A Need to Know

[Bensalem]

Let me see if I understand your daughters position correctly. She believes that homosexuality is a trait that was (and can only be developed) through genetic evolution? Really?

The Traveler

Her learned position is that the scientific literature is leaning toward a genetic link. That basically we are born gay or straight. That it is not a matter of personal choice. That the environmental and social influences work to either support or contradict that which is biologically decided.

That is what is being taught at the undergraduate and graduate university levels. Really.

[Bensalem]

Traveler is hinting I the point that came to me while reading.

How can Homosexually be a trait only developed through genetic evolution (aka passing from one generation to another)? When it make for a clear tendency of whoever gets the trait to not have offspring. By its very nature Homosexually should be deselected out of the gene pool in a very few generations, if that is what it was.

You and 'Traveler' make a good point against the continuation of the trait as a purely genetic factor.

However, scientific discoveries have found that there is a secondary "influencer" over the genetic code. I've heard it compared to the relationship between computer hardware and software. The hardware here is the DNA and the software is this other determiner of the ultimate outcome. It has a name but I forget it.

It was described as a chemical library, perhaps of enzymes or hormones or proteins, that trigger the DNA to reproduce itself with a predominate trait. My wife, who is a nurse, suggests it is like being born with a predisposition to acquiring lupus or cancer, which is genetic. But not everyone will get lupus or cancer.

Supposedly, the science supports something along those lines for the acquisition of homosexuality.

[Traveler]

Her learned position is that the scientific literature is leaning toward a genetic link. That basically we are born gay or straight. That it is not a matter of personal choice. That the environmental and social influences work to either support or contradict that which is biologically decided.

That is what is being taught at the undergraduate and graduate university levels. Really.

During the 50’s and 60’s there was scientific literature leaning toward the conclusion that smoking cigarettes was beneficial.

One of the biggest objections I have concerning those that argue for homosexuality - is the argument that no one actually has any choice. So my response to that is - then we all agree that if there is any possibility (however remote) that there is any choice - then being a homosexual is a very bad choice?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

You and 'Traveler' make a good point against the continuation of the trait as a purely genetic factor.

However, scientific discoveries have found that there is a secondary "influencer" over the genetic code. I've heard it compared to the relationship between computer hardware and software. The hardware here is the DNA and the software is this other determiner of the ultimate outcome. It has a name but I forget it.

It was described as a chemical library, perhaps of enzymes or hormones or proteins, that trigger the DNA to reproduce itself with a predominate trait. My wife, who is a nurse, suggests it is like being born with a predisposition to acquiring lupus or cancer, which is genetic. But not everyone will get lupus or cancer.

Supposedly, the science supports something along those lines for the acquisition of homosexuality.

During the Vietnam era I spent some time with military intelligence. We were working on interrogation and brainwashing techniques. We were instructed that any cognitive behavior can be modified. This was based on the scientific work of Pavlov and Skinner. We also studied the theories of Joseph Goebbels. I know of no scientific study that claims that under no circumstance can certain cognitive behaviors not be changed.

If someone is claiming that sexual behavior is not cognitive - I would challenge that theory in a heartbeat - how do they know they have same sex attractions if they are not aware of their attraction?

Admittedly in complex behaviors there are possibilities that there are both cognitive and non-cognitive “triggers” taking place. But again if someone is aware of their attraction - there is no way that part is a non-cognitive trigger. Like a salivating dog at a light turned on a person’s sexual response is based on a cognitive trigger that is acquired.

BTW there has been a great deal of scientific study done by animal breeders that indicate that sexual behavior in higher life forms is acquired and successful breeding must include several factors - including social encouragement (training) through the species own society.

The Traveler

Edited July 16, 2012 by Traveler

[Misshalfway]

BTW there has been a great deal of scientific study done by animal breeders that indicate that sexual behavior in higher life forms is acquired and successful breeding must include several factors - including social encouragement (training) through the species own society.

The Traveler

This is really interesting. Would you mind sharing the reference? If possible.

[Guest]

I don't believe any baby is born with a bad temper, maybe with colic or a headache.

You would be mistaken. I was born with the "psychological disorder" in my physiological reactions to emotional stimuli that triggers anger. Basically, I have a not-angry state and a very-angry state. Almost non-existent in-between. And yeah, there are a thousand shades of it - manic depression, bipolar, oppositional defiance disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, etc. etc. Doctors can't quite put a finger on it. And I don't remember a time when I didn't have this problem. I was very very young when I threw a knife at my sister.

