Homosexuality: Should we interfere in the womb?

In a March 2 column, theologian and Southern Baptist seminary President Albert Mohler created a bit of a stir when he allowed that a traditional Christian view of homosexuality was not threatened if innate factors turn out to be involved in the development of same-sex attractions. I was glad to read his thoughts on that point. However, more controversial were these points from his ten point conclusion:

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

So Dr. Mohler rightly does not favor abortion, but he might favor non-lifethreatening pre-natal manipulations. In what appears to be an indirect reference to the Mohler suggestion in #8 above, Alan Chambers discounted efforts to manipulate development. He says:

But, I don’t believe that a pill or surgery or holding someone will provide the results that some hope for—there is no quick fix or formula to changing one’s sexuality. Instead, most successful and longterm change occurs when one decides to daily submit their mind, will and emotions to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Some find freedom from feelings and attractions while others simply find freedom from an identity that was incompatible with their faith.

First, I can’t resist pointing out the reference to Richard Cohen (“holding someone”), but the main point is that Alan does not favor the kind of early intervention suggested by Dr. Mohler. There are several big ifs in Dr. Mohler’s point #8 that I believe will keep us from realizing such an ethical dilemma for quite awhile. We have few clues how hormones might work pre-natally to effect sexual orientation in humans. Much work will be needed to define the mechanisms, if they exist at all. Furthermore, while such brain differentiation may be a direct causal factor in sheep, it may not be so direct in humans. Following the thinking of Bem, hormones or genes might in some way craft a brain that leans toward a same-sex sexual organization but certain socialization factors also may be important. One of the most significant problems for me is the possibility of unintended consequences of manipulating something pre-natally. While applying a patch or pill might mitigate against same sex attractions, it may lead to heightened aggression or other consequences unforseen. Finally, I am just nervous about suggestions to design children; I don’t like where that might go. I am not reassured that those making decisions like that might share my religious world view. I am always aware that somewhere else, or at some other time, others who don’t like some characteristic I hold dear, might find a way to make modifications that make sense to them, but would be abhorrent to me.

UPDATE: 3/15/07 – David Crary of the AP has a story on the reaction from the right and left to Dr. Mohler’s article.

59 thoughts on “Homosexuality: Should we interfere in the womb?”

  1. Ann

    Glad you enjoyed the thread. 😎

    Tim

    Stupid gay sheep links everywhere and most of them are old. There are great articles out there if I could find them. HOWEVER here is one mention of curing gay sheep.

    OHSU experimenter Charles Roselli is drugging pregnant sheep to prevent the actions of hormones in their fetuses’ brains and cutting open the brains of rams he calls “male-oriented” (homosexual) in an attempt to find the hormonal mechanisms behind homosexual tendencies so that they can subsequently be changed. Roselli’s cohort, Frederick Stormshak of OSU, has surgically installed an estrogen device in rams’ bodies in an effort to alter “gay sheep’s” sexual preferences and make them heterosexual.

    http://www.mysocalledgaylife.com/usa/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2876&Itemid=6

    I don’t how accurate that particular story is but I don’t think it is super far off. I have read in various places that their research has accomplished three major firsts.

    A) They created a blood test for pregnant sheep that can predict the sexuality of offspring.

    B) They have strong evidence that a small nucleus in the hypothalamus is responsible for homo/hetero orientation. Remember the barrage of crap LeVay took for suggesting that?

    C) They have “cured” fully developed gay sheep with brain surgery.

    Somebody might be able to help us out with a better link. I will look again as well.

  2. Roselli says he can cure gay sheep right now.

    I think I may need a reference on that one. I thought the exact opposite was the case.

    Anyway the upshot might be that women end up prefering formally gay men to straight truck driver types by a wide margin. Straight men will rue the day they allowed this research to progress.

    Hmmm. Ex-Gays as the man of choice.

  3. Tim

    Lets say that homosexual men really are more sensitive, intelligent and better looking. Lets also say that 20 or 30 years from now scientists use stem cells or some other exotic technology to increase the size of the hypothalamus thus making gay men straight. It could happen, Roselli says he can cure gay sheep right now. Anyway the upshot might be that women end up prefering formally gay men to straight truck driver types by a wide margin. Straight men will rue the day they allowed this research to progress. 😎

  4. Tim

    I have to agree with you. I have noticed over my lifetime that homosexuals seem to have higher average intelligence. Another peculiarity seems to be appearance. When I was a kid (1980s) the stereotype was that guys who were good looking were gay. I found it interesting that researchers somewhere tested this hypothesis and determined that gay men really do have more attractive facial features than straight men. I think it will all come back to the way hormones are sent or received prenatally.

  5. Drowsap,

    I can appreciate that you have a “safe bet” and really at this point that’s all any of us can have. I too doubt that all homosexuality will ever be traced to some “gay gene” – in fact, I think that can pretty conclusively be eliminated as an “every example every time” causation, though I don’t rule it out as possibly the road for some folks – no one yet knows.

    I too think that the most likely explanation for a large segment of gay men is that there is some genetic basis activated by some environmental trigger. I suspect that the trigger is most likely pre-natal – and if not, it is at a very very young age and is probably not succeptable to parenting methods. Again, we are all guessing at this point.

    Perhaps diet will matter at some point or perhaps hormone therapy will as well. I don’t get all frantic and scream “genocide” at the notion of ensuring heterosexuality in future generations. But I do think that humanity and civilization would be much worse off without gay people in it. If we removed the contributions of same-sex attracted persons from history, the world would be a very different place, and not at all to the better. And I’m not sure the world really wants to do without the next Da Vinci, Newton, or Turing.

