The God Complex

In my conversations with Christians, I have heard repeatedly that Gender and Sexuality are handed down from God and are immutable. Thus, people changing gender and people being gay are making a choice to go against the will of God. Two new studies released last month show more clearly now that Homosexuality is not a choice but the results of a combination of Genes and Hormones that occur in the womb.

This is the first article:

Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study. The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.


A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.


In 2004 the researchers studied about 200 Italian families and found that the mothers, maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers of gay men are more fecund, or fruitful, than average. Recently, they tried to explain their findings with a number of genetic models, and found one that fit the bill.

"This is the first time that a model fits all our empirical data," said Andrea Camperio-Ciani, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Padova in Italy who led the study. "These genes work in a sexually antagonistic way - that means that when they're represented in a female, they increase fecundity , and when they're represented in a male, they decrease fecundity. It's a trait that benefits one sex at the cost of the other."


The researchers detail their findings in the June 18 issue of the journal PLoS ONE.


If this scenario turns out to be true, it could help explain the seeming paradox of hereditary homosexuality. Since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, many experts have wondered why, if homosexuality is caused by genetic factors, it wouldn't have been eliminated from the gene pool already.


But if the same genes create both homosexuality in men and increased fertility in women, then any losses in offspring that come about from the males would be made up for by the females of the family.


"Sexually antagonistic selection is an old idea by Richard Dawkins, but this has never been proven in humans," Camperio-Ciani told LiveScience. "There are a large quantity of these traits found in insects, for example, and recently in deer sexually antagonistic traits have been discovered, showing that high-ranking males produce rather unsuccessful daughters. We found that sexually antagonistic selection is operating also in our species, and we found it in a very important trait, which is homosexuality."


A possible scenario


The question of whether homosexuality is genetically inherited has been perplexing scientists for years. While many researchers now agree homosexuality is probably caused by a mixture of nature and nurture, they are still hard pressed to explain the particulars.


Even if this sexually antagonistic genetic system is at work, it can only account for a portion of the overall causes of homosexuality in men, Camperio-Ciani said. Other factors, both genetic and social, likely also play a part.


"I think it's almost beyond a doubt that genes have some influence," said Ray Blanchard, a researcher at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, who studies the effect of birth order in predicting whether a male will be born homosexual. "My personal view is that there is probably more than one biological mechanism contributing toward homosexuality. I think it's also safe to say that there is at least one non-genetic influence."


Blanchard found that with each older brother in a family, the odds increase by about a third that a boy born later will be gay. This effect is not thought to be caused by genetics, but rather by antibodies produced by the mother's immune system during pregnancy.


Eric Vilain, a professor of human genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles, has studied possible biological factors influencing homosexuality. He said the system studied by the Italian team seems plausible, but that it's too soon to be convinced.


"I would like to see the first observation reproduced in a different population and possibly with a larger sample to make sure that this holds up," he said. "If it is replicated, that's a very interesting finding. It's a possible scenario."


Research by Paul Vasey, a psychologist at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, and his graduate student, Doug VanderLaan, provides preliminary support for the Italian team's results. The scientists studied homosexual men in Independent Samoa, known locally as fa'afafine ("in the manner of a woman"). They found that the mothers of fa'afafine produce more offspring than the mothers of heterosexual men in that society.


"[Camperio-Ciani's] results are consistent with a growing number of studies that suggest that the female relatives of male homosexuals are more fecund than those of male heterosexuals," Vasey said.

Loving men

Camperio-Ciani and his team hypothesize that the genes they modeled may cause people of both sexes to be extremely attracted to men, which would lead men with the genes to pursue relationships with other men, while causing women with the genes to have more sexual partners, and become pregnant slightly more often than an average woman.

This system does not address causes of homosexuality in women, he said.

"We're still working on lesbianism, but were not getting to the same result, and possibly we'll come out with a completely different explanation," he said.

The research may shed light on a complicated and controversial topic: whether homosexuality is a choice, or whether it is caused by factors beyond a person's control.

