Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[Valjean]

Oh, really? Can they also identify bisexuals, pansexuals (not the same as bisexual), queers (not the same as gay), asexuals, people attracted to trans people, people into BDSM, etc?

No. So far the technology is best at identifying male homosexuals, with a > 80% success rate.
Google.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. So far the technology is best at identifying male homosexuals, with a > 80% success rate.
Google.

I remain skeptical that there are immutable biological differences between those of difference sexual orientations since sexual orientation itself is not immutable and is subject to fluctuation.

 

[Valjean]

I remain skeptical that there are immutable biological differences between those of difference sexual orientations since sexual orientation itself is not immutable and is subject to fluctuation.

Sexual orientation and its basis in brain structure and function
Gay Brains Are Wired Differently Say Scientists
The homosexual brain: Structural and functional difference | Version Daily
The Neuroanatomy of Homosexuality » The Nerve » Boston University

Took all of five minutes.

 

[sealchan]

I don't think you understood my point about one variation that exists. Females are more prolific that have that mutation. They will have more babies in the usual roughly 50/50 mix. There is no change in the number of males being born. Losing the DNA from a few males is not going to be a loss if women are having more babies.

And there are some other factors in evolution besides mutations. But the problem with Lamarckian views is that there is no mechanism identified yet for passing on traits. Darwin's theory predicted something on the order of DNA and it turns out that he was right. Though epigenetics can play a factor, the basic DNA is still there. But there is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind. I do not see much in the way of evidence for Lamarckism and that is a problem with it.

I agree that I have probably missed your point. I'm not sure I understand the context of what you have said regarding how many males vs females are being born.

I have been advised by another poster that Lamarckian is passe, epigenetics is the recognized and accepted name for what I was speaking of.

End the Hype over Epigenetics & Lamarckian Evolution | RealClearScience

 

[sealchan]

So do you believe that sexual orientation is binary--one is either "homosexual" or "heterosexual"?

If you don't believe that, go back and examine the evidence you are referring to. See if those studies are premised on the assumption that sexual orientation is binary.

I'm not making any claim about the full range of sexual orientation...just was making a point against the choice factor for homosexuality even if that only applies in some cases.

 

[sealchan]

Why do you think this? The notion that the truth usually lies somewhere between opposing opinions is facile and, historically, doesn't generally turn out to be the case.
In this case, one side is evidence based and tested, the other isn't even a side, it's a thousand different, untested, folklore-based opinions and legends.
Keep in mind, our natural sexual behavior was forged over millions of years living in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Psychological variability enhanced survival and reproductive success. Some individuals were "programed" for hunting, some for planning or tool making, some to accompany foraging women or remain with them in camp for added security. In bands of hunter-gatherers, these variants: ADHD, homosexuality, depression, &c, were beneficial and selective.
The brother phenomenon has been known for many years. The study in your link is just the latest of many mechanisms known to induce homosexuality, either directly or indirectly.

The "homosexuality is sin" crowd should also be aware that the brains of homosexuals are often physically different from those of heterosexuals. Homosexuals can be identified on CT and fMRI scans. It's not a choice or rebellion against God.
This isn't Lamarkianism, it's epigenetics. No 'evolutionists' deride it.
We have a lot of unused, "junk" DNA; a lot of programming sequences that are turned off but still functional. We still have genes for gills and tails, in fact, so the existence of sequences that could express homosexuality when turned on should come as no surprise.

I think you're trying to fit new facts into a pre-existing world-view, rather than let the facts paint their own picture. Given the facts, why is God or a plan necessary? Where is the evidence for them?

I think that the way I wrote my original post was probably confused. I have a way of expressing myself which is "compressed" and doesn't spell out all the contexts. My apologies to anyone who has been caught up in this lack of clarity.

Thanks for your clarification regarding Lamarck...epigenetics is the word and it is now standard science. I last read about this stuff in the late 80's so yes I am a bit behind.

I won't go into my views on God and faith here so much. But I keep a balance between a creative Christianity and a devout attention to science.

 

[leibowde84]

My apologies...my sentence may have been a bit convoluted...I was thinking of the APA position that came out clearly that there was no association between homosexuality and psychological disorder as they define it.

I take it as a matter of fact that sexual orientation is neither a psychological issue or any kind of moral issue.