    Perhaps – and I’m just thinking aloud here – the benefit that Mother Nature selected for was not solely increased fertility. Perhaps there is something about the genetic/ hormonal/ environmental soup that results in homosexuality that also occasionally results in genius. Historically, “the greats” include far more same-sex attracted persons than one should expect from raw percentages.

    This is not to suggest that gay people are, on average, any more intelligent than straights (except for me, of course). But perhaps the production of the occasional genius would be adequate motivation for Mom Nature to keep that soup around.

  6. Tim

    If scientists discover a “gay” gene that made people exclusively desire sex that can’t produce offspring it would be an amazing find. No common fitness reducing condition has ever been traced back to a genetic trigger. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Scientists make amazing discoveries every day. Personally, I think the safe bet is some sort of environmental trigger. I don’t mean that gay men aren’t getting enough hugs from their fathers. 😎 It is probably some sort of biological trigger IMHO.

    I believe Roselli can determine if a sheep will be born gay with a blood test during pregnancy. It is some sort of hormone test. Unless the reason for this irregularity is obvious the debate on why this happens is going to be Looooooooong. I believe the worry about hormone patches is crazy. A simple change in diet, supplements or activity might accomplish the same thing. Women take folic acid right now. The list of things that pregnant women take is going to get longer as we learn more about the body.

  7. Drowssap wrote: I wouldn’t agree with the fitness part. Men spread their genes and when they don’t their particular alelles die off. The group won’t die off. The group will begin to look more and more like the elite males that are doing the breeding. Spreading your genes is one more reason that its good to be king.

    Ok… I don’t think of fitness in terms of the individual, but instead of a breeding population. In this world of today we exalt the individual (human) and extended families are more often not considered important. Thus people seem to view evolution in terms of their own personal success. I don’t; nor do I believe that is how it works at all.

    I have a eall large extended family based in first cousins and more distant cousins. Much of that comes from blood-aunts who were very fertile and produced a greater number of female offspring. I even have some 2rd cousins, once removed, who share as many as 9 of 16 of my great-grandparents (and are thus also 3rd cousins, etc..).

    That rather fertile family is the population which is spreading my genes around… and quite liberally. I don’t have to reproduce, my mother’s Xs are still out there (a heck of a lot) and so is my dad’s X&Y. True, my particular mix will disappear. But I can be assured that my extended familiy is very strong.

  8. Virtually all healthy men have a very strong sex drive.

    Ahh, but I said Ms. Nature (those close to her call her Mom) might design those with no desire to breed, not those with no desire for sex. 😛

  9. Tim

    What you wrote makes sense except for 1 thing.

    Virtually all healthy men have a very strong sex drive. This is not a new phenomenon. 😎 Societies have been successfully organized under many different systems but Mother Nature has never made any effort to curb man’s almost limitless desire for sex. Any gene that would cause men to feel differently was made extinct by our ancestors long ago.

    Thank God for morals, we’d live in chaos without them.

  10. Just a thought here:

    If we assume the model of a few male having breeding rights to a larger numer of females, would not there be advantages to the clan for some males not seeking to fight the alphas but being content with their non-breeding role?

    Assuming that there are advantages to having more males (to increase protection for the clan, to perform more physically challenging tasks such as hunting), I would think it logical that those who hunted and protected but did not breed would be natural allies of the alpha male.

    A biological system that tended to add non-breeding males after a number of breeding males would be even more valuable to the clan.

    Even in a fairly civilized society (think middle ages Europe) there would be definite advantages for landholders to not have too many sons with dynasty asperations. The solution at that time was to send superfluous younger sons into the military and the church. I think the youngest son / church dynamic not to be particularly surprising.

    Further, if we take into consideration the fact that it was not uncommon for women to die in childbirth, there was a natural built in disparity between the number of available females and males. Supposing that Mother Nature wanted to set aside her knitting one day and resolve this issue, she might have came up with a solution whereby some males did not want to breed.

    Next time we see her, let’s ask her.

  11. Lynn David

    “Sounds like men are pretty much throw-aways as far as fitness in evolution goes. It’s the women that are mosts important.”

    I wouldn’t agree with the fitness part. Men spread their genes and when they don’t their particular alelles die off. The group won’t die off. The group will begin to look more and more like the elite males that are doing the breeding. Spreading your genes is one more reason that its good to be king.

    As for the women being most important, in their own way I have to agree they are. I remember reading a story about the population of Europe after WW2. To nobodies amazement it continued to grow after the war (until birth control). How could a population continue to expand when tens of millions of fertile men just got wiped out? Simple… 99.5% of the women survived and one way or the other they all found a way to get pregnant. 😎

  12. DROWSSAP wrote: I guess what I meant to say homosexuality is a severely fitness reducing condition.

    Why? Men are a dime a dozen. Isn’t our sperm of the same morphology as polygynous apes? Meaning that more than one female is accepting of the same male mating partner.

    There is also a study that I remember from a year or so ago which found that mtDNA Eve’s of several indigenous populations were about twice as old as the Y-chromosome Adam for the same population. Something on the order of a range of 176,000 years for mtDNA and 74,000 years for the Y-chromosome of the Khosians of Africa to 93,000 years mtDNA and 48,000 years Y-chromosome of Mongolians and New Guineans [see: THE LOOM]. The idea the researchers had was that a small pool of men of the same genetics were those who held mating rights for a number of women.

