If you’re gay,
June 27th, 2006 | by Craig R. Harmon |it’s most likely traceable to the environment in the womb. A study suggests that the chemical environment in the woumb is probably responsible for sexual orientation in men. The more males born to the same mother, the more likely another male child is to be gay. This suggests that, with each male born, the more of a substance builds up that mother’s system which then effects the brain development of the child in such a way that that child’s sexual orientation development tends toward homosexuality.
So then, at some point, regardless of whether the Bible calls homosexual sex an abomination and unnatural or not, Christians are going to have to recognize that sexual attraction is not a perverse choice made by an individual but is set into his/her being during gestation and is a thing over which s/he has no control. We’re going to have to stop condemning gays and lesbians for their sexual orientation. Their desire for same sex partners is no more perverse or unnatural than that of heterosexuals. We’re also going to have to stop discriminating against them as a society. For those who view the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, this is going to be tough and it’s probably going to take more than just this study to do it for most but it’s done it for me.
- Craig R. Harmon
15 Responses to “If you’re gay,”
By ken grandlund on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig- Thanks for putting this up- I read that newsbit this morning but haven’t yet had an opportunity to comment on it. Actually, coming from ’someone on the right’ takes away some of vitriol we’re sure to hear about this being another pseudo-science, liberal piece.
One point I made a few days ago as a comment was that if religious people believe that god created all things, and specifically made all people in his/her image, than god must also have as part of him/herself the individual characteristics we each posess, with homosexuality/heterosexuality being among them. Therefore, god must be both of those things as well, else where did they come from?
Clearly, more evidence is mounting to banish the ‘people choose to be gay’ mentality. It will be only those who refuse to accept science (BTW another gift from god- the ability to use observation and intellect to understand things) who continue to bash away. And they will continue to be marginalized for their irrational hatred just as those who believe the earth is still flat are marginalized for their stubborn hold on ignorance.
Frankly, as this science becomes accepted as general fact, any efforts to discriminate against homosexuality will be seen for what they are- mean spirited and attacks on equality.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
You’re welcome.
One thing: God, as Christians concieve of God, is not a sexual being. God is spirit, not flesh, so I’m not sure how sexual orientation relates to the nature or being of God. It would seem to be a characteristic of creatures. I think that most Christians would agree that God’s love for people knows no gender boundaries. Even Paul, who’s often reviled for saying that wives are to be subject to their husbands as the Church is to Christ, says elsewhere that there is neither male or female with respect to god’s salvation. I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say that, therefore, God is bisexual.
By ken grandlund on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
I guess my point was that if one believes that all things are created by god, and the passage about creating man in his image, then one must accept that all qualities of man (et.al.) are inherent in god too. After all, if you accept that god is the creator, than all that exists (with the exception of actions/free will) is not only made by gods hand, but a part of gods plan, one way or another.
The bible though is created by man (with or without divine guidance) and as such can never clearly enunciate all that god accepts or rejects. Rather, it can only reflect the positions of those who wrote it and their interpretation of god/gods will.
But hey…I’m no professional theologian.
By Sandy on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
Homosexuality is a choice. Not a gene.
God is asexual.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
Hi, Sandy!
How did I kinow that you would drop by and what, pretty much, you would say?
Homosexuality appears to be no more a choice than heterosexuality and, while whom one has sex with, as with whether to have sex or not, IS a choice however the gender of the person with whom one prefers to have sex with is the product of prenatal chemistry and is no more under the control of the person than it is of the mother who bears them.
By the way, the Bible knows nothing of the concept of ‘being a homosexual’ or of “homosexuality’. Both of these concepts postdate the writing of the Bible. The only thing that the Bible talks about is man laying with men as with women and women laying with women as with men. That is to say, it knows only behaviors.