I thought that might have been the case. I agree completely.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sexual orientation and its basis in brain structure and function
Gay Brains Are Wired Differently Say Scientists
The homosexual brain: Structural and functional difference | Version Daily
The Neuroanatomy of Homosexuality » The Nerve » Boston University

Took all of five minutes.

I'm aware of the claims.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think that the way I wrote my original post was probably confused. I have a way of expressing myself which is "compressed" and doesn't spell out all the contexts. My apologies to anyone who has been caught up in this lack of clarity.

There's nothing wrong with shortening posts. If they're too long then nobody reads them.

Paul, I believe, in the New Testament definitely comes down against homosexuality but he also was against sex in general. His apocalyptic views didn't pan out either and so Christianity has had to move on from Paul else it would now be extinct altogether.

I think Paul is pushing for a society where everyone is too busy doing good works to play around and that his expectations are that utopia will be obtained shortly by concentrated universal effort. I do not think he is against homosexuality but against wasting any time. He would certainly oppose stoicism (in which the ruling class consists of gay men who play together all day). His comments about a group of people who worship the creation rather than the creator and who are then given over to shameful lusts is I think recounting the exile to Babylon. Recall those banished to Babylon are compelled to eat forbidden foods, shave, etc. This is what Paul refers to.

...and so Christianity has had to move on from Paul else it would now be extinct altogether.

I grasp your intent here. What Christians today lack is context, but also there is commonly a very disjointed view of all of the NT writers. Most people start by reading the NT before anything else, and that causes all kinds of problems as it is advanced material. There's a general feeling the God owes it to us to make it work. At the same time there are a lot of folks who will not tolerate any freedom of interpretation whatsoever, and this combined with a deep level of ignorance ingrained in various creeds, various frozen states of learning, is toxic. The child is underfed and with food that it cannot digest.

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi Subduction Zone (whom I recognize from another forum)

My bone to pick with evolution may be out-dated...back in my college days I had a neurobiology professor who reflected a strict anti-Lamarckian attitude which I didn't have any particular reason to reject. But I had read a book that hinted at possible Lamarckian mechanisms. In the last year or so I have read a couple of articles (in Science News or CNN that point to what I take are legit scientific publications) that suggest some non-random mutation sorts of mechanisms such as the one this article points out. I'm a firm believer that evolution is basically correct but I think that it has some major discoveries ahead of it in the area of how speciation occurs.

As far as the benefit of having homosexual male offspring...i don't doubt that historically a population, perhaps a social population, of mammals might benefit from having an adjustable re-population rate through the frequency of the birth of males would be advantageous. If a population can moderate its growth by capping the occurrence of one of the sexes and its desire to create children then the boom-bust predator-prey cycles can be moderated perhaps.

In the case of humanity we have plenty of children in need of good, safe homes and non-heterosexual couples or families should be seen as a great resource for those children in all ways imaginable including their legal rights to formalize their commitment. As a Christian I regret that the Bible has been an instrument used to argue against this.

Hello, and yes. I've put this information up here before. I think it needs it again.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html

"Researchers at the University of Padua in Italy have previously shown that female relatives of Gay men have 33 percent more children on average then women without gay male relatives. Now these same scientists have also shown the correlation in female relatives of bisexual men.

The researchers posit that unknown genes located on the X chromosome may increase sexual attraction toward men in both males and females. In women, this would theoretically increase the odds of reproducing. It may also explain the question of how (and why) "gay genes" are passed down through generations." Science Illustrated March/April 2009

They propose that the gene variation is on the FEMALE X chromosome (remember a male has an X and Y.)

They propose this gene makes the woman more sexually attracted to men, which means more mating chances, and they have shown that women with gay uncles (for instance) have more children then women without gay relatives!

THIS GIVES THE REASON FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE GENE BEING PASSED ON! IT IS AN ADVANTAGE -- MORE MATING - MORE CHILDREN - A BETTER CHANCE FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THEIR LINES!

