Mormonophobia and homophobia, part 2

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

As far as insects (like ants and bees)--these are obvious examples where the majority of the group do not reproduce, but their genetic material is passed to the next generation if they contribute as soldiers and workers.

But I've seen scientific literature citing many examples of homosexuality in higher animals, including mammals. Obviously, non-reproductive members of species is a less common phenomenon among higher animals.

There are all kinds of other explanations for the origins of homosexuality. Fraternal birth order definitely correlates with increased chances of being homosexual, perhaps due to maternal immunity issues.

Homosexuality doesn't necessarily HAVE to have any function. It's especially common among birds (if we speak of higher animals), but our closest relative (the bonobo) is also known to engage in homosexual activity.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...gayanimal.html

Below is an excerpt from a summary I wrote on the scientific literature on the origins of homosexuality. I was just curious about the evidence for its origins, and also how this might relate to our theology.

Male homosexuality is partly genetically heritable. Most evidence suggests that genetic transmission occurs from mother to son. Some homosexual men also engage in heterosexual sex, even having children. Interestingly, the vast majority of children of male homosexuals are heterosexual, further suggesting that father-to-son genetic transmission of homosexuality does not occur. In 1993, one group reported that a region of the X chromosome was associated with male homosexuality. Association with the X chromosome would be consistent with maternal inheritance, since a man receives one X chromosome from mother and one Y chromosome from Dad. However, some scientists have had difficulty verifying the association with the X chromosome, leaving this finding somewhat controversial. Nevertheless, additional studies have discovered locations in chromosomes 7, 8, and 10 that are associated with male homosexuality. One might ask: how could genetic transmission on these chromosomes be predominantly from mother to son, especially since a child receives one copy of chromosomes 7, 8, and 10 from mother and a second copy from father? The answer has to do with imprinting, a phenomenon in which a gene is expressed differently depending on whether it is derived from the mother or father.
Doll Houses and Dump Trucks
Adult male homosexuals often exhibit different behaviors in childhood from heterosexuals. During childhood, male homosexuals are more likely to have female-type behavior, and they prefer to play with girls. Androgen insensitivity is a disorder in which a child has female external genitalia, but actually has male internal genitalia (i.e. undescended testicles and a vagina). However, when puberty begins, androgen-insensitive children begin to develop as a typical male. Despite experiencing a completely "female" childhood and upbringing, the vast majority of these individuals are heterosexuals as adults, suggesting that female-typical childhood behavior does not cause homosexuality in the adult. In other words, childhood behavior and upbringing are not sufficient to cause adult homosexuality.
The Physiology of Homosexuality
There are all kinds of physiologic differences between male homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is inconceivable that these physiologic differences could be the result of an individual's choice. For example, homosexual men hit puberty earlier than heterosexual men. A much higher percentage of homosexual men are left-handed. There are many differences in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual men. Homosexual men have certain brain structures that are much more similar to the female brain. During cognitive exams that differentiate based on gender, male homosexuals perform much like females.
Birth Order: The 9th of 10 Children
One of the most convincing phenomena associated with homosexuality is fraternal birth order. This is an environmental contributor to homosexuality, and it has to do with the prenatal environment in the mother's womb. If there are four boys in a family, the oldest has the lowest chance of being homosexual. The second oldest has a 33% greater chance than the oldest boy, and each subsequent male child has an additional 33% increased chance of being homosexual. This means that approximately 1 in 9 homosexuals can attribute their sexual orientation to the fraternal birth order.
Why might birth order play a role? As I mentioned earlier, our DNA is the blueprint for the body. Each gene encodes a single protein, and each protein has its own special function. It might be comparable to a blueprint for a machine (the blueprint being the genes), and the cogs inside the (the proteins being the cogs or machinery that make us tick). A male child has a Y chromosome, which the mother lacks. This means that male children express genes and proteins that are foreign to the mother. In addition, both male and female babies express genes and proteins derived from the father's DNA, which also have some potential to be recognized as foreign by the mother's immune system. As a result, certain proteins are expressed by a fetus, and in particular by a male fetus, that are completely foreign to the mother. The maternal immune system is remarkably suppressed so that foreign proteins expressed in a developing male or female fetus are not rejected by the mother's immune system. A large immune response to the fetus could have serious consequences, but a limited immune response might have less dramatic but meaningful effects.
You might think of the birth order issue a little like immunizations and booster shots. The first time you are immunized against measles, your body produces a relatively weak immune response. However, certain "memory" cells form so that the second time measles virus particles enter your body, a more robust response is generated. A second "booster" shot increases the immune system's capacity to respond to foreign proteins. Each subsequent booster has a similar effect. Every time a mother carries a male child, there are increasing numbers of immune response proteins--called antibodies--which are directed against certain proteins unique to the male fetus. Antibodies have the capacity to neutralize and mark foreign proteins, and they are a primary line of defense. Since a male fetus expresses proteins that are completely foreign to the mother, this can elicit an antibody immune response in the mother. This may be one reason why male fetuses are more likely to die than females before birth. Newborn males with older sisters are larger than male babies with older male siblings. Brain development abnormalities occur more commonly in male babies that have older male siblings. In addition, males are more likely to be left-handed than females and homosexual males are more likely to be left-handed than heterosexual males. Although left-handedness is obviously not a disorder, it is thought to reflect somewhat atypical patterns in brain development. I must emphasize, however, that the maternal immune response hypothesis is just that--a hypothesis. It's certain that an immune response occurs, but it has not been directly demonstrated that this immune response actually causes the fraternal birth order phenomenon. It is important to note that sometimes an oldest male child in a family can be homosexual, so the birth order phenomenon clearly does not explain all homosexuality.