"I think this is an example where the results of scientific research can have important social implications," Camperio-Ciani said. "You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund."

this is the second article

researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Some psychological tests have shown differences between men and women in the extent to which they employ the brain’s hemispheres in verbal tasks. Other research has hinted that homosexuals may exhibit the tendencies of the opposite sex in brain behavior unrelated to sexual activity.

Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, now report that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women are slightly asymmetric—the right hemisphere is larger than the left—and the brains of gay men and straight women are not.

Positron emission tomography (PET) scans taken by the researchers also show that in connectivity of the amygdala (which is important for emotional learning), lesbians resemble straight men, and gay men resemble straight women. The researchers analyzed the brains of 90 subjects, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess brain volume and PET data partly gleaned from previous olfactory studies.

One possible interpretation of the connectivity pattern in straight men and lesbians is that the amygdala is wired for a greater fight-or-flight response, the authors say.

IT seems basically indisputable that homosexuality is a matter of genetics and biology and not a matter of choice. I pose this question to theists: If, as you assert, that gender and sexuality are assigned by god, how then is your discrimination against gay people now justified? The science seems to indicate that homosexuals are just born that way, there is no choice for them to make, so is it not wrong to hate people for being the way that god made them?

Also, if God doesn't want people to be homosexual, why is he making people that way? If you say its because he wants us to overcome sin, then how come some people have to over come more sin than others? How come everyone isn't homosexual?

None of the answers make any logical sense, well, that's not true, there are two answers that make sense.

1. God doesn't care, only mankind cares, and all this discrimination is entirely a man made entity.

2. God doesn't exist.

But think about it, really really think about it.

Father Joe from my previous posts responded to me again and this is the continuation fo the discussion.

The trouble is what you consider merely a game, orthodox and dissenting Catholics consider much more important and substantial. Just as I would not enter into a debate between atheists over their affiliations and structures of unbelief, I would expect the same degree of respect for Christians and their institutions.

It's disturbing to see you say this. I am a student of world history and current events, as I feel we all are on some level. My observations and studies have shown me one thing all too clearly. This is that all tyrants and dictators have one thing in common, they don't feel that their decisions can be questioned. In the paragraph I quoted above you essentially tell me that I have no right to call the church's actions into question. This is something I expect to see in a thocratic dictatorship, not in an open discussion in a free nation. If you feel your ideas, beliefs and decisions are morally superior why not let them be scruitinized and questioned in the open marketplace of ideas? Why tell people they have no right to question your beliefs? Are they so fragile that they wond stand up to anything more than glancing looks?

Given that you cannot begin to appreciate the significance that we give holy orders, how could you possibly judge what is and is not fair? We are not talking about a job but what the Church calls a vocation or calling.

Simply because I do not share the opinion that these orders are significant does not mean that I do not understand that they are significant to you. I can judge in the same capacity as anyone else, even members of your church. We use our own definition of good and bad to determine that God is good don't we? Why does this method of judgement fail when we begin to think about his edicts about women priests? Every civilized society currently on this earth accepts that equality of the sexes is better than inequality. Why is it that god does not accept this? Further, why is it that our capacitiy for judgement is sufficient for determining that the lord is good, but somehow not sufficient for detrmining that barring women from the priesthood is inequal and thus bad?

If a calling comes only from God then there is no issue of fairness. No one deserves to be a priest.

Firstly, how can you be entirely sure that god doesnt call women to be priests. I mean the women who want to be priests seem to think they are called to the job. Surely god can speak to them as he does to you, and you already admitted that the rules barring women from priesthood were interpretations done by your church. I mean, isn't it hard to argue that Mary wasnt one of the apostles considering that she was just as inseperable from Jesus as the 12other dudes, so can you really argue that jesus inended the priesthood to be for men only?