When the gene is passed to a male (on that X) he also is extremely attracted to men.
*

The more older brothers, the more likely to be gay

A study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior finds that boys with an average of 2.5 older brothers are twice as likely to be gay, and boys with 4 older brothers are 3 times as likely to be gay, compared to boys with no older brothers. It's not clear why this association exists, but some scientists believe male fetuses may trigger the mother's immune system, which releases antibodies which affect the fetus's brain development. The study found no correlation between lesbians and older sisters. Read the full AFP story on the Sidney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/27/1048653810591.html
*

Pheromone studies have shown that heterosexual men's brains responded sexually only to female pheromones. Gay men's brains responded to MALE pheromones.

That was with pheromones only, no human in the room to trigger the sexual response.

Another recent study has shown differences in the brains of heterosexual and gay men.

“Animal models have indicated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence the sexual orientation of adult humans. Here we examine the androgen-sensitive pattern of finger lengths1, and find evidence that homosexual women are exposed to more prenatal androgen than heterosexual women are; also, men with more than one older brother, who are more likely than first-born males to be homosexual in adulthood, are exposed to more prenatal androgen than eldest sons. Prenatal androgens may therefore influence adult human sexual orientation in both sexes, and a mother's body appears to 'remember' previously carried sons, altering the fetal development of subsequent sons and increasing the likelihood of homosexuality in adulthood.”

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html

PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects

“The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects.”

PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
*

PRENATAL FACTORS 2017
"Many people believe that sexual orientation (homosexuality vs. heterosexuality) is determined by education and social constraints. There are, however, a large number of studies indicating that prenatal factors have an important influence on this critical feature of human sexuality. Sexual orientation is a sexually differentiated trait (over 90% of men are attracted to women and vice versa). In animals and men, many sexually differentiated characteristics are organized during early life by sex steroids, and one can wonder whether the same mechanism also affects human sexual orientation. Two types of evidence support this notion. First, multiple sexually differentiated behavioral, physiological, or even morphological traits are significantly different in homosexual and heterosexual populations. Because some of these traits are known to be organized by prenatal steroids, including testosterone, these differences suggest that homosexual subjects were, on average, exposed to atypical endocrine conditions during development. Second, clinical conditions associated with significant endocrine changes during embryonic life often result in an increased incidence of homosexuality. It seems therefore that the prenatal endocrine environment has a significant influence on human sexual orientation but a large fraction of the variance in this behavioral characteristic remains unexplained to date. Genetic differences affecting behavior either in a direct manner or by changing embryonic hormone secretion or action may also be involved. How these biological prenatal factors interact with postnatal social factors to determine life-long sexual orientation remains to be determined." Minireview: Hormones and Human Sexual Orientation

 

[Ingledsva]

Of course those are the scientific hows.

Then the question becomes why?

And that appears fairly obvious as we have evolution. It has to be an evolutionary advantage for humans.

In times of war and famine, - stress chemicals kicking in and producing more Gay people, - would result in more time to recover and restock food sources with workers that are not breeding new babies, that they can't feed or shelter, or protect. Much better chances of survival.

So Gay people are an evolutionary advantage for humankinds' survival.

If you believe in a God, - then you should be thanking Him/Her/Them for gay people.

*

 

[Nous]

Questions for everyone:

How many people here believe that sexual orientation is binary--that people are either heterosexual or homosexual?

How many people here understand that if sexual orientation is not binary, then the findings of all studies whose methodologies employ the assumption that sexual orientation is binary are false or at least unreliable?

How many people here have looked at the studies they have reference closely enough to determine whether or not the methodologies are premised on the assumption that sexual orientation is binary?

For everyone here who believes that sexual orientation is binary: How do you explain the persistent percentage of people in every modern survey the world over who claim to have sexual attractions other than those represented by a Kinsey 6 or 0? That is, how do you account for the persistent percentage of people who claim to have sexual attractions to both sexes to some degree? See: Demographics of sexual orientation - Wikipedia

For everyone here who believes that sexual orientation is binary: How do you account for the ever-increasing percentage of survey respondents who express sexual attraction toward persons of their own sex (either exclusively or partly)? Again, see: Demographics of sexual orientation - Wikipedia

 

[Nous]

I remain skeptical that there are immutable biological differences between those of difference sexual orientations since sexual orientation itself is not immutable and is subject to fluctuation.