This response is confusing to me. First, you were the one that suggested homosexuality had a purpose. This was in response to Archaea's suggestion that it did not. Here, you retreat from this position stating that it doens't have to have a purpose. DOes it or not?

Second, your post, while interesting, does not address this issue. It might explain why homosexuality exists among males (although it doesn't look like it applies to females) but it doens't address how it might be selected for. Instead, it appears more likely (to me) that it is an evolutionary accident that, due to population success, is not significant enough to select against. For example, if this trait happened with the first male child, then it would be more of an evolutioanry problem. But if it happens with the 7th or 8th or 10th child, those genes are largely expressed in the gene pool and the fact that the homosexual offspring does not breed means little.

Third, I think you are engaging in some unfair anthropomorphism. Comparing a self-aware human adult's deicion to prefer same gender sexual epxerience is not easily nor readily compared to a mouse. It seems much more likely to me that the mouse behavior (or similar behavior in other animals) is more likely to be similar to some human homosexuality but not all, and perhaps not even most. It is a huge leap from a dry-humping male mouse to a leather bar in the Castro. Moreover, the bonobo example is misleading, as Bonobos engae in frequent sexual encounters of all types with both genders and for a variety of purposes.

Fourth, we may have a fialure to clearly describe terms. When you said non-reprodcutive members of a species, I took this to mean members of a species who are designed not to reproduce, such as worker or drone insects (which is consistent with your reference to 'special abilities'). That is their purpose and function. In humans, a homosexual may not reporduce, but he is certainyl able to. A more apt analogy might be to sterile or infertile persons, which obviously doens't play out given your example.

Finally, your post largely if not completely related to male homosexuality but not female homosexuality. Thus it is a rather inadequate explanation on its face for human behavior. I think the behavior we see in humans is much more complicated than what you may see in misguided mice or persistently annoying dogs.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

This response is confusing to me. First, you were the one that suggested homosexuality had a purpose. This was in response to Archaea's suggestion that it did not. Here, you retreat from this position stating that it doens't have to have a purpose. DOes it or not?

