Article Is there a “gay gene"? Both genes and conditions in the womb play a role in sexuality

[C C]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...e-gay-gene

KEY POINTS: Sexual orientation is about which sex you’re attracted to, not whether you prefer the same or opposite sex. Genes play a role in shaping sexual orientation and gender expression, but so do conditions in the womb. Not only are there different ways of becoming gay, but there are also different ways of being gay.

INTRO: Not long ago, I had a conversation with a Methodist minister who was lamenting the recent schism in the once “United" Methodist Church. He explained that this split had come about over a disagreement about whether to accept LGBTQ persons into their congregations.

“So, is there really a gay gene?” he asked.

“Well, yes, sort of,” I replied. “But it’s complicated.”

As University of Toronto (Canada) psychologist Doug VanderLaan and his colleagues explain in an article they recently published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, science now clearly shows that people are born with their sexual orientation. Many people assume that if a trait is something we're “born with,” it must be genetic—but in fact, it’s not that simple.

On the one hand, traits can be determined by multiple genes, such that a single trait may have any number of genetic causes. On the other hand, the way we come out of the womb is determined as much by conditions inside the womb as they are by our genes. That is, the presence of particular hormones during prenatal development, as well as the reactions of our mother’s immune system, can have a big influence in shaping who we are...(MORE - details)

[Syne]

Not long ago, I had a conversation with a Methodist minister who was lamenting the recent schism in the once “United" Methodist Church. He explained that this split had come about over a disagreement about whether to accept LGBTQ persons into their congregations.

Refusing to marry of ordain LGBT is not the same as denying them in your congregation.

As University of Toronto (Canada) psychologist Doug VanderLaan and his colleagues explain in an article they recently published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, science now clearly shows that people are born with their sexual orientation.

A psychologist trying to speak authoritatively about genetics is obvious ultracrepidarianism.

[confused2]

Not long ago, I had a conversation with a Methodist minister who was lamenting the recent schism in the once “United" Methodist Church. He explained that this split had come about over a disagreement about whether to accept LGBTQ persons into their congregations.

Refusing to marry of ordain LGBT is not the same as denying them in your congregation.

As University of Toronto (Canada) psychologist Doug VanderLaan and his colleagues explain in an article they recently published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, science now clearly shows that people are born with their sexual orientation.

A psychologist trying to speak authoritatively about genetics is obvious ultracrepidarianism.

There are such things as 'facts which are universally acknowledged to be true'. You might, for example, learn about the development of the jet engine from someone who is not themselves a developer of jet engines. To determine 'gayness' you need to leave the laboratory and ask people things and by those answers make an assessment of 'gayness' - can you clarify what branch of science you feel is best qualified to ask questions and make assessments in the light of the answers given?

[Magical Realist]

As University of Toronto (Canada) psychologist Doug VanderLaan and his colleagues explain in an article they recently published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, science now clearly shows that people are born with their sexual orientation.

So much for the Christian right's claim that being a gay is a choice. Which effectively removes it from being a deliberate immoral behavior or sin. You can't be condemned for the only sexual orientation you were born with.

[Syne]

If there is disagreement, it obviously isn't "universally acknowledged." Well, maybe if you're linguistically challenged.
This isn't a psychologist just passing on a geneticist's research. Otherwise, they'd be citing said research.

You always have a choice whether to act upon any desire you may have, whether that's overeating, laziness, violence, perversion, etc.. Having an immoral desire isn't anywhere near as morally reprehensible as acting upon an immoral desire.

[confused2]

This isn't a psychologist just passing on a geneticist's research. Otherwise, they'd be citing said research.

Wikipedia has quite a good page on genetics..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics

[Syne]

Maybe you should look up "ultracrepidarianism" instead.

[Magical Realist]

You always have a choice whether to act upon any desire you may have, whether that's overeating, laziness, violence, perversion, etc.. Having an immoral desire isn't anywhere near as morally reprehensible as acting upon an immoral desire.

There's nothing immoral about sexual desire. That's a stigma propagated by Judeo-Christianity on it's believers. Sin is a delusion of monotheistic religion.

[confused2]

Maybe you should look up "ultracrepidarianism" instead.

Can you clarify what branch of science you feel is best qualified to ask questions and make assessments in the light of the answers given?

[Syne]

You always have a choice whether to act upon any desire you may have, whether that's overeating, laziness, violence, perversion, etc.. Having an immoral desire isn't anywhere near as morally reprehensible as acting upon an immoral desire.

There's nothing immoral about sexual desire. That's a stigma propagated by Judeo-Christianity on it's believers. Sin is a delusion of monotheistic religion.

Of course there are immoral sexual desires. Pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, etc., etc..
It seems your anti-Christian bias has blinded you to that simple fact.
Or you actually believe that none of those are morally reprehensible...because "sin is a delusion."

Maybe you should look up "ultracrepidarianism" instead.

Can you clarify what branch of science you feel is best qualified to ask questions and make assessments in the light of the answers given?

If you can't suss out which branch of science is qualified to assess genetics, I'm sure nothing I could say would help you.