Well said (as usual). You have good reason to be skeptical that there are immutable biological factors that determine sexual orientation. Frankly I suspect that the studies premised on sexual orientation as a binary trait are really for and most gratifying to the self-identifying nuh-uh-no-never-not-me-never-ever-looked-at-another-guy-that-way.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well said (as usual). You have good reason to be skeptical that there are immutable biological factors that determine sexual orientation. Frankly I suspect that the studies premised on sexual orientation as a binary trait are really for and most gratifying to the self-identifying nuh-uh-no-never-not-me-never-ever-looked-at-another-guy-that-way.

Not to mention they curiously affirm the stereotype that gay men are more akin to straight women and lesbians are more akin to straight men (in other words, that gays and lesbians should have their masculinity and femininity called into question), regardless of if the person in question is a he-man type or total lipstick femme. Why does being sexually attracted to a men have to be an inherent trait of women (or attraction to women being an inherent trait of men)? It reminds me of the conflation of homosexualiy and transsexuality, especially the persistant notion that transsexuals are basically "extreme homosexuals".

 

[Nous]

Not to mention they curiously affirm the stereotype that gay men are more akin to straight women and lesbians are more akin to straight men (in other words, that gays and lesbians should have their masculinity and femininity called into question), regardless of if the person in question is a he-man type or total lipstick femme. Why does being sexually attracted to a men have to be an inherent trait of women (or attraction to women being an inherent trait of men)? It reminds me of the conflation of homosexualiy and transsexuality, especially the persistant notion that transsexuals are basically "extreme homosexuals".

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better.

Of course, for a long time--even well before LaVay's study--I bought into the idea that gay men are just heterosexual women with different genitals, and lesbians are heterosexual men. Prior to LaVay, back in the 80s, there was this theory that women who were under great stress during pregnancy is what caused men to be gay. Someone had done a survey and found that the male offspring of women who were pregnant in Germany during WWII were gay at a higher rate compared to some other group of men.

People have been trying to write that Lady Gaga song "Born this way" for 120 years.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better.

Of course, for a long time--even well before LaVay's study--I bought into the idea that gay men are just heterosexual women with different genitals, and lesbians are heterosexual men. Prior to LaVay, back in the 80s, there was this theory that women who were under great stress during pregnancy is what caused men to be gay. Someone had done a survey and found that the male offspring of women who were pregnant in Germany during WWII were gay at a higher rate compared to some other group of men.

People have been trying to write that Lady Gaga song "Born this way" for 120 years.

Yeah, it's a very old stereotype. Even transsexuals ("transgender" being an umbrella term and not all people under it being transsexuals, which is basically a medical term) are all over the place in regards to sexual orientation, like cissexual people are. For example, I'm a female-to-male transsexual and am attracted to people regardless of gender identity or what kind of body they have. It seems that humans are really just sexual opportunists who have preferences, for the most part. This is just a rehash of the "gay gene' theory. Truthfully, it shouldn't matter if sexual orientation is inborn or not in regards to acceptance. It's okay that it's a complicated thing and can't be boiled down to biological determinism.

 

[SomeRandom]

Questions for everyone:

How many people here believe that sexual orientation is binary--that people are either heterosexual or homosexual?

How many people here understand that if sexual orientation is not binary, then the findings of all studies whose methodologies employ the assumption that sexual orientation is binary are false or at least unreliable?

How many people here have looked at the studies they have reference closely enough to determine whether or not the methodologies are premised on the assumption that sexual orientation is binary?

For everyone here who believes that sexual orientation is binary: How do you explain the persistent percentage of people in every modern survey the world over who claim to have sexual attractions other than those represented by a Kinsey 6 or 0? That is, how do you account for the persistent percentage of people who claim to have sexual attractions to both sexes to some degree? See: Demographics of sexual orientation - Wikipedia

For everyone here who believes that sexual orientation is binary: How do you account for the ever-increasing percentage of survey respondents who express sexual attraction toward persons of their own sex (either exclusively or partly)? Again, see: Demographics of sexual orientation - Wikipedia

Doesn't the Kinsey scale prove that sexuality is fluid? I always assumed that studies are merely focusing on (at best) bicurious people who self identify as gay or straight just to be faster and easier. Not literally 6s or 1s or whatever the scale is nowadays. But whatever that's why I'm not a scientist I guess.