    Corante on THE LOOM put it this way; “The explanation the Arizona scientists favor for their results is polygyny–two or more women having children with a single man. To understand why, imagine an island with 1,000 women and 1,000 men, all married in monogamous pairs, just as their parents did, and their grandparents, and so on back to the days of the first settlers on the island. Let’s say that if you trace back the Y chromosomes in the men, you’d find a common ancestor 2,000 years ago. Now imagine that the 1,000 women are all bearing children again, but this time only 100 men are the fathers. You’d expect that the ancestor of this smaller group of men lived much more recently than the common ancestor of all 1,000 men.

    Sounds like men are pretty much throw-aways as far as fitness in evolution goes. It’s the women that are mosts important.

  13. Tim

    “I would be inclined to think it was in the manufacturing process… but that’s just me.”

    You are correct, I gotta agree with you.

    I guess what I meant to say homosexuality is a severely fitness reducing condition. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, or immoral or anything like that, just that it results (on average) in less future children. I’d imagine that it would take a pretty big environmental effect to trigger its expression. Then again… who knows?

  14. Drowssap wrote: Mother nature doesn’t taking anything more seriously than producing babies. I would guess that if a gene was expressed 2% to 4% of the time that made men gay it was for a pretty major reason.

    Well… I was being rather joking about the burping. But also, I once jokingly pointed out to someone that a socio-physiological cause could have been that I slipped the teat and started crying just as the needed connection in my brain was being created and it was bypassed. But more to the point….

    I think you tend to wish to give nature, “Mother Nature,” too much of an intellect almost ascribing to a sort of intelligent design, which doesn’t exist. Associating homosexuality in males with fertility that might be associated with the skew towards favoring an X chromosome is merely a propensity which nature can easily afford.

    The balance sheet between higher fertility and the maybe 3-6% of men that are removed from breeding is acceptable. It is more easily seen in the social structure of sheep, that is male polygamy, that removal of a few rams from breeding does not effect fitness for the overall population. It is less easily seen in a human society which has tended towards monogamy.

    And if this propensity is carried by a single X chromosome (a “Strong X” so to speak), then any man who carries this chromosome who reproduces, including any homosexually-oriented man who might reproduce, passes this genetic propensity on to his daughters. Thus like baldness, the propensity to produce homosexuality in a male might skip a generation. And that is how it should be looked upon. Whereas baldness is actually a gene, homosexuality derives from a propensity in the genetic stucture that results in gene expression. That is if all of this pans out in studies at UCLA and now also Northwestern (I think, some university in Illinois is starting up a study).

  15. Don’t get me wrong, I have NO idea what would cause different genetic expressions. But wouldn’t that be like a car hits a small rock and its transmission and doors fall off?

    Yet most folk would not say that the rock was the cause for the transmission and the doors falling off.

    I would be inclined to think it was in the manufacturing process… but that’s just me.

  16. Lynn David

    “Why? Mom burped at the wrong time? Mom burped at the wrong time but on just one side and thus only one twin experienced gene expression and as a result is gay?”

    Don’t get me wrong, I have NO idea what would cause different genetic expressions. But wouldn’t that be like a car hits a small rock and its transmission and doors fall off? 😎

    Mother nature doesn’t taking anything more seriously than producing babies. I would guess that if a gene was expressed 2% to 4% of the time that made men gay it was for a pretty major reason.

    Then again… who knows? My mind is definately open on that one.

  17. Drowssap:

    I have to agree with that. However, regarding gene expression wouldn’t there be some evironmental factor that makes one gene trigger over another?

    Could be a hormonal trigger, hmm…. do a mother’s hormones affect a developing fetus? Maybe? I’m just thinking out-comment-loud here. That might be the idea behind birth order gays. Well, I would suppose so, if alchohol can affect a fetus. Hmmm….

    But what triggers that gene expession which might cause a homosexual orientation? My guess is pure chance and that propensity which the determined skew that UCLA found would represent. The X chromosome is supposed to methylate – shut down – but it doesn’t. Why? Mom burped at the wrong time? Mom burped at the wrong time but on just one side and thus only one twin experienced gene expression and as a result is gay?

    LOL!! Got me! The point is that it doesn’t have to happen every time, and should not happen. A lot of men are probably, well, I know they are running around with that X chromosome, the skew in favor of one X chromosome occurs in many women who do not have gay relatives (sons, brothers). And women with the skew and a gay son, surely also have other heterosexual sons (though not every X chromosome may have that propensity) .

  18. Lynn David

    “It would surely prove there is no gay gene, which I’m nearly certain of at this time. However, if the genetic cause is gene expression of an X chromosome then all it might prove is nothing.”

    I have to agree with that. However, regarding gene expression wouldn’t there be some evironmental factor that makes one gene trigger over another?

  19. Tim

    “twin studies showed that there was SOME genetic contribution”

    I don’t believe twin studies showed that. Take the example of the flu virus. People with Gene A may get the flu 10% of the time but people with Gene B may get the flu 40% of the time. This doesn’t mean that flu virus is stored inside Gene B in greater volume than Gene A. Flu virus isn’t in EITHER Alelle. Gene A and Gene B merely offer different levels of protection from flu virus. If you live out in the country and you rarely run into people it probably doesn’t matter which gene you have because you won’t run into the virus.

