Jump to content

Why You Are Gay


BCSpace

Recommended Posts

Should be of interest:

Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children.

A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother.

The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link.

Long thought to have some sort of hereditary link, a group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuality is linked to epi-marks — extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed. These epi-marks are usually, but not always, "erased" between generations. In homosexuals, these epi-marks aren't erased — they're passed from father-to-daughter or mother-to-son, explains William Rice, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Barbara and lead author of the study.

"There is compelling evidence that epi-marks contribute to both the similarity and dissimilarity of family members, and can therefore feasibly contribute to the observed familial inheritance of homosexuality and its low concordance between [identical] twins," Rice notes.

Rice and his team created a mathematical model that explains why homosexuality is passed through epi-marks, not genetics. Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation.

http://www-origin.us...-people-are-gay

Also:

In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence – hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above, outer) -genetics. It refers to functionally relevant modifications to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of such modifications are DNA methylation and histone modification, both of which serve to regulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.[2] There are objections to the use of the term epigenetic to describe chemical modification of histone since it remains unknown whether or not these modifications are heritable.[3]

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Epigenetics

Link to comment

unbelievable!

what's coming next, a model that explains beastiality?!

as much as i run from discussions involving SSA, this is really irresistable...

if God had it built-in somewhere in our biology, then why allow a Sodom & Gomorrah story in the Bible which opposes such practice?

You are out of the thread.

Link to comment

We get what we get. Some of us don't see very well,some can't walk well, some run very fast, some are altogether too smart. All of these traits have genetic connections. What we do with what we have is the key.Should God arrange for all of us to have the exact same DNA?

By the way,isn't the study of epigenetics the study of what evolutionists used to call ,' junk DNA ' ?

Link to comment
unbelievable!

what's coming next, a model that explains beastiality?!

as much as i run from discussions involving SSA, this is really irresistable...

if God had it built-in somewhere in our biology, then why allow a Sodom & Gomorrah story in the Bible which opposes such practice?

It would seem that it's just science trying to explain and find a cause. While it's possible there is an agenda here as with other organizations pretending to have science, it doesn't seem to be the case here so far as I can tell. We LDS should not fear science. Take a look at Ether 12:27. See also 1 Nephi 3:7 It does not matter if we have traits that give us predilections to sin. God Himself may have ordained them and it is our duty to be obedient.

Recall that there is an alcoholism gene and yet the WoW still makes alcohol consumption a worthiness issue. Also, notice that in this case, there isn't a gene that causes homosexuality. So yes, I can see God raining down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah for their perversions. Being strongly tempted because of certain traits is no excuse. I'm sure I have certain traits (not homosexuality) that lead me to temptation, yet I don't act on them (hopefully).

The bottom line is that if these things are confirmed, there is still no basis for the Church to change it's doctrine and that isn't how doctrine gets changed anyway.

Link to comment

The bottom line is that if these things are confirmed, there is still no basis for the Church to change it's doctrine and that isn't how doctrine gets changed anyway.

prior to the new website the Church was position of "born this way" or not, was that the Church would defer science.

However, even if "born this way", the next question is "How do we help those who want want to live a chaste and worthy life?"

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

unbelievable!

what's coming next, a model that explains beastiality?!

as much as i run from discussions involving SSA, this is really irresistable...

if God had it built-in somewhere in our biology, then why allow a Sodom & Gomorrah story in the Bible which opposes such practice?

You are out of the thread.

just because it is biology, it doesn't make it right

Link to comment

wow..., believe me, i didn't know there was "alcoholism gene".

that being said, i hope all these concessions doesn't in the end lead to change of doctrine anytime soon (cause that will really shake some testimonies - like mine!)

What about this approach? Would you have problems with this change in the church?

Church of England Ends Ban on Gay Men as Bishops

Wading once more into an issue that has caused angry divisions among Anglicans around the world, the Church of England said Friday that gay clergymen in civil partnerships could become bishops as long as they vowed to remain celibate.
Link to comment

What about this approach? Would you have problems with this change in the church?

Church of England Ends Ban on Gay Men as Bishops

Well, since men have to be married to be bishops, and we as a church do not and will not accept gay marriages as a moral relationship, I think it is safe to say that just like all the other doctrinal changes you propose, this one won't happen either.

And yes, I understand the difference between an Anglican bishop and an LDS one.

Link to comment

Well, since men have to be married to be bishops, and we as a church do not and will not accept gay marriages as a moral relationship, I think it is safe to say that just like all the other doctrinal changes you propose, this one won't happen either.

And yes, I understand the difference between an Anglican bishop and an LDS one.

I have never proposed any doctrinal changes. This is not a doctrinal change I am proposing or supporting. I am just asking the question that I was interested in what members answers would be. You might be confused. Doctrinal changes do not come from members and certainly do not come from former members.

This is a discussion group. I am just interested in what members thought of the concept. If celibacy is "the Issue" then could a gay member who is celibate but still committed in a relationship be allowed to hold a priesthood office. And yes, you are ducking around the requirement of being married to be a bishop. As far as I know, that is the only priesthood office where being married is a requirement. And like you pointed out, the position in the Anglican Church is not the same position as a bishop in the Mormon church.

