New Study Shows Gay Men Have Variation Of DNA Over Straight men

[INVAR]

God makes some of us gay just as He makes most of us straight.  Our free will permits us to choose to be monogamous and faithful, or promiscuous and faithless.   

But some Christians will condemn the homosexual even if he/she chooses the life of monogamy and faithfulness.   That's, well, abominable.

God 'makes' some of us thieves, robbers, rapists and murderers.  Our free will permits us to choose to act on those impulses and behaviors, or restrain ourselves from acting on them because morality teaches that such acts are evil.

But some Christians condemn thievery, robbery, rape and murder, even if the criminal chooses a life of only preying on approved constituencies. That's, well, abominable - as are those who promote deviant behaviors as wholesome, natural and righteous.

[Suppressed]

Do we have anybody with degrees in Biology?

Do we have anybody that has studied DNA, genetics, from any standpoint?

--genealogy
--medical research and treatments
--paternity
--national/regional origins
--criminology
--other

Anybody know what Haplogroups and Haplotypes are? SNPs?
Y-DNA and mt-DNA and autosomal DNA. Epigenetics?

@truth_seeker
Why speak from knowledge when you can pontificate from ignorance?

[Suppressed]

Funny how 1.7% of the population expect to be called normal and to have everyone dance to their tune.

@driftdiver

Red hair might not be normative and only about 1.7% of the population, but it's perfectly normal.  What do you have against redheads forcing us to accept them as they are without dying their hair? 

[Suppressed]

Not really.  Some do display some "homosexual" behaviors, but not consistently.  For instance, cows may mount each other, but it appears to be an attempt to stimulate ovulation in preparation for breeding.

@Sanguine

Actually, some animals form homosexual pair bonds.  Something like a quarter of male black swans form homosexual pair bonds, IIRC. 

[Suppressed]

Several in the family are gay yet they make up about 1% of the population. Guess you live in the Castro district.

@Frank Cannon @Jazzhead


Or, perhaps, there's a genetic link, so it would more likely be concentrated in a family.

That evidence can point either way.

 

[Suppressed]

@Jazzhead
God made us male and female.  Then he told us that sex is between husband and wife in holy matrimony.   Anything outside of that is outside of Gods will.   Why would he "make" us something that is against his will?

@driftdiver

Leviticus 21:16-23
King James Version (KJV):

¹⁶ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

¹⁷ Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

¹⁸ For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

¹⁹ Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

²⁰ Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

²¹ No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

²² He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

²³ Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

Are you denying that He made these "blemished" ones?  If they would "profane" His place, are they of His Will?

If so, why couldn't He create others with "blemishes" that aren't so outward, but are still as accepted as a lame person?

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon @Jazzhead


Or, perhaps, there's a genetic link, so it would more likely be concentrated in a family.

That evidence can point either way.

Or they were raised gay.

[INVAR]

Are you denying that He made these "blemished" ones?  If they would "profane" His place, are they of His Will?

If so, why couldn't He create others with "blemishes" that aren't so outward, but are still as accepted as a lame person?

You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, - Deuteronomy 5:9

The LORD is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.' - Numbers 14:18

Genetic proclivities to certain negative behaviors likely has its roots in the above as well as deformities.  Sin touches everything and has consequences that remain even if the individual repents and is forgiven.

[Sanguine]

@driftdiver, I accept that on this topic you are not able to accept other viewpoints.  That's fine, as long as we all understand that.

[truth_seeker]

@truth_seeker
Why speak from knowledge when you can pontificate from ignorance?

I was initially brought to focus on DNA, by my sister. They wanted a male to take the tests. Y-DNA is males only.

So I do tests, and next she too, wants testing.

So fairly recently we both looked at the subject. She tested with Ancestry, and they do "cousin matching."

The matched people were quickly confirmed to be matches. Empirical results confirming the science.

We were brought up with a grandmother who was a biology professor in the 1920s and a mother with a chemistry degree.

BTW the DNA test for Y-DNA confirms exactly the paper version of our family tree for father line. (Haplogroup I1 in central Sweden) Empirical results confirming science.

Finally those females with science training, also taught us that religion and science were NOT mutually exclusive.

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver, I accept that on this topic you are not able to accept other viewpoints.  That's fine, as long as we all understand that.

@Sanguine

You all act like you have some newly invented view.  You don't, its been tried time after time throughout history.  It doesnt work and it spreads misery.

