The homosexual curveball

My wife came home from church yesterday and told me one of the families down the street has had yet another child come out of the closet, this time one of the daughters.

I know these people and they are absolutely wonderful parents, very faithful in their religion, un-ending kindness to everyone they meet.

Somehow, they have 4 of their 7 kids who have come out of the closet. (When I met the kids way back when we moved in, my "gay dar" went off on a few of them. Effeminate boys, butch girls, you can spot 'em a half mile away.)

In the short but informative book named "Brain Sex", the author describes three aspects of gender identificiation: 1) Do you think you're a man or a woman. 2) Do you act like a man or a woman, and 3) Which gender are you attracted to? There can be differenet combinations of responses to these questions.

My hunch is that homosexuality is mostly biological in nature, though not necessarily genetic. In the UK there was a time period where many pregnant women were prescribed a certain drug to lessen the likelihood of miscarriage, and the male offspring of these pregnancies had very, very high rates of homosexuality, like over 80%. So, this is a biological basis, but not necessarily genetic.

I truly, truly feel for these people, both the kids and the parents (and the "straight" siblings). They are absolutely enduring to the end. In my way of looking at things, homosexuality is just a biological variation, but it's easy to see how the issue is wrenching for faithful LDS (and Catholics, Prostestants, certainly Muslims.)

I told my wife that gays are 21st Century negroes, that there will be some kind of a revelation or proclamation, or something. The LDS church is a caring organization, and it has proven to be adaptive in adjusting to new ways of looking at things. This issue is a biggie, but I think the LDS church can bridge it. Many, many understandings would have to evolve, but I think it will happen.

Here is my big question about homosexuality being biological... They cannot procreate, so wouldn't it have been selected against hundreds of thousands of years ago? I don't ask this as one of those witty internet memes, but seriously.

Think about it this way: Cistic Fibrosis is a genetic disease, but people with this disease have children (before they keel overthemselves). That's how that disease stays in the gene pool.

Throughout history, there have been innumerable homosexuals who've produced children. It's not as though their procreative physiologies are broken. They're just wired to not prefer procreative behavior.

And being gay or lesbian doesn't seem to knock out parental instincts, at least not for everyone. A woman who is a few years younger than me moved to Seattle in the 80s, decided she was a lesbian, found a partner, and has four kids. (Artificial insemination, adoption, etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Think about it this way: Cistic Fibrosis is a genetic disease, but people with this disease have children (before they keel overthemselves). That's how that disease stays in the gene pool.

Throughout history, there have been innumerable homosexuals who've produced children. It's not as though their procreative physiologies are broken. They're just wired to not prefer procreative behavior.

And being gay or lesbian doesn't seem to knock out parental instincts, at least not for everyone. A woman who is a few years younger than me moved to Seattle in the 80s, decided she was a lesbian, found a partner, and has four kids. (Artificial insemination, adoption, etc.)

---

A few other things, keeping in mind that my highest accomplishment in this field is passing the AP Biology test. First, it's possible to pass on genes that are not expressed in the parent. Just as a parent may be a carrier for genes for eye color, hair color, diseases, etc. that are not expressed in the parent, it is certainly possible that there could be genes that influence sexual attraction that are not expressed in parents.

Furthermore, as Ma'ake noted, there's a big difference between something being "genentic" and something being "biological." Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while everything genetic is, by definition, biological, not everything that is biological is genetic. Whether it's caused by external factors such as drug consumption, or is the natural result of embryonic mutations, there are lots of "biological" events that have nothing to do with the genes the developing embryo received from its parents.

Now, all of you people who really understand the subject can feel free to correct me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scratch

A few other things, keeping in mind that my highest accomplishment in this field is passing the AP Biology test. First, it's possible to pass on genes that are not expressed in the parent. Just as a parent may be a carrier for genes for eye color, hair color, diseases, etc. that are not expressed in the parent, it is certainly possible that there could be genes that influence sexual attraction that are not expressed in parents.