Second, your post, while interesting, does not address this issue. It might explain why homosexuality exists among males (although it doesn't look like it applies to females) but it doens't address how it might be selected for. Instead, it appears more likely (to me) that it is an evolutionary accident that, due to population success, is not significant enough to select against. For example, if this trait happened with the first male child, then it would be more of an evolutioanry problem. But if it happens with the 7th or 8th or 10th child, those genes are largely expressed in the gene pool and the fact that the homosexual offspring does not breed means little.

Third, I think you are engaging in some unfair anthropomorphism. Comparing a self-aware human adult's deicion to prefer same gender sexual epxerience is not easily nor readily compared to a mouse. It seems much more likely to me that the mouse behavior (or similar behavior in other animals) is more likely to be similar to some human homosexuality but not all, and perhaps not even most. It is a huge leap from a dry-humping male mouse to a leather bar in the Castro. Moreover, the bonobo example is misleading, as Bonobos engae in frequent sexual encounters of all types with both genders and for a variety of purposes.

Fourth, we may have a fialure to clearly describe terms. When you said non-reprodcutive members of a species, I took this to mean members of a species who are designed not to reproduce, such as worker or drone insects (which is consistent with your reference to 'special abilities'). That is their purpose and function. In humans, a homosexual may not reporduce, but he is certainyl able to. A more apt analogy might be to sterile or infertile persons, which obviously doens't play out given your example.

Finally, your post largely if not completely related to male homosexuality but not female homosexuality. Thus it is a rather inadequate explanation on its face for human behavior. I think the behavior we see in humans is much more complicated than what you may see in misguided mice or persistently annoying dogs.

I'll write more later, but female homosexuality is much less well studied, and that's why I summarized some of the scientific literature on male homosexuality.

I said that homosexuality does not necessarily have a purpose in our species. However, it could have a purpose. It's a hypothesis that it may have a function, as there are non-reproductive members of other species who have specific roles and benefit the species as a whole.

The fact is that we don't know why homosexuality exists. There are lots of hypotheses. Certain genes that confer homosexuality may be very near other genes that conferred (or confer) a significant advantage by a completely independent phenomenon. (Genes that are very close to each other on a chromosome don't segregate, usually.) There are a million other potential explanations, but I don't have time to get into it right now.

Lastly, I don't think it's unfair to compare human homosexual behavior to homosexual behavior in other species. You're right that a lot of animals engage in sexual behavior with both genders. The definition of homosexuality is based on preference. Many animals (including apes) have been described to prefer homosexual interactions, which would make them genuinely gay.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'll write more later, but female homosexuality is much less well studied, and that's why I summarized some of the scientific literature on male homosexuality.

I said that homosexuality does not necessarily have a purpose in our species. However, it could have a purpose. It's a hypothesis that it may have a function, as there are non-reproductive members of other species who have specific roles and benefit the species as a whole.

The fact is that we don't know why homosexuality exists. There are lots of hypotheses. Certain genes that confer homosexuality may be very near other genes that conferred (or confer) a significant advantage by a completely independent phenomenon. (Genes that are very close to each other on a chromosome don't segregate, usually.) There are a million other potential explanations, but I don't have time to get into it right now.

Lastly, I don't think it's unfair to compare human homosexual behavior to homosexual behavior in other species. You're right that a lot of animals engage in sexual behavior with both genders. The definition of homosexuality is based on preference. Many animals (including apes) have been described to prefer homosexual interactions, which would make them genuinely gay.

Bottom line is we don't know if it is selected for or not (as opposed to it being an accidental by-product). WHat role do homosexuals serve? I agree they could, but I don't see that you have explained what it could be. It may not be unfair to compare other animals to humans, but I think it may be misleading and of little value. Finally, you assert that homosexuality is "conferred" genetically. I don't think the evidence is that strong. It is not a trait like eye color. Moreover, the mechanism you described in your earlier post describes an accidental process (immunological response) as opposed to a selected genetic trait.

I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I think you and most people that discuss this politically and socially charged issue need to be very careful in drawing conclusions about the cause, purpose and nature of homosexuality.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I don't think the evidence is that strong. It is not a trait like eye color. Moreover, the mechanism you described in your earlier post describes an accidental process (immunological response) as opposed to a selected genetic trait.

