Just when you thought the issue of homosexuality couldn’t get any more complicated, Joe Carter writes a Column for On The Square (First Things) title Gay Gene Eugenics. Here are some excerpts (emphasis mine):
When it comes to homosexuality, those who support gay rights don’t often find themselves agreeing with conservative Christians. Advances in biomedical technology, however, should push the two groups to agree that the biological basis for the homosexual orientation is irrelevant. Although their motivations may differ, each side has reasons for promoting the idea that sexual activity is freely chosen behavior.
Gay rights activists have, of course, been working against this idea for decades. They have been eager to find a genetic, hormonal, or neurological explanation for sexual orientation, which, they believe, will remove any doubt that individuals have no choice about their sexuality—and society will have no choice but to accept their sexual behavior as natural and normal.
Ironically, such an explanation could have just the opposite effect of what they hope for. As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, a prenatal pill used to prevent ambiguous genitalia may reduce the chance that a female with the disorder will be gay. A bioethicist quoted in the story worried that the treatment could lead to “engineering in the womb for sexual orientation.”
The ability to chemically steer a child’s sexual orientation has become increasingly possible in recent years, with evidence building that homosexuality has biological roots and with advances in the treatment of babies in utero. Prenatal treatment for congenital adrenal hyperplasia is the first to test—unintentionally or not—that potential.
No one who has followed the trajectory of eugenics-oriented biotechnology will be surprised that one the first targets for manipulation would be sexual orientation. In 2002 Francis Fukuyama speculated that within twenty years we would be able to devise a way for parents to sharply reduce the likelihood that they will give birth to a gay child. Even in a society in which “social norms have become totally accepting of homosexuality,” he argues, most parents would choose the treatment.
Fukuyama is right. Even if homosexuality were considered a benign trait such as baldness or left-handedness, the majority of parents would opt to have a heterosexual child (“What if we want grandchildren?”).
…
Although they will naturally abhor the aborting of such children, many conservative Christians will be amenable to changing sexual orientations in the womb. A prenatal treatment seems a humane solution for a moral problem, an easy way to deliver children from a particularly difficult temptation.
This acceptance of the “medicalization” of sexual orientations is misguided. Treating orientation as a malady promotes a reductionist view in which human behavior is explainable by chemical and physical laws. As we’ve seen in other areas of bioethics, reductionism inevitably undermines both moral autonomy and the dignity of the individual.
But even Christians who disagree with me should recognize that embracing the use of drugs and genetic engineering to correct for behavioral orientations opens the Pandora’s box of natal eugenics. Bioethicist Samuel Hensley also warns that rather than unconditionally accepting offspring as a gift of God, we will be tempted to redefine parenthood to include choosing the particular characteristics we want in children.
Christians should reject this cult of choice. We should be vigilant in expressing the truth that children are a blessing from God, not a product we manufacture to our specifications.
However, Christians can agree with the gay activists that homoerotic desire might very well have a biological basis. We can also rightly insist that acting upon that desire in the form of sexual activity requires a freely chosen decision. While we might not be responsible for our sexual urges, we are always accountable for our sexual behavior. If gay activists would agree with us on this point, we could form a tentative alliance against the type of eugenics that attempts to change someone’s future behavior—or eliminate them entirely—while they are still in the womb.
…
I may have already quoted too much but the temptation is to reprint the whole thing! … it’s a very well written and thought provoking post. Go read the whole article.
When it comes to homosexuality being genetic, that is truly irrelevant to me. The science isn’t anywhere near proving it to be so. But if it were genetic that wouldn’t change my life or testimony one bit. However, the idea of mankind trying to engineer the genetics of a human being along sexual or moral lines, especially in the womb, is horrifying to me. The idea of someone aborting a child because of potential sexual traits (or any traits for that matter) is an affront to God and humanity in my opinion.
I don’t have anything else to share (at the moment) that isn’t already expressed in Joe’s article but I would love to know what you think.
About Randy Thomas
We have seen a proliferation of sperm-bank babies, a good number of whom are going to gay parents. People seem to believe they can manufacture babies, beyond being blessed with them naturally, already. Arguably, it’s not that far of a journey along this road to eugenics-tampering. Yes, be careful what you wish for.
