LDS Scientist/Biographer Presents Findings on the Science of Sexual Orientation

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

But why is not being able to reproduce a evolutionary disadvantage for a gay person. 

Because evolution requires reproduction...for any person.

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why is reproducing important at all if someone is gay? 

It is important for evolutionary fitness.  Subjective value of evolutionary fitness can vary from person to person I suppose. 

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does everyone need to reproduce to be acceptable? 

Ok, I am not sure where that is coming from.  Who said anything about being acceptable?  Are you saying that people with genetic disorders are unacceptable?

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why do you think this is an issue?

It doesn't have to be an issue if you don't want it to be.  Albinism is not an issue for albinos, unless they make it one. 

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have a genetic disorder.  My kids have it.  I dread seeing it appear in my grandchildren though my son is less extreme so there is hope it won't matter until the cure is found.

Would I want to have it removed from my daughter if it changed her personality (no reason why it should, but who knows since it is a neurological disorder)?  That would be her choice as it has made her life a hell, but I also think she appreciates who she is.

Would I suggest it be removed from future children?  In a heartbeat.  Their personalities are not yet formed and so nothing is lost. What they are eternally is limited in its expression anyway...I think our mortal personalities will have a minute effect on our eternal being, it will be imo like assuming a virtual reality persona and learning from that experience.  

What if we learned it was linked to intelligence or artistic ability...given it impedes the use of such ability, I would still encourage genetic manipulation to remove it.  A talent one cannot use just leads to frustration, not great things.

----

I am not calling homosexuality a disorder, just exploring the idea of gene therapy.

One of my favorite movies of all time is "Gattaica".  Have you seen it?  It is a movie about this very subject and the unintended consequences of where this might lead.  I highly recommend it to anyone.

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am asking why that is important to a gay person.  Why must all humans pass on any genes?

You might also be interested in this article. Or this article

These things are not as simple as just passing on genes.  

I wouldn't say it is necessarily important to any person at all.  It just means that the person is less likely to pass on genes, nothing more.  

But the very first article you cite acknowledges that this is a dilemma for science:

Quote

If a certain trait or behavior is detrimental to the reproductive success, or fitness, of an organism, you wouldn’t expect it to persist in the population as natural selection should get rid of it. After all, the aim of the reproductive game is to keep your genes going. Why, then, do members of the same sex cop off with each other in so many species? . . . 

Scientists have long pondered this and have struggled to come to any consensus.

 

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Because evolution requires reproduction...for any person.

It is important for evolutionary fitness.  Subjective value of evolutionary fitness can vary from person to person I suppose. 

Ok, I am not sure where that is coming from.  Who said anything about being acceptable?  Are you saying that people with genetic disorders are unacceptable?

It doesn't have to be an issue if you don't want it to be.  Albinism is not an issue for albinos, unless they make it one. 

You clearly are not getting what I am asking.  Probably because science is not my background.  I get how evolution works.  But what I am trying to ask is why is it important for a gay person to reproduce.   What needs to be passed on to another generation?  I am sure the world gene pool will do just fine without one set of genes being passed on by someone who is gay.

i am beginning to think that there is not an answer to my question or that my question is unrelated to what you want to talk about.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I wouldn't say it is necessarily important to any person at all.  It just means that the person is less likely to pass on genes, nothing more.  

But the very first article you cite acknowledges that this is a dilemma for science:

 

There.  That is what I have been trying to get at.  For some people, passing on their genes is just not that important.  Other things about their life might be way more important to them and whether they have offspring or not is irrelevant to who they are.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Not a single one who would agree with him about what?

Didn't you read the argument of his presentation?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Duplicate deleted.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

You don't see the leaps you are making by guessing that Sodom was a Minoan settlement rather than a Hebrew one?  Why would Abraham or Lot care one bit if God destroyed a Minoan city?  Why all the pleading with God to save a city that had a completely different culture than they did and one that evidently you think they did not approve of.  

And the truth is, it is a bit unclear what was going on in Sodom.  Other Bible writers clearly state that the sin of Sodom was pride.  How does that fit into your little secerio that you have created for yourself?

There is no way Sodom was a Hebrew settlement. Hebrews were a northern Syrian/Semitic people. The Phoenicians were not Hebrew but they were Semitic. Same with the other Canaanites. I am just showing what archaeology has recently found in Jordan. There was apparently nothing done in the area until a few decades ago. Sorry you can't seem to accept their findings. I can't change them to make them Semitic for you. They are what they are: big Minoan gate houses with columns exactly like Minoans built and nothing like found elsewhere in Canaan. 

Minoan style bull glyphs which are found in representations of the Minoan sport of bull-vaulting. 

And lastly very Minoan pottery. Can more work be done? Certainly. There are only 10 years of reports available, and lots of other local sites to excavate. However, I am comfortable with a preliminary guess that the Jordan Valley had a Minoan colony in it from ca 2000 - 1600 BC.

You are right that Sodom had a lot more sin going on then just the sexual kind. If it were just that, perhaps the city would have been spared.

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

There.  That is what I have been trying to get at.  For some people, passing on their genes is just not that important.  Other things about their life might be way more important to them and whether they have offspring or not is irrelevant to who they are.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say that personal “subjective value” or experience may differ.

What you are not getting is that medical nomenclature does not care about subjective experience or value that a person placed on eye sight, hearing, skin color, etc when classifying disorders. They do consider how a genetic variation might affect evolutionary fitness however when classifying disorders.  A disorder doesn’t have to be subjectively “negative” for the individual for it to be classified as a disorder.

Edited October 19, 2017 by pogi

[readstoomuch]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

There.  That is what I have been trying to get at.  For some people, passing on their genes is just not that important.  Other things about their life might be way more important to them and whether they have offspring or not is irrelevant to who they are.

Evolution presupposes that a genetic mutation or trait brings a competitive advantage for survival.  If a trait is not passed on then it dies out.  That is one of the backbones of evolution.  Sometimes it can take awhile to figure that out.  Could being gay also coselect for speed as an example?   In that case the gay guy can outrun the saber tooth tiger.  The trait would still have to be passed on, but someone could make a theory and see if it ever is proven.

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Oh the irony 

You have not successfully supplied the CFR where I called it a genetic disorder.  Read and re-read the part you quoted of me in bold.  I am clearly not making any judgement that it is a disorder.  We don't even know what causes it for sure!!!  There are a lot of big "ifs"  

CFR that I called it a disease.  CFR that I said it "requires" manipulation. 

CFR, CFR CFR

 Sometimes, as a matter of fact, yes. My son has albinism, as I have already pointed out.  That affects his eye color. It affects ALL of his pigment including his hair color and his skin color.  Is there anything "wrong" with that?  I don't think so, I think he is absolutely beautiful and I wouldn't change it if I could. 

What?  What does "control" have to do with anything?  Do people with genetic disorders have control or a say in if they want to be born that way?  NONE!  Perhaps you are confusing your arguments.  This argument is one that you would make to someone who is arguing that being gay is a choice.  I am not making that argument, so you are sounding really confused. 

Once again, you are completely mischaracterizing me and my views. 

Gene therapy anyone?

Having a genetic disorder is NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF, don't make it sound as if it is!!!

I'm done,  I really have nothing more to add. Both your words and mine speak for themselves 

[Button Gwinnett]

45 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I wouldn't say it is necessarily important to any person at all.  It just means that the person is less likely to pass on genes, nothing more.  

But the very first article you cite acknowledges that this is a dilemma for science:

 

With all due respect being gay does not prevent one from procreation 

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I'm done,  I really have nothing more to add. Both your words and mine speak for themselves 

Unless you can supply me with a CFR, you need to retract your statements and false accusations and characterizations of me...then you can be done.

It is not usually good form to tell people what they believe.

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by pogi

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

This is a great example of straight privilege. You as self-identified heterosexual, cisgender male get to lecture anyone who you even perceive as not agreeing with you about this issue.  I'm so glad I have experts like you to tell me all about what my experiences mean.  Maybe you ought to check your privilege before you continue to condescend.  

Ummm wow, didn't see this coming

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

There.  That is what I have been trying to get at.  For some people, passing on their genes is just not that important.  Other things about their life might be way more important to them and whether they have offspring or not is irrelevant to who they are.

Oh, exactly.  I think the question is just in terms of trying to understand how a trait like homosexuality could be passed on genetically, if there are no offspring.  This question isn't some end-all death knell for a biological or even a genetic etiology of homosexuality, it just means that there has to be some additional mechanism in place, like the first article you shared about the fruit-flies.  There are additional explanations as well, but it is not necessarily any attack against gays or homosexuality in general to ask a real question about how the trait is passed on.  

[rodheadlee]

On 10/18/2017 at 10:45 AM, Button Gwinnett said:

Not to delve into your personal life, but would you be so kind as to share with this board when you "Chose" to be a heterosexual man?  (I'm making an assumption here) Thinking back, I just can't recall ever making such a choice, I just always was heterosexual.  So please enlighten all of us. Thanks

I chose to be hetrosexual after being molested by a male homosexual at the age of 10. It wasn't a hard decision.

[Button Gwinnett]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

If it is genetic, that raises the question of not only how that should affect religious policies etc., but also how it will be viewed by science.  If genetic, then there will be the debate of whether or not it should be considered a genetic "disorder".  It also raises the possibility that through future advances in gene therapy, there may some day be a "cure".

Your premise I quote you: "if genetic, then there will be the debate of whether or nor it should be considered a genetic "disorder". It also raises the possibility that through future advances in gene therapy, there may some day be a "cure". "

^^^^^^There your own words^^^^^^. Again they speak for themselves,  why would anyone debate whether being gay is a genetic disorder or in need of a cure. Your premise being that being gay requires a cure

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Why do you say that, because it might be more epigenetic?  Either way it doesn’t change the questions.  There are epigenetic diseases as well.  Epigenetic diseases, such as fragile x, are often lumped into the classification of “genetic disorders”.

^^^^again your words comparing being born gay to a genetic disorder and a disease^^^^ again you said this in a reply to Greys comment wherein the subject was whether being gay was genetic or biological wherein you say "it" referring to gay,  might be more epigenetic. And then you go on by saying either way doesn't change the question . There are epigenetic diseases as well.

6 hours ago, pogi said:

So much for trying really hard to keep my comment neutral   I even use quote marks around "cure"! 

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote.  I didn't know that there was anything wrong with asking questions, or predicting future debates and questions that might arise in the medical field! 

If you think that this is not going to be a major discussion in the medical field (about how to classify it) if it is found to be of genetic origin, then you are naive.  It will be debated just like it has been in the field of the psychology.   If a therapy becomes available to alter the gene or its expression, then there will be much discussion, not just among the medical field, but also among the insurance companies.  Will it be an operation that insurance will pay for?  That depends partly on how the medical field classifies it.  

But, to answer your question about how I'd feel about a gay man trying to "cure" heterosexuality..."bigot" wouldn't be the first word that comes to mind.  I was thinking more along the lines of "the enemy of the human race"

I would also like to comment that a positive subjective experience of a genetic disorder doesn't make it any less of a genetic disorder.  My son was born with a rare genetic disorder called albinism.  It is a part of his identity, I couldn't imagine him any other way.  He is still a toddler, so I don't know what his feelings about it will be, but I have met many, many in the albino community who would not have it any other way.  The question was asked in one forum, "if you could have been born "normal", would you have chosen that option if you could do it over?  The vast majority of the comments were, "I wouldn't change", "Normal is so...boring!" etc.   There is a sense of albino pride, much like gay pride.  That pride and positive subjective experience doesn't make it any less of a disorder.

The question will be, does it have any biological disadvantage?  The point has already been made, that on an individual level, it does pose a potential evolutionary disadvantage.  That would be the point of argument among the medical community when it comes to classification.  It could theoretically go either way, but it WILL be discussed.  

 

 

 

 

^^^^again your own words where you repeatedly compare being gay to a disorder in need of a cure^^^^

your own words condem you and speak for themselves 

pogi, can you even see how any of your words might be offensive to a member of the gay community. Heck I'm not even gay and they offended me.

might I ask if this board has any gay posters? If so were any of you offended by what pogi wrote, equating being gay to a disease in need of a cure?

Edited October 20, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[Button Gwinnett]

37 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I chose to be hetrosexual after being molested by a male homosexual at the age of 10. It wasn't a hard decision.

I'm sorry you were molested.  I won't pursue this. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There is no way Sodom was a Hebrew settlement. Hebrews were a northern Syrian/Semitic people. The Phoenicians were not Hebrew but they were Semitic. Same with the other Canaanites. I am just showing what archaeology has recently found in Jordan. There was apparently nothing done in the area until a few decades ago. Sorry you can't seem to accept their findings. I can't change them to make them Semitic for you. They are what they are: big Minoan gate houses with columns exactly like Minoans built and nothing like found elsewhere in Canaan. 

Minoan style bull glyphs which are found in representations of the Minoan sport of bull-vaulting. 

And lastly very Minoan pottery. Can more work be done? Certainly. There are only 10 years of reports available, and lots of other local sites to excavate. However, I am comfortable with a preliminary guess that the Jordan Valley had a Minoan colony in it from ca 2000 - 1600 BC.

You are right that Sodom had a lot more sin going on then just the sexual kind. If it were just that, perhaps the city would have been spared.

Are any of the archeologist claiming that they have found the ancient city of Sodom?  And even if this is Sodom, are you making the false assumption that Sodom was destroyed because the people there were practicing homosexuality?  And if that is your false assumption, can you explain why God destroyed the city of Sodom simply for the reason they practiced homosexuality, but allowed the Roman empire to go on for over 1500 years?

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are any of the archeologist claiming that they have found the ancient city of Sodom?

One of the head archaeologists, Steven Collins, strongly believes this tall is the biblical Sodom. I am not so inclined to agree. Its destruction seems too late. However, its culture does seem to plausibly be a match, so perhaps Sodom is one of the other nearby talls.

Quote

 And even if this is Sodom, are you making the false assumption that Sodom was destroyed because the people there were practicing homosexuality?  

