Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[CV75]

I haven't had time to review all the links you sent, except for the first one. I note that it said that relaxation responses could alter gene expression. That is radically different from "thoughts can change one's DNA,"

I suggest you read all the links, then, because the effect of thought on DNA is specifically addressed. Is there a problem with a person being able to influence their DNA? They do by taking chemicals, both therapeutically and recreationally (and both as the result of premeditated action)--the direct thought-to-DNA connection just cuts out the middle man.

I also noted that every situation need not result from thought-determined DNA or DNA-determined orientation--there are a number of factors determining corelations between a person's sexual orientation and genetics, thought, brain structure and chemistry, etc. Focusing on the science supporting one extreme and disregarding the science supporting the other extreme is not looking at all the knowledge available, especially in discussing what a church might do policy-wise--then it just becomes policy-bashing.

My point being, when it comes to changing church teachings on homosexuality, faith and thought are as valid factors in one's spiritual makeup (which in my book includes sexual orientation and behavior), as biology or environment or pre-existence.

I noticed someone on another thread observed, "I find it amazing that in our politically correct culture, women cannot ever be said to be in any way constrained by their sexual biology, but gay people are said to be completely constrained by their sexual biology."

EDIT:

From the first link I provided: "We hypothesized that RR elicitation results in characteristic gene expression changes that can be used to measure physiological responses elicited by the RR in an unbiased fashion."

From the link bibliography (DNA-specific):

http://scholar.googl...g%20workers.%22

[CV75]

I don't think there is any evidence that mother's thoughts cause the androgen surge.

The science of "mind-over-body" to techniques to control the release of hormones is well documented. Specific to androgen, stress-induced surges have been observed to occur in both men and women. This is the basis for a multi-faceted approach (diet/insulin, stress, Vitamin D deficiency, and *gasp* genetics) to reducing androgen in relation to treating acne. I don't have the citations but if you Google it plenty will come up. So yes, there is evidence that thoughts (stressful thoughts) cause andrigen surges in mothers.

[thesometimesaint]

CV75:

Interesting, I already know that, but those don't answer my question. That thinking will change DNA.

[CV75]

CV75:

Interesting, I already know that, but those don't answer my question. That thinking will change DNA.

From the link: “…RR elicitation results in characteristic gene expression changes that can be used to measure physiological responses elicited by the RR in an unbiased fashion.” From the link’s bibliography (DNA-specific):

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&q=author%3AIrie+%22Psychological%20mediation%20of%20a%20type%20of%20oxidative%20DNA%20damage,%208-hydroxydeoxyguanosine,%20in%20peripheral%20blood%20leukocytes%20of%20non-smoking%20and%20non-drinking%20workers.%22

[CV75]

Drain and thesometimessait, please pardon my being distracted from more thorough responses. Note that the first link's concusion states, "Our results suggest consistent and constitutive changes in gene expression resulting from RR may relate to long term physiological effects." This is where the links on neuroplasticity and epihenetics come into play. The relationship between the two is that the changes in gene expression can then be coded into the DNA and inherited, changing in turn the anatomy and physiology of the brain. So thoughts affecting DNA, and DNA in turn affects thoughts.

I also find it interesting that as Adam's fall affected all humanity, the genetic impact of their progeny's sinful or righteous behavior can also be passed on to later generations--there are plenty of studies about this as well. The science is showing that in addition to factors such as environment (radiation) and intentional chemical intake (drug and alcohol abuse), genetic material is also affected by attitudes and thought by, among other things, the intermediate effect on hormones.

[TAO]

Hey, TAO,

Although you and I disagree above the morality of consensual same-sex romantic relationships and behavior, I think we're likely to both agree with and support the general rule that biological predispositions should not excuse the predatory, non-consensual sexual behaviors of rape or pedophilia. Unlike adults who mutually agree to enter into and engage in heterosexual or homosexual relationships and/or behaviors, both rape and pedophilia fail to meet the standard of consent, meaning one of the individuals becomes the "perpetrator"--the individual or adult who sexually forces him- or -herself on the other unwilling participant; while the other individual becomes the "victim"--the individual being raped, or the under-age child).

Having acknowledged the above, I'm curious as to what links or sources you claim indicate that a genetic tendency (what you refer to as "evidence of physical difference, in the genes") exits in rapists (which is new to me) or pedophiles (which I've heard alluded to, before, but would be interested in reading more about).

Could you please provide your sources showing that rape and pedophilia have geneitic predispositions/physical differences/are "in the genes"?

