The question came up repeatedly in Sydney and I have some idea of what it might mean (or not mean) for the Catholic position on same sex attraction:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2008/04/dreadpublishing-being-heard-john-heard.html

What do you think? How likely is the discovery? If it were possible, would you (as a parent, etc.) want to 'switch off' a 'gay gene' discovered in your baby's genetic make-up?

- JH

It will be interesting to see what research develops on this subject. For myself I know not whether it was a genetic factor. However I do know my memory of my earliest SSA desires is very young, 4 years old at the oldest.
Related to this issue is the growing discussion that IF a 'gay gene' was recognized would some parents choose abortion?

My intuition, for what it's worth, is that there are genetic factors that contribute to homosexuality. And pedophilia or any other 'condition', negligible or not, that one can think of.

Of course, as you and countless others have said (but remained largely unheard), it makes no difference to orthodox teaching. Heterosexuals are born wanting to have sex with the opposite sex. That doesn't negate orthodox teaching on sexuality for them.

For that matter, as humans, we are 'born' sinners. That doesn't excuse sin.

By the way, I don't think knowledge about genetic impact on behaviour is as knew as people think. From the beginning of time, people thought people were born a certain way. He's quick to anger, or he's witty, or he's strong - everyone thought that's just the way people are.

But again, the ancients never thought people's tendencies should override morality. Indeed, some ancient religions - Buddhism is a good example - are all about overcoming these tendencies.

So yes, I think there are sexuality genes somewhere. I don't know if they'll be found, but I would take the antidote if there were one. Knowing full well that it will not make me a better human being in the eyes of God. It won't. I would only take it to make my earthly life easier, just like taking some medication to correct some condition or another.

Same for my child.

[N.B. The party political site linked had nothing on a 'gay gene', or anything else related to this thread. Please don't post political advertising / spam to the discussion boards, or it will be deleted].

From Jarryd Bartle:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=715682823

"I tend to think that there is a genetic element to homosexuality aswell as possible hormonal and other early childhood enviormental aspects to its cause. I'm very much an essentialist when it comes to ideas of sexuality and think that showing this essential nature is key to bridging gaps between homosexuals and religious views on morality.

The best analogy I have found to describe the essential nature of sexuality is to bring it back to another essential behavioural characteristic such as right/left handedness. The characterstic of handedness is actually quite a good comparison because it does not have a direct genetic cause (in the way that identical twins do not always have the same handedness) but is infact an essential characteristic of an individual. Morally speaking handedness is also an interesting comparison. As you know in the past it was standard practice to make left handed individuals conform to normal right handedness, a practice which was both inaffective and cruel. The discovery that handedness was an essential characterstic stopped this practice as it was considered imoral for a personal to go against their innate pathology. In a similiar way should some sort of "gay gene" be discovered and homosexuality demonstrated as essential (in regard to affinity for someone of the same sex and not technical behaviour) and a part of biology similiar to handedness, certainly the moral arguement against SSA individuals is void to an extent. I understand that avoiding SSA behaviour is also a possibility (and may be the "right" option in some peoples eyes).. however who would criticized a left handed person for writing or acting within their nature."

"In a similiar way should some sort of "gay gene" be discovered and homosexuality demonstrated as essential (in regard to affinity for someone of the same sex and not technical behaviour) and a part of biology similiar to handedness, certainly the moral arguement against SSA individuals is void to an extent."

The Catholic Church does not teach against affinity, friendship, etc. She also does not teach against same sex attracted individuals.

Rather, the Church teaches against homogenital acts. One cannot ignore or obscure this signal distinction.

Not least because it demonstrates neatly why the discovery of a 'gay gene' would not likely disturb Catholic teaching on human sexuality.

- JH

"So yes, I think there are sexuality genes somewhere. I don't know if they'll be found, but I would take the antidote if there were one. Knowing full well that it will not make me a better human being in the eyes of God. It won't. I would only take it to make my earthly life easier, just like taking some medication to correct some condition or another."

Is life supposed to be easy? Surely it is better to fight injustice, defend the vulnerable, etc. - make room for the Other, the different experience, insight, voice - than to take a pill or switch off a gene and hope for a homogenous culture/society?