Who are you, as a non-believer, to tell the Church how she should regard her own sacraments? Fundamentalist Protestants attack Catholics and evolutionists. Now, even the so-called atheists are becoming busy-bodies as well, telling Catholics how they should regard their ministers, and by extension, how they should worship.

So, again we come to this. In true tyrant fashion you feel that the decisions and actions of the church are beyond question or criticism. Repeating this 'argument' will not add any weight or merit to it.

I would disagree that a lack of religious belief cannot become a type of belief in itself. Scientists, who regard themselves as utterly objective and rational, often display a juvenile dependence upon certain unsubstantiated presuppositions. [Actually, some scientists admit as much.] Oh how we love our theories, even when we cannot seem to make the math work! It must also be said that I have read and heard such figures pontificate as well as any churchmen, and yes, sometimes with the same closed-mindedness and buffoonery.

I assume you speak of the theory of evolution. There is more evidence of evolution occurring than there is historical evidence for Jesus existing. Take This link for instance. These microbes are just the latest indisputable evidence for evolution. What's the latest bit of evidence for Jesus? oh, right, its been nothing but the same single, internally inconsistent book for the past two thousand years. But that is the whole point of 'faith' though, belief in spite of evidence to the contrary. If there were evidence for Jesus, then faith would not be required.

You say that discrimination is wrong, but I suspect that we are only talking about certain forms of discrimination. Wrongful discrimination or prejudice has to do with withholding from people that which they ought to have. But, given your perspective, how can you say that women ought to be Catholic priests? What oracle gives you the insight that this is real discrimination? I suspect you make yourself the supreme judge of such things,

People ought to have equal opportunity to achieve what they desire. The nation in which you currently reside was founded on principles such as that. Who are you and what kind of organization is your church to go about denying people equality? You come to your conclusions by looking through the lens of a 2000 year old book written at a time in which equality of any sort was impossible. I come to my decisions by looking at the world around me, looking at what our nation, our people and on a broader level, what the human race has accomplished as a whole. I see you withholding from women, taking away from them by not giving, and I see a setback. A closed door.

but because there is no sign from the God whom you reject, we are stymied and cannot move on this proposition. Even if you regard theists as delusional, you should posit a momentary suspension of “unbelief” and try to see the matter from our perspective. It is not fair for you to force an atheistic criterion upon a people of faith.

How can you be certain that the fact that women want to become priests isn't a sign from your god that women should be allowed to be priests? Also, the criterion of 'equality' isn't strictly the domain of secularists and atheists. I would like to believe that religions all over the world are also interested in treating people with equality, fairness and justice.

In other words, if one were to embrace your “practical” albeit subjective stance in favor of women priests, one would also have to deny the divine authority and the basic claims of the Church. It becomes a terrible contradiction where in order to ordain women one must denounce the very faith and Church into which they would be summoned.

This makes me wonder, does gender persist through death, and if so, is the status of gender thereby preserved through death also? In other words, are women as unequal in heaven as they are on earth, and if not, then why make them unequal on earth at all?

I did skip a bit here in the interest of brevity. I encourage my readers to check out Father Joes comment in full click this link as always it is well thought out and it contains a lot of new information. A great and interesting read that I thank him for typing out and sending over to me.

You insist that the argument against women priests is just the Vatican’s interpretation of things. Well yes, this is true, except for the hundreds of millions of Eastern Orthodox believers who are breeched from the Pope, and yet also insisting upon a male-only priesthood.

Since the abrahamic religions find their origins in a time period where women were scarcely more than possessions for men to do with as they please; this argument really only highlights the inherent misogyny of organized religion instead of making on convincing case for the 'correctness' of male-only priesthoods.

This sandbox belongs to the Pope. If dissenters want what the Pope will not give them then there are plenty of other places for them to play. Independent groups and the Episcopalians have women priests.