Thanks,

Darin

Although I disagree that it is correct whether both consent or not, yes, I do believe biological tendencies aren't a good enough reason to drop your trials if you know what I mean. They are a good reason to give mercy, and second chances and stuff, but they aren't a good reason for not overcoming.

I don't have a link to a specific study or anything (although I'm pretty sure there is one out there somewhere), but considering that most pedophiles/rapists tend to be of a certain gender, can it be said that they have a gender related-inclination link? In other words, males might be more inclined to do such things, because they are male. Sort of a predisposition thing.

I have heard of studies that do go into the topics more... but I haven't researched them myself. I think someone else may be able to provide them though.

Sorry about replying late to your post, I had a track meet. I was running the 1600m 20 minutes more or less after I wrote the post XD.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

TAO,

I'm sorry to hear of your struggles with Asperger's Syndrome, a condition I have become familiar with due to acquaintances who share the same condition. It is a challenging situation, and I'm glad to hear that it sounds as if you're making the best.

On an unrelated side note: I don't think an attraction to or obession with cats is considered to be a male vs. female trait.

Darin

Hehe, nah, it is no big deal... I have struggled with it far less than other have XD. I don't really mind actually having some feminine side behaviors all too much... and to be honest, I have more 'cat-like' behaviors than I do feminine behaviors .

Nah, I don't have an attraction to cats... but I do obsess over them, and like them quite alot. What I meant is that liking cats is a more-feminine side trait - most guys who like cats as much as I do have some sort of Autism-spectrum or another-spectrum related disorder, from what I have seen (just using the people I know, although I would like to do a study on this some time, as I think cats could greatly improve the capabilities of Autistic children to understand nonverbal body language and such).

There are other things that I do that are more feminine side as well... liking to cook, make pottery, and spend time with children for example... although they aren't exclusive to feminine side, but they are generally related to such in society. And as said, when in relation to cats, the parallels that can be drawn between me and them are pretty funny XD. I learned how to socialize from my cat.

[TAO]

I'd be interested in hearing more - I know little about your condition.

Well, if I was to sum it up in one sentence, it is 'imagine being born without common sense'.

Basically, you are born without an understanding of people's non-obvious verbal and non-verbal cues. You can't hear the annoyance in their voice, or read it on their face, so you have to get taught how to do it, which is difficult for some (luckily I was able to understand it relatively quickly). It also comes with many quirks which are unordinary habits of such. Obsession with volcanoes, black holes, and cats were part of mine. We also have other weird habits that are someone OCDish like always making sure you leave a combination lock on a certain number, and always washing your hands after touching an ant poison container. And many other things.

Yah... I don't want to derail the thread too much... but essentially, just because I have traits which are somewhat more 'female-related' than they are 'male-related', it doesn't make me a new gender. Nor does the similarities I have to cats in terms of curiosity, social behavior, and quirkiness make me a new species. I'm still male and I'm still human. I just have these traits that I do. And if I'm going to enjoy life much, part of what I must do is learn to deal with real world and society. It gets tiring sometimes. Some aspects of society are sheer annoyance. But it's necessary. Otherwise you must suffer the consequences.

That's why, in my opinion, God's rules are so much less harsh than society's rules - because they all have a reason behind them, and God is tons more fogiving than society is, even for mistakes. It's what makes listening to him, even if it means giving up a huge part of yourself, worth it. =)

[sunstoned]

The Church does not recognize more than two genders; so there is no wiggle room here. On top of that, the scriptures allow the Church to easily continue with it's current doctrine even if an inborn cause for homosexuality were ever found (Ether 12:27).

There will be wiggle room when there is enough outside pressure on the church to change. Just like there was on polygamy, the oath of vengeance, and blacks in the priesthood.

[bookofmormontruth]

Well, if I was to sum it up in one sentence, it is 'imagine being born without common sense'.

Basically, you are born without an understanding of people's non-obvious verbal and non-verbal cues. You can't hear the annoyance in their voice, or read it on their face, so you have to get taught how to do it, which is difficult for some (luckily I was able to understand it relatively quickly). It also comes with many quirks which are unordinary habits of such. Obsession with volcanoes, black holes, and cats were part of mine. We also have other weird habits that are someone OCDish like always making sure you leave a combination lock on a certain number, and always washing your hands after touching an ant poison container. And many other things.

Yah... I don't want to derail the thread too much... but essentially, just because I have traits which are somewhat more 'female-related' than they are 'male-related', it doesn't make me a new gender. Nor does the similarities I have to cats in terms of curiosity, social behavior, and quirkiness make me a new species. I'm still male and I'm still human. I just have these traits that I do. And if I'm going to enjoy life much, part of what I must do is learn to deal with real world and society. It gets tiring sometimes. Some aspects of society are sheer annoyance. But it's necessary. Otherwise you must suffer the consequences.

That's why, in my opinion, God's rules are so much less harsh than society's rules - because they all have a reason behind them, and God is tons more fogiving than society is, even for mistakes. It's what makes listening to him, even if it means giving up a huge part of yourself, worth it. =)

Thanks for sharing TAO!

I think I might be on the "spectrum" with my OCDs, but I am proud of them! Since I believe those who are on the spectrum are highly intelligent, I guess that would exclude me for being on the spectrum.

[sunstoned]

Sure, but didn't Young teach at the time that it was a requirement for the highest level of exaltation?

The comment was that people in 1880 believed plural marriage would be practiced forever, and that its reversal was unthinkable.

It was taught as an eternal principle. How do you reverse a revealed eternal principle? Go up against the congress of the United States, that's how. That’s where the real power is. The church was forced into a reversal in 1890, and then again in twenty years later during the Reed Smoot hearings. It seems today that the Church is trying really hard to forget about polygamy and not even acknowledge it. But at one time it was a core principle and doctrine of the church. If this key principle can be reversed and forgotten, then I’m sure the dated, closed minded thinking about gays can be amended as well.

[TAO]

Thanks for sharing TAO!

I think I might be on the "spectrum" with my OCDs, but I am proud of them! Since I believe those who are on the spectrum are highly intelligent, I guess that would exclude me for being on the spectrum.

Lol, your plenty intelligent bookofmormontruth! =D

Actually... I am not to intelligent myself... education just comes easy to me. Technically, that's not intelligence. What intelligence is, is learning to work hard for things you want =). I'm not precisely good at that yet, but I am working on it =D.

And yah... I have many friends with OCD, they are great people! I have a friend on the track team, and also another person whom I would like to date in the future who have OCD... but yes, they are great people =). And you are great too =D.

[Mordecai]

...But at one time it was a core principle and doctrine of the church...

Not if the BoMormon is to be believed.

[Nathair/|\]

Lol, your plenty intelligent bookofmormontruth! =D

Actually... I am not to intelligent myself... education just comes easy to me. Technically, that's not intelligence. What intelligence is, is learning to work hard for things you want =). I'm not precisely good at that yet, but I am working on it =D.

And yah... I have many friends with OCD, they are great people! I have a friend on the track team, and also another person whom I would like to date in the future who have OCD... but yes, they are great people =). And you are great too =D.

Tao,

Do you ever find that when you are about to perform a task that you feel like a lot of weight on your brain keeping you from doing it? Or you start getting up to do it and a second later you catch yourself back in your book or playing a facebook game or something?

Yours under the impeded oaks,

Nathair /|\

That was zen, this is tao.

[Calm]

Or you start getting up to do it and a second later you catch yourself back in your book or playing a facebook game or something?

Everybody does that....don't they?

[thesometimesaint]

CV75:

Thanks. I do know that drugs and to a certain extent thinking does effect the physical structure of our brains. But with our DNA, I'll have to do some more thinking on that one before I'll agree or disagree.

[CV75]

CV75:

Thanks. I do know that drugs and to a certain extent thinking does effect the physical structure of our brains. But with our DNA, I'll have to do some more thinking on that one before I'll agree or disagree.

Where this is a discussion and not a dissertation, I’m really trying to keep it brief and limited to concepts, so I encourage anyone interested to explore bona fide research demonstrating such things as “clinical depression is a risk factor for cancer initiation in view of oxidative DNA damage” to show that thought can change DNA. But I brought this up to counter the assertion that brain structure and therefore the thoughts associated with gender (whether the traditional two genders or newly labeled homosexual genders) are DNA-driven. I did this by pointing out that, in many cases, DNA-driven characteristics actually reflect the impact of thoughts (directly or indirectly) upon the DNA. Intermediate steps (including transcription and expression) between the initiation of the thoughts and the change in DNA, can be observed as well, which touches on psychoneuroimmunology, the effect of thoughts and emotions on human biochemistry, which in turn is “inseparably connected” with human genetics.

I did this to argue that, if the Church is to use science in its management of sex and gender policy, it is looking at all the research not just that which suggests that homosexuality is strictly DNA-dependent. In other words, the Church will have to “do some more thinking on that one” as well!

You do seem to hold to the suggestion that to a certain extent homosexual thinking can affect the physical structure of the brain, and that the thought entered the mind before the structure imposed the thought; persistent thought changes the infrastructure to accommodate that thought (form follows function follows plan).