Where does this conformist pressure come from? It is not, as far as I can discern, a Catholic force...

- JH

"The Catholic Church does not teach against affinity, friendship, etc. She also does not teach against same sex attracted individuals."

-Unfortunately, although this may be the Catholic Church's official stance many of the Catholic's i know (and Catholic commentators I read) are quite happy to go with a more Protestant idea of a "homosexual lifestyle" that is a "choice" that can be "changed". I mean certainly the discovery of a gay gene may not affect the Catholic Church, but it will certainly have some influence towards those members of the Catholic Church who favour the pro "ex-gay" type mentality. I would also like to argue against this idea that SSA is equivilent to same sex friendship. The two qualities may share similiarities but there is clearly a distinction between "mate" and "lover".

"Rather, the Church teaches against homogenital acts. One cannot ignore or obscure this signal distinction."

-But as I said in my last sentence, how is it moral to tell a person who is left handed to use their right hand? And how is it moral to tell a left handed individual that the only way they can continue to live "pure" is to never have use of their dominant hand again. I know there is still debate about what the Catholic Church specifically is trying to articulate with "homogenital acts" but certainly any action of a sexual nature would be considered sinfull, and although hetereosexuals are placed under a similiar yard stick they are not denied whole heartedly of sexual pleasure.

PS: I'm interest to hear your thoughts of the Brisbane Anglican Church Grammer School case of discrimination against SSA couples at their year 12 prom. I personally think that the schools headmaster is going against some fundumental ideas of student inclusion and diversity as a crucial aspect of holistic education. However I do think the private schools should have the right to have these sort of "niche creating" powers.

Cheers,
Jarryd

"Unfortunately, although this may be the Catholic Church's official stance many of the Catholic's i know (and Catholic commentators I read) are quite happy to go with a more Protestant idea of a "homosexual lifestyle" that is a "choice" that can be "changed"."

You might asked them to read these comments on NARTH and allied therapies:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/05/dreadletters-curing-homosexuality-narth.html

"But as I said in my last sentence, how is it moral to tell a person who is left handed to use their right hand?"

You'd need to demonstrate that sodomy is somehow analogous. There is no Scriptural injunction against handedness of one form or another, certainly nothing like the eons long intellectual tradition that desrcibes man's nature and the path to flourishing, a path that - the Church has always taught - excludes homogenital acts.

You seem to be mistaking positive (or public, social) morality with critical morality. Beyond that, you seem to conflate the Church's critical position with purely empirical claims. Both approaches do not capture what is at stake in the Catholic teaching on human sexuality.

It's not about raising manly men for the Empire, or gentlemen for a cotillion, it's about man's proper relationship with himself, other men and G-d.

[The question about Churchie would fit in the other thread, as it relates to discrimination and Church organisations].

- JH

Its all well and good to say "Catholic teaching tells us its wrong" but certainly there is a need to critque the basis for these teachings. Especially considering they were formulated before commonly understood ideas of sexuality and SSA individuals were known.

The current Church's stance infact is not stemming from some modern understanding of reality but the old "natural law" idea thought up by Thomas Aquinas many a time ago. Back then Aquinous saw moral good in common "animalistic" manifestations of good such as procreation and extended this to include intellectual manifestations of good that were unique to the human species such as the pursuit of knowledge. It is up to us to use our modern understanding of nature to extend natural law to all paths which lead us to living a morally good life as it simply could not be possible for him to have forumlated these ideas with the same perspective that we have now.

Unlike you I would say that empirical claims are important when assessing the Church's position as this is integral to the virtue of Prudence and allows us to asses our actions with conscience. Not only that but nature is viewed as a means to discovering god and therefor empirical science is a way in which we can discover true natural law.

I would argue that all actions that are made with good concsience and do not alienate oneself from cardinal virtues are in line with natural law. It was logical for Aquinas to view procreation as in line with natural law as he could see its compulsion everywhere and saw that it brought good into the world. If it was possible for Aquinas to view SSA lovers who in good concious were drawn together (and not mislead or decieved to be with one another) expressing their love in actions (although possibly not in the actions we see today lol) i'm sure he would have viewed it as morally virtuous to go with ones nature. Its just simplistic to believe that human flourishing in relationships can be reduce to the ability to procreate, it comes in many forms from intimacy to pleasure.

