturual influences.

Note that the two male penguins were quite competent as parents.

More gay penguins.

This site notes:

One particular book is helpful in this case. Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance," published in 1999, documents homosexual behavior in more than 450 animal species. The list includes grizzly bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls and even several species of salmon.

If God did not make these animals gay, who did?


Here is an example from an anti-gay Christian website.

There is much controversy going on as to whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental in origin. Homosexuals are desperately looking for any evidence that would seem to confirm that they were "born homosexuals." It should be easy to understand why, for if "God made them that way" then it is not their fault they are homosexual and it must not be a sin to act out their desires. So any research that might suggest a genetic origin is quickly offered as a defense. But the vested interest that homosexuals have often prevent them (and more "liberal thinking" heterosexuals) from seeing the obvious.
For example, recent studies done with identical twins have been offered by some as evidence that the origins of homosexuality might be in the genes. In one study, Dr. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University examined 110 pairs of identical twins who had been separated at birth and raised in different environments. He found that if one was gay there was a 52% chance the other was also. But among fraternal twins, the chance fell to 22%. Because the ratio was higher among twins who are genetically identical, this study has been referred to by many as evidence that homosexuality is genetic in origin. I even heard Dr. Dean Edell (a famous radio call-in doctor) appeal to this study in defense of homosexuality.

I may be missing something here, but the reason why identical twins are such fascinating subjects of scientific study is because they ARE alike genetically. Therefore, if homosexuality is solely genetic in origin, then if one twin is gay, you would expect the chances of the other twin being gay to be 100%! The fact that only 52% of those who were identical in genetic makeup to their homosexual twin were gay themselves would strongly confirm that genetics alone does not make one homosexual!

Yes, the author is missing something here, and pretty clearly this is because the author has an axe to grind and is not interested in objectively evaluating the evidence.

Yes, the fact that if one twin is gay, the other is also in 52% of the cases means that there very strong evidence that genetics can influence homosexuality. As the author notes, this does imply there might be other factors. This is commonly acknowledged in the scientific literature. Some of these other factors could be chemical imbalances that occur in utero before the child is born.

Consider, for example, left and right-handedness.

http://multiples.about.com/cs/funfacts/a/aatwinhand.htm

This site notes that in 20% of identical twins, the twins are of different handedness. Does this mean handedness is not inborn, that is is a choice, or the result of 'perversion' or 'environmental influences?'

This article does note that genetics does not stictly determine handedness (just as it does not in homosexuals). There are other possible factors and explanations. For example:

Another theory also postulates that prenatal experience influences handedness, explaining that increased levels of testosterone exposure in the womb decreases development of the left hemisphere of the brain. That would explain the higher incidences of left handedness in males, but also among multiples, since hormone levels are increased during pregnancy with multiples.

Why would we, with these similar sets of evidence, conclude that handedness is 'innate' and 'not a choice' but on the other hand say that homosexuality is 'a perversion' or a 'choice?'. Could it simply be there is a bias against homosexuals, but not lefties???



The author goes on to say

This study confirms my understanding that the cause of homosexuality is a highly complex combination of various factors, some genetic and some environmental, that make it much easier for some people to become entrapped in this particualar sin. In this regard, it is not much different than alcoholism, where similar studies involving identical twins have shown similar results. All it confirms is that there may be some people with a genetic likelihood of developing a "predisposition" toward such things as homosexuality and alcoholism, but it requires the addition of environmental factors to produce the actual homosexual or alcoholic.

THere are several problems in the conclusions given here.

One is that the statements imply that 'alcoholism' equates with ' abuses alcohol'. THis is not a valid equation. Alcoholism is a disease whereby the person cannot control their drinking once they start. Yes, an alcoholic can, through great discipline and willpower, stop drinking completely. But they are still and always will be an alcoholic!! They CANNOT choose not to be an alcoholic.

Also note that some who are not alcoholics may still abuse alcohol.

Now, a homosexual could refrain from homosexual sex, and even 'force themselves' to pretend to be heterosexual but in most cases they are and always will be a homosexual. Being celibate, or refusing to engage in homosexual sex does not make a person not homosexual, just as refusing to drink does not make an alcoholic a 'non-alcoholic'. Similarly, a left-handed person who refuses to write with their left-hand does not 'become' a right-handed person.

Just as with alcohol, there are some who enage in homosexual sex who may not be 'inborn homosexuals'.

The illogic of the author is clearly shown if one uses his line of argument on heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can choose to be celibate. If they do so, are they no longer heterosexuals? Clearly this is ridiculous.

