Genetics and sexuality: Why ask why?

The Toronto Star features an article about genetics and gayness. I thought the contrasts between Canada and the US were interesting and the explanations about behavioral genetics enlightening for a lay audience. Discussing Hamer’s early Xq28 research, the article notes the media fascination with the topic:

Because of the social, political, and cultural implications, his results – inevitably headlined “Gay gene found” – were hailed globally as a major breakthrough. Wrongly so, said the genetics community. The coverage was inflated, simplistic and misleading. No “gay gene” had been found, nor ever would be. Why? Because behavioural genetics is much more complex than “Mendelian” genetics. In other words, traits such as eye colour are 100 per cent inheritable but the genetic contribution to various behaviours, aggression, shyness, extroversion and so on, is considerably less, below 50 per cent.

Ruth Hubbard, Harvard emeritus professor of biology and biochemistry and author of Exploding the Gene Myth, has said that searching for a gay gene “is not even a worthwhile pursuit.

“I don’t think there is any single gene that governs any complex human behaviour. There are genetic components in everything we do, and it is foolish to say genes are not involved, but I don’t think they are decisive.”

Behavioral genetics research is going to continue to explode. The fun is going to be in examining pathways for the expression of various traits under various conditions.

Guess who’s coming to dinner?

The organizers of the Ex-gay Survivors Conference have invited Exodus conference participants to a dinner on June 29, 2007 in Irvine, CA. The invitation does not say who is coming or who will speak. I would want to know this in advance if it were me. The invitation provides an email address for RSVP which I suppose could be used to ask questions. It seems to me just sitting down together would be an accomplishment, without the speeches. Having both sides offer comments might be something worth considering as opposed to one side having the program.

I won’t be in Irvine but I will post an open forum next week for those who are there to offer observations.

OneNewsNow reports on conflict over descriptions of change

Jim Brown of OneNewNow reports an interview with Alan Chambers regarding the LA Times article on Monday and Stephen Bennett’s critical reaction.

Chambers tells OneNewsNow he has never met someone who had a “sudden or complete change when it came to homosexuality.” He says he believes that God gives people the ability to overcome on a daily basis, rather than “a complete transformation in an instant.”

Stephen Bennett declares “public divide” with Exodus

Stephen Bennett weighs in on the recent LA Times article and CNN appearance of Alan Chambers.

Stephen takes issue with suggestions from Al Mohler and others that biological factors may be involved in homosexuality:

There is ZERO biological, scientific “evidence” for homosexuality to this date. The biblical evidence for homosexuality is very clear: it’s sin.

Ominously, he declares:

“What we see here is the public divide of the pro-family movement.”

Well, since he brought it up…

I think there have been some significant tensions among social conservatives that may be a part of the broader development of evangelicalism. Of late, divides have occured over environmental policy and abortion. I think we are seeing tensions now over sexuality.