There are times when I think it would have been easier for me if I was born homosexual instead of whatever this thing is that I have. At least, I wouldn't be in danger of killing anyone if I lose control of it.

[Bensalem]

You would be mistaken. I was born with the "psychological disorder" in my physiological reactions to emotional stimuli that triggers anger. Basically, I have a not-angry state and a very-angry state. Almost non-existent in-between. And yeah, there are a thousand shades of it - manic depression, bipolar, oppositional defiance disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, etc. etc. Doctors can't quite put a finger on it. And I don't remember a time when I didn't have this problem. I was very very young when I threw a knife at my sister.

There are times when I think it would have been easier for me if I was born homosexual instead of whatever this thing is that I have. At least, I wouldn't be in danger of killing anyone if I lose control of it.

Okay, I stand corrected. Creation is not perfect. I hope you are not angry with God.

[Bensalem]

During the Vietnam era I spent some time with military intelligence. We were working on interrogation and brainwashing techniques. We were instructed that any cognitive behavior can be modified. This was based on the scientific work of Pavlov and Skinner. We also studied the theories of Joseph Goebbels. I know of no scientific study that claims that under no circumstance can certain cognitive behaviors not be changed.

If someone is claiming that sexual behavior is not cognitive - I would challenge that theory in a heartbeat - how do they know they have same sex attractions if they are not aware of their attraction?

Admittedly in complex behaviors there are possibilities that there are both cognitive and non-cognitive “triggers” taking place. But again if someone is aware of their attraction - there is no way that part is a non-cognitive trigger. Like a salivating dog at a light turned on a person’s sexual response is based on a cognitive trigger that is acquired.

BTW there has been a great deal of scientific study done by animal breeders that indicate that sexual behavior in higher life forms is acquired and successful breeding must include several factors - including social encouragement (training) through the species own society.

The Traveler

I emailed my daughter a link to this thread with some of the conclusions. I can only hope she reads it and applies it within her other educational influences.

[Bensalem]

During the 50’s and 60’s there was scientific literature leaning toward the conclusion that smoking cigarettes was beneficial.

One of the biggest objections I have concerning those that argue for homosexuality - is the argument that no one actually has any choice. So my response to that is - then we all agree that if there is any possibility (however remote) that there is any choice - then being a homosexual is a very bad choice?

The Traveler

Yeah, I saw a cigarette add promoting their use as a treatment for asthma.

One of my points was that science changes and is imperfect, while God does not change and is perfect.

[Guest]

Okay, I stand corrected. Creation is not perfect. I hope you are not angry with God.

Of course not. I chose to be here and knew what I was getting into. I just have to trust my pre-mortal self and hang my faith on the Atonement of Christ to see me through. "He won't give me what I can't bear" and all that... I'm even coping meds free! Yeay me.

So, you see how I can look at homosexuality and say - meh. No big deal*. So you're born with it. Now deal. The only issue therefore is if you believe in the doctrine. Because, the gospel is not ala carte. It's either you believe it's true or you don't. So, if you believe it's true, then you deal. If you don't believe it's true, there's no point in discussing the origins of homosexuality or what have you if the purpose is just to make you feel better about choosing to have sex with somebody of your own gender.

* I don't mean to say it's not a big deal, because, yeah, these types of things are very big deals. I'm trying to say, it's no big deal just like having anger problems is no big deal - I too have the power to overcome it.

Edited July 17, 2012 by anatess

[skalenfehl]

We are all born with trials, afflictions and various conditions. It is how God created us for the sole purpose of coming unto Him. He is ready to heal us and can heal us and will heal us if we only come to Him with a full purpose of heart. We have but to believe and act. There is nothing that Christ cannot heal.

27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Traveler is hinting I the point that came to me while reading.

How can Homosexually be a trait only developed through genetic evolution (aka passing from one generation to another)? When it make for a clear tendency of whoever gets the trait to not have offspring. By its very nature Homosexually should be deselected out of the gene pool in a very few generations, if that is what it was.

In the same way one can have a genetic cause for infertility.

