Science Doesn’t Support the “Gay Gene” Theory
The “gay gene” debate is an important one for many. No matter what side people take on the issue, the discovery of such a gene would likely have a huge impact on society’s understanding of homosexuality. So, is it possible that our sexuality is controlled by an inborn, genetic trait?
For starters, research suggesting a “link” between genes and sexuality does not constitute proof of a gay gene. For instance, studies within the past several decades have led some researchers to conclude that inborn traits may play a role in sexual identity development. While these traits may have a part in the making of human sexuality, no researcher has ever concretely proven the existence of a gay gene or combination of genes inexorably leading to homosexual behavior. Other inborn predispositions, such as personality, body type and voice mannerisms may also lead an individual to adopt a stereotypically “gay” self-perception from an early stage in life, but this does not mean there’s a “gay gene,” nor does it mean that homosexuality can’t be overcome. In fact, there is no complex human behavior, which is purely genetic.
One commonly used argument for the gay gene theory is identical twin studies. Here, it’s important to clarify that the term “identical” is somewhat of a misnomer. More properly, we should refer to monozygotic twin studies and note that the whole field of twin studies as they apply to behavior is very controversial. Even so, what these studies purport to show is that identical twins are more likely to be homosexual than two fraternal twins.
Specifically, the most famous of these findings came in the early 1990s, when researchers J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard claimed that if a gay individual had an identical twin, there was a 52-percent chance that the twin would also be gay. If the individual had a fraternal twin, there was only a 22-percent chance. Since identical twins largely share the same DNA, the researchers concluded, this indicated that genetics played a role in homosexual development.
Clearly, there are several problems with these conclusions. For starters, if anything, the results Bailey and Pillard cite point to the huge role that environment plays in influencing behavior. Beyond this, their study has never been replicated and, in fact, efforts to do so have yielded results showing even less genetic influence.
For example, newer, more reliable twin research has even put “gay twin” concordance at a much lower rate, as in the case of a 2001 study by researchers Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Bruckner. This study found a concordance rate of only 6.7 for gay identical twins, compared to 7.2 percent for fraternal twins. The researchers concluded by remarking “social scientists and geneticists alike stress the obvious point that neither genes, nor hormones, nor specific social situations determine sexual behavior by themselves.”
Is there really such a thing as a gay gene? Current research simply doesn’t support the claim, and those who say that it’s so are not dealing with all the facts.
Alan Chambers is the President of Exodus International—the largest worldwide Christian outreach to those dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Think that is BS? Well, how do you explain that a man (or woman ) can be heterosexual, go into prison and become homosexual in such high numbers? Isn't that amazing? Is there a gene that is triggered by prison food ? When they come out of prison, they drop the homosexual activity in favor of the opposite sex . Is the gay gene deactivated by distance from the prison? Isn't the fact that high incidents of certain diseases in the homosexual population argues against homosexuality being natural in any way? (2% of the population is homosexual, but contract 52% of the cases of gonorrhea of the mouth-CDC stats) There is no such thing as gay marriage . If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? 4, in case you didn't figure it out. There is also no such thing as a grapefruit zebra, or a golf ball pie. It simply does not exist.
understand the argument at all. These men rape other men for sexual release and to show dominance, it's not because they're attracted to other men, but hey who knows, maybe some of them are. The point is that you're not arguing about sexuality, and your argument fails from the floor up since you used a faulty premise.
Therefore, sex between men in prison is homosexuality . If they are hetro outside of prison, then there is argument that being homosexual is not inborn. It's choosen, even if it's a just a handy choice. Remember when the gay movement was yelling that "choice" was their right? At that time, they made the argument, like the pro-aborts, that they should be free to choose (like anyone gave a hoot). Ooops, that backfired. Argument changed to "born that way." Gee, who can argue with a birth defect--or whatever. But then how to explain why a guy is hetro outside of prison, and homo inside the prison. Can't have it both ways. It's just a fact that homosexuals are not necessarily born that way.