All people deserve respect and love, but when they are doing wrong it is not proper to call it good.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

You all act like you have some newly invented view.  You don't, its been tried time after time throughout history.  It doesnt work and it spreads misery.

All people deserve respect and love, but when they are doing wrong it is not proper to call it good.

I didn't say a thing about wrong, except that I accept God's ruling on this matter, which is that the action itself is wrong.  I was talking about whether homosexuality was a mere choice or had some genetic/congenital properties.  You, on the other hand, seem to think it's strictly a choice.  I choose to look at it a bit more charitably. 

[driftdiver]

I didn't say a thing about wrong, except that I accept God's ruling on this matter, which is that the action itself is wrong.  I was talking about whether homosexuality was a mere choice or had some genetic/congenital properties.  You, on the other hand, seem to think it's strictly a choice.  I choose to look at it a bit more charitably.

@Sanguine
Nobody wants to accept responsibility for their actions.   Its far easier to blame a gene then to admit that that you've allowed lust, fear, or anger to complicate your life.  Are there probably some exceptions, sure, but far fewer then people here think. If it were as simple as 2 genes it would have been proven long ago.

[mirraflake]

@Sanguine

You all act like you have some newly invented view.  You don't, its been tried time after time throughout history.  It doesnt work and it spreads misery.

All people deserve respect and love, but when they are doing wrong it is not proper to call it good.

For much of human history people we would classify today as severely mentally ill  were killed as demons or witches not that long ago in human history

@driftdiver
@Sanguine

[aligncare]

Where does the gay affect exhibited by some homosexuals come from? Is that learned too? Do homosexual men “act gay” because it’s expected and they choose it? Or could that gay affectation be partly an expression of the gay genome?

[driftdiver]

For much of human history people we would classify today as mentally ill  were killed as demons or witches..

@driftdiver
@Sanguine

yes of course, the knowledge gained in the last 200 years totally outweighs all knowledge gained in the prior milleniums.   Never mind you still cant prove your 'science' using real science.

[musiclady]

Total BS.

@musiclady

Just so you know, because of my past experience with your claim that every male is a pervert and the depth of ugliness you went to to belittle good men, I really don't care what you think about anything that has to do with morality.

So don't bother pinging me again.

I won't respond.

@mirraflake

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine
Nobody wants to accept responsibility for their actions.   Its far easier to blame a gene then to admit that that you've allowed lust, fear, or anger to complicate your life.  Are there probably some exceptions, sure, but far fewer then people here think. If it were as simple as 2 genes it would have been proven long ago.

DNA research is in its infancy.  We are still learning what you have already dismissed.

[truth_seeker]

DNA research is in its infancy.  We are still learning what you have already dismissed.

Correct DNA research is very new. Around 200 years ago medical science still believed "bleeding" was good treatment. 150 years ago diphtheria was treated by gargling kerosene.

The fact we have only early results about DNA is NOT evidence it is flawed science.

Epigenetics is very early and holds great promise in a number of fields.

Not claiming to be an expert, but I doubt the Bible said man would one day fly.

[Restored]

Here's another problem with the "born gay" theory. It isn't logical.

If a man announces he is gay, he was born gay.
If he later announces he isn't gay, he wasn't born gay.
If he later announces he is indeed gay, he was born gay.
If he subsequently announces he isn't gay, he wasn't born gay.

So was he born gay or not? The answer is not based on scientific evidence but solely on HIS opinion at a given time.

[Cripplecreek]

freeper?

Freepers, the new turd burglars for the new era.

[mirraflake]

Here's another problem with the "born gay" theory. It isn't logical.

If a man announces he is gay, he was born gay.
If he later announces he isn't gay, he wasn't born gay.
If he later announces he is indeed gay, he was born gay.
If he subsequently announces he isn't gay, he wasn't born gay.

So was he born gay or not? The answer is not based on scientific evidence but solely on HIS opinion at a given time.

Show a link to a gay man who actually said this.

@Restored

[mirraflake]

Just so you know, because of my past experience with your claim that every male is a pervert and the depth of ugliness you went to to belittle good men, I really don't care what you think about anything that has to do with morality.

So don't bother pinging me again.

I won't respond.

I never said all men. I said a large number of men say crude things with close male friends regarding women they don't do in front of their wives especially when they a few beers in them.

I also said just because a man claims or tries to portray Godliness does not mean he he does the same in private. I then  linked the Christian survey of Christian males who close to 70% said they view porn on a regular basis-these stats were from a pro Christina group. The ones who claim to not to view porn the loudest are the ones wacking off every night to porn.

..and why do you keep bringing up this old argument every chance you can??  Can't you let it go..jeesh.

@musiclady

whoops not supposed to ping music lady.

[Restored]

Show a link to a gay man who actually said this.

@Restored

Thousands of men have switched sides at some point in their life. And most gay men say they are born that way. So I don't understand your point.

How do you know they are born gay? They told you

[musiclady]

I never said all men. I said a large number of men say crude things with close male friends regarding women they don't do in front of their wives especially when they a few beers in them.

I also said just because a man claims or tries to portray Godliness does not mean he he does the same in private. I then  linked the Christian survey of Christian males who close to 70% said they view porn on a regular basis-these stats were from a pro Christina group. The ones who claim to not to view porn the loudest are the ones wacking off every night to porn.

..and why do you keep bringing up this old argument every chance you can??  Can't you let it go..jeesh.

@musiclady

whoops not supposed to ping music lady.

Well, perhaps it's because you never took back the vile things you said, nor apologized for your smears.  It may be old, but it's not gone because you never even acknowledged that you said anything wrong.   And it was ugly.

And I'm not interested in your continuing to defend the smear with your phony data either.

You can be as vile as you want, but don't go smearing others.  SOME men have control over their behavior.  (And I happen to be married to one, whether you like it or not).

But to my point.  I don't care what you think about matters of morality because your perspective is warped.  So your using vile language just because you disagree with me is only one more reason for me not to pay any attention to you.

Perhaps on other issues we can have a mature discussion, but on matters of right and wrong when it comes to morals, nope.

@mirraflake

[mirraflake]

And I'm not interested in your continuing to defend the smear with your phony data either.

The Christian Post survey was phoney??  I don't think so. 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/nearly-two-thirds-of-christian-men-view-porn-monthly-they-are-watching-it-at-same-rate-as-secular-men-says-study-125471/


@musiclady

[musiclady]

The Christian Post survey was phoney??  I don't think so. 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/nearly-two-thirds-of-christian-men-view-porn-monthly-they-are-watching-it-at-same-rate-as-secular-men-says-study-125471/


@musiclady

You made your accusation very, very personal.  It's obvious that you've forgotten how nasty you really got.

I'll happily forgive you, if you ask.......

[Restored]

I'll happily forgive you, if you ask.......

I don't know that I would extend them that much control.

[musiclady]

I don't know that I would extend them that much control.

Perhaps you're right.....

[Sanguine]

Perhaps you're right.....

No, that's not how forgiveness works...

[musiclady]

No, that's not how forgiveness works...

I know, I know........

[Sanguine]

I know, I know........

 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Got something against monogamy and faithful behavior?   

All I'm trying to say is that everyone deserves to be praised or condemned in accordance with their actions as individuals.   What frosts me about the attitudes of (some) Christians is that good folks get labeled "abominations" just because of an aspect of their being they cannot control.   One doesn't choose whether to be gay or straight - that's up to God.  What's up to us is what we choose to make of ourselves, and whether we choose to live by moral precepts.     

God sets those standards, not men.  And 'control' is the same as saying 'freedom to decide'.  God gives us all the rope we need and He expects us to use it wisely.

You can praise queer folks to your hearts content as being 'moral', and maybe I can at times, but someone else is the decider, not you or me.

[bigheadfred]

Are you a human being? Or an animal?

Do you have the intelligence to know the difference?

There are definitely some people who are born with a disposition that bespeaks an abnormality related to their gender. I don't have a problem with that. Do you treat effeminate males or masculine females with derision and disrespect? No. The same as people with Down's or other things they are born with.

As an example, our middle granddaughter was born addicted to opioids. She has some behaviors that are textbook et al. She is NOT being treated with medications. She is being treated with loving kindness and a willow stick.

It is the in your face forced acceptance of other people who are simply defying the Law of Creation and acting like animals, instead of human beings, that I take exceptance to. Do what you want. Do it in private. Put it on front street and try to tell me I am the one that is f u e d up and the fight is on.

[truth_seeker]

Field of "Epigenetics"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

"Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene function that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence.[1] The Greek prefix epi- (ἐπι- "over, outside of, around") in epigenetics implies features that are "on top of" or "in addition to" the traditional genetic basis for inheritance.[2] Epigenetics often refers to changes in a chromosome that affect gene activity and expression, but can also be used to describe any heritable phenotypic change that does not derive from a modification of the genome, such as prions. Such effects on cellular and physiological phenotypic traits may result from external or environmental factors, or be part of normal developmental program. The standard definition of epigenetics requires these alterations to be heritable,[3][4] either in the progeny of cells or of organisms."

[bigheadfred]

Field of "Epigenetics"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

"Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene function that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence.[1] The Greek prefix epi- (ἐπι- "over, outside of, around") in epigenetics implies features that are "on top of" or "in addition to" the traditional genetic basis for inheritance.[2] Epigenetics often refers to changes in a chromosome that affect gene activity and expression, but can also be used to describe any heritable phenotypic change that does not derive from a modification of the genome, such as prions. Such effects on cellular and physiological phenotypic traits may result from external or environmental factors, or be part of normal developmental program. The standard definition of epigenetics requires these alterations to be heritable,[3][4] either in the progeny of cells or of organisms."

Sooo...what is the purpose of immunology?

[roamer_1]

Sooo...what is the purpose of immunology?

Sex with interns, obviously.

[bigheadfred]

Sex with interns, obviously.

Another sheepish reply.

[bigheadfred]

In days of old...

[roamer_1]

Another sheepish reply.

Brings a whole new meaning to 'getting on your woolies'...

 

[bigheadfred]

Brings a whole new meaning to 'getting on your woolies'...

 

Sumpin most people know more about than they would admit.

Surviving the winter of our despair.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Are you a human being? Or an animal?

Do you have the intelligence to know the difference?

There are definitely some people who are born with a disposition that bespeaks an abnormality related to their gender. I don't have a problem with that. Do you treat effeminate males or masculine females with derision and disrespect? No. The same as people with Down's or other things they are born with.

As an example, our middle granddaughter was born addicted to opioids. She has some behaviors that are textbook et al. She is NOT being treated with medications. She is being treated with loving kindness and a willow stick.

It is the in your face forced acceptance of other people who are simply defying the Law of Creation and acting like animals, instead of human beings, that I take exceptance to. Do what you want. Do it in private. Put it on front street and try to tell me I am the one that is f u e d up and the fight is on.

All of that is why God gave us his Bible.

Try reading that and it all clears up for you and others struggling on how to handle things.

[ConstitutionRose]

I went to college in the early 80's and was asked to participate in a couple of studies on the effects of hormones in the womb.  I an a DES baby and on blind tests I am classified as a male.   There are still ongoing studies on the subject and they all seem to come to the same conclusions based on their data.  A mishap in the sequencing of hormones can change the brain structure and one of those changes can be in sex preferences.  (Very brief.)

[Sanguine]

1. Men and women are born with sexual preferences - men for women and women for men, in most cases. 

2. Normal distributions says there are inevitably some on either end that do not fall within the "normal" range.

3. Men and women are different and they are born that way.  See #1 above.

So, men and women would have to be the same if sexual preference is merely a personal choice.  See #1 and #3 above.  If you're born with it, it ain't a choice.  I don't find other women arousing, and I do find some men very much so.  I never had to make a choice about it - it simply is the way I'm made.

So, in order for sexual preference to be a choice, it would have to NOT be an inherent/genetic/congenital/pre-determined sort of trait. And, if it weren't an inherent/genetic/congenital/pre-determined sort of trait, men and women would be the same in this regard. See #1 and #3 above.  We know that is not the case.

Therefore, to have a sexual preference for people of the same gender, one is abnormal (see #2 above) and probably born with it, see #1 above.

Now, there is some choice involved - that of acting upon one's preferences or not.  Just as there is a choice for heterosexuals - sex should only occur within the confines of matrimony.  No marriage, no sex.  Let he or she who is without sin cast the first stone.  (It won't be me - I'm sure not in a position to start collecting stones.)

[bigheadfred]

1. Men and women are born with sexual preferences - men for women and women for men, in most cases. 

2. Normal distributions says there are inevitably some on either end that do not fall within the "normal" range.

3. Men and women are different and they are born that way.  See #1 above.

So, men and women would have to be the same if sexual preference is merely a personal choice.  See #1 and #3 above.  If you're born with it, it ain't a choice.  I don't find other women arousing, and I do find some men very much so.  I never had to make a choice about it - it simply is the way I'm made.

So, in order for sexual preference to be a choice, it would have to NOT be an inherent/genetic/congenital/pre-determined sort of trait. And, if it weren't an inherent/genetic/congenital/pre-determined sort of trait, men and women would be the same in this regard. See #1 and #3 above.  We know that is not the case.

Therefore, to have a sexual preference for people of the same gender, one is abnormal (see #2 above) and probably born with it, see #1 above.

Now, there is some choice involved - that of acting upon one's preferences or not.  Just as there is a choice for heterosexuals - sex should only occur within the confines of matrimony.  No marriage, no sex.  Let he or she who is without sin cast the first stone.  (It won't be me - I'm sure not in a position to start collecting stones.)

I'm sure not in a position to start collecting stones.

Thanks. Another shattered dream.

I admit I had sex with my girlfriend. Six times in one night. A couple of weeks before our wedding "we" had six kids. Born ten minutes apart.

[Oceander]

1. Men and women are born with sexual preferences - men for women and women for men, in most cases. 

2. Normal distributions says there are inevitably some on either end that do not fall within the "normal" range.

3. Men and women are different and they are born that way.  See #1 above.

So, men and women would have to be the same if sexual preference is merely a personal choice.  See #1 and #3 above.  If you're born with it, it ain't a choice.  I don't find other women arousing, and I do find some men very much so.  I never had to make a choice about it - it simply is the way I'm made.

So, in order for sexual preference to be a choice, it would have to NOT be an inherent/genetic/congenital/pre-determined sort of trait. And, if it weren't an inherent/genetic/congenital/pre-determined sort of trait, men and women would be the same in this regard. See #1 and #3 above.  We know that is not the case.

Therefore, to have a sexual preference for people of the same gender, one is abnormal (see #2 above) and probably born with it, see #1 above.

Now, there is some choice involved - that of acting upon one's preferences or not.  Just as there is a choice for heterosexuals - sex should only occur within the confines of matrimony.  No marriage, no sex.  Let he or she who is without sin cast the first stone.  (It won't be me - I'm sure not in a position to start collecting stones.)

[Suppressed]

There are definitely some people who are born with a disposition that bespeaks an abnormality related to their gender.

This is a problem I have with the interpretation many have provided of the Christian God.

He creates many with heavy, cruel burdens that He could relieve in a heartbeat.

If a human tormented, or allowed torment of, children the way God does, we would be rightly reviled.  Yet here we are.

We sit here and read in I Corinthians 7

⁷For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

⁸I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. ⁹But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

and admit that it is unreasonable to expect human beings to contain their passions.  Yet at the same time, God gives men passions for each other and says they can't act on them.  How cruel is that?

Yes, we say kleptomaniacs can't exercise their preferences, and pedophiles can't exercise theirs -- examples where there are victims, and God still allows those cruel passions.  And in the case of victimless homosexual bonding, we have humans opposing it.


It just seems rather ridiculous.

[bigheadfred]

I would that all men were even as I myself.

Now here see. This is so easy it is impossibly hard. Submit to the WILL of God. Give your free will back to the giver. And then you will be as even.

Your burden. If you are so enhanced or enchanted with your own wellbeing that you ignore or turn your head and walk by those who have been burdened with things you haven't been burdened by, because you think no one cares about your burdens, even knowing that a simple act of kindness could change both of your lives and STILL you walk by, knowing that YOU could relieve, in a heartbeat, for them, it benefits both of you, performing an act of God?  And then ask the question you ask.

As an aside, there are a number of kids, not so much kids now, that call me "dad'. Today, the wife and I went grocery shopping. As we were leaving a girl bagging her things said something to my wife. Called her by name, my wife responded calling her by her name. She looked at me and said How you doing, dad? I had a talk with her 10 or 12 years ago when she was a running gunning fool. There are a large number of others. That call me dad. I am a grandpa now and there are times I ask myself--when will I become a man???

[roamer_1]

This is a problem I have with the interpretation many have provided of the Christian God.

He creates many with heavy, cruel burdens that He could relieve in a heartbeat.

No, you are in a quarantine area behind enemy lines. Contractually, humans signed over their rights to the Dark One and the Fallen. You don't understand the authority. Our fight for now is with 'powers and principalities in high places'. The price to purchase it back has been paid... All we need do now is wait for the lease to run out.

If a human tormented, or allowed torment of, children the way God does, we would be rightly reviled.  Yet here we are.

It is not YHWH doing that.

We sit here and read in I Corinthians 7
and admit that it is unreasonable