The process of genetics in this corrupted world, fallen from the paradisical world as created is that of corruption. Genes passed on to offspring are not identical copies or even 50% from one and 50% from the other parent. There are many genes that are directly passed but there is also mutation, duplication, inversion, deletion, chromosomal crossover etc etc. There is a certain rate of error, or in religious terms we say "corruption".

We all have corrupted bodies as a part of the fall of Adam and Eve. Fortunately, the corruption will be removed with resurrection and be "restored" to its original state, the way God created it in the first place, one Man and one Woman. (At least that is what we are led to believe by the stories of creation, that there was only one copy of each created.)

[Seminarysnoozer]

You and 'Traveler' make a good point against the continuation of the trait as a purely genetic factor.

However, scientific discoveries have found that there is a secondary "influencer" over the genetic code. I've heard it compared to the relationship between computer hardware and software. The hardware here is the DNA and the software is this other determiner of the ultimate outcome. It has a name but I forget it.

It was described as a chemical library, perhaps of enzymes or hormones or proteins, that trigger the DNA to reproduce itself with a predominate trait. My wife, who is a nurse, suggests it is like being born with a predisposition to acquiring lupus or cancer, which is genetic. But not everyone will get lupus or cancer.

Supposedly, the science supports something along those lines for the acquisition of homosexuality.

Genetic penetrance.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Okay, I stand corrected. Creation is not perfect. I hope you are not angry with God.

Creation is perfect but we were not talking about creation we were talking about corruption after the fall.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think you always want to keep in mind one very important fact when talking about these kinds of things, that is that we are dual beings, both body and spirit. And in this life the body does not match the spirit in any kind of one to one relationship that we can define on our own. Valiant souls are born with Down's syndrome and some die with genetic disease that kills them before the age of 8. Just because Moses had a hard time speaking in front of groups while here in this life doesn't mean that was a spiritual trait of his. And Paul's thorn in the side was one that he realized he didn't have to desire to get rid of it, that he could live with it and do just fine.

Nobody's body in this life is perfect and nobody's body matches with their spiritual make up. This is what creates the conflict, the opposition (at least in part) for the test we face here. But we are not our body. The problem exists though when we fall in love with things that are carnal, including ourselves. If we love the carnal more than the spiritual, we are in trouble. One of Satan's tools is to make people feel defensive about their physical being, 'this is who I am', 'this is the way God made me', 'I was born this way' ... and this often times leads to the prideful statement of 'therefore this is the way I am supposed to be' and then they learn to be satisfied with the corruption they were given and give up the desire to be like God. Anything that pulls away from the desire to be like God leads to misery, including falling in love with the way one is during their probationary state no matter what the set of traits ... "I am a doctor" or "I am a professional football player" or "I am a scientist" or "I am a famous artist" or "I am a homosexual" etc. We shouldn't claim for our self any temporary stewardship we are given here, it doesn't belong to us, which includes the body and all of it's traits. We should really only love the idea of being a child of God, to continue on that pathway.

[annewandering]

As to genetics. Please tell me how a boy who was repeatedly raped by a male comes to view himself as homosexual? Do homosexuals have a sixth sense telling them what children are ok to rape because they are already homosexual? How can it be explained by genes? Makes the whole idea silly to me.

Our environment schools us in many of the things that sexually excite us. Abnormal psychology sees that all the time. (Do genes determine the desire to have sex involving bicycle seats?)

[Bensalem]

I think you always want to keep in mind one very important fact when talking about these kinds of things, that is that we are dual beings, both body and spirit. And in this life the body does not match the spirit in any kind of one to one relationship that we can define on our own. Valiant souls are born with Down's syndrome and some die with genetic disease that kills them before the age of 8. Just because Moses had a hard time speaking in front of groups while here in this life doesn't mean that was a spiritual trait of his. And Paul's thorn in the side was one that he realized he didn't have to desire to get rid of it, that he could live with it and do just fine.

Nobody's body in this life is perfect and nobody's body matches with their spiritual make up. This is what creates the conflict, the opposition (at least in part) for the test we face here. But we are not our body. The problem exists though when we fall in love with things that are carnal, including ourselves. If we love the carnal more than the spiritual, we are in trouble. One of Satan's tools is to make people feel defensive about their physical being, 'this is who I am', 'this is the way God made me', 'I was born this way' ... and this often times leads to the prideful statement of 'therefore this is the way I am supposed to be' and then they learn to be satisfied with the corruption they were given and give up the desire to be like God. Anything that pulls away from the desire to be like God leads to misery, including falling in love with the way one is during their probationary state no matter what the set of traits ... "I am a doctor" or "I am a professional football player" or "I am a scientist" or "I am a famous artist" or "I am a homosexual" etc. We shouldn't claim for our self any temporary stewardship we are given here, it doesn't belong to us, which includes the body and all of it's traits. We should really only love the idea of being a child of God, to continue on that pathway.