Furthermore, as Ma'ake noted, there's a big difference between something being "genentic" and something being "biological." Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while everything genetic is, by definition, biological, not everything that is biological is genetic. Whether it's caused by external factors such as drug consumption, or is the natural result of embryonic mutations, there are lots of "biological" events that have nothing to do with the genes the developing embryo received from its parents.

Now, all of you people who really understand the subject can feel free to correct me.

---

I don't understand it at all. I know a lot more after reading your and Ma'ake's posts than I did before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scratch

A few other things, keeping in mind that my highest accomplishment in this field is passing the AP Biology test. First, it's possible to pass on genes that are not expressed in the parent. Just as a parent may be a carrier for genes for eye color, hair color, diseases, etc. that are not expressed in the parent, it is certainly possible that there could be genes that influence sexual attraction that are not expressed in parents.

Furthermore, as Ma'ake noted, there's a big difference between something being "genentic" and something being "biological." Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while everything genetic is, by definition, biological, not everything that is biological is genetic. Whether it's caused by external factors such as drug consumption, or is the natural result of embryonic mutations, there are lots of "biological" events that have nothing to do with the genes the developing embryo received from its parents.

Now, all of you people who really understand the subject can feel free to correct me.

---

Here's another example of sexuality being biological, but not necessarily genetic: I saw some video of a couple of male prisoners who had settled into a homosexual relationship, and the psuedo "wife" part of this couple had pretty well formed breasts. (It was very, very weird.) This could occur if they were infusing themselves with hormones, presumably estrogen(?). The flip example is if you took some teenage girl and gave her testosterone. I think there's a decent chance this girl could become lesbian.

These are extreme examples, but illustrate how biology and genetics are distinct.

I've know a fair number of "butch" lesbians with broad shoulders and impressive athletic ability. We all remember Majerus' remarks about womens basketball. Hilarious, extremely politically incorrect, but with some basis in fact. This outcome can occur without any type of hormonal therapy. We've all known "shemales", as well as effiminate males. And I think it's possible that people can have these attributes, but not be attracted to the opposite sex, ie, not be homosexual. This combination is a bit more rare, in my experience, but it happens.

This video might help elucidate some interesting bits about gene expression by using twins to discuss epigenetics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WEHoCA1hpo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielLaRusso

This video might help elucidate some interesting bits about gene expression by using twins to discuss epigenetics.

---

Epigenetics is the Next Big Thing in Health Sciences, without a doubt. This will keep a lot of scientists busy for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Think about it this way: Cistic Fibrosis is a genetic disease, but people with this disease have children (before they keel overthemselves). That's how that disease stays in the gene pool.

---

I'm not very fond of the CF analogy. CF (the most common mutation anyway) is a very straightforward autosomal recessive disease where carriers have a practically normal phenotype and people with homozygous mutations have a very abnormal phenotype. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a complex amalgamation of multiple traits, all of which exist along a spectrum. From an evolutionary perspective, there may be a benefit to the individual in attracting mates by being somewhere on the scale in between homosexual and ultra hetero. Also, humans are social animals, so not all selection occurs at the individual level. homosexuals, historically not being parents, were often the best, most attentive aunts/uncles around. From a social standpoint, there is probably some degree of selective advantage for offspring who receive material support from homosexual relatives.. I think something like sickle cell is a slighter better analogy in that full expression is usually a detriment to selective fitness, but partial expression has some selective advantages therefore enforcing the propagation of the disease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrj84105

I'm not very fond of the CF analogy. CF (the most common mutation anyway) is a very straightforward autosomal recessive disease where carriers have a practically normal phenotype and people with homozygous mutations have a very abnormal phenotype. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a complex amalgamation of multiple traits, all of which exist along a spectrum. From an evolutionary perspective, there may be a benefit to the individual in attracting mates by being somewhere on the scale in between homosexual and ultra hetero. Also, humans are social animals, so not all selection occurs at the individual level. homosexuals, historically not being parents, were often the best, most attentive aunts/uncles around. From a social standpoint, there is probably some degree of selective advantage for offspring who receive material support from homosexual relatives.. I think something like sickle cell is a slighter better analogy in that full expression is usually a detriment to selective fitness, but partial expression has some selective advantages therefore enforcing the propagation of the disease.