A person should define oneself by A: traits, B: choices and responses to choices, and C: Preferences. A and C are things that develop over time and are supported by genes, to an extent. Both affect B.
It is many many choices, based on A and B, and essentially the person's own choice. But still, unless they have a level of understanding greater than most and an original lifestyle that went against it, most of them will have it like a camel going through a smaller needle than normal if they try to get out of it. Oh, most of them will have it at least like pulling teeth, anyway.
you still missed the point, anyone can have sex with anyone, you can have sex with someone you're not attracted to, and you completely ignore bisexuality. Ya, when they say "their choice" that means to love the people they love, from what I can tell people like you don't want to afford them that right. So by your logic if someone has sex with someone of the same gender their whole lives then all of a sudden they had sex with someone of the opposite gender they would become straight. It doesn't take a genius to see that that's wrong .
I bet you chose one to day only have sex with people of the opposite gender, eh.
such thing as sexual orientation. By the gays saying it's their "choice," (the old now rejected defense) they were NOT saying they wanted to be free to choose who they could love. You love what you love. Who can stop that? No one. So the argument is specious. But another flaw in the "choice" defense is that it implies you do CHOOSE who you love which would mean that a man can CHOOSE to love a man or a woman . A woman can CHOOSE to love a man or a woman. That would mean that you aren't born gay , you choose it.
but.... would you choose to do it with a woman ? no. why is that? because your brain is wired differently. suck on that, ya idjit.
That does not make any sense.
I do agree that there is no gay gene but does that make it any less valid? Look at it this way sexuality (All sexuality) is a preference. Just as liking broccoli is a preference so is sexuality. It isn't genetic but a nuerological preference. If I like broccoli and you don't does that mean I should force you to eat broccoli? No. But then does that mean I am denied broccoli because of you? No. People are born gay but not with genetics. No sexuality is genetic though. Only through experience can one decide what they prefer. I mean babies don't like boys or girls . Until they are old enough to know what stimulates them can they truly determine if they are gay or straight
Studies have shown, when done on dead people, that there are obvious differences in parts of the brain.
I suggest its "Nature - Nurture" which we ALL are effected by.
"While those in the gay and lesbian community insist that their way of life is perfectly natural..." In the "Natural Mammalian World" Same-Sex fornication is simply non-existant. Procreation and the continuance of the species makes that impossible as a lifestyle in the "Natural" World.
Identical Twins as a case for genetics? Basically "Identical" twins are raised being identified, in a broad sense, as "The Twins", not as individuals, as would be "Fraternal" twins. With the societal closeness of them during their early years, can it not be concluded that they would share sexual traits along with other learned "Identical" propensities? The only true study of such cases would have to use test subjects that were seperated at birth. So far, traits in young children have not been shown as a genetic pointer to their future interests.
The "Politically Correct" can dream-up all the excuses they want. The degradation of simple morality on the Planet is, IMHO, the more likely culprit. Gay Pride is a fashionable trend that catches the imagination of our impressionable youth. The "If it feels good do it" philosophy rules today's world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Yeah, no mammals ever display homosexual behavior naturally. You have to be kidding me.
I mean, it's not like LeVay discovered casual relationship between brain structure and sexual identity. It's not like we have epigenetic studies on the x chromosome in the mother that shows significantly greater inactivation for those that have gay sons. It's not like the hypothalamus is larger in gay men then straight men.
However, it is clear that those gay people chose to have a different neurological structure. Those gay people chose to have their mothers one x chromosome respond differently than those mothers who have straight children . Those gay people had neurosurgery to make their hypothalamus naturally bigger. They chose to respond to pheromone samples differently.
We are no where near understanding all the various biological factors that determine sexual identity. No there isn't going to be a "gay gene", there is going to be a collection of factors - epigentic, genetic, neuronal, etc that determine are sexual orientation. What is clear is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that biology places a large role. The question is just how large and how exactly. To say that there is no evidence and it is motivated by the "politically correct" is ignorant and laughable.
