The Associated Press reports that the Alan Sanders study of gay brothers continues in search of 1000 pairs of gay brothers.
The study’s website describes the scope and purpose:
In 2003, the N.I.H. funded Dr. Alan R. Sanders, a psychiatrist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute to conduct a five-year study of approximately 1,000 pairs of gay brothers, along with any other available brothers and parents from families recruited from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia, i.e., mainly English speaking countries since the materials such as the web site, consent form, and questionnaire are in English.
The purpose of this study is to see whether gay brothers on average share genetic regions inherited from their parents. When studying a trait, such as sexual orientation, with genetic techniques it is much more efficient to focus on the less common variant; hence, we are studying families with gay brothers to learn more about the development of male sexual orientation. This study will shed light on the role of genetics in the development of sexual orientation of human males.
Some research indicates that some very ‘feminine’ boys seem to become homosexual more frequently than other boys (reviewed in [1]). The same seems to hold true of some very ‘masculine’ girls. It is also true that many children who become homosexual adults behave just like other members of their own gender. However, it is not our intention to perpetuate stereotypes, or to imply that all gay men are or were ‘feminine’. Rather, our purpose is to understand what impact childhood ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ may have on the adult lives of men who are attracted to other men. In order to explore these observations further, this study will ask participating brothers about their recollections of their childhood behaviors such as play activities, relationships with others, and so on.
Stanton Jones and Alan Chambers were interviewed for this article. The AP writer implied that Stanton said the Exodus study has some relevance to genetics. I don’t believe Stan made such a link:
Skeptics include Stanton Jones, a psychology professor and provost at conservative Christian school Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. An evangelical Christian, Jones last month announced results of a study he co-authored that says it is possible for gays to “convert” — changing their sexual orientation without harm.
Jones said his results suggest biology plays only a minor role in sexual orientation, and that researchers seeking genetic clues generally have a pro-gay agenda that will produce biased results.
Stanton dismissed such questions last month at the AACC meeting saying the Exodus study had nothing to do with genetics or causes.
UPDATE – 10/16/07 – As expected, I heard from Stan Jones today who said he was not characterized properly by the AP reporter Tanner. In fact, he told the reporter that using his study with Yarhouse to discuss cause was inappropriate. Stan does not think the genetic contribution is likely to be large and perhaps she wrongly combined the two points.
Eddy,
I think you are on target about the issue of whether right and wrong vs. a genetic link should be further examined. It has been my observation and experience that if one can prove there is a genetic link then that will validate the “rightness” to have same gender sex. While that is one way to look at it, it certainly isn’t the only way. For many a genetic link will be valuable as far as understanding themselves but it will not be used as a component to determine personal values or validate any behavior that is not in alignment with those values. I also agree that science studies commonalities and differences instead of right vs. wrong – we see that a lot in expert testimonies in legal cases too. Just the facts.
Ken asked–
If something isn’t right what is it? The question misses the point. I believe Alan’s statement simply said that genetics, while they may fill in the picture and increase our understanding, don’t answer ‘rightness’. They would simply say that it is–and that there’s a genetic link.
The issue of whether homosexuality is right or wrong won’t necessarily be decided on the discovery of a genetic link. That link (those links?) would have to be further evaluated.
It seems to me that science studies commonality and difference not right or wrong.
Ken,
Thanks again for your response – I am glad you don’t think it is wrong for someone to have a different opinion than you. I was unsure how you felt about it because you indicated that Alan was wrong in making the statement he did and that you didn’t agree with him. In referring specifically to the issue of endorsing homosexuality as a natural variation of sexuality, there are some who do not agree with your opinion of that and I appreciate your fairness in understanding that it is not wrong of them to have a different opinion from you about it.
My decision on Oct 16 that I mentioned in post 54257 (Hutchison thread) is that I will no longer respond to comments by Jayhuck. Those of you who have followed most any discussion that I’ve attempted to have with him will understand my decision.
Eddy,
we still need to hold it up to the light.
I believe you mean, you still need to hold it up to the “light” as you define it! 🙂
Eddy,
If something isn’t right what is it? Do you think someone would be out of line to suggest the answer is “it is wrong” ?
As to your claim that Alan was merely saying that if it was genetic it isn’t the end of the discussion, why didn’t he say that? And what was the topic of the discussion that wasn’t ended? There are many ways he could have phrased it to be much clearer about what he meant. But instead he brought up the correctness of being gay and suggested that it wasn’t right.