Also, homosexuality does not appear to be genetic, at least not directly, as though gays carry some gene that heterosexuals do not or that homosexuals and heterosexuals have a different set of genes turned on that leads them to desire members of the same gender. Rather, it seems to be the result of the chemical environment in the womb in which the fetus develops. Since this chemical environment of the womb and how it changes with multiple births probably IS controlled by the mother’s genes, the genetic connection is indirect at best.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Thanks to whoever recommended my diary for a notice on the front page “Recommended Diaries”. Much appreciated!
By Paul Merda on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
I heard about a similar study years ago, so its cool that the former study has been bolstered by new evidence. Even as a child I never bought the “chioce” thing about being gay, it seemed to counter-intuitive; why would someone choose be gay in this world when all it gets ya is beat up and looked down on??? The few gay guys I’ve talked to about this say pretty much the same thing too.
Before any of us hit puberty we are for the most part asexual. Then puberty hits the hormones start rushing and then you “awaken” to your sexual feelings. The gay men I talked to describe “awakening” to members of the same sex while the majority of us go for the opposite sex. Not a choice, that’s all I can say and the evidence is getting clearer and clearer.
By Dusty on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
I will have to read the study later, but I do want to drop Craig a line and thank him for this post. Its a very intelligent and well written piece. My Repube spouse has become more tolerant and understanding of gays and I can thank the scientific articles that I force him to read for that.
He will be reading the one Craig links this evening.
peace.
By ken grandlund on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
You’re welcome Craig.
By Liberal Thinker on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Just wanted to say that the article only suggests one cause of homosexuality not the only cause. But it gives new insight and new places to research.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Thinker,
Yes, I’m sure that this study doesn’t give the full picture and there are alternate theories that have acceptance within the scientific community. I am by no means an expert in such things. I do think that it suggests strongly that the causes of preference homosexuality, as opposed to circumstance homosexuality (prison, for example, where the only avalable partners are of like gender or where access to other gender partners is restricted and difficult) are wholly outside of the control of the homosexual. That’s my point.
By Liberal Thinker on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
sorry Craig wasn’t trying to correct. I completely agree with you and thought your post was excellent. Just didn’t want it to seem like this study explained all homosexuality (within the circumstance typeset), there are after all, homosexuals without older brothers, or as my friend he is the oldest of the brothers.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Thinker,
I don’t think that the study was trying to say that homosexuality was the result of large numbers of male births in the same mother. What the results of the study show is that it is probably the chemical environment of the womb that explains homosexuality. This was discovered by the correlation between the number of older male siblings and the likelihood that a male will be gay. That, as you point out, does not mean that homosexuality is caused by mothers having successive male children. Obviously, if it is the chemical environment of the womb that explains preference homosexuality, then that environment can exist in mothers’ wombs that bear only a single homosexual offspring. It is just that the correlation was discovered through investigating the correlation and adjusting for other possible explanations, was left with inter-womb chemical environment as the most likely explanation.
Thanks. I’m glad you liked it and I think that, for myself, it was something that I had to write. By writing, I think I do my best thinking.
By Liberal Thinker on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
There seems to be some confusion over exactly what this article says. I take it to be saying that there is a cause and effect relationship between homosexuality and being the third or fourth…son. My reasoning comes from two lines. First, “the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay” and second, ”
A woman’s body may see a male foetus as “foreign”, he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child.
The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.” What are other people’s thoughts around here? Is the article arguing for a cause and effect between homosexuality and the number of brothers or is it just proving a biological link to the womb?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 29, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Thinker,
It might be a couple of things causing confusion. The author of the article may not be expressing with perfect clarity the findings of the study. Reading the actual study would likely clear it up.
My sense is that the conclusion is that it is intra-womb chemistry that is responsible for the development of same-gender sexual attration later in life. The conclusion is drawn from the corrolation (not cause and effect) found between men with multiple older male siblings and the increasing likelihood that they will be gay. In other words, the immune reaction is a hypothesis (he says that the body “may” see the fetus as foreign). How that would track with explaining gay men who were first-born or only born sons, I don’t know. Surely first-born or only-born gay sons exist.