We have seen a proliferation of sperm-bank babies, a good number of whom are going to gay parents. People seem to believe they can manufacture babies, beyond being blessed with them naturally, already. Arguably, it’s not that far of a journey along this road to eugenics-tampering. Yes, be careful what you wish for.
This ides is not new I I won’t be holding my breath about the homosexual movement kicking up that much of a fuss. J Michael Bailey, the psychologist who did the infamous twin studies, in an article with Aaron Greenburg stated that it would be okay for parents who knew their child carry the gay gene to abort that child if they wanted too. Bailey has also declared that homosexuality, while biological, is evolutionarily maladaptive. Despite this the gay movement still use Bailey’s research because his twin study with Pillard is so pro-gay, as is seen in the book Born Gay by Wilson and Rahman. There is a major study looking for the genetic markers in gay brothers and their parents. This is being undertaken by universities in the Chicago area, is sponsored by gay groups and Bailey is one of the researchers. If the homosexual movement’s reaction to Bailey is anything to go by I doubt we will here much comment from them.
This ides is not new I I won’t be holding my breath about the homosexual movement kicking up that much of a fuss. J Michael Bailey, the psychologist who did the infamous twin studies, in an article with Aaron Greenburg stated that it would be okay for parents who knew their child carry the gay gene to abort that child if they wanted too. Bailey has also declared that homosexuality, while biological, is evolutionarily maladaptive. Despite this the gay movement still use Bailey’s research because his twin study with Pillard is so pro-gay, as is seen in the book Born Gay by Wilson and Rahman. There is a major study looking for the genetic markers in gay brothers and their parents. This is being undertaken by universities in the Chicago area, is sponsored by gay groups and Bailey is one of the researchers. If the homosexual movement’s reaction to Bailey is anything to go by I doubt we will here much comment from them.
I’ve totally given up on the notion that homosexuality is genetic. Too many of the friends I know who struggle with SSA follow the pattern of the “nurture, not nature” theory. Even in my own life, I see the common factors that influenced the way I thought of myself as a developing child. In short, I fit the pattern of so many of my SSA peers.
I’ve totally given up on the notion that homosexuality is genetic. Too many of the friends I know who struggle with SSA follow the pattern of the “nurture, not nature” theory. Even in my own life, I see the common factors that influenced the way I thought of myself as a developing child. In short, I fit the pattern of so many of my SSA peers.
I wll just post what I messaged to Randy.
The majority of research has shown that sexual orientation is inborn. However the complexity of sexuality leads me to believe we will never fully find out why someone is born gay, straight, bisexual, or the type of sexuality of person who can fall in love with men/women/trans with no sexual label at all.
Scientists have already figured out how to manipulate sexual attraction in non-human animals which grosses me out, because I think messing with stuff like that is wrong. It saddens me to think that there are parents out there who would be willing to “choose” the color hair, eyes, or sexuality for their kid.
So THIS homosexual cares. It should not matter why someone is gay, and until we live in a homophobic-free world I will never believe that one chooses to reject their “same sex feelings” out of their own free will and not because of cultural/religious/family pressure.
I did whether you ever believe it or not.
I wll just post what I messaged to Randy.
The majority of research has shown that sexual orientation is inborn. However the complexity of sexuality leads me to believe we will never fully find out why someone is born gay, straight, bisexual, or the type of sexuality of person who can fall in love with men/women/trans with no sexual label at all.
Scientists have already figured out how to manipulate sexual attraction in non-human animals which grosses me out, because I think messing with stuff like that is wrong. It saddens me to think that there are parents out there who would be willing to “choose” the color hair, eyes, or sexuality for their kid.
So THIS homosexual cares. It should not matter why someone is gay, and until we live in a homophobic-free world I will never believe that one chooses to reject their “same sex feelings” out of their own free will and not because of cultural/religious/family pressure.