So I will ask the question a little more precisely. Could a gay member living in a celibate gay relationship be considered for a priesthood office that does not require that office holder to be married. If not, why not?

Link to comment

I was thinking alone the lines of two old gay celibate bachelors sharing an apartment to cover living expenses, but not bedrooms. I don't know as it is common in the homosexual community, and certainly not the norm amongst our gay members. However I see nothing inherently disqualifying with such a situation. No one, not even Christ, was/is/will be judged by the temptations the faced, but their reactions to them.

Link to comment
The bottom line is that if these things are confirmed, there is still no basis for the Church to change it's doctrine and that isn't how doctrine gets changed anyway.
prior to the new website the Church was position of "born this way" or not, was that the Church would defer science.

However, even if "born this way", the next question is "How do we help those who want want to live a chaste and worthy life?"

Sure, but that's not the direction "activists" are trying to get us to go. Because of Ether 12:27, being born with some condition is no excuse for not following the commandments.

Link to comment

Sure, but that's not the direction "activists" are trying to get us to go. Because of Ether 12:27, being born with some condition is no excuse for not following the commandments.

I am unaware of any "activists group" that is trying to get the Mormon church to change it's doctrine on gay marriage. I am clearly aware of "activists" groups that are trying to get the government to allow for gay marriage, But that is a completely different issue than trying to change Mormon doctrine. Perhaps you could point to the actions these "activists" are taking to get the church to change it's doctrine.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By cinepro
      First, let me say that the press conference was perhaps the first time I've ever heard President Nelson speak off-the-cuff (i.e. not reading prepared remarks), and I was not instilled with confidence.  I enjoyed listening to the first presentation where the First Presidency was introduced, but my heart sank when listening to the Press Conference afterward.
      Specifically, the first question and response, heard at 2:05:10 here:
      I listened to this driving in to work today, and I just couldn't believe it.  The question was "how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?"
      The response doesn't appear to be in the same universe as the question, other than them both being in English.  They don't mention "LGBT issues", or homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, or anything specific to the question.  They respond using highly coded and contextualized words that someone familiar with LDS doctrines might be able to interpret, but how is that the proper response in a press conference?
      My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this:
      "Thanks Brady.  No changes expected.  Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses.  We also still oppose same-sex marriage.  We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth.  We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this."
      Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?
       
    • By Robert F. Smith
      Elder D. Todd Christofferson “Is There a Place For Me?” online at https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/church-teachings?cid=HP_TH_24-8-2017_dPAD_fMG_xLIDyL2-2_  .
      “The diversity we find now in the Church may be just the beginning.  Frankly, I think we’ll see greater and greater diversity.  In the ancient Church there was tremendous diversity.
      “And it’s not just diversity for diversity’s sake, but the fact that people can bring different gifts and perspectives.  And the wide range of experience, backgrounds, and challenges that people face will show us what really is essential in the Gospel of Christ, and that much of the rest that’s been perhaps acquired over time is more cultural than doctrinal, can slip away, and we can really learn to be disciples.”
      This is just an excerpt of his short remarks, and other apostles also comment under the same heading.  Does this bode well for the Church?  Is it an important first step to see the difference between culture and doctrine?  Where might this eventually lead?
    • By rockpond
      The latest MormonLeak is a document containing minutes from a 2014 priesthood leadership conference in Layton, UT.
      https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017/08/08/mormonleaks-releases-priesthood-leadership-conference-meeting-minutes/
      There is a Q&A session in which Elder Perry provides some answers that seem contradictory to the current Church position:  When asked how to deal with a young man or young woman who comes in and says "I think that I'm gay", Elder Perry counsels them to "Give them association with manly things, strong men that represent the ideal of relationships, a man who is vigorous and knows the power he holds." (quoting the document, not Elder Perry)
      In a later question about temple recommends he states that he does not believe that gay people are "born with it".  I know that the Church does not take a position on that, I just thought his statement of belief was interesting.
    • By Darren10
      Here a new approach to survey Mormons with same sex attraction. It was formulated by people of different backgrounds as to establish some sort of balance on the topic. 
      And apparently there are already some positive results of feeling more empowered to talk about Mormons with same sex attractions. 
      Groundbreaking Study Seeks to Support Mormons Experiencing Same-Sex Attraction
       
    • By Mystery Meat
      Alas, I am afraid I have discovered that the gap between members of the Church who value and sustain the traditional family and the brethren and those members (and their LGBT allies) who accept SSM as a viable (in God's eyes) option. In another thread, I was told that it is Church's fault that LGBT youth feel like they are outside of the Plan of Happiness and that the only way for the Church to remedy this is to minimize the importance and exclusivity of man/woman marriage in our doctrines and teachings (despite the word of the Lord doing the exact opposite).  Anything less than this is insufficient. The problem is that this is a non-negotiable. I believe I am capable and that the Church is also capable of showing forth true, Christlike love without budging on this position.
      The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.
×
×
  • Create New...