Nowhere in my comment did I state that mammals didn't exhibit homosexual behavior. I have exhibited such. What I did state is that they DO NOT FORNICATE. Connecting innocent "behaviors" with a lifestyle is at best ludicrous, at worst moronic. I've read LeVay and numerous others. When concise scientific proof, not conjecture, is presented, I may be enticed to change my opinion.
You do know that primates and dolphins (Besides humans the smartest animals ) enjoy recreational sex right
it is simple
Why do people have to complicate gender?
I sincerely think it is a mental illness- some form of defect in the brain which makes people truly believe they are the opposite of what they are...maybe they can be given hormones or mental medication one day to make them feel their true gender- what they were born with.
Gay is a lifestyle choice for most who are twisted or immoral -
then their may be others who have some mental- chromosome issues not yet discovered.
If their is a gay gene- that doesn't mean it's good--- for instance there is a cancer gene.....that is not good either
"it is simple
Why do people have to complicate gender?"
Gender and sexuality are very complicated subjects, it does not just come down to are you male / female.
"I sincerely think it is a mental illness- some form of defect in the brain which makes people truly believe they are the opposite of what they are..."
You may feel that way, but it takes a fairly liberal definition of mental illness to include homosexuality , as it only impacts your ability to live a happy life WHEN the people around you are not accepting.
"Gay is a lifestyle choice for most who are twisted or immoral -"
This is not backed up by the evidence, most homosexuals are not 'twisted or immoral' they are ordinary human beings living their lives.
I have a musing from my 86 yr old mother. Since the Christian argument is that Gay is a choice, it can be overcome and whatnot...it's NOT proven to be by birth(whatever)...ok, so IT IS proven we all have a male side AND a female side of the brain (everybody agree?)so the real difference is our physical bodies. Made differently so we are able to carry out different tasks in the world. Not to say those are THE ONLY tasks we can do or are allowed to do. Kinda like the ONLY use of water is not as a liquid to drink but as ice cubes, steam, ect ect. "out of one so great come many" . My mothers querry was/is this; If a man and woman are having sex and the woman is more in the male side of her brain, are they having homosexual relations? Is the male gay? And the vice versa. When a "straight" male wants to have anal sex w/his wife is there an underlying gayness?
"Is there really such a thing as a gay gene? Current research simply doesn’t support the claim"
It equally does not support the claim that there is no "gay gene."
I am not aware of any study that would find a gay gene or group of genes. The only way to find a gay gene would be to study two groups, identical twins that are both gay and identical twins there one twin is gay but the other is not. The gay gene, if there is one would be in the first group but not the second.
I never chose my orientation. Homosexuality is a complete biological feat. It's hormonal. The majority of transgendered women were at one point heterosexual males. However, once starting hormone therapy, their preference changed to the opposite sex. Curious, no? Whether we are born the way we are, or it develops in adolescence, homosexuality is not, will not be, or ever was a choice.
There's not really a specific gay gene , but there are links. First of all, the gene for fay men is usually passed down through the mother. Mothers who have gay uncles or cousins are more likely to have a gay child. The more sons a mother has, the more likely another son is to be gay. This has to do with an immune system response. Prenatal hormones also have a huge effect. If a girl baby has abnormal levels of testosterone in her blood, she will be more likely to be gay. So... There's not necessarily a gay gene, it's more of an environmental thing. People are still born gay, however, and they don't have a choice in the matter. It makes no sense to discriminate against people who have no choice in the way they are. It's like being black. You can't help being black, it just is.
So much effort to try and "prove" where homosexuality comes from. It doesn't matter. They are with us and always will. Yes, they are born that way, and on a spectrum that defies simple description. Is Rev. Ted Haggard gay? Ask him, and he will deny it.