    If they ever find and confirm a “gay” gene it will probably operate in the same way. Twin studies already indicate that this is what we should expect. Most people with a “gay” gene will probably be straight as an arrow. In addition many people without a “gay” gene will still be gay. The percents will be skewed but only to the point that they show greater or lesser susceptability to some other outside factor.

  20. Tim wrote: If you clone a same-sex responding ram once and get a single opposite-sex responding ram, you simply show that FOR THAT RAM, genetics was not the only contributor.

    It would surely prove there is no gay gene, which I’m nearly certain of at this time. However, if the genetic cause is gene expression of an X chromosome then all it might prove is nothing. The cell one chose to clone may have at that time in the ram’s development fully methylated and be inactive. The point is that the X chromosome does not methylate in that time when the brain is first developing (first trimester for humans).

    So I don’t believe failure to clone a homosexual orientation in a ram to be proof that a genetic cause exists.

  21. Drowssap,

    if you are arguing that there are NO genetic “causes” for homosexuality, I don’t think you want to use twin studies as your argument. I don’t pretend to be a geneticist but I believe that the shared conclusion is that the twin studies showed that there was SOME genetic contribution, but not only (or perhaps always) genetic contribution.

    It may well be possible that for all (or some portion) of the 20% or so of identical twins who were gay that the basis or their orientation is truly genetic. I don’t make that claim, but assuming different paths to attraction it is neither impossible nor highly unlikely.

    >i>Anyway, there is a lot of speculation that Cochran was/is getting funding to clone gay sheep. The upshot being that if the sheep turn out straight (and he has confidence they will) the gay gene theory takes another torpedo at the waterline.

    I either misunderstand you or your conclusion is the opposite of the obvious.

    If you clone a “straight” sheep and end up with 100% straight clones, then I would suggest that this reinforces the “gay gene theory”. If environment were the sole (or even primary) contributor, you would expect 8% or rams to only repond to other male and another percentage that respond to both.

    If you clone a same-sex responding ram and get anything greater than 8% of the clones to be same-sex responding, then genetic bases become more obvious.

    If you clone a same-sex responding ram once and get a single opposite-sex responding ram, you simply show that FOR THAT RAM, genetics was not the only contributor. You would have to have a statistically valid number of closes to show anything other than that.

    Hardly a torpedo.

  22. Warrnen and Jim

    I certainly agree that scientists will find multiple paths to homosexuality. Cervical cancer comes to mind because its been in the news lately. HPV causes 75% of cervical cancer, but that still leaves 25% due to other causes. Some might be due to other pathogens, other cases might be a result of congenital abnormalities, maybe a gene causes a rare variant. There are a lot roads to Rome. However I don’t believe nature selected towards dozens of genes that can cause a fitness reducing condition like homosexuality. In fact I believe twin studies demonstrate that nature hasn’t selected towards ANY genes that cause homosexuality. There are almost certainly genes that offer increased susceptability to an evironmental trigger but that is true for everything. I believe that we will ultimately find that gay people come from just about every genetic background.

  23. If the data in toto (including the sociological observations)say anything to me, it is that there are multiple pathways and multiple types of sexualities. I would be reluctant to call a defense of univariate models a strawman however. I do think thoughtful, serious scholars hold univariate views and many in the public can be forgiven for thinking that we are one study away from finding the same-sex loving gene.

  24. but the full sample did not, raising the possibility that origins are different for different people.

    I think that is one of the most common misperceptions on “origins”, that there will be a single bullet explanation for everyone. That it will somehow be proven that genetics will be definitively proven for everyone, or that the hypothalamus will be proven for everyone, or prenatal hormones, etc. etc. The true answer, if we are ever able to arrive at one, will probably be different answers for different people.

    Saying that a study which fails to explain it for everyone somehow proves that the study does not explain anyone is one of the worst strawman arguments making the rounds today… on all sides.

  25. Lynn I’ve read your whole post but your point still boils down to one thing.

    Human sexuality is so complicated that natural selection has lost the ability to fine tune itself. I don’t believe that to be the case for any organ in our bodies. If a gene made women more fertile why wouldn’t they gradually overwhelm the less fertile women? It doesn’t matter how many men get knocked out of the competition due to homosexuality. 1 man can easily have 3, 4 or even 100 wives. Most straight guys would be HAPPY if 80% of the male population was gay.

    As for a pathogen causing homosexuality it is complete speculation. Maybe it drops hormone levels, maybe it stops the baby from absorbing hormones, or maybe it directly attacks the nervous system. Narcolepsy appears to occur when a germ sneaks in like a smart bomb and damages only a tiny nucleus in the hypothalamus leaving everything else intact.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15589310

    http://www.ahcpub.com/hot_topics/?htid=1&httid=1474

    I think stress has been pretty well tested and ruled out as an environmental factor for homosexuality. The WWII gay German baby studies were nullified by much larger studies showing no effect. Maybe the factor is nutrients or something else? I’m not saying I know what the factor is, but I believe the environment is the trigger, genes are only a predispostion.

    Although I believe homosexuality is caused by the environment I still believe that “some” change can occur for some people. The human mind isn’t a brick. Throckmorton is onto something IMHO.

  26. Ok Tim I’m coming up short but here is one link.

    According to Dr. Greg Cochran

    “Some rams, 6 percent in some herds, show sexual interest in males and no interest in females, ever. Breeding experiments, using artificial insemination, showed insignificant heritability. Studies of the sheep’s brains show oddly differential hormonal activity in certain areas of the hypothalumus.”