YOU are the one making this false assumption about me. I merely pointed out that the pederastic culture of the Minoans seemed to be a match for Sodom. You then jumped all over me calling me a uncritical thinking moron basically before you knew any facts. I have never inferred that Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality, but I won't label that a false assumption either. I don't really know God's mind on the matter.

Quote

And if that is your false assumption, can you explain why God destroyed the city of Sodom simply for the reason they practiced homosexuality, but allowed the Roman empire to go on for over 1500 years?

The Roman Empire did not go on for 1500 years. It began as a republic, and was limited to basically Italy until it defeated the Phoenician Cathaginians, and took over their territories in the first few centuries BC. It didn't become an empire until Caesar's day when the senate began to be replaced by totalitarian emperors. The western empire of Rome began to fall to the Teutons around 450 AD and was basically gone by 550 AD so the Roman Empire itself lasted some 600 years. The Byzantine Greek Empire lived on till conquered by the Muslims. If you are implying that God allowed them to exist because they were virtuous that is nonsense. The Lord's people have always been a minority, and been subject to surrounding countries which at times the Lord used or allowed to scold His people. The Lord has often made His people subject to the kings of the earth - it was by no means because these other countries were virtuous.  For "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." Daniel 4:17.

[Darren10]

On 10/18/2017 at 5:12 PM, california boy said:

Just watch Will and Grace.  Evidently that program is single handily turning America gay.

I blame Richard Simmons workout videos back in the 80s.

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

But why is not being able to reproduce a evolutionary disadvantage for a gay person.  Why is reproducing important at all if someone is gay?  Does everyone need to reproduce to be acceptable?  Why do you think this is an issue?

Because in evolution it is those that reproduce win. It isn't evolution if it isn't passed onto the next generation. As I said earlier no one should be discriminated against by law just because of their homosexuality.

Edited October 20, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[california boy]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

One of the head archaeologists, Steven Collins, strongly believes this tall is the biblical Sodom. I am not so inclined to agree. Its destruction seems too late. However, its culture does seem to plausibly be a match, so perhaps Sodom is one of the other nearby talls.

YOU are the one making this false assumption about me. I merely pointed out that the pederastic culture of the Minoans seemed to be a match for Sodom. You then jumped all over me calling me a uncritical thinking moron basically before you knew any facts. I have never inferred that Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality, but I won't label that a false assumption either. I don't really know God's mind on the matter.

The Roman Empire did not go on for 1500 years. It began as a republic, and was limited to basically Italy until it defeated the Phoenician Cathaginians, and took over their territories in the first few centuries BC. It didn't become an empire until Caesar's day when the senate began to be replaced by totalitarian emperors. The western empire of Rome began to fall to the Teutons around 450 AD and was basically gone by 550 AD so the Roman Empire itself lasted some 600 years. The Byzantine Greek Empire lived on till conquered by the Muslims. If you are implying that God allowed them to exist because they were virtuous that is nonsense. The Lord's people have always been a minority, and been subject to surrounding countries which at times the Lord used or allowed to scold His people. The Lord has often made His people subject to the kings of the earth - it was by no means because these other countries were virtuous.  For "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." Daniel 4:17.

Well aren't we all innocent as a baby.  So what the heck did you even bring up Sodom for?  First you tell us the reason everyone is gay is because of TV shows and magazines.  When we point out to you that there have been homosexual men since the beginning of time, then you assert that there was less gayness going on 100 years ago. When we point out that in some cultures gay relations were way more acceptable and common than anything like what is going on today.  Then you link their acceptance to being gay to the fall of the Roman empire to the Teutons around 450 ad.  Even by your calculation, their empire lasted 600 years.  And then you pretend that you weren't linking the fall of the Roman empire to their sexual behavior.  And then you dig up this article about a group of archeologists digging around the area of ancient Sodom and throw out the theory that it was the Minoan culture and their wild acceptance of homosexuality that was the culture going on in Sodom, which God destroyed.  So therefore God destroys cities that practice the Minoan culture of rampant homosexuality.  Then you pretend that you never inferred  hmosexual behavior was related to the destruction of Sodom.

Yeah innocent as a baby.  You never did anything.  You never put out ridiculous assumptions about what causes homosexuality and what God will do to any country that has it within their national borders.  The end is coming.  Be ware of all the gays that have embraced their orientation from watching Will and Grace.  Go ahead. say it.  You already have in so many words.

Edited October 20, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

I blame Richard Simmons workout videos back in the 80s.

 

Thank goodness I never watched Richard Simmons.  I would be plagued with having to carry around a feathered boa every place I went.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Thank goodness I never watched Richard Simmons.  I would be plagued with having to carry around a feathered boa every place I went.

Richard Simmons does bring out the Aztec in us all.