Stop the hating! Love your lesbian and gay family members like all others. They deserve no less. We have been working to eliminate discrimination in our country for over 100 years. We now have a black (and white!) president. We are turning our attention to the LGBT community to help them up, next. Bigots beware, you will be exposed! Speak up!
The people arguing the origins of "gayness" are often the same people who don't believe all living things evolved from a common ancestor. With all the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution , just how much evidence do you think it would take to convince a "religious person" that gayness might be a natural thing? The "religious community" is immune to logical discussion. Why are they even on these pages (Opposing Views)? They have little to add.
I hate when I hear the question come up about whether or not homosexuals are born gay.
What difference does it make? We are all human beings and we all deserve to be treated equally. Once they come up with the reason for why some people are homosexuals then you'll have "the crazies" trying to find a way to change the outcome.
You're right, there is far too much hatred in this world and especially in this country with respect to the differences between people whether it be the color of their skin or their sexual preferences.
With the state of affairs as they are in this country and in the world right now, we have to find a way to unite and not divide.
Ayant aussi gouté l’intense douleur du rejet, la frustration qui émane des deux derniers commentaires m’émeut au plus haut point, cependant la question de fond n’est pas de contester aux homosexuels le droit au respect et à l’amour filial commun à tous les humains, mais de savoir quelle est la nature morale du comportement sexuel qu’ils adoptent. À ce chapitre, à moins d’un trou juridique, il est un seul juge qui soit audible, une seule référence qui soit crédible; Dieu. Quelle que soit mon attirance sexuelle de départ, je vous assure que je l’alignerais, ou la réformerais, sur ce que Dieu me dicterais; les opinions humaines contraires n’auraient pour moi aucune valeur face à la sienne. Or Dieu existe, avec ou sans le concours des id ées de Darwin, sans quoi les particules atomiques dont nous sommes constitués n’auraient ni commencement ni fin, ce qui est tout à fait irrationnel. Et puisque Dieu existe et qu’il est le responsable ultime de notre existence , il faut qu’il nous ait adressé la parole en des termes qui soient intelligibles, ce depuis le premier être ayant reçu de lui la faculté de réfléchir sur l’origine de son existence. À cet égard, les écritures judéo-chrétiennes n’ont aucun concurrent sérieux. Ce n’est pas une question de manque de respect des droits humains mais de respect du droit Divin, and I’m sorry for my french, people, couldn’t figure to express myself on this important subject other way than in my mother thongue. May try to translate later if needed. God bless you all.
here's how Google translated it, but it's very understandable, and I couldn't agree more, Sam!
Having also tasted the intense pain of rejection, the frustration that comes from the last two moves me comments at the highest point, however, the substantive issue is not to deny homosexuals the right to respect and filial love the common to all humans, but what is the nature of moral sexual behavior they adopt. In this chapter, unless a legal hole, there is one judge who is heard, a single reference that is credible God. Regardless of my sexual attraction of departure, I assure you that I align, or reform, on what God tells me, the human opinions contrary have no value to me face to hers. But God exists, with or without the help of id ées Darwin, otherwise the atomic particles that we have made no beginning or end, which is quite irrational. And since God exists and is ultimately responsible for our existence, it is necessary that we have spoken to in terms that are understandable, since the first being having received from him the ability to reflect on the origin of its existence. In this regard, the Judeo-Christian scriptures have no serious competitor. This is not a question of lack of respect for human rights, but law enforcement Divine
As it happens, "gay" or "homosexual" define behavior, NOT one's genetic makeup. As science has discovered, generally, when you determine a specific gene to be responsible for one characteristic or another, turning that gene on or off will affect not simply the characteristic you were interested in but also characteristics you didn't anticipate. What this means is, there can be no "gay gene" however, there are likely at least one or more genes that set the stage for a predisposition for homosexual behavior. That one has the gene or genes in no way implies one MUST behave as a homosexual. But, of course, the same is true of heterosexuality. Certainly, nature establishes the necessary mechanisms for individuals to reproduce themselves, however, what nature does NOT do is establish one MUST reproduce. Clearly, an individual can choose not to reproduce and most individuals do in that most individuals engage in non-reproductive sex regardless of the gender of their partner. Also, nature clearly has no regard for whether you reproduce or not, i.e., there is no individual reproductive imperative in order for the individual to live, in that nature creates some individuals without a clear polarity to their gender and also creates individuals unable to reproduce but with the outward appearance of one gender or the other, and yet many of these individuals live full lives regardless of their inability to reproduce. "Survival of the species" appears to be a human invention and not a natural imperative. The rest of nature appears not to be concerned in the least whether humans continue to exist. That is the concern of individual human beings alone.