I did whether you ever believe it or not.
ok well i was a person who you if you told me gay was WRONG i would go nuts!..because for years i thought i was!…i thought i was in love with someone of the same sex and i got totally delivered from that!…I got showed that is was wrong!..God created man for woman!..not men for men!..its a thing im struggling with in some ways cause thats what i was soo used to!..but it ready is wrong!!…i have gay friends and im praying for them daily because they dont understand!…they see the change in me…but they still dont understand..but as far as the feelings i had for this one guy…they are GONE!….they were gone as soon as i got the holy spirit!!…i thank god everyday for showing me the light!!….I am striving everyday for a better relationship with him!!…So no you are not born gay…its just one of satan’s wicked schemes on mankind!…he wants to destroy us!!…I dont know much about this whole christian walk but i am trying and i do want to build a better relationship with the lord!!…i hope sharing my story helps someone!..if you have any comments or anything just ask…i’ll be more then happy to try to help someone better understand it!! GOD BLESS!
ok well i was a person who you if you told me gay was WRONG i would go nuts!..because for years i thought i was!…i thought i was in love with someone of the same sex and i got totally delivered from that!…I got showed that is was wrong!..God created man for woman!..not men for men!..its a thing im struggling with in some ways cause thats what i was soo used to!..but it ready is wrong!!…i have gay friends and im praying for them daily because they dont understand!…they see the change in me…but they still dont understand..but as far as the feelings i had for this one guy…they are GONE!….they were gone as soon as i got the holy spirit!!…i thank god everyday for showing me the light!!….I am striving everyday for a better relationship with him!!…So no you are not born gay…its just one of satan’s wicked schemes on mankind!…he wants to destroy us!!…I dont know much about this whole christian walk but i am trying and i do want to build a better relationship with the lord!!…i hope sharing my story helps someone!..if you have any comments or anything just ask…i’ll be more then happy to try to help someone better understand it!! GOD BLESS!
What science has proven homosexuality is inborn? The evidence for a gay gene is non-existent and Francis S Collins, the ex-head of the human genome project, has stated that there is no evidence and is supported by even Dean Hamer in this statement. If you’re wondering who Hamer is, he is the person who did the gay gene study that he and others have failed to replicate but is still quoted by the homosexual lobby. Similarly studies into the gay brain by Le Vay and others bring up a great big zero for causation. And then twin studies show homosexuality in identical twins (those from the same egg) brought up together to have a rate of 7%, if we compare this to depression – clinical depression, bipolar disorder and other forms – we find a rate where one twin has depression the other one having depression in identical twins brought up together is 74%. In identical twins brought up apart depression drops to 65% while homosexuality is down to under 3%.
Also, like Randy i chose to reject my same sex feelings out of my own free will. And it was the misuse of the “born gay” argument that was the catalyst me to do so.
What science has proven homosexuality is inborn? The evidence for a gay gene is non-existent and Francis S Collins, the ex-head of the human genome project, has stated that there is no evidence and is supported by even Dean Hamer in this statement. If you’re wondering who Hamer is, he is the person who did the gay gene study that he and others have failed to replicate but is still quoted by the homosexual lobby. Similarly studies into the gay brain by Le Vay and others bring up a great big zero for causation. And then twin studies show homosexuality in identical twins (those from the same egg) brought up together to have a rate of 7%, if we compare this to depression – clinical depression, bipolar disorder and other forms – we find a rate where one twin has depression the other one having depression in identical twins brought up together is 74%. In identical twins brought up apart depression drops to 65% while homosexuality is down to under 3%.
Also, like Randy i chose to reject my same sex feelings out of my own free will. And it was the misuse of the “born gay” argument that was the catalyst me to do so.
As usual, Phelim, you grossly overstate your case.
Here is what Francis S. Collins wrote to David Roberts of Ex-Gay Watch in 2007 in reference to a claim made by A. Dean Byrd of NARTH that he (Collins) had asserted that “homosexuality is not hardwired”. After noting that quotations from his work had been juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest a different conclusion from that which he had intended, Dr Collins continued:
“The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.
“Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.”
Simon LeVay’s conclusion in his review essay “The Biology of Sexual Orientation”, which he last updated in April 2009, is:
“Although quite a few of the findings reported here are inconsistent between studies or await independent replication, my general conclusion is that biological processes, especially the prenatal, hormonally-controlled sexual differentiation of the brain, are likely to influence a person’s ultimate sexual orientation.”
Rather than making extreme statements, like saying that the evidence is “non-existent”, it would be more accurate, as well as more candid, to say that the evidence, one way or the other, is inconclusive.
As usual, Phelim, you grossly overstate your case.