[thesometimesaint]

CV75:

I wouldn't go so far as to say that "thinking" has a genetic component of homosexuality. But I do know that clinic depression, along with schizophrenia, does effect the physical structures of the brain. What I do need to think on is if there is a genetic component of homosexuality. Not sure there is, but as far as the Gospel goes I don't see it as having a bearing. Because in the human species biology is not determinative of behaviors.

[TAO]

Tao,

Do you ever find that when you are about to perform a task that you feel like a lot of weight on your brain keeping you from doing it? Or you start getting up to do it and a second later you catch yourself back in your book or playing a facebook game or something?

Yours under the impeded oaks,

Nathair /|\

That was zen, this is tao.

Yeah. Happens alot when gltryinv to do good things too. There is something out there that wants me to stop doing good things and start doing bad things... :0.

But besides that, yah I do get distracted really easily XD. Still trying to finish programmi.g my first AS3 game but I can't get myself ftp do the achievements screen .

Best Wishes,

TAO

[CV75]

CV75:

I wouldn't go so far as to say that "thinking" has a genetic component of homosexuality. But I do know that clinic depression, along with schizophrenia, does effect the physical structures of the brain. What I do need to think on is if there is a genetic component of homosexuality. Not sure there is, but as far as the Gospel goes I don't see it as having a bearing. Because in the human species biology is not determinative of behaviors.

I certainly agree that any accountable person can keep the commandments, regardless of the cause of any difficulty in so doing, and instances where genetic factors impinge on one's accountability are by far the exception than the rule.

[SkepticTheist]

Well, what the Church does or not does, or believes or does not believe has never been necessarily based on science or research.

The Church's stance is based on an assumption of the eternal nature of the sexes, not some temporary, mortal evolutionary abberation that may or may have not produced more than two sexes.

Besides, if there were truly more than two sexes, they should be able to procreate in some manner. All they do is naturally select themselves out of the gene pool because they cannot reproduce.

I doubt we will ever see anything come out of evolution like to two gay men being able to reproduce outside of artificial means with a woman involved. And to me, adoption of children is not reproduction, even if they can theoretically form a family unit of sorts (from a secular point of view).

I said the facts in the presentation provide wiggle room for changing policy. Please try to read what I write more carefully.

[semlogo]

Thank you, Darin. Your post is erudite and rational as always. Though I disagree with you, I have the highest respect for you. My main purpose was to challenge the absolutism in Semilogo's claim. I try to only make absolute claims when I have very good reason.

I vaguely seem to remember institutional pederasty in Da Vinci's Italy, a very civilized society; but I could be wrong about that. I don't care to research it right now. Ganymede also came to mind, but I think he was just old enough to count as an adult.

It seems to me that you are shifting the goalposts just a bit? Maybe? Fair enough. If I am right about Italy, I hit that target, too.

Yours under the flexible oaks,

Nathair /|\

Why am I semilogo? There seems to be a deliberate effort on some people's part to misspell my moniker. If it's supposed to be an insult, I don't get it.

[semlogo]

The science of "mind-over-body" to techniques to control the release of hormones is well documented. Specific to androgen, stress-induced surges have been observed to occur in both men and women. This is the basis for a multi-faceted approach (diet/insulin, stress, Vitamin D deficiency, and *gasp* genetics) to reducing androgen in relation to treating acne. I don't have the citations but if you Google it plenty will come up. So yes, there is evidence that thoughts (stressful thoughts) cause andrigen surges in mothers.

But the androgen release appears related to birth order and other factors, and the evidence is that the body does it by itself in this case. It's interesting to spit ball about possibilities, but let's stick with what we know.

[semlogo]

Well, what the Church does or not does, or believes or does not believe has never been necessarily based on science or research.

The Church's stance is based on an assumption of the eternal nature of the sexes, not some temporary, mortal evolutionary abberation that may or may have not produced more than two sexes.

Besides, if there were truly more than two sexes, they should be able to procreate in some manner. All they do is naturally select themselves out of the gene pool because they cannot reproduce.

I doubt we will ever see anything come out of evolution like to two gay men being able to reproduce outside of artificial means with a woman involved. And to me, adoption of children is not reproduction, even if they can theoretically form a family unit of sorts (from a secular point of view).

The position I've taken in no way contradicts the eternal nature of the sexes taught by the church.

[Nathair/|\]

Why am I semilogo? There seems to be a deliberate effort on some people's part to misspell my moniker. If it's supposed to be an insult, I don't get it.

No, my brain just filters things in a weird way sometimes. I apologize if you thought I did it deliberately or maliciously. I don't even know what "semlogo" means. But what does that have to do with what I was trying to say?