---

Nice post. The complexities of genetics and how they relate to evolutionary biology is a bit out of my league, since I'm an Econ man from back in the day and now I work in IT, but I get exposed enough to these things that it makes me want to take a course in genetics.

One point about homosexuals having children, though. Historically, homosexuals were often "shoe-horned" into marriages and found a way to procreate. Now that they're coming out of the closet in much greater numbers, the "evolutionary dead-end" aspect may actually be manifested more than it has been historically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scratch

A few other things, keeping in mind that my highest accomplishment in this field is passing the AP Biology test. First, it's possible to pass on genes that are not expressed in the parent. Just as a parent may be a carrier for genes for eye color, hair color, diseases, etc. that are not expressed in the parent, it is certainly possible that there could be genes that influence sexual attraction that are not expressed in parents.

Furthermore, as Ma'ake noted, there's a big difference between something being "genentic" and something being "biological." Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while everything genetic is, by definition, biological, not everything that is biological is genetic. Whether it's caused by external factors such as drug consumption, or is the natural result of embryonic mutations, there are lots of "biological" events that have nothing to do with the genes the developing embryo received from its parents.

Now, all of you people who really understand the subject can feel free to correct me.

---

I think it's a little more complex. Caveat - I'm not a biologist, but I have a little more than average understanding of these things. You can have a gene for a certain characteristic that may be latent unless "turned on" or activated by another biological or even environmental factor. So, in other words, it's possible that a fetus may have a genetic predisposition to being homosexual, but unless he receives a certain hormone during a certain time window, that gene won't be expressed. Or perhaps an environmental factor at some point during the pregnancy could act to turn that particular gene on. And it may not be a single gene, but a combination of genes. Here's an article that seems to address this concept: http://jezebel.com/5881919/science-u...male-behaviors

I also recall seeing an article suggesting that the genetic basis for homosexuality in men when in women actually causes them to be more fertile - in other words, it's the same genetic code, but if it is in men, it leads to homosexuality, and if it's in women, it leads to greater fertility. Evolutionarily, this would make sense, as with greater fertility, there are more children, and the male side of the gene provides a pool of additional caregivers in the community.

In other words, it's likely a very complex genetic/biological issue. I don't know that those seeking justification for believing homosexuality is mutable or sinful are going to find what they're looking for in the genetic/biological causes of homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sancho

Yes. Those arguments have never made sense. Why should "born this way" change what is or is not considered sinful?

---

This is a long ways from homosexuality, but I read an article about a researcher who asserts that psychopathic killers have organic brain defects, manifested via fMRI.

This would certainly impact the way we look at behavior, sin, consequences, etc.

If we found out that Ted Bundy had a substantially underdeveloped part of his brain responsible for his psychopathic violence, should we have put him to death?

I also recall seeing an article suggesting that the genetic basis for homosexuality in men when in women actually causes them to be more fertile - in other words, it's the same genetic code, but if it is in men, it leads to homosexuality, and if it's in women, it leads to greater fertility. Evolutionarily, this would make sense, as with greater fertility, there are more children, and the male side of the gene provides a pool of additional caregivers in the community.

-------------------------------------------------------
If you recall the source, would you post a link? I'd like to read the article. Also, in my prior post about sickle cell disease and homosexuality I want to be clear that I don't consider homosexuality to be a disease; re-reading the post it felt like I might have implied such.

https://www.ksl.com/article/46476002...s-out-i-am-gay

Conversion therapist.....uhm, converts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mUUser

https://www.ksl.com/article/46476002...s-out-i-am-gay

Conversion therapist.....uhm, converts.

---

I considered posting about this last week. A friend from high school had apparently spent a few thousand dollars with guy back in the day when he was trying to save his marriage and church status. But the source that he shared seemed pretty seedy, so I sort of forgot about it. I’ve since seen it in the Huffington Post, and no LA, that surprisingly wasn’t the original “seedy” source and now KSL. Helping married guys come to terms with their sexuality in a way to help them maintain their current lives in any salvageable degree is admirable. “Conversion therapy” is disgusting and dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk