DiscussMormonism.com

I found an interesting genetics paper that puts a new light on the genetic basis for male homosexuality. The paper is here and it is also discussed in this blog. First of all, the problem:

Homosexuality is found at low frequency all human populations, which is one piece of evidence for a natural biological basis and probably a genetic cause in many homosexual/bisexual individuals. At first glance this creates a paradox: how could genes for homosexuality be maintained across all human populations if homosexuality is counterproductive to gene propagation? Shouldn't those genes die out? A number of LDS defenders have used something like this to argue against the proposal of gay genes. Two examples from prominent MADB posters who repeatedly make this argument:

Confidential Informant wrote:When I say [homosexuality] is aberrant from a biological standpoint, I don't mean that it isn't "supported" by biology (whatever that means) What I am saying is this: It's pretty clear that as a biologicial imperative, procreation is the norm. How much of our evolution has come about because of the incessant push to promulgate the species? Homosexuality represents an aberration from that imperative. In other words, in may be "natural" but it is not "normal."

The "natural-not-normal" equivocation has problems of it's own, but the interesting part of the quote is CI's recognition that homosexuality should be counterproductive to survival of the species, and this is somehow a problem.

Another example:

Bill Hamblin wrote:The fittest are those who reproduce the most--or whose offspring survive in greatest numbers. Therefore, I submit, a purely Darwinian ethos requires all males to be as promiscuous as possible.

My reply to this type of assertion has always been to point out the social insects where a queen and a cohort of males do all the breeding, and most of the population seves other roles that do not involve breeding. And those sterile roles are vital for the survival of the whole colony. This shows that gene propagation and Darwinian mechanisms do not automatically preclude gay genes in humans.

This brings us to the paper "Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality" and William Saletan's blog which gives a good summary of the initial observations:

Saletan wrote:First, male homosexuality occurs at a low but stable frequency in a wide range of societies. Second, the female relatives of gay men produce children at a higher rate than other women do. Third, among these female relatives, those related to the gay man's mother produce children at a higher rate than do those related to his father. Fourth, among the man's male relatives, homosexuality is more common in those related to his mother than in those related to his father.

Okay, so the women related to a gay man produce more children on average, and this is especially true for the women related to the gay man's mother. The authors of the study apply different genetic models to see if anything can account for these patterns. They conclude that the only model that accounts for the above pattern is one that posits a genetic factor for increased androphilia in both males and females that carry the factor. This "gay gene" would actually be an "androphilia gene" that causes men to be attracted to men, reducing their reproductive fitness -- but the upside is that female relatives who carry that same "androphilia gene" also find themselves increasingly attracted to men, resulting in more children. In balance, Darwinian mechanisms can select for the "androphilia gene" based on it's benefits in female reproductive behavior. This is a very interesting concept because it shifts the focus away from gay men, and includes the effects on all the women who also carry the "androphilia gene". (Note, this study says nothing for female homosexuality, but you can imagine a different gene influencing "gynophilia" in both males and females, resulting in lesbians but also male relatives who have more children on average.)

Considering this in the LDS context, maybe there could be a realization that gay men are the flip-side of the DNA coin that supports LDS women in having so many babies. Turning male homosexuals into second class members of the church doesn't seem like a charitable way to pay them back for "accepting" the same genes that make good "help meets" out of their sisters.

This is fascinating! I read one theory as to why there is a low population of homosexuality in some species. If all were breeding then there would be less care givers per offspring and the few that didn't mate were important to the society in the way of foraging, or other necessities. Even in the female side of the equation those that didn't breed, perhaps because not being a dominant female, played an important part in care giving.

Considering this in the LDS context, maybe there could be a realization that gay men are the flip-side of the DNA coin that supports LDS women in having so many babies. Turning male homosexuals into second class members of the church doesn't seem like a charitable way to pay them back for "accepting" the same genes that make good "help meets" out of their sisters.

Considering Ether 12:27 and other similar verses, how would finding out that homosexuality is genetic require the Church to change it's position? Afterall, there is an alcoholism gene and the Church has not changed it's stance in the Word of Wisdom.

Also Bill Hamblin engaged in a trivial is/ought fallacy that seems to be annoyingly common among critics of evolutionary theory. He was talking about an ethos. Just because the more an individual reproduces the more likely that individuals genes will propagate through time, it does not follow that one ought to attempt to propagate one's genes through time.

I remember linking this old post by PZ Myers on homosexuality and evolution to C.I.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... uality.php

It didn't make a dent in his continued use of the argument.

Dude do you think these kind of ideas account for the amount of homosexuality that we see today, especially in high school age girls? My thought is that homosexuality can be genetic, but often times I think it's just people trying to be rebellious, different, and stand out. The hazing from other boys is so bad that I never saw an openly gay boy, but the girls were very "in your face," and in some cases militant about it.

It also seems to me that most gays I see now are really bisexual. They may be gay for a while, then hetero later, or even both at the same time. I haven't met many gay people who don't have hetero tendencies as well.

My other thought is that I believe it an overestimation of religious influence to say that were we to take religion away, all gay people would live in peace and there would be no more homophobes. I think homophobia would be genetically selected for as well because it to could promote survival of the species. The hazing of gay boys is not done by the most religious young men. It's almost like a puerile instinct, just like chiding another for physical or mental weakness. Is that good or bad? I don't think words like moral good and evil really belong in a discussion about evolution. The only question is survival or death. I can see why these nasty behaviors kids display towards each other would be selected for though. Boys haze each other about masturbation and not because their bishop told them. I'm talking about heathen boys who grew up without strong religious influence. Not a one of them would have ever admitted to masturbating to their peers.

BCspace: A genetic basis for homosexuality is not the new point -- that's the old, narrower idea. The new point here is that androphilia is genetic and it happens in both sexes. I don't really expect the Church to change its dogmatic laws based on anything science has to say, but individual members can change their attitudes and stop seeing homosexuality as a disgusting aberration (or a disproof of Darwinism, as Hamblin seemed to think). Male homosexuality is just as normal/natural -- and may have precisely the same causes -- as a woman who wants to make a lot of babies. It makes the Church's attitude seem a little more hypocritical, in my opinion.

(Of course, from a fundamentalistic POV, the Church's laws can never be hypocritical because God decrees right and wrong by divine fiat.)

The Dude wrote: ... but the upside is that female relatives who carry that same "androphilia gene" also find themselves increasingly attracted to men \.

Praise God!
Or, thanks gays, for helping out with something dear to my heart--the female libido.

Interesting! Another theory I read (without genetic studies to back it up) is that homosexuality is genetically related to bisexuality. Bisexuals tend to reproduce earlier than heteros, which would give their line a head start, with a huge reproductive benefit.

ajax18 wrote:
It also seems to me that most gays I see now are really bisexual. They may be gay for a while, then hetero later, or even both at the same time. I haven't met many gay people who don't have hetero tendencies as well.

I am highly suspicious of this. I thought gays were gay and that was what their disposition is. At least that is the theory and that they are born that way. How can some man be both interested in sex with men and women. This I think is perversion. I am open to the idea that a gay man or woman may really have been born that way as much I am am naturally heterosexual, but I think someone being born wanting to be sexual with both sexes is not something one is born with.

BC, I think someone born homosexual is more than simple weakness God give someone to test and try them. This goes to the core of who and what they are. It would be a cruel God to make someone gay then tell them they can never ever have a fulfilling emotional and physical intimate relationship and oh by the way in heaven I will make you normal. This seems to go way beyond alcoholism.

Jason Bourne wrote: How can some man be both interested in sex with men and women. This I think is perversion. I am open to the idea that a gay man or woman may really have been born that way as much I am am naturally heterosexual, but I think someone being born wanting to be sexual with both sexes is not something one is born with.

You are entitled to your opinions but the seem totally arbitrary to me. You could also say blue eyes and brown eyes are natural, but green eyes are indeterminate perversions, or Satanic.

It would be a cruel God to make someone gay then tell them they can never ever have a fulfilling emotional and physical intimate relationship and oh by the way in heaven I will make you normal.

And going along with that, is God going to make the good androphilic women go back to "normal" as well? That would put a kink in the spiritual baby pipeline.