Sort of. I never was that religious, but in the back of my head I sort of bought the Santa Claus theory... though the older you get and the more you realize each and every one of those beliefs you had as a kid were lies told to make you feel better about things, the more likely it became that God was the same. That said, yes, the more science I learned, the more I could explain all the "mysteries" of life and the universe with something more logical than that an all powerful being was responsible.I guess for the first paragraph, you are saying that the more about science you learned, the further away you went from religion?
Re: gay choice vs not choice and BIOLOGYFor the second paragraph, not trying to get into a big discussion with being gay, but are you absolutely sure people are born gay? I can't agree/know entirely, as I have never done any extensive research on it. From what I know, there is no 'homosexual gene.' But the only connection I was aware of that had apparently strong influence was that one or both parents were highly fertile. There were many studies conducted with twins (if there is a gay gene, both must be gay was the idea), and I can't recall both being born gay. My memory may be off though.
Edit: I mean both didn't turn out gay later in life to clarify. This was in 2012 or so when I read some stuff about it. Anyone know about what I am talking about btw?
Also with some things I know of in developmental psychology and neurology, I don't think so (I would say I am not heavily educated on both subjects so may be a complete miss for me).
And I don't know how many Christians agree, but gay people who accept Jesus don't get sent to Hell. I remember someone asked a famous pastor this, "If I live the gay lifestyle (has gay you-know-what), do I go to Hell?" Basically, he quoted scripture and said that if you truly accepted Jesus, you are saved. Salvation isn't the issue as that was settled by Jesus' crucifixtion. However he said, its a very costly trip. He said that the gay person would lose their reward, entering heaven by the 'skin of their teeth.'
Cool that you responded to that guy's post btw. I didn't think anyone would.
Well it fits more with the science that being gay is NOT a choice. This doesn't mean it's 100% genetic, as gene x environmental effects apply (whether that environment is the more obvious house that a child grew up in or the oxygen/blood/hormone/etc. environment in the womb). The effects are essentially the same in the end, whether there were environmental effects on a genetic predisposition or it's entirely genetic: if the human didn't have a choice regarding those environmental effects, it's not a choice.
Nevertheless...
Example 1:
When a heterosexual man views an image of an attractive woman, dopamine shoots off in the limbic and frontal cortical areas of the brain (pleasure/reward centers). The same happens when a homosexual man views a photo of an attractive man. If the gay man has a choice to not be gay, he still has to fight the biologic lightning bolts firing off in the pleasure system of his brain to not be gay.
Example 2:
On average, the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus in heterosexual men is about twice the size of the same region in females. In gay men, the size of the INAH-3 is about half-way between the average size in heterosexual men and in women. This could be a matter of chicken vs egg (does this brain region reflect the choice made or did it happen first?). However, there is an analogous region in rats, the SDN-POA, which also shows the same sexual dimorphism (male region larger than female), and changing the perinatal environment (androgen levels while the rat is in the womb), changes the size of the region. Later experiments tried things like castration to change the androgen levels the brain was exposed to, but differences only occurred during the sensitive period while in utero. Sure, this is an environmental effect (if you count womb environment as environment), but it's still not a choice. There are also studies that show that in female-to-male transgenders, the INAH region is more analogous to the male size, and the reverse in male-to-female transgenders, meaning this brain region aligns mostly with the self identified gender rather than the genetic/physiologic gender. Some propose this could be confounded by hormone therapy and such that these people take to look more like their identified sex/gender (think Zeke from Survivor... people didn't even know he was once a she until his SECOND season), but the rat studies I mentioned above might argue against this, as rat hormone therapy didn't change the size of this brain region.
Example 3:
There is a mild and subtle difference in the ratios of the 4th and 2nd fingers to one another in women vs men, with gay men, on average, having the ratio more typical of women. If these are linked, surely there is no choice involved.
Example 4:
Same as above, but the linkage being a low frequency vibration in the ear called otoacoustic emission.
Example 5:
The size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST), a region between the amygdala and hypothalamus, in transgender people most aligns with the sex they feel they are, rather than their actual genetic/physiologic sex. This is the same in people who take hormones vs those that never did. These people may FEEL like they are of one sex, even when their chromosomes, gonads, circulating hormones, genitals, and secondary sexual characteristics disagree. You might think it's akin to someone feeling like they are a different gender than they actually are, but you could also imagine that it's more akin to being STUCK in the body of the wrong gender.
Additional thought 6:
There is no evidence that I have seen for neurotic homosexuality. That is, there is no evidence that guys growing up without a father figure, or raised with a neurotic mothering style are more likely to become homosexual.
Example 7:
Increased androgen exposure in female primates peri-natally produces more male-typical behaviors than in control females. One could argue some environmental effect here. For example, females who are more androgenized (masculine), are maybe more likely to be lesbian based on appearance and thus cultural norms? Though again you could also argue whether how much is choice if you "look" more like a typical lesbian.
Example 8:
Testicular feminized males have bad testosterone receptors throughout the body, so they fail to develop male secondary sexual characteristics (they LOOK like females, even though they have a "masculinized" brain and a Y chromosome). These people identify as females (based on sexual characteristics), but did they have a choice?
Example 9:
Some limited evidence of third trimester pregnancy complications associated with increased chance of becoming gay. Stress hormones blocking some masculinizing effects of androgens? Some evidence in rodents.
Example 10:
Maternal immunization against the y chromosome? (Theory). If you have a larger number of older brothers, you have a larger chance of becoming gay (fact). Is this because of the mom, with more exposure to male fetuses, somehow having a greater likelihood for developing antibodies against some male factors, somehow having something to do with becoming gay? Or is it something cultural about growing up with a bunch of boys? Either way, how much of a choice does the kid have?
Example 11:
Straight genetics: monozygotic twins share a 52% concordance for sexual orientation. Same sex DI-zygotic twins are 22% concordant. But, full non-twin siblings are only 9% concordant, despite having the same genetic relationship as DZ twins. So what's brewing in the fetal environment? And again, if this happens BEFORE YOU ARE BORN, do you have a choice?
-I am sure there are more, but these were the obvious ones I could pull up from old notes on my hard drive from one lecture about human sexual behavior from a human behavioral biology course in college.
Again, the bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality), even if many churches these days might say that you can sin/be gay as long as you accept Jesus as your savior to absolve you of that sin. Since, as I detailed above, I believe that homosexuality is not a choice, it doesn't jive with me that God creates a person destined for Hell.