 

[Valjean]

Of course sexual orientation is variable, but this doesn't preclude detectable, neurological configurations associated with common orientations along the continuum. A lot of psychological variants display underlying neurological patterns.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The truth of God and the Universe typically, in my view, lies somewhere in the middle of what science or religion has to say about it. Some Christians would argue that God made men and women different to fulfill the role of biological procreation. Most scientists would agree although many would find God an unnecessary addition to the equation.

However, when it comes to homosexuality where the supposedly God given orientation of sexual interest appears to not fit in with the plan for sex taking place in the context reproduction of the human species and of an exclusive life long partnership of caring and loving and mutual sexual interest not brought on by some other psychological disorder (according to the APA), then some Christians cry foul (sin) and condemn "the behavior".

Unfortunately for those Christians more and more science is demonstrating the nature of God's creation and forcing rational people to change their minds about their understanding of God's Will. I came across an article on CNN which describes the result of a study which further indicates the genetic or congenital nature of homosexuality:

Having older brothers tied to being gay, if you're a guy - CNN

Apparently statistical analyses have pointed to an increased likelihood that men with older brothers would turn out to be gay. Such studies led back to the experience of the mother as the likely cause for the increased chance of a child to have a genetic configuration for homosexuality. In these cases homosexuality cannot be a sin as it is a genetic identity and as such for those of faith, a God given trait of that person.

On the science side of things this brings up a challenge for many who see evolution operating exclusively through the DNA and its random mutations. Here it is the presence of anti-bodies in the mother's blood due to a previous experience of the mother (giving birth to a male) that alters the genetic (or genetic expression) of the next male child in her womb. This shows that the experience of an organism can influence the gene level characteristics of that organisms offspring. This breaks the rule that only random mutation is important but the environmental experience of the parent can also be important to the character of the offspring.

This kind of Lamarckism is often derided by evolutionists but it appears that there are scientific studies which are uncovering some Lamarckian mechanisms for evolutionary development. Perhaps these mechanisms can help reduce some of the speed of species development issues that are evident and that "trouble" evolutionary biologists. Trouble, of course, in the sense of evolutionary biologists love such troubles as they are often a short route to great advances in evolutionary theory and not as some creationists try to pose them as fundamental problems for evolutionary theory.

So between homophobia and strict non-Lamarckism lies the truth about what I would call God's plan for us, that we be diverse (Tower of Babel), fruitful and have dominion over the Earth. Often our punishment is our reward in humanities' pursuit of knowledge, a sentiment shared by many religions with respect to the price and privilege of the advance of human knowledge respecting nature and God's creation. What is sin from one perspective (homosexual marriage) is a blessing from another (the basis for a family without the necessity of adding more people to a rapidly over-populating planet.

God is more subtle than any Biblical interpretation or scientific theory can fully describe, but we can use both in sync to help us have meaning and lead better lives.

Fortunately, the path to understanding is clear. Mechanistic evolution dictates that homosexuals are not meant to propagate and are inferior regarding survival.

Jesus Christ died a horrible death on the cross for homosexuals and heterosexuals, then rose from the dead, proving that as we trust in Him, we receive eternal life.

See! That was an easy, simple distinction. Evolutionists are anti-homosexual by definition, Jesus is pro-homosexual by definition.

 

[Nous]

Doesn't the Kinsey scale prove that sexuality is fluid?

The Kinsey scale is just a set of 7 numbers used to record gradations in sexual attraction:

There isn't any standardized set of questions for assessing what number to assign to a person.

I always assumed that studies are merely focusing on (at best) bicurious people who self identify as gay or straight just to be faster and easier.

Some of the biological studies have been referenced above. All of these studies are premised on the idea that sexual orientation is a binary biological or genetic trait. It's nonsense, refuted by cultures such as ancient Greece, where apparently most men (at least of the upper classes) had and enjoyed sexual activity with boys and men from about the age of 14 until mid- or late-20s. Even until the late 20th century, in primitive societies of Melanesia, it seems all males had sex with males, whereas sex with females was apparently more sporadic and considered dangerous.

If it were true that sexual orientation is a biological or genetic trait that governs sexual behavior, then all the same-sex sexual activity among non-human animals needs to be explained.

Humans are rather prudish and unimaginative in our sexual behavior compared to the rest of the animal kingdom: https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X