You could just as easily say, "science doesn't support the "heterosexual gene" either. Heterosexuality is a behavior which is clearly always choice because heterosexual CAN choose otherwise even if they generally do not. Also, reproduction isn't always nor even usually the reason for heterosexual behavior in that individuals commonly choose not to reproduce so, reproduction is also always choice - even if the choice is often made without regard for its consequences.
Heterosexuality is no more an imperative than is homosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality. All of these behaviors are chosen but chosen loosely based on one's genetic predispositions, one's experiences and within one's current context.
What if it is not a gay gene. What if a flood of hormones from mom cascade over the fetus? What if the fetus' just developing glands squirt our the wrong hormone at just the right moment and that causes the homosexuality.
Perhaps there is no gene, but limiting yourself to that straw-man is silly.
The question was not "Is there a gay gene", it was "Are people born gay?"
Here's a link to a news article in which scientists have found the gay gene in fruit flies. Literally. Manipulating this gene, and nothing else in the genes or environment, can cause a fruit fly to court and mate with the same or opposite sex.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0 ,2933,316316,00.html
Oh, horrors! You've cited a scientific study! Be prepared to be bombarded by the religious...after 150 years of continual scientific testing, some people still don't believe in evolution ! (it's JUST a theory, you know). haha.
Thanks for the link...I hadn't seen that.
Evolution isn't proven, y'know. Would you like to tell me at what point a new species is created? Or perhaps any species we have observed mutating into a new species? Or maybe some information about that "Tree of Life":
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600 -why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?full=true
Yes. It -is- just a theory. It has -not- been proven. If you're going to make more claims like that, begin introducing evidence, please and thank you.
you need to read the national geographic article "was darwin wrong." scientists have created a new species of a fruit fly in a petri dish. here's a link:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2004/11/darwin-wrong/quammen-text
evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it has been tested. and this theory has been tested for 150 years. NEVER, EVER has it been disproven.
Of course it hasn't been disproven! The emergence of a new species simply takes more time to see. Just wait a few more years, and we'll have our new species yet.
More to the point, I wonder if you read my article:
"The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.
Which was correct? Paradoxically, both - but only if the main premise underpinning Darwin's tree was incorrect. Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with them?"
Your paleontological, embryological, biogeographical, and morphological evidence look very pretty, but they really are -just a theory-. The paleontological record is incomplete; the embryological record is pure speculation (which sounds to me something like: "Hey! The embryos of a human fetus and a lizard look alike, so a human and a fetus must have evolved from a common ancestor that looked alike!"); and the morphological evidence is ... well, ridiculous, because all human beings actively seek ways to sort items into categories (but the categories sometimes are arbitrary... e.g., why is a hyena a feliformia and why is a fox a canid?).
The only part of the theory that makes real sense is the biogeographical evidence, but again, I don't recall ever seeing an article wherein we have found a new species develop -in nature-. If new species can't develop in nature, how can Darwin's theory hold true?
Furthermore, Darwin's theory fails to explain (and seems incongruent with) horizontal gene shifting:
"Hang on, you may be thinking. Microbes might be swapping genes left, right and centre, what does that matter? Surely the stuff we care about - animals and plants - can still be accurately represented by a tree, so what's the problem?