The importance of considering the essential nature of homosexuality doesn't simply come from the fact that it is unable to change. If homosexuality is an essential characteristic of a human being that can be expressed in actions in good conscience then how could it not be morally justified?

Mate! You say the Church teaches X, I tell you she teaches Y. You say Catholics say X, I say that inasmuch as the Church teaches Y, those people are wrong.

Now, you say that Aquinas says X while any careful / helpful DREADNOUGHTER could probably demonstrate, using citations and quotations (he would need to have spare time too), that you have Aquinas wrong, he is much closer to - if not bang on - Y.

Would it make any difference? Is there a chance that you will choose to misjudge the Church on human sexuality no matter what anyone says?

If the answer is yes, what are you looking for?

If you're after an authentic encounter with Catholic teaching, start with the 'Catechism':

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/11/dreadtruth-what-does-catechism.html

then move on to the documents on 'homosexuality', some of the background philosophy, the relevant Bible passages, etc. This is, in fact, what I did with / on DREADNOUGHT.

Actually listening to what the Church teaches, shutting up for a bit, certainly helped me overcome some of my more, fierce (emotional? proud?) blocks to understanding / dialogue / growth.

After all, a man has to know what he rejects, before he rejects it. Otherwise we're boxing with shadows.

- JH

I worried about this in Sydney too. I stated there that any such discovery could lead, given the way secular society is ordered, to some monstrous eugenics project to 'breed' out or abort children unfairly labelled 'gay'.

This would, of course, involve swallowing the idea that genetics alone would necessarily stereotype his / her behaviour, despite his will, best intentions, etc.

I have, of course, written against that very idea.

- JH

"Is life supposed to be easy? Surely it is better to fight injustice, defend the vulnerable, etc. - make room for the Other, the different experience, insight, voice - than to take a pill or switch off a gene and hope for a homogeneous culture/society?"

If I were born deaf and a cure were discovered, I would take it. Many deaf people wouldn't. In fact, there are deaf parents who want their kids to be deaf. Is their decision selfish or morally neutral?

Would I be right in making by life easier by curing my deafness? Surely it is better...

In my opinion, like I said, the decision is morally neutral. I don't think an easy life is by any religious objective criteria better or worse than a hard one. I don't think a life fighting injustice is better than one lived in a context in which there was no injustice to fight. I don't think diversity is better or worse than homogeneity.

I wouldn't make the decision as a result of conformist pressure. Either way! It's just that it's been quite psychologically taxing, and I wouldn't mind some relief. It may not be a relief in the end, of course, but I'd be willing to give it a go. And I'm not Catholic - Ethiopian Orthodox, so...

I think personally sexuality is tied in with spirituality! You are either born with a soul that is attracted to same sex or opposite sex. You can not become Straight or Gay you are Gay or Straight from Birth. Therefore God created homosexuality! Again a Platonic idea but one I share!

I'll try to be brief as I have a lot to say on this and it could get too complicated. I won't offer a lot of evidence here for what I believe; I just want to put the basics of my ideas out there.

One, the whole gay gene idea is largely a political one. A lot of the driving force behind it is to say that since same-sex attraction is biological, then it's natural and has no moral dimension to it. I remember back around 1977 an article by a gay rights group that reasoned that if it could be proven that homosexuality were inborn that it could be seen as a civil right akin to race or gender.

The idea that there is a gay gene also gives people a cover who have an extreme amount of self-hatred over their same-sex attraction. I run into this a lot from homosexual activist types. They keep on saying, "But I was born this way" in a way that seems to be more about relieving their own guilt than about actual facts. A friend of mine who was a psychologist told me he sees the same thing in people who are morbidly obese. They want to believe that their weight problem is genetic because they feel that it if were their not, then they would be at fault for it and that they were a terrible person for eating too much. He said that when people are so filled with guilt they want an explanation that says their behavior is genetic. I think the same thing is true with same-sex attraction.