Thanks for your input. I especially like the idea that some lose track of the goal to "be like God".

[Bensalem]

As to genetics. Please tell me how a boy who was repeatedly raped by a male comes to view himself as homosexual? Do homosexuals have a sixth sense telling them what children are ok to rape because they are already homosexual? How can it be explained by genes? Makes the whole idea silly to me.

Our environment schools us in many of the things that sexually excite us. Abnormal psychology sees that all the time. (Do genes determine the desire to have sex involving bicycle seats?)

I certainly believe in environmental and social influences, but doesn't abnormal psychology include biological factors, which may lead back to genetic traits or tendencies?

[Bensalem]

Creation is perfect but we were not talking about creation we were talking about corruption after the fall.

Right, His creation was perfect before the introduction of fallen man. Nature would be just fine without us.

[Seminarysnoozer]

During the Vietnam era I spent some time with military intelligence. We were working on interrogation and brainwashing techniques. We were instructed that any cognitive behavior can be modified. This was based on the scientific work of Pavlov and Skinner. We also studied the theories of Joseph Goebbels. I know of no scientific study that claims that under no circumstance can certain cognitive behaviors not be changed.

If someone is claiming that sexual behavior is not cognitive - I would challenge that theory in a heartbeat - how do they know they have same sex attractions if they are not aware of their attraction?

Admittedly in complex behaviors there are possibilities that there are both cognitive and non-cognitive “triggers” taking place. But again if someone is aware of their attraction - there is no way that part is a non-cognitive trigger. Like a salivating dog at a light turned on a person’s sexual response is based on a cognitive trigger that is acquired.

BTW there has been a great deal of scientific study done by animal breeders that indicate that sexual behavior in higher life forms is acquired and successful breeding must include several factors - including social encouragement (training) through the species own society.

The Traveler

A person's perception of what the brain is doing at any given moment is worse than your ability to see every little calculation your computer is doing by watching the screen right now. Conscious awareness, if that is what you mean by cognition (not sure), is a very small part of what the brain does if one were to take into account all the pathways that modify perception and put it into a reasonable package that ends up being conscious awareness. By the time we are aware of that perception it has been modified, altered, affected by current state of mind including hormonal influences and other distractions, summarized and even a lot of times made up de novo by the brain.

Just because a neuron is firing that does not mean it is perceived in what we call conscious awareness.

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

As in all things it all comes down to choice and how we choose to follow the laws of God. We can be like Nephi and know that the Lord gives us no commandment we can't keep, or we can be like the world that teaches that "if it feels good, do it". One leads to life eternal, the other to an eternal separation from the fullness of God's glory. We have to decide for ourselves which is most important to us... fleeting pleasure or a fullness of joy that will last forever.

[Guest]

We have to decide for ourselves which is most important to us... fleeting pleasure or a fullness of joy that will last forever.

But first, we have to go through the process of believing that engaging in homosexual activity is fleeting pleasure and that abstaining from it leads to fullness of joy... without that testimony, it's hard to see the fruit of the choice.

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

But first, we have to go through the process of believing that engaging in homosexual activity is fleeting pleasure and that abstaining from it leads to fullness of joy... without that testimony, it's hard to see the fruit of the choice.

I was under the impression that the thread was geared towards those who believe in God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To make such a claim and yet reject the clear dictates of God is rebellion. Wickedness never was happiness. The response I gave is the only reasonable response to the OP. The church has no need to try to justify their position "in light of science."... God's laws are God's laws. Accept them or reject them. It's rather simple.

[Vort]

I maintain there is nothing illogical about living the gospel. Most of those who hate the Church and insist that gospel obedience is "illogical" either don't have any idea what the word means or are dishonestly using it.

[Bensalem]

I maintain there is nothing illogical about living the gospel. Most of those who hate the Church and insist that gospel obedience is "illogical" either don't have any idea what the word means or are dishonestly using it.

To many, the concept of God is illogical.