So is the author's logic concerning homosexuals.


The basic problem is the converse of what the author states in their opening.

Homosexuals are desperately looking for any evidence that would seem to confirm that they were "born homosexuals." It should be easy to understand why, for if "God made them that way" then it is not their fault they are homosexual and it must not be a sin to act out their desires.

I would say that it is some conservative Christians who are so obsessed with denying that homosexuality could actually be a largely inborn characteristic that they desperately grasp on to any 'evidence' to show that this is not the case, because they want to continue to condemn homosexuals as sinners without feeling guilty or being exposed as hypocrites. This may be harsh, but given the rhetoric and refusal to objectively evaluate the evidence on homosexuality, I am not sure what other conclusion to come to.


It isn't God who is condemning homosexuals and homosexual behavior, it is people.

[FinalEnigma]

Sorry for the delay, I've had midterms this week. It's driving me nuts.
Umm, well..... every person (excluding the mentally handicapped) are born with the ability to choose, this ability is free will.

please amend that statement. people who are mentally handicapped dont have free will? thats what you just said. man that would make god one messed up guy.

It is always a conscious decision.

you sound like my father. its impossible to argue with him because no matter what proof is presented he always brings it down to 'yeah, but you still have free will' no matter how rediculous the statement is, in light of evidence. even were it proven 100% scientifically that we have no free will. he would still say 'we have free will because god says we do' Has anyone considered that god might have lied to us? not neccesarily in this, but in other things. lied to get the end result he wanted...i could see it happening if a lie was needed to get the best result out of humanity, because of our flawed nature.

When a man rapes a woman, it is a conscious decision, even pre-meditated. What if convicted rapists in prisons everywhere decided to ban together and declare that it was not their fault that they "had" to rape, it was a need they were born with, perhaps something in their genes caused them to have this tendency? Would you then decide that the man who raped your sister should go free? Should he receive mandatory counseling and then go free? Should the SOB be hung from a tree?

yes he should be hung. he msot likely has an uncurable psychological disorder and, despite the fact that it isnt his fault, he isnt going to change. the chance of repeated offense is too high to allow him back on the streets. putting him in jail for the rest of his life is stupid. Life sentences in prison always are. Solution? execute him.

This is a game that will continue to be played by those who wish to accomadate reproachable behavior. God would not create people with homosexual tendencies and then condemn them-There are a few different causes of homosexuality, like sexual abuse, but mostly, homosexuality is a state that people pervert themselves to.

i dont remember the specifics, or what the study was, but there was a study recently that showed that a part of the brain of homosexuals was enlarged compared to heterosexuals. that would be hard to cause yourself.

Also, God would not create people who would inevitabley worship Him, it would be like forcing His love on someone, like rape. God would never do this, and instead gives us freewill, to serve Him, to be gay, to do what we choose.
sorry so long

Gah! God inevitably does this! it is impossible for him not to have. i proved it in another thread here http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=120
and nodoby refuted me, despite there being a whole 13 pages of conversation after my post. god created everything. including us, and all of man and society. how can it be our fault when our basic nature(gods fault) is influenced by man(gods fault, if you trace cause and effect back far enough) and the universe(gods fault) to produce our end decisions?

[Easyrider]

i dont remember the specifics, or what the study was, but there was a study recently that showed that a part of the brain of homosexuals was enlarged compared to heterosexuals. that would be hard to cause yourself.

One study dealt with gays with AIDS, so that conceivably could be self-inflicted. Another study had a very low sample population, which could skew the results. You'll need to document what you're talking about.

god created everything. including us, and all of man and society. how can it be our fault when our basic nature(gods fault) is influenced by man(gods fault, if you trace cause and effect back far enough) and the universe(gods fault) to produce our end decisions?

No personal accountability here? Ever read Deuteronomy chapter 28?

[micatala]

No personal accountability here? Ever read Deuteronomy chapter 28?

I am all for personal accountability. However, holding someone 'accountable' for being left-handed, or black, or yes, homosexual is just ridiculous.

You hold people accountable for behavior that is detrimental to others or the society at large. We should not hold people accountable for who they are, or for behavior which is their own business and has no effect on other people.

We do not hold people 'accountable' for having heterosexual sex, as long as it is between adults and is consensual. It is clearly discriminatory in the context of a free and democratic society to make different rules for homosexuals then heterosexuals.

We do hold people accountable for any children they produce as a result of sex. We hold people accountable for deliberately and knowingly spreading sexual diseases, and we should. This should apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. There is no reason to make a distinction.