Not even eye color is as simple as they teach it in 9th grade biology classes. The evidence for genetic links to homosexuality is pretty strong. It's not a simple genetic issue, though. Very few genetic issues are simple (i.e. single gene). There are both genetic and environmental factors that increase the likelihood of homosexuality, and the environmental factors that have been described occur before birth.

Originally Posted by creekster

I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I think you and most people that discuss this politically and socially charged issue need to be very careful in drawing conclusions about the cause, purpose and nature of homosexuality.

I never drew a conclusion about the purpose of homosexuality. I just hypothesized about it, and I think I was pretty clear about it being a hypothesis.

I never said we completely understand "the cause" of homosexuality.

But there are definite, undeniable biologic and physiologic phenomena which confirm that homosexuality is not a choice, and that homosexuality exists as a result of both genetic and environmental factors. We just don't completely understand all of those factors. But factors like fraternal birth order are undeniable.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Not even eye color is as simple as they teach it in 9th grade biology classes. The evidence for genetic links to homosexuality is pretty strong. It's not a simple genetic issue, though. Very few genetic issues are simple (i.e. single gene). There are both genetic and environmental factors that increase the likelihood of homosexuality, and the environmental factors that have been described occur before birth.

PArdon my 9th grade sounding comments, but you have yet to explain whether or not you think this genetic manifestation is selected for or if its an incidental result of other selected traits. Among other problems I had with your comment is the notion that homosexuality among humans is explained by a genetic cause. I think it is far more complex than that ands spans the spectrum from a genetic inclination to a simple choice.

I never drew a conclusion about the purpose of homosexuality. I just hypothesized about it, and I think I was pretty clear about it being a hypothesis.

I don't understand your hypothesis here. It's not like a drone, it's for what purpose? Is it selected?

I never said we completely understand "the cause" of homosexuality.

But there are definite, undeniable biologic and physiologic phenomena which confirm that homosexuality is not a choice, and that homosexuality exists as a result of both genetic and environmental factors. We just don't completely understand all of those factors. But factors like fraternal birth order are undeniable.

[/quote]

That is a sloppy statement, IMO. There are undeniable correlations between certain factors and the likelihood of homosexual preference in some individuals, but this is not a correct description of all instances of homosexual behavior, and this should be remembered when analyzing the issue

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

PArdon my 9th grade sounding comments, but you have yet to explain whether or not you think this genetic manifestation is selected for or if its an incidental result of other selected traits. Among other problems I had with your comment is the notion that homosexuality among humans is explained by a genetic cause. I think it is far more complex than that ands spans the spectrum from a genetic inclination to a simple choice.

I don't understand your hypothesis here. It's not like a drone, it's for what purpose? Is it selected?

That is a sloppy statement, IMO. There are undeniable correlations between certain factors and the likelihood of homosexual preference in some individuals, but this is not a correct description of all instances of homosexual behavior, and this should be remembered when analyzing the issue[/quote]

One of the issues which Sooner fails to discuss is the factor that in the animal kingdom, homosexuality is often not about sex, but dominance. If an alpha male can submit beta, gamma and omega males, he can assert his dominance.

Second, because of the self-awareness, the epistemology of man, a comparison along any lines is necessarily bad.

Finally Sooner ignores the incidence whether accidental or other.

It appears the complexity of homosexuality is not truly given to the political soundbite. As you noted an element of cognitive choice can exist, save for example in bicurious individuals.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I don't understand your hypothesis here. It's not like a drone, it's for what purpose? Is it selected?

I'm not claiming to have a hypothesis. I was simply explaining the possibilities. Maybe that's why you don't understand my hypothesis.

Lots of traits that could be considered "negative" are selected for because they are located on chromosomes next to genes which are very "positive," and genes that are very close to each other do not segregate. This is one possibility which would explain why homosexuality exists. There is reasonably good evidence for genetic links on several chromosomes.