Gay people will often make the leap from saying that they remember liking the same sex at an early age as proof that they were born this way. I think we can all remember being attracted to the same sex at an early age. But that fact also supports the idea that its origin stems from event in early childhood, which is what I believe to be true. People will say they remember liking the same sex at age five. No one says that their new born infant shows such a preference. I think that the origin of this comes between birth and age five.

This leads me to what I think is one of the big myths that's out there. And that is the myth that all gay people grew up in wonderful and happy homes. I'll be blunt and say that I have yet to meet one homosexual who, when I knew them well enough, I couldn't see where it came from. It's more or less the old story - Dad was either too distant and weak, or was a scary tyrant, and Mom was too close or was too scary and overbearing. My family sure fits that. Most gay people don't seem to want to think about this. I guess it brings up feelings of self-hatred and the fears that if it is has a psychological origin, then that means that it can be cured by things like reparative therapy. I suspect that NARTH has the origins of homosexuality down, but I really wonder if knowing that can lead to a transformation. Either way, I'm always astounded by how gay people will lie in public about what sort of family they were raised in, and how they will twist what I'm saying around into something else.

I lived with a guy for thirteen years and knew him for another seven years after that. It was only after knowing him for twenty years that he told me that his mother sexually abused him as a kid. Another good friend used to swear up and down what a great childhood he had. Later I found out that his mother killed herself when he was eighteen. I'm not saying that these situations are there in all cases. What I am saying is that homosexual people will lie to cover up what happened to them when they were very young. But I've found that when I chat on the net I will get the truth. And what I hear is the same thing - Dad was away a lot, he never played with me much, he was a monster and I was afraid of him. I don't think it takes a lot to make a kid have same-sex attraction. It's just a matter of the little boy not making the leap from identifying with the mother to identifying with the father. And that's a big leap to make. No wonder that there's always half the amount of lesbianism as there is male homosexuality - it's a shorter leap the girls have to make.

I suspect that there is too much self-hatred in most gay people to admit this public. But the born gay theory makes no sense really.

If it were genetic, how do we explain the ancient Greeks and Romans? The Greeks didn't have widespread homosexuality in the archaic period. But it spread throughout the Greek world in the classic and Helenic periods. Then it spread to the Romans. Does that sound like a gene acting out?

If there is a gay gene, then is there also a kink gene too to explain why so many gay men have all those interesting fetishes? I love to talk to these guys for some reason, because they are so devoted to their thing. A few months ago I was chatting with a guy who had a cigar fetish, so I asked him when he was first into men. He said he was born gay because he can remember being into guys when he was five, just like we all can. Then I asked if he thought the cigar fetish was inborn too. Since that made no sense, he just refused to answer the question, got all defensive and ended the chat. I have a good friend who has a backpack fetish. He only cums if the guy is wearing a backpack. Try to explain that one with genetics. So the genetic theory would say that this person was born being into guys, but somehow it all got blended in with the backpack thing. It's more reasonable to believe that it all came from something in early childhood. Personally, with him I think it's the one thing he has that is truly his own. His mother was a very demanding person who never gave him his own space. Her opinions were the law and even today he cannot say no to anyone. So he created this world inside himself where backpacks rule. I probably haven't explained that too well but I don't have the space to. My point is the same. It's all about early childhood, not genes.

Another variation on the "happy childhood" myth comes when we hear about how some kid was abused and beat up by his parents when they found out he's into guys. I do believe that these things happen. I'm not denying this. But I suspect that these families were whacked to begin with. The abuse that happens when the kid comes out is just more of the same messed up stuff that happened when the kid was young. Instead the gay propagandists will deny that any gay person had anything other than ideal parents as a kid. But somehow, probably through the intervention of all those nasty ol' Christians, these wonderful people then threw the teenage gay kid out in the street or hooked up electrodes to his genitals.

Another point is the amount of gay men who sexually abuse kids points to a psychological origin of homosexuality. Or how many of the world's serial killers are also homosexual. I'll let it go at that. Enough to chew on for now.