    Then I’ve got a dead link that would have more descriptive info on that. http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/08/3dcbec5de7c31?in_archive=1

    There are a billion gay sheep links on Google and I can’t figure out which are the good ones.

    Anyway, there is a lot of speculation that Cochran was/is getting funding to clone gay sheep. The upshot being that if the sheep turn out straight (and he has confidence they will) the gay gene theory takes another torpedo at the waterline.

    At that point Lynn would have to be correct for genes to matter in any significant way. Somehow the genes to be gay are present, but they are only expressed due to some environmental trigger in the womb. Obviously I disagree. 😎

  27. Let me qualify that last statement.

    I BELIEVE sheep have the same identical twin phenomenon where one can be straight and the other gay. The not particularly heritable part I’m sure of, the divergent twins only pretty sure. I’ll find a link tonight.

  28. Karen.

    Please do so, Michael – which “ex-gay activists” have promoted discrimination and harassment and ignored the victims of violent crime? Be specific.

    For Discrimination and harrasment, I believe he already convered that in this comment.

    As for ignoring the victims of violent crimes: A specific example is right here.

  29. Good post Lynn but I only have a second so I’m going to respond to Tim.

    Sorry Tim but I don’t have a link, I will try and dig it up tonight if I have a chance. Homosexuality is common in sheep but not particularly heritable…. meaning just about any female sheep can and does have homosexual offspring. Sheep also have the same identical twin phenomenon where one can be straight and the other gay.

  30. DROWSSAP wrote: I don’t buy that mother nature would select towards a whole host of genes that cause homosexuality. Morover there is no precedent for that interpretation.

    Like I said, you don’t understand what I am imparting.

    I have said before that there is no gay gene. But there is likely a genetic predisposition associated with the increased fertility of some women which results in gene expression of what is the normal, everyday genetic components of the X chromosome that go into making a woman.

    While no one can specifically link the expression of genes from the X chromosome with the sexually dimorphic structures of the hypothalamus (a la LaVey and the Oregon sheep study), the idea would be that the expression of the X chromosome would decrease the size and output of the sexually dimorphic structures which secrete the hormone aromatase, which is needed to catalyze testosterone into androgen in the brain. Androgen then being that hormone which aids the creation of certain traits associated with sexual orientation.

    Twin studies are thus not conclusive because gene expression need not occur in both twins.

    DROWSSAP wrote: Theorizing that human sexuality is so complicated that natural selection can no longer weed out genes that reduce fitness is unprecedented.

    Yikes…. you didn’t read what I wrote above with any discernment. Of course there would be no selection for homosexuality! No way nature would select for homosexuality. In my arguement what nature is selecting for is greater fertility in women and possibly greater fertility by a propensity to produce women offspring. That – increased fertility – may be represented genetically by the skew towards selection of a certain X chromosome in women.

    Homosexuality in males is then nothing but a by-product of this selection for increased fertility in women. Consider the sheep. This increased fertility perhaps (just guessing) means three times as many female sheep born as males. So for every 100 ewes, 75 births are of femaies and 25 births are male. But 8% of the males have a homosexual orientation, that’s 2 rams. That leaves 23 rams in that generation to possibly mature as progenitors to the next generation. And considering that males are polygamous in sheep, that is more than enough carry on the species.

    Homosexuality in males repesents a byproduct of increased female fertility. As such homosexual males of a species are a throw-away which does not affect overalll fitness of a breeding population. In natural selection, the individual is not considered, populations are. Unfortunately (and here is a comment on religion) it appears that religions, such as the Abrahamic religions, are more in agreement with natural selection/evolution as concerns the byproduct/throw-away aspects of homosexuality and thus first wrote about killing homosexuals. Kinda ironic isn’t it?

    DROWSSAP wrote: You must have hit the wrong link. The article in Psychology Today specifically states that common mental illnesses are NOT genetically triggered.

    No, I got the right article. At the time that I wrote that I was thinking about the process of gene expression being triggerred by a outside stressor. And I think it might be triggered by such a stressor as the immune response a woman may have for successive male births.

    DROWSSAP wrote: Let me state catagorically that I don’t believe homosexuality, schizophrenia, narcolepsy, autism or any other common condition is caused by genes. Genes will eventually be found that increase a persons susceptability to the environmental triggers that cause all of these conditions, but thats about it.

    Nothing in that article even suggested the idea of a genetic predisposition to an environmental tigger – a bacterium or virus. The only paragraphs (from page 3) that spoke about in utero effects was:

    Researchers think that the seeds of yet other mental illnesses may be planted while a fetus is still in the womb, when the pregnant mother-to-be becomes infected. Flu epidemics have been followed a generation later by waves of schizophrenia in England, Wales, Denmark, Finland and other countries, and a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reports higher rates of schizophrenia among children born in crowded areas in cold weather–conditions hospitable to respiratory ailments.

    Scientists suspect that in such cases a virus, such as the one that causes influenza or a newer candidate, the Borna virus, may insinuate itself into the fetal brain at a crucial stage of development. The microbe then subtly deranges the brain’s neural connections in a process that becomes apparent only as the brain reaches full maturity, in early adulthood. In people with schizophrenia, parts of the brain–the cortex, thalamus, limbic system and basal ganglia–shrink, while crevices and fluid-filled spaces enlarge by as much as half, and the brain’s chemical balance shifts. Such changes might well be the terrible legacy of a prenatal virus.