Here is what Francis S. Collins wrote to David Roberts of Ex-Gay Watch in 2007 in reference to a claim made by A. Dean Byrd of NARTH that he (Collins) had asserted that “homosexuality is not hardwired”. After noting that quotations from his work had been juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest a different conclusion from that which he had intended, Dr Collins continued:
“The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.
“Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.”
Simon LeVay’s conclusion in his review essay “The Biology of Sexual Orientation”, which he last updated in April 2009, is:
“Although quite a few of the findings reported here are inconsistent between studies or await independent replication, my general conclusion is that biological processes, especially the prenatal, hormonally-controlled sexual differentiation of the brain, are likely to influence a person’s ultimate sexual orientation.”
Rather than making extreme statements, like saying that the evidence is “non-existent”, it would be more accurate, as well as more candid, to say that the evidence, one way or the other, is inconclusive.
It will be a very sad day, should it ever come, when parents kill their unborn child because of the child’s future sexuality. However it is already a sad day when so many unborn children are killed regardless of the reasons. Then we get into the debate about what reasons for killing an unborn child are acceptable and what reasons are not. For example, Trig Palin.
It will be a very sad day, should it ever come, when parents kill their unborn child because of the child’s future sexuality. However it is already a sad day when so many unborn children are killed regardless of the reasons. Then we get into the debate about what reasons for killing an unborn child are acceptable and what reasons are not. For example, Trig Palin.
Yes, it’s true, for many people there is a lot of cultural/religious/family pressure. Yes, some people are kicked out of their houses, spat upon, verbally abused, beat up, killed, etc. (Sad to say those who haven’t experienced that pain can’t totally relate to it.) Everybody’s situation is unique though. A few folks leave one closet (gay closet) and go into another closet (post-gay closet), without any overt or expressed pressure from anyone else. OK, so there is still some hidden or unspoken pressure in the background and everyone knows its there. But it doesn’t have the power to make us accept or reject anything unless we let it. We always retain our free will, and yes, most definitely that always comes with one cost/price or another. If we choose to pay one price rather than another price, it’s still our choice, in that we are not victims, are we? OK, some people find that rejecting their same sex feelings is like trying to stuff a bunch of stuff into a closet and trying to forget it’s there (doesn’t work very well for very long), so later on they come to a point of accepting the feelings but still not living according to them. For example, I can feel really angry at another driver and accept the fact that I am angry and acknowledge the truth of that, but then choose not to honk the horn or show a particular finger or utter a curse etc. Yes yes, granted, anger is (usually) nowhere nearly as deep or strong of a feeling as a sexual attraction, everyone knows that. But we’re not mainly defined by our emotions are we? And we’re not mainly defined (categorized, put in a box, lose our individuality to a label) by our sexual feelings either, are we? Well if other people mainly define us that way, that’s up to them. But we all retain the free will as to how we will define ourselves (yay!), and that definition can change in shades/degrees/textures etc over time, because we have the freedom to grow and mature or just plain change a bit here or there, and again, for each person that is an extremely unique process with unique manifestations etc. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts, and thank you for sharing yours.
Yes, it’s true, for many people there is a lot of cultural/religious/family pressure. Yes, some people are kicked out of their houses, spat upon, verbally abused, beat up, killed, etc. (Sad to say those who haven’t experienced that pain can’t totally relate to it.) Everybody’s situation is unique though. A few folks leave one closet (gay closet) and go into another closet (post-gay closet), without any overt or expressed pressure from anyone else. OK, so there is still some hidden or unspoken pressure in the background and everyone knows its there. But it doesn’t have the power to make us accept or reject anything unless we let it. We always retain our free will, and yes, most definitely that always comes with one cost/price or another. If we choose to pay one price rather than another price, it’s still our choice, in that we are not victims, are we? OK, some people find that rejecting their same sex feelings is like trying to stuff a bunch of stuff into a closet and trying to forget it’s there (doesn’t work very well for very long), so later on they come to a point of accepting the feelings but still not living according to them. For example, I can feel really angry at another driver and accept the fact that I am angry and acknowledge the truth of that, but then choose not to honk the horn or show a particular finger or utter a curse etc. Yes yes, granted, anger is (usually) nowhere nearly as deep or strong of a feeling as a sexual attraction, everyone knows that. But we’re not mainly defined by our emotions are we? And we’re not mainly defined (categorized, \put in a box\, lose our individuality to a label) by our sexual feelings either, are we? Well if other people mainly define us that way, that’s up to them. But we all retain the free will as to how we will define ourselves (yay!), and that definition can change in shades/degrees/textures etc over time, because we have the freedom to grow and mature or just plain change a bit here or there, and again, for each person that is an extremely unique process with unique manifestations etc. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts, and thank you for sharing yours.
