Could leading creationist Joe Bloggs choose to become gay?

[a_haworthroberts]

I doubt that I could.

But some fundamentalist Christians appear to believe that becoming gay is merely a matter of choice ie bad or foolish morality rather than something with a genetic cause.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheism- ... 1873982784
"GOD WOULDN'T DO THAT
"Why would God create a human being already determined that they have to have intimate relationships with their own sex, instead of their opposite. God wouldn't do that."
"Thank you! Dr. Neal! That makes so much sense! Since that song from Lady GaGa came out Born this Way, a lot of people are believing it. Just mind blowing propaganda from the dark side." - Teresa Daniel Sigler"
They then link to this: https://www.facebook.com/HeterosInspiringPride
They also quote a Dr Neil Whitehead as claiming:
"In a nutshell, if you take pairs of identical twins in which one twin is homosexual, the identical co-twin is usually not homosexual. That means, given that identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No-one is born gay."

I believe the available evidence more widely does suggest that some people are born gay (though nurture factors might come into play in some cases too I imagine).

Is this yet another case of YEC science denial and an alternative 'biblical' explanation being offered?

One result of a google search was this page:
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
I also found this blog about Whitehead's recent work, written by a Christian pastor (it's informative - other than failing to link to any recently published research paper written by Whitehead, thus I cannot read any Abstract):
http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647
The findings do appear to show that sexuality is complicated and that some people who think of themselves as gay/bisexual do succeed in moving away from that lifestyle and towards heterosexuality.

I do not know whether or not Whitehead is a fundamentalist Christian.

[cathy]

Duh well the interesting Dr Whitehead says this in one sentence in his article,

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated.

ie they are genetically identical therefore it is environmental differences that contribute. If it were genetics their sexual and other response would be the same I guess.

But he then goes on to say

One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

But duh? They're genetically identical and if his first point is to hold water should interpret and respond to their families and classroom environments in exactly the same fashion. The identical genes that rule out disparate sexual responses should sure rule out individual and idiosyncratic responses.

The findings do appear to show that sexuality is complicated and that some people who think of themselves as gay/bisexual do succeed in moving away from that lifestyle and towards heterosexuality.

Succeed. Why is wanting to sleep with one gender rather than another something you succeed at. And do any findings show that people who think of themselves as straight succeed in moving away from that lifestyle towards homosexuality?

I'd have said whoever is using terms like succeed in relation to who you fancy really is a bit of a backward moron. And therefore likely to be a fundamentalist.

[a_haworthroberts]

My guess is that his sample of groups of identical twins where one or both identified as gay may have been fairly small.

I'm assuming that both evolutionists and creationists think sleeping with the opposite sex makes sense in terms of possible procreation, though I don't have any suitable quotes or soundbites to hand!

And the person using the verb 'succeed' was Yours Truly.

[cathy]

I'm assuming that both evolutionists and creationists think sleeping with the opposite sex makes sense in terms of possible procreation, though I don't have any suitable quotes or soundbites to hand!

Strange you should say that as, in my largely unsucessful attempt (as I've stalled very near the start) to read the bible from cover to cover, I came across the bit that I guess the fundamentalists got their homophobia from. And it sits very close to a bit about keeping away from menstruating women (possibly wise) for a period (no pun) of time beyond their period to a point that would bring them close to ovulation and the chance of conceiving. So I do wonder whether the whole thing is just a ploy to ensure the tribe gets bigger and folk don't waste their time and energy just enjoying themselves? I guess a small desert tribe, often close to starvation, maternal and neo natal death common etc, can't really afford free loading non producing sex?

And that seems to be the crux of religious arguments against gay marriage as well, that marriage is for the procreation of children. Which is largely not the reason most folk get married. Which would hold far more weight were churches to then carry out fertility tests on straight couples to ensure they weren't wasting the priests time marrying, or at least asking whether their families were complete as most folk usually have their first child at least first..

Had interesting conversation with RE teacher re the snake and childbirth bits of genesis as well. Some book has claimed the fall bit an attempt to reconcile their notion of a good god with the fact snakes bite and childbirth is horrendous and, in the absence of modern medicine, very dangerous.

[a_haworthroberts]

By coincidence, last night I watched this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039vj9x

A VERY varied programme.

[Brian Jordan]

I guess a small desert tribe, often close to starvation, maternal and neo natal death common etc, can't really afford free loading non producing sex?

Whereas now, in an overpopulated world, the more reproductive potential that goes to waste, the better.