    You’re going to have to explain how systemic problems of the brain, such as schizophrenia, narcolepsy, autism or what have you, are akin to what has been apparently linked to a specific hypothalimic locus for homosexuality with no other attendant problems created. On the surface, homosexuality is not at all like any of the other ‘conditions’ which you mention. In effect you’re going to have to come up with a gay virus or a gay bacterium as a cause.

  31. Lynn David

    “You don’t seem to understand that a genetic component need not mean a specific gene for a trait but may be caused by a gene not normally in use”

    I don’t buy that mother nature would select towards a whole host of genes that cause homosexuality. Morover there is no precedent for that interpretation. Every gene found to cause homosexuality has been unceremoniously UNfound a few years later. This may come as a surprise to most people but no COMMON fitness reducing condition (other than the few that offer Heterozygote Advantage) have ever been proven to be triggered by genes. Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Schizophrenia, Autism, are all environmentally triggered. That doesn’t mean we know what the triggers are, but we know they aren’t genetic or twin studies would be more conclusive.

    “Uh…. that’s a stretch to my scientific mind. it’s not an elegant, simple solution (that is, have beauty). To my mind a more elegant solution is that there exists a ’strong-X chromoome.’ But who knows.”

    Theorizing that genes have plusses and minuses in the fitness column (i.e. more or less susceptible to evironmental hazards) is not a stretch or even complicated. Theorizing that human sexuality is so complicated that natural selection can no longer weed out genes that reduce fitness is unprecedented.

    “Ok… I read your article and I have to say that it doesn’t apply. Homosexuality is not a genetic defect. ”

    You must have hit the wrong link. The article in Psychology Today specifically states that common mental illnesses are NOT genetically triggered. That is the thrust of the entire article. Let me state catagorically that I don’t believe homosexuality, schizophrenia, narcolepsy, autism or any other common condition is caused by genes. Genes will eventually be found that increase a persons susceptability to the environmental triggers that cause all of these conditions, but thats about it.

    http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990701-000031.html

  32. DROWSSAP….

    Twin studies point out that a specific gene is not involved. Twin studies, however, do show that there is a genetic component and that is likely to be gene expression of any of several genes on the X chromosome which normally should shut down (methylate). You don’t seem to understand that a genetic component need not mean a specific gene for a trait but may be caused by a gene not normally in use, such as any that might apply on the X chromosome for a man.

    DROWSSAP wrote: “While the UCLA hypothesis is interesting it never points to causation.”

    In part it does. An X chromosome which fails to shut down (methylate). That is it could be that this chromosome is inheritable and for want of a better name call it a “strong-X chromosome.” But yeah, the cause could also be any stressor as I pointed out above.

    DROWSSAP wrote: “If their findings are replicated it is INFINITELY more likely that the same genes that make a women particularly fertile also make her more susceptible to whatever environmental factor is causing homosexuality.”

    Uh…. that’s a stretch to my scientific mind. it’s not an elegant, simple solution (that is, have beauty). To my mind a more elegant solution is that there exists a ‘strong-X chromoome.’ But who knows.

    Ok… I read your article and I have to say that it doesn’t apply. Homosexuality is not a genetic defect. It occurs at rate which is an order of magnitude greater than the most common genetic defects. We’re talking about normal genetics simply being expessed during the first trimester in utero which affect the development of the brain (a la LeVay or the sheep study). I don’t see the connection.

  33. “People who look for the causes and cures of homosexuality are acting on an anti-gay bias, not science…”

    I couldn’t disagree more. Gay rights advocates historically championed this research. This didn’t change until they realized that progress was being made and the end game was a cure.

  34. Lynn David

    Every twin study every done has shown that genetics don’t cause homosexuality (sheep or humans). While some studies may point to genes that increase susceptability to whatever evironmental factor is causing homosexuality nobody claims that genes cause gayness.

    That might sound like splitting hairs, but it means a lot to scientists. While the UCLA hypothesis is interesting it never points to causation. If their findings are replicated it is INFINITELY more likely that the same genes that make a women particularly fertile also make her more susceptible to whatever environmental factor is causing homosexuality. Something in the evironment is at play. When we were growing up researchers told us that Diabetes ran in families and must be genetic. Now they know that Type I Diabetes is a result of a pathogen that hits people with a particular genetic susceptability much harder than others. Put simply, regardless of your genes if you don’t run into the triggering pathogen you’ll never get Type I Diabetes.

    Here is a fascinating article that explains this concept much better than I can

    http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990701-000031.html

  35. Ivan first says:

    “You’re actually misjudging Dr. Mohler who happens to be fairly accurate with regards to *most* of his claims about science on homosexuality (I’m sure he’s off in a few places though).”

    Then Ivan says after facts are pointed out by JAG :

    “His credentials in the science are pretty much irrelevant.”

    I understand the retraction Ivan…the guy has no credibility.

    As for Boo…

    I have known many same-sex couples who have undergone IVF and became pregant with a resultant child…and none of them “tried” in any way to make them gay. In fact, most gay/lesbian individuals I know would not wish being gay on their children because of the societal difficulties they would face.

    I do know of many straight and gay couples, however, who are just fine with however their child might develop.

    However, if you want your child to be gay…why would it be worse than wanting them to be straight? I suppose there is only an argument to be had if you see a moral difference between gay and straight people – which I don’t.

  36. Jag,

    I don’t believe I missed your point. His credentials in the science are pretty much irrelevant. He doesn’t have to be a scientist to say something accurate about the science of homosexuality – He needs only agreement from those who are. From my own analysis of his and of many other credible scientists’ writings, he does.

    Ivan.

