Scientists at Northwestern University claim to have found two sets of genes that may contribute to male homosexual orientation, but estimate that it only contributes about 40% to the chance of someone developing a homosexual orientation.[1] The other 60% is determined by environment, which includes social factors. This is consistent with what researchers have said all along. Sexual orientation cannot be determined entirely by biology. Nature plus nurture together most likely contribute to same-sex attraction.
_____________________
[1]Sarah Knapton, “Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds”; available from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html; Internet; accessed 25 March 2014.
Thinking to Believe 
April 4, 2014 at 8:36 pm
Wasn’t one of the best indicators birth order, leading many to hypothesize that prenatal hormonal environments were big catalysts? (Those would be part of the 60% ‘environment’ but wouldn’t properly be considered ‘nurture.’)
LikeLike
April 5, 2014 at 10:21 am
I think a lot of Christians are afraid of research that supports genetic influence because Paul uses the word “unnatural” to describe homosexuality in the book of Romans. I don’t think that’s what he meant. Look at the book of James and you see that sin comes very natural to us — it just leads us on a destructive path.
From my observation, any sin can be passed down through the family. You see cycles of sin throughout history. And our very sin nature was passed down from Adam. Evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality is not contradictory to the Bible.
We are all going to be more prone to certain sins over others. But, the good news is that we are not doomed to embrace an identity determined by sin! Even if you are tempted with same-sex attraction, God has given you the choice to be free from a homosexual identity… to simply be His beloved son or daughter.
The question is… will we choose to look like our Heavenly Father… or a mere product of biology? We were made to be free.
LikeLike
April 5, 2014 at 10:52 am
Dr Alan Sanders, associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University, who led the study said that it was it was an ‘oversimplification’ to suggest there was a ‘gay gene.’
“We don’t think genetics is the whole story. It’s not. We have a gene that contributes to homosexuality but you could say it is linked to heterosexuality. It is the variation.”
The study builds on work by Dr Dean Hamer from the US National Cancer Institute in 1993 who also found an area of the x chromosome that he believed was linked to male sexual orientation.
Last year Canadian scientists found that the more older male siblings a man has, the greater change he will be gay.
They believe that the immune response produced by a pregnant mother increases with each son, increasing the odds of producing more feminine traits in the developing brain of the foetus.
Each older brother raised the odds that a man was homosexual by one third.
Researchers at the University of California believe that homosexuality can be explained by the presence of epi-marks — temporary switches that control how our genes are expressed during gestation and after birth.
Daryl Bem, a social psychologist at Cornell University, has suggested that the influence of biological factors on sexual orientation may be mediated by experiences in childhood. A child’s temperament predisposes the child to prefer certain activities over others.
Interestingly no similar genes have been discovered which influence female homosexuality.
“No-body has found something like this in women,” he added.
Dr Bailey said environmental factors were likely to have the biggest impact on homosexuality.
He added: “Don’t confuse “environmental” with “socially acquired.” Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth, and that includes a lot of stuff that is not social.”
Richard Lane, of Stonewall, said that while studies into the origins of homosexuality have yet to produce firm evidence, they do to point to a biological root.
He said: ‘The thing that’s consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html
LikeLike
April 6, 2014 at 7:28 pm
Meg Baatz:
Humans are a product of biology I’m afraid, not choice.
“Evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality is not contradictory to the Bible.” I have no idea what you mean by that statement. Maybe you can try to explain it.
Same sex attraction is not a temptation; I have no idea where you ever came up with that one!
Same sex attraction is no more a tempatation that opposite sex attraction, so what’s the point you are trying to make other than trying to imply that same sex attraction is a sin set apart from your own sex attraction. I cannot agree that any sexual attraction is a sin no matter how you try to cut your own personal self righteousness.
That one teaches that there is something unclean in the precondition of life, sexuality, denies the very foundations of life so I have no idea where in the world you are coming from or where you are going with your comments.
And can you please tell us what the heavenly father actually looks like according to your caricature concept? I doubt that you are the end all and be all as to what the heavenly father looks like, with all due respect to your imagination. So making an open ended statement like “will we choose to look like our Heavenly Father” is worse than merely useless, I’m afraid since I have never met anyone on this planet who can tells me what the heavenly father looks like, other than the image I see in the mirror everyday. So tell me about your image and where it came from compared to my own image.
LikeLike