Genetics and environmental factors are incredibly complicated. My main point in all of my writing is that there are definite genetic and environmental causes of homosexuality. I am not claiming that the same environmental and genetic causes apply in all homosexuals. Fraternal birth order is a classic example. First-born sons are sometimes homosexual, but the 9th of 10 boys is MUCH more likely to be homosexual.

Twin studies (including twins separated at birth) is another great example of the genetic evidence. If one twin is gay, the other is also very likely to be gay--much higher than the likelihood of fraternal twins being gay.

Originally Posted by creekster

That is a sloppy statement, IMO. There are undeniable correlations between certain factors and the likelihood of homosexual preference in some individuals, but this is not a correct description of all instances of homosexual behavior, and this should be remembered when analyzing the issue

I wasn't trying to describe every last instance of homosexual behavior.

I think you're not speaking as if there is a difference between behavior and preference. The medical definition of homosexuality is a preference, not a behavior. Just because a person or an animal engages in homosexual behavior, the person or animal is not necessarily homosexual. Medicine and science define homosexuality based on preference, and that is the definition I am using.

There are many cases of apes which prefer the same sex, and will actually avoid the opposite sex. So I don't see why you're complaining about analogies with the animal kingdom, etc. I completely disagree with the arguments that homosexual preference is somehow unique to humans.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'm not claiming to have a hypothesis. I was simply explaining the possibilities. Maybe that's why you don't understand my hypothesis.

Lots of traits that could be considered "negative" are selected for because they are located on chromosomes next to genes which are very "positive," and genes that are very close to each other do not segregate. This is one possibility which would explain why homosexuality exists. There is reasonably good evidence for genetic links on several chromosomes.

Genetics and environmental factors are incredibly complicated. My main point in all of my writing is that there are definite genetic and environmental causes of homosexuality. I am not claiming that the same environmental and genetic causes apply in all homosexuals. Fraternal birth order is a classic example. First-born sons are sometimes homosexual, but the 9th of 10 boys is MUCH more likely to be homosexual.

Twin studies (including twins separated at birth) is another great example of the genetic evidence. If one twin is gay, the other is also very likely to be gay--much higher than the likelihood of fraternal twins being gay.

SO that takes us right back to "I don't know" which is perfectly understandable.

I wasn't trying to describe every last instance of homosexual behavior.

I think you're not speaking as if there is a difference between behavior and preference. The medical definition of homosexuality is a preference, not a behavior. Just because a person or an animal engages in homosexual behavior, the person or animal is not necessarily homosexual. Medicine and science define homosexuality based on preference, and that is the definition I am using.

There are many cases of apes which prefer the same sex, and will actually avoid the opposite sex. So I don't see why you're complaining about analogies with the animal kingdom, etc. I completely disagree with the arguments that homosexual preference is somehow unique to humans.

I think the point is that the notion of preference for a self-aware human is a lot different than it is for a mouse or a dog. Prefernce is not unique to humans, but their consciousness is, so analgoies to other animals will, by this distinction alone (and there are probabyl others), be of limited value.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I think the point is that the notion of preference for a self-aware human is a lot different than it is for a mouse or a dog. Prefernce is not unique to humans, but their consciousness is, so analgoies to other animals will, by this distinction alone (and there are probabyl others), be of limited value.

What about apes that can communicate with humans by sign language and exhibit complex social behaviors. Do they have consciousness?

I see your point, but I think self-awareness is irrelevant here, partly because I don't think homosexuality is a choice.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

What about apes that can communicate with humans by sign language and exhibit complex social behaviors. Do they have consciousness?

I see your point, but I think self-awareness is irrelevant here, partly because I don't think homosexuality is a choice.

Sexuality, especially in our modern world, is very complicated. You may be right that for many males (recall your material was limited to the less fair half of our species) there is no choice. For others, however, they may have a preference but the preference is a choice. I simply think that the palette is broad and full of a wide variety of hues among humans in a way that it is not among animals.

I could be wrong.