I’m not sure of what you are asking. Are you asking about a specific opinion I’ve stated? if so which one?
if you mean in general, no I don’t automatically think a person is wrong because he has a different opinion than I do.
Ken–
Actually the statement you quoted does not imply that being gay is ‘wrong’. It simply says what it says: that the discovery of a genetic factor doesn’t end the discussion. I had been involved with Exodus for a number of years and, even back 20 or more years, people would agressively confront us with a “yeah, and what if you find out if it’s genetic….what then?” I believe Alan was trying to address that question before it was raised yet again. The fact that something’s inborn doesn’t necessarily make it ‘right’…we still need to hold it up to the light.
Ken,
Thanks for your response. Do you think it is wrong if someone doesn’t agree with your opinion?
The notion that it is “wrong’ to be gay. Homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality. It is no more wrong to be gay than it is to have green eyes or be left handed.
Ken,
What is it about your interpretation that concerns you?
I’m actually more concerned about the statement:
“Just because something’s genetic or said to be genetic or have a biological component doesn’t make it right,”
This implies that being gay is “wrong.”
Federal Tax Dollars Fund Gay-Gene Study
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005723.cfm
10-17-2007 from staff reports [Citizenlink]
Christian experts say findings won’t trump personal responsibility.
The search for a “gay gene” continues. New research is being conducted at Northwestern University in Chicago in hopes of discovering genetic evidence that homosexuality is something people are born with. And federal tax dollars are funding it.
Dr. Alan Sanders, lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects it’s not just one gene, but a combination of genetic factors that determines one’s sexual orientation. Dr. Stanton Jones of Wheaton College is skeptical.
“What we’re likely to find is that there may be biological contributions for some, but it doesn’t really change the moral picture for Christians who reflect on this much at all,“ he told Family News in Focus.
Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, said even if genetics are found to be instrumental, that doesn’t negate personal responsibility.
“Just because something’s genetic or said to be genetic or have a biological component doesn’t make it right,” he said. “It doesn’t make it optimal, and it doesn’t mean that genetics were ever meant to be tyrannical.“
Sanders is receiving government funding to conduct the research. But when Jones tried to get financial backing for his work on people who leave homosexuality, his search turned up empty-handed.
“It’s a good thing for research to be funded on biological causation,” he said. “I just hope that the government and other funding sources are even-handed and maintain a spirit of scientific openness.“
________________________________________
My head’s swimming trying to figure out what Alan Chambers meant when he said, “it doesn’t mean that genetics were ever meant to be tyrannical.” I’d speak of where I consider the tyranny to have been for the last several millenia, but Dr T would then be forced to boot this post.
UPDATE – 10/16/07 – As expected, I heard from Stan Jones today who said he was not characterized properly by the AP reporter Tanner. In fact, he told the reporter that using his study with Yarhouse to discuss cause was inappropriate. Stan does not think the genetic contribution is likely to be large and perhaps she wrongly combined the two points.
Drowssap –
I knew what you meant 🙂
Jayhuck
I might have said that wrong. We should find some relevant genes over the next 10 years or so. As for switching OSA to SSA and visa versa…. probably decades.
Drowssap –
I don’t know – we still don’t have a cure for the common cold 🙂 I have a great respect for science and what it does, but I’m not going to hold my breath on this taking only a decade!
Jayhuck
Yep, if its out there the latest Genome Wide Scanning technology virtually ensures that we’ll find it. I’d guess within a decade or so. Hopefully sooner than later.
Drowssap –
However if researchers ultimately pinpoint a gene that increases the odds of SSA it would be a welcome find.
I agree – if researchers could pinpoint a gene that had anything do to with sexual orientation – OSA or SSA – it would be welcome. I think this will happen at some point.
I don’t know if this is a good study or not. However if researchers ultimately pinpoint a gene that increases the odds of SSA it would be a welcome find. Even so, the gene isn’t usually the important part. How the gene interacts with the environment will explain the mechanism and ultimately the true cause.
Case in Point:
Other than advanced age the gene ApoE-4 is the #1 known risk factor for Alzheimers. Does this gene cause Alzheimers? Unfortunately few things are that simple. New research shows that ApoE-4 creates massive susceptability to a common pathogen, herpes. The common cold sore virus which is present in 80% of the population appears to directly or indirectly trigger the damage that leads to Alzheimers.
Cold sore virus may play a role in Alzheimers
Yeah, I remember… they were pretty clear that the ex-gay study wasn’t about genetics … at all.