Well, for a start, biology is the science of life, and to a first approximation life is unicellular. Microbes have been living on Earth for at least 3.8 billion years; multicellular organisms didn't appear until about 630 million years ago. Even today bacteria, archaea and unicellular eukaryotes make up at least 90 per cent of all known species, and by sheer weight of numbers almost all of the living things on Earth are microbes. It would be perverse to claim that the evolution of life on Earth resembles a tree just because multicellular life evolved that way."
And when all of your evidence matches up to DNA evidence ... it doesn't fit. Until science can properly explain this discrepancy, I don't believe we should regard Darwin's theory as fact.
"Just" a theory, however, understates the theory's importance. "Theory" overstates the theory's truth.
Evolution is a religion, not science. Why do you use all of this assumptive language? I roecommend a book/dvd titled "Icons of Evolution". There is science there that you don't get in the public school system.
I tend to doubt that there is a gene that "causes" Gayness but from my own observations I've seen Gay traits in pre pubescent children that grew up to be Gay. Whatever the cause it is not a conscious decision to "become" Gay I'm sure of that. If not at birth then the trait occurs at an early age. I have no problem with allowing government sanctioned Gay marriage and I'm a pretty conservative person.
Isn't judging people based on what they act like profiling?
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Define a " gay trait".
But some Gay males, a far greater % than among straights, display very feminine traits. 3 of the Gay people I grew up with in a small town had feminine traits to the extreme right down to always preferring to play girls games with girls, and their whole demeanor was that of a young girl. It's like I don't know how to define it but I know it when I see it. I will say the fourth gay man I grew up with displayed male traits only so his coming out was a complete surprise. Not all gay males are feminine.
Let me ask you--do you believe that gay men display feminine traits due to their biological natures, or due to socialization? Do you think playing with girls is an indicator of homosexuality ?
The traits exhibited by the 3 Gay men as children , even at less than 10 years old, went beyond mere feminism and preferring to play with girls. You just knew it and I believe they were born with it. They came from 3 completely different families and social backgrounds yet all 3 exhibited traits that I find difficult to describe. In all my life I have never known straight men that exhibited these traits to such a degree. I know it's not scientific but it's enough to convince me. It's like describing Jazz. It's hard to define but I know it when I hear it. It was these 3 along with other things that leads me to believe most Gays are probably born that way.
These are very, very different things.
I meant femininity and you know that. Should I jump on your misspelling of Femininity? Some people are so picky.
Not the same thing.
I believe that every human being is born genetically, physically, emotionally, spiritually and psychologically fallen. No one is born perfect. While I think it is far to simplistic to think that someone is born gay, the truth is that no one currently knows all of the factors that contribute to one's behavioral makeup. I believe that genetics, environment and even our personalities factor into who we are and what we do.
As someone who never chose to "feel" gay, but who nonetheless found myself with those very real and complex desires, I admit that I do not know every reason why I experienced the sexual urges, impulses and attractions that I did starting at puberty. However, I am extremely grateful for the fact that we live in a world where self determination is a high value. Each individual has the God-given right to decide for themselves how they are going to respond to the impulses and attractions that they have. For a period of my life I "chose" to act according to my feelings and when I realized that those actions weren't congruent with my greatest desire---to live according to my faith in Christ---then I "chose" to give up homosexuality and set out on the long, difficult but ultimately overwhelmingly fulfilling journey of putting Christ first.
Bottom line: just because something is "genetic" doesn't make it optimal, healthy or moral. All sorts of things are said to have a genetic link from cancer to obesity to rage to alcoholism. Not all of those things are immoral but they are all unhealthy and no one would choose them. So, genetically linked or not, homosexuality isn't something that one has to live in tyranny under. We each have a choice to make based upon our unchosen feelings and can decide how we are going to respond to our circumstances based on all of the facts.