This argument doesn't make sense. The people who want to be catholic priests are Catholics first, meaning they surely accept that Catholicism is the one true faith. If Catholicism is the one true faith, and all other faiths are 'wounded' as the Pope has said, wouldn't leaving the Church guarantee some harm to their immortal soul? Like all other religions, doesn't the Catholic Church claim some special privilege in being the only path to the afterlife? Wouldn't leaving the Church be an act that gives up this privilege? If not, if there is a way into heaven regardless of belief, then why make a big deal about women priests at all? If God is handing out free tickets to heaven than it can't matter whether or not a woman can become a priest, because people who belong to churches that have that practice achieve salvation anyway.

You still insist that the Church discriminates, but she respects human freedom. Nothing is stopping these women other than their desire for power and to tear down the Church as we know it.

Perhaps these women have a real desire to be priests, and not as you say, tear down the church. The Church however, is stopping them from becoming priests. Well, the Church and

You insist that the argument against women priests is just the Vatican’s interpretation of things. Well yes, this is true

as you admitted, their interpretations of scripture and past events. In other words, Women can;t become priests because the currently empowered establishment doesn't want them to. How is this not discrimination?

You write: “I also find it hard to argue that First Council of Nicea that took place some 1700 years ago, still can hold relevance in a modern society.” It is very honest of you to say that. It is also incredibly modernocentric to castigate the value of the past. Such a bigoted stance would dismiss the bible, ancient Church writings, ancient Greek drama and philosophy, indeed, most everything that makes a living and rich culture possible.

One can only truly appreciate the past when one recognizes all that separates now from then. There is a difference between Greek drama, philosophy, drama and church literature from 1700 years ago. That difference being that we don't make rules based upon the Iliad and the Odyssey, but apparently you still make rules based on the Council of Nicea. Saying that the Council of Nicea is irrelevant and should no longer hold sway over your decision-making isn't castigating the past, it's accepting the present.

When I say that the Church does not discriminate, I mean she does not do so in any wrongful way.

You are discriminating wrongfully against me, arguing that I and others like me cannot have a Church where we reserve the priesthood to men, believing that such is God’s will. You are explicitly violating our religious freedom.

I never thought I would hear an argument for 'good' discrimination vs. bad discrimination. there just isn't a response to that. Courts, at least in the united states, have held that Discrimination whether or not it is done by a religious institution, is wrong. Take for example, the case regarding your The Boston Diocese and how they were forced to let gay couples adopt children. I suppose that it is not beside the point to mention that rather than obey the law and treat people equally, the Church decided to close its adoption service and send dozens of children into overtaxed under-funded state agencies. If there is somehow 'good' and 'bad' discrimination, I see only one kind here.

You are discriminating wrongfully against me, arguing that I and others like me cannot have a Church where we reserve the priesthood to men, believing that such is God’s will. You are explicitly violating our religious freedom.

Again you feel your methods and beliefs are beyond reproach, questioning or even accountability. Such is the talk of dictators.

I would defend a woman’s right to equal pay for the same work.

unless of course that work is the priesthood, in which case you would deny them the right to work period. You can't be only 'half in favor of' equality of the sexes, it is an all-or-nothing proposition. You are clearly demonstrating your position as 'against'

I would insist that women be given full access to academic achievement and honors. Even jobs are areas where I would not discriminate. But the priesthood is not a job but a vocation. A priest is always on the clock. His calling is his life and his constant preoccupation.

And what makes you think women are incapable of this? Would you say being a priest is harder than being a soldier? because we have women soldiers. Would you say being a priest is harder than being an emergency room doctor? Because we have female emergency room doctors. Would you say that being a priest is harder than being prime minister of England? Would you say being a priest is harder than being a senator, or running for president? Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher would love to hear your answer.

The concept of “separate but equal” is not inherently unequal

Yes it is. In Brown V. Board of Education (click me) the Supreme Court decided that the concept of separate but equal was inherently unequal. Below is an expert from their unanimous decision:

"The concept has a detrimental effect by generating a feeling of inferiority in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way that is unlikely to ever be undone"

Telling women that they are unfit to be priests simply because they are women seems to me that it would have a detrimental effect by generating a feeling of inferiority.