  37. Ha! It will never happen.

    First of all the cause may or may not be a genetic predisposition that is identifiable in a woman. It is possible that certain environmental stressors may give rise to the gene expression of the X chromosome. One may be that which has been identifiable due to birth order, where the birth of prior sons causes an immune response against a male fetus to build in the woman.

    How such a treatment might take place is perhaps problematical to Christian theology also. It would amount to an unnatural design of one’s children. There would be presumably two avenues for treatment, but each is rather questionable at this time.

    One would be a replacement of androgen that is missing in the developing brain of the first trimester fetus. The second would be a chemical inducement to methylate the X chromosome. But each is highly problematical, how do you determine that the androgen is missing or that the X-chromosome is not methylating? Moreover the sex of the child cannot be determined by sonography until the 13th week and by then presumably the gene expression has been set. Finally, treatments with androgens could cause other behavioral problems such hyper-aggression or if a mother has an immune response to male children, an abortion.

    Maybe next century, but at no time soon, I think.

  38. If I may posit an alternative scenario:

    a way is found to alter sexual orientation in the womb

    many str8 couples start having treatments to degayify their unborn kids

    many lesbians then go out and get pregnant and set out to gayify their unborn kids

    reactions?

  39. Drowsap wrote:

    “Just because someone supports research to find a “cure” for homosexuality doesn’t mean they hate gay people. Nobody complains that people are searching for a cure for Autism.”

    Yeah, and nobody is trying to take away the rights of autistic people or deny them the right to marry or to be free from unfair treatment on the job. No one is killing autistic people just becuase they are autistic and no one is suggesting that they are going to burn in Hell for all eternity if they don’t become “ex-autistic”. People who look for the causes and cures of homosexuality are acting on an anti-gay bias, not science, and have slready made up their mind that it’s bad (morally) and needs to be fixed. No one makes such moral judegments against the autistic.

  40. As to the science, I think it can be said perhaps almost conclusively that there is no gay gene. Such an idea to my mind makes no sense whatsoever. However, that is not to say that homosexuality cannot have a genetic component via gene expression.

    That has been the focus of study for some researchers from UCLA, who have reported on the association of a skew in favor of a particular X chromosomes in mothers and sisters of gay men. Such a preference for a certain X chromosome would indicate that it may fail to methylate – shut down – thus expressing its genetic signature to determine certain neurohormonal patterns which result in the sexual orientation of gay men.

    This may be associated with a greater fetility in these women and anecdotally has been associated with a propensity to produce female offspring. Now if you draw a comparison with that work concerning sheep, then one can see that for sheep having more greater fertility alongside the birth of more ewes is a good thing for a flock. Sheep can do without the one in eighteen to twenty or so rams that have a homosexual orientation because their rams are not monogamous (a small rancher/farmer who can afford only one ram cannot, and that is what spurred the research).

    Thus for sheep, male homosexuality as a by-product of greater fertillity works and furthermore, it works as an evolved trait, as well. It also works for humanity and may be indicative of differences in our social structure over the last several tens of thousand years. Monogamy may be a rather late-comer to a human society which even in our theological writings points to multiple wives for men.

    But such ideas are somewhat speculative and certainly not palatable to the ideals of some conservative Christians and are thus generally dismissed out of hand. And btw, this derives not from an obsession, just my interest as a scientist.

  41. Timothy,

    I appreciate what you are saying, but I do not agree that the science, as it sits today supports, the idea that change is not possible. We look at the influence of childhood on so many other parts of our character why should this be any different. Maybe it does not work for everyone, but if we try to close this door for those who wish to try I think we have crossed a dangerous line.

  42. Anon,

    With all due respect, I think perhaps you are responding to something other than what I wrote.

    If you check again you’ll see that I did not make a claim for a “gay gene”. While I suspect that for some people there is a genetic component to orientation, I don’t think all homosexuality originates in one particular gene (or if so, we haven’t found it). Biology is much more than just genes.

    And as for the rest of your comment, I’m sure you are quite sincere in those beliefs. However, your sincerity does not make them any more factual and, sadly, there just isn’t anything that supports your claim. So that’s why legitimate science can’t repeat your claims. It’s not a conspiracy… it’s just a lack of support. You do understand this, right?

    If someone is seeking to improve their life, I certainly don’t want to make them feel less. So while I wouldn’t lie to them about “this works” or “do this method” and I definetly would never say “avoid listening to those who do research”, I do want to be compassionate to those who seek to find peace between their sexuality and their faith.

  43. Ivan –

    I think you are missing my point. Dr. Mohler is a religious leader, and being such, has limited credibility in science due to societal biases, and his own doing. He’s made fairly radical anti-catholic statements (see Larry King Live interview), which further decreases his credibility to be any type of authority, and makes him seem like a bigot – whether or not he is.

    So, my point is that Dr. Mohler – like many religious leaders – may indeed have some scientific knowledge, but their unscientific and usually unfounded critiques of other religions and scientific organizations who take opposing viewpoints make them appear ill informed.

    No one takes them seriously…except maybe themselves.

  44. If researchers determine that the root trigger for these neurohormonal irregularities (or whatever the cause) is a properly operating gene it would be unethical to “cure” homosexuals.

    If instead they find the root trigger to be infection, pollution, stress, etc. it would be unethical NOT to find help for homosexuals that wanted it and parents that wanted to preemptively prevent it.

    My guess is that the trigger will be some sort of infection like what they are finding with Schizophrenia and Narcolepsy.