18 years after deciding to leave homosexuality I am thrilled that I did. The life I lived as a celibate and single man was far more rewarding than gay life. For 11 years now my life with my wife, Leslie, has been the greatest joy of my life as were the additions of my two adopted newborns in 2005.
Rogaine for Women said it best a few years back: "Stronger than genetics to overcome baldness." Certainly I have found that the human will, coupled in my case with my faith, are stronger than genetics to overcome a sexuality that doesn't fit with my beliefs or way of life.
Religion Should Be Left Out Of The Discussion when it comes to a clearly medical/scientific debate.
My comment is simply that for better or for worse, the gay/lesbian 'problem' is something that truly exists and clearly won't go away.
I personally am a Christian from a conservative background, and yet have inspired to write a book called A FAMILY AFFAIR, that you can access at Bernard-Preston.com
Enjoy.
Bernard Preston
I think you are wrong to say people are not born gay or have a choice to be Gay or not. You are Gay, like it or not, but you choose not to act on it sexually because you believe it to be immoral or destructive or whatever. That's fine. It's similar to heterosexual men choosing a monogamous life style even though that may not be the natural way to be. It's a choice that you have decided works best for you.
If someone such as the expert can choose to be straight in the sense that they chose to work on it and they changed why are they wrong to consider that people are not born gay or have a choice? Why do you assume that the expert's experience is illegitimate and just something like a choice to be monogamous?
I know this relates also to the GAYDAR section but this topic is getting discussed and it ties in. I once had a customer who talked incessantly for a long period of time telling me how they didn't like talking to people and how people react etc. It seemed strange to me as they seemed to love to talk. Just before leaving they commented "You are gay aren't you?" I said "no". He was floored and left in silence. I then realized what he meant was that he don't like (talking to) straight people. That is just an example of what I have experienced. There does seem to be such a thing as a GAYDAR and I never could figure why I set it off among gay men. I didn't take too much interest for much of my life and advances that can result from setting off the GAYDAR I found flattering. Since the hormones kicked in I have never been sexually attracted to men so it did seem strange.
Then I became a Christian. As a Christian you can't ignore agressive gay activists continually attacking your religion and screaming that a belief that God considers homosexual behaviour a sin is just an outlet of ugly discrimination against someone who was born that way. So I read up on the topic. What I found was the characteristic features of boys who grow up gay were exhibited by me as a child. Hell I even got teased with some very unflattering synonyms. It also reminded me of a massive change that I experienced around puberty which I attributed at the time to hormones and didn't give another thought to. I now believe I was wrong. Gay men had the same hormones and they stay on the same course. It provided the discovery that coincidental aspects of my environment just before I changed are the same things which psychotherapists consider gay boys are lacking. Certain experiences suddenly seemed significant. I didn't complete puberty with same sex attractions so there was no apparent issue. The sexual cravings from puberty found me a heterosexual. Although I do admit that right at the beginning I looked at a naked female photograph and thought to myself "How will I get sexually aroused by that?" and did wonder if I might be gay. The solution to those questions occurred naturally without any need for anything. When I became old enough I experienced heterosexual attraction and never looked back. The only vestige of that aspect of my life is being picked up on gay men's GAYDAR and a pretty effective GAYDAR of my own. Interestingly alot changed about me when I changed so heterosexual men not being as attuned to the subtleties don't ever think of me like that.
Yep I'm a Christian so if I was gay now I'd want to change. But from what I've experienced and from what I've read I find the born that way argument very non-compelling and the expertise of people who assist people to change extremely compelling. I am extremely confident that the experience of the expert is legitimate. You can't discipline your sexual preference. He would have spontaneously developed a heterosexual orientation after deliberately tweaking his environment just like we spontaneously developed a heterosexual orientation due to our environment albeit in my case with a lot of luck.