Hi…
From my reading of the research, being gay is clearly not a purely genetic phenomenon. But there is good evidence for assuming genetic contribution and furthering research in that area. None of this is ‘causation’ as you rightly point out, but then we don’t exactly know all the biological pathways of makes a person have any sexuality at all (i.e. no gay gene means no straight gene either).
I’ve often wondered about Bailey’s reasons for wanted to research this area.
It is quite easy to manufacture headlines about embryonic manipulation and therapies for the unborn that might avoid a child being gay. It is quite another thing to do it in practice. The CAH condition being talked is a quite specific diagnosable condition. But ‘sexuality’ is not diagnosable you might say. There are many complex factors. As well genes, epigentic response to womb environment, effects of hormones in the womb on the SRY and SOX genes carried on the Y-chromosome shaping various neurological brain centres and strucutures, there is synaptogenesis after birth, necessary to shape our sexuality after just like lanaguage, sight and many other characteristics of being fully human. Like many other higher order functions, (e.g. cognition, memory, sight, language) sexuality insofar as it involves the brain, is a distributed network with respect to brain topologies – any aspect of which is subject to normative developmental variation. Anyone claiming to have sufficient knowledge to influence this variant, distributed, environmentally sensitive part of a person is clearly not even understanding 0.1% of what is needed.
Intentionally changing sexuality through medicine is very very bad idea. It’s the Frankenstein approach and as likely to lead to horrors in personality and behaviour as the original monster displayed.
Whether twin studies further the cause of gay rights is still a moot point. My strong prediction will be that they don’t come up with much different to what has already been learned i.e. say 10%-30% of hereditary factors involved – BUT – no clear correlation to a narrow set of genes involved.
Wanting to create a child is WAY different to wanting to manipulate the unborn medically.
Wow, this is a fascinating topic. So much to think about. If an embryo would not be harmed in the process, manipulating genes that would cause particular medical problems for the person during his/her lifetime seems like a good thing. A good gift from God through science.
But, I don’t know, is it really safe for the embryo? And where is the line- when does something become a medical issue to be cured- like cystic fibrosis- and when does something become a societal abnormality to be cured- like shyness. Can we really engineer the personality and subjective traits we desire for another human being? And beyond that, an entire generation?
So, manipulating genes that, as you put it along sexual or moral lines, that’s a doozy. What about the gene, and I don’t know much about this, that contributes to addiction? Addicting- idolatry, abusing one’s body- is a moral line. Should we avoid manipulating that gene as well?
But, science can’t manipulate the gay gene because such a thing has not been found to exist. However, scientists, according to the article may be inadvertently reducing the chance that a female born with ambiguous genitalia will be gay because of a certain pill being given.
As usual, science is moving faster than society can keep up with. Scientists move ahead with experiments before society can come to a moral consensus on whether what they are doing is right or not. Scientists- fallible human beings- are making serious ethical decisions that will affect us all without all of us having much of a say about it.
I cannot understand the medical science here. My brain doesn’t work that way; God bless those who ARE gifted in medical science.
But, theologically speaking, if an embryo’s genes could be manipulated so that upon reaching sexual maturity he/she would have primarily same sex attractions- that is be a homosexual- the kid would still be a sinner. He would still struggle with SOMETHING- lying, for example, or greediness. The kid would still have a sin nature, would still be a son of Adam in desperate need of reconciliation with his Creator, in need of a new nature.
While scientists can manipulate genes and clone embryos, we can never engineer the image of God out of a human being. Likewise, in our attempts to manipulate genes and clone embryos to eradicate diseases, eliminate disabilities, and maybe even ‘adjust’ his or her sexual orientation, we can never ‘create’ a person who will not inherit the struggle with sin- humanity’s greatest and universal genetic disorder. But the cure for this ‘disorder’ is not found in science. Our only hope remains, as it always has- in Christ and Him crucified.