Indeed, if we look at particular men and women, they are not of the same degree of perfection even within their own gender. Some people are tall and others short. People might be brilliant or dull or even retarded.

You are not barring just fat women, or just pretty women, or just dumb women, or just smart women, you are barring all women. You are saying that no matter how otherwise qualified a woman may be to hold this position she simply cannot because she is a woman. I fail to see what this point even has to do with banning women from being priests and excommunicating them if they even try.

There is no social injustice in restricting it to men and to heterosexual men at that. While you would dismiss the assertion, men did not create the priesthood like so many occupations.

You have certainly restricted it to men, but there are no shortage of altar boys who think you need to work harder on restricting it to heterosexual men. Joking aside though, telling someone that they are not fit for a position simply because of their gender is an injustice.

You would decide for the Church what is or is not discrimination? I suspect then that you would argue for women priests, gay priests, homosexual civil unions, and force the Church to accept the whole package— maybe even mandating contraception in health care packages and abortions in Catholic hospitals. I am sorry to say this, but such is a bigotry which I would label anti-Catholicism. You would compel us to betray the true faith. You would dismiss what we call sin and make it a right. Now who claims the monopoly on the truth? Ah, we seem to have our first atheist pope— and he says Catholics have no right to their beliefs— make women priests, marry gays, give communion to everybody, and finally give up your old beliefs and rituals, indeed, cast off your God for soon you will only be food for worms!

The Church discriminates against gays as much, or even more so than it does against women. Yes, I would advocate for gay marriage, even gay priests. I have a question for you though, if you'll indulge me. Recent discoveries (this link) like that one that clearly indicate that homosexuality is a natural occurrence tend to go against your line of thinking that it is a choice. If homosexuality is, as this and other studies indicate, not a choice but something determined by our genes, than is it still an 'abomination' to be hated by divine mandate? If so, than why does god make people gay if it is such abomination? You have previously said that gender is not accidental but determined by god, than isn't sexuality now the same? If homosexuality is natural, than it too must also be assigned by god like gender. So why continue to hate gay people if he apparently made them that way?

Whether gay or not, I consider all people equal and therefore entitled to the same rights as everyone else. It is for this and no other reason that I advocate Gay marriage, women priests and other such things that your church is vehemently against.

I do take issue with your repeated assertion that somehow it is your 'right' to discriminate against women and gays. I support religious freedom, however, your right to believe stops at everyone Else's right to not be treated unequally. The Court system in this country has held with this point of view. In the Boston Adoption case and others. Do you agree with this assessment? If not, did Jesus not say "Give unto Cesar what is Cesar's"? do you consider that anything but a divine mandate to follow the laws of the land? The laws in this case being anti-discrimination laws.

You are prejudiced my friend. You have adopted the notion of selective tolerance, but not of the Church. You have pre-judged Catholicism because it is evident you have only made a superficial study of the ancient faith. You throw out clichés and generalizations. You not only judge but you argue we have no right to practice our faith as we see fit. You would impose women priests as if a twisted social justice agenda took precedence over religious freedom. To do what you want would destroy the Church. I call that a pretty serious prejudice— the ultimate discrimination. Would you take away our churches? Force churchmen into prison for not ordaining women? And where would it end? One issue leads to another. I would die to protect your freedoms. I would lay down my life to preserve the dignity and rights of women. But women still should not be ordained. There are serious doctrinal reasons that cannot be lightly dismissed.

Selective tolerance? I don't understand that criticism. Either way, You seem to argue that treating women as inferiors is central to your faith, and that hating gays is one of your core doctrines, and that to show true compassion, understanding, tolerance and equality towards those parties would cause irreparable damage to the church. This sounds silly to me. Such statements are the kind that come from old man scared to share their power. You argued earlier that women who wanted to be priests were crazed power hungy people. I think however, that the priests and bishops are just afraid of losing their power and resort to ancient, arcane and irrelevant justifications for keeping women down.