I also note that if my 'change' had occurred a few years later gay activists would have already insisted that I should come out and that I was born that way with an immutable sexuality. Personally I feel lucky that I wasn't in a position to buy into that bunk. How could someone forced into that type of belief change?
Colin, anyone who tells you that they "worked on it" and "became straight" is either bisexual or lying. Gender-attractions don't just "go away when you pray about them a lot." Someone who can be in a satisfying relationship with a person of the opposite gender is either straight from the get-go or is bisexual. Someone who is NOT bisexual and is NOT attracted to people of the opposite gender CANNOT make him or herself "become straight" by praying about it or "working on it," anymore than you could make yourself "become gay" by praying about it or working on it.
You Said "I Why do you assume that the expert's experience is illegitimate and just something like a choice to be monogamous?"
I neither said nor implied that. Why put words in my mouth. The "experts" experience certainly is legitimate and I have said so in numerous other posts. I do believe that he is Gay but has chosen not to act on it. There's nothing he can do about being Gay just like I could not make myself become attracted to men. He can, and has chosen to live a non gay lifestyle.
BTW your experiences are yours alone and do not refute the overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of Gay men cannot change their sexual orientation.
“You Said "I Why do you assume that the expert's experience is illegitimate and just something like a choice to be monogamous?"
I neither said nor implied that. Why put words in my mouth. The "experts" experience certainly is legitimate and I have said so in numerous other posts. I do believe that he is Gay but has chosen not to act on it. There's nothing he can do about being Gay just like I could not make myself become attracted to men. He can, and has chosen to live a non gay lifestyle.”
As the old cliché goes: “What we have here is a failure to communicate”.
Sorry but my original comment wasn't intended to put things in your mouth. I just wasn’t discriminating between what you were saying and my own paraphrasing. I’ll break it down and explain how I am interpreting and hopefully you will be able to then explain where you are coming from. In any case if we keep at it I’m sure we can get there.
I’ll break up what I said into two bits. There is the bit about you assuming the expert’s experience is illegitimate. You make the claim that Alan Chambers is simply choosing not to act on his gay impulses and that there is nothing that he can do about being gay just like you could not make yourself attracted to men.
Alan Chambers said: “I know that thousands of men and women defy – and continue to defy – any possible genetic or biological links to homosexuality and changed their sexual orientation through the help of caring individuals, counseling and faith-based support groups.”
Certainly I am looking at it through the lens of my own experience but when he speaks of changing sexual orientation and speaks of his own experiences I take it to mean more than simply choosing not to act on gay impulses although that may have been the first step. By a change of sexual orientation I take it to mean that he has largely or completely lost his gay impulses in that he is either generally or completely no longer attracted to men. If I am correct then you consider his assertion and experience to be illegitimate when you assert that all that is involved is not acting on gay impulses and there is nothing that can be done about being gay and attracted to men. Does that make sense?
I might as well add that the reason I chose you to respond to is that for someone in your situation to make the apparent pronouncement I feel disrespected to the extent that my experience overlaps with Alan's. I wouldn't feel that if a gay guy expressed that view.
The second bit is the related. I am claiming that you are stating that his change of orientation is just like a decision to be monogamous. That is it is simply a case of not following urges. You used monogamy as an analogy and I inferred that in doing so you meant to communicate that nothing more is involved and that it is just an act of will power not a genuine change of orientation. Hopefully again this is sufficient explanation. Please feel free to let me know how I am misinterpreting.
”BTW your experiences are yours alone and do not refute the overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of Gay men cannot change their sexual orientation.”
I believe they give a better insight into the situation than your own experiences. Even if a majority either due to biological, environmental, or ingrained beliefs can’t change but a minority can why couldn’t Alan be in that minority?
Barbaroni,
Thanks for the response. That is not the way it appears to me. I've said what I've said but I can empathise with how you feel. I picture myself in your situation and believe that if I was you I'd feel frustrated with me. If so sorry.