    One final note…

    Just because someone supports research to find a “cure” for homosexuality doesn’t mean they hate gay people. Nobody complains that people are searching for a cure for Autism.

  45. Homosexuality is not an illness or condition that needs to be treated any more than heterosexuality is. People who are preoccupied with “cause” and “cure” are acting on a bias (religious or personal) that has no basis in fact. Homosexuality is a difference, not a disorder. Bigotry may be more treatable.

  46. Jag,

    You’re actually misjudging Dr. Mohler who happens to be fairly accurate with regards to *most* of his claims about science on homosexuality (I’m sure he’s off in a few places though). In fact, his thoughts are very much in line with Dr. Throckmortons. Go to his website, type in “homosexuality” and read a few of his pieces.

    Ivan.

  47. Timothy,

    I feel you have not been following what is being said by the scientific community and are trying to distort what is being reported by the popular media, which in itself is a distortion.

    The evidence for the gay gene is lacking and there are external influences on many of our character traits. This does not mean change will be an easy thing, but it is possible. It starts by changing our existing behaviors and over time the way we feel about ourselves changes. If that means avoiding listening to those who cannot accept that some people do not find homosexual behavior a positive influence in there life, so be it. They should not be made to feel anything less of themselves because they are taking a positive step in their life. The only stereotype I see being reinforced here is that no one can change. Sorry to have to disappoint you.

  48. To be honest, no one looks to a Southern Baptist Seminary President to be particularly progressive with respect to social issues and scientific research. Also, no one really takes him seriously either.

    Unfortunately, the false schism that is thought to exist between science and religion have left both isolated in public perspective. We don’t expect scientists to be considering theological perspectives, and we don’t consider theologians particularly scientifically grounded.

    In this case, it just reinforces the stereotype.

  49. Anon,

    I believe the scientific community has been quite forthcoming on what has or has not been observed about the genetic, hormonal, or other biological influences on sexual orientation. Unfortunately their observations tend to be exagerated in the press and differing studies have found differing results. Which leaves political activists throwing “studies” around to everyone else’s confusion.

    I believe the reason that the scientific community has not “acknowledged there are environmental influences” is because they have not identified any. While there has been speculation on the part of religious leaders, no one has been able to show that any particular parenting model results in greater or lesser incidences of homosexuality. And unlike religious leaders, scientists report on observations not on faith.

    Perhaps certain environments interact with children having certain biological predispositions in certain ways that result in certain sexual orientations. However, it hasn’t been shown that changing the environment would have different results or even what aspects of the environment come into play. We don’t know if it’s auto mechanics or apple sauce.

    The sad situation is that there are those who are willing to make claims out of faith (and not fact) about gender modeling, father involvement, and all sorts of other stuff without even the slightest support for their proclamations. And this ends up confusing good intentioned people such as yourself.

    You wonder, “If Dr. Dobson says it, it must be true. So why aren’t scientests saying it? They must be lying.”

    But the scientists are trying to be truthful and I think, to a large extent, they have been.

  50. There are separate considerations here. Being environmental doesn’t mean change is easy or even possible to a great degree for some people. The causes are likely to be complex and multifaceted. Change is another matter altogether. I used to think more like you on that point but I realize now that even for people who believe their homosexuality is a parental problem, the knowledge of cause does not effect the degree of change desired. I also know people who seek manhood weekends and feel changed when they there but the change doesn’t stay to the degree it did while on the weekend. I am not discounting the fact that some people change a good bit I do not want to set up frustrating expectations. I desire to pursue my values even if my feelings do not cooperate.

  51. Warren,

    I feel that if the scientific community would come clean with what they have really learned about the Gay Gene hypothesis and acknowledged that there are environmental influences of people development I think more would be successful at changes their orientation but when we continue to say there is absolutely nothing that can be done we are taking away the hope for change so why should we expect it to be easy for those who do choose change.

  52. I was afraid someone would finally get wind of this. Not that I thought Dr. Throckmorton would support this kind of genetic therapy, but I think less principled proponents of the various gay conversion therapies would see genetic manipulation as a god send. As someone who would have been manipulated because of my obsessive compulsive tendencies, I find this technology profoundly disturbing. That some in the right would use it against gay people scares me.

    Dr. Throckmorton, have you heard that they’ve already tested hormonal therapies on some animals with success?

    Personally, I think people may have the right to choose whether or not to have a child, but I seriously doubt they should have the right to choose what kind of child they should have. But then, I guess people do that every time they choose a mate.

  53. If you view homosexuality as an abnormality, treating it pre-natally is no different from treating any other condition. In this case, we are not trying to modify a trait, but an illness, just like aggression or depression.

    But “we” do not treat aggression or depression prenatally. I don’t begin with the assumption that same-sex attraction is an illness like depression but even if so, it is still worrisome to consider the details in “treating” depression by manipulating children in the womb. At what point do people lose their individuality in such a process?

    One does need to consider homosexuality an illness to provide people with means to live in contrast to same sex attractions. We have interventions for many conditions, states of mind, situations that are not illnesses.

    I think the developmental psychology behind reparative therapy leads to treatment that should work without conversion.

    If you see all homosexuality as a reparative drive then treating it as such should work. But it doesn’t work most of the time. You speak of the situation as if it is well-researched and established. It is far from that.

  54. Seeker, you seem to be implying that anything which is abnormal is an illness. This is not really true. If a baby were born with bright green skin, its condition would be abnormal, but in and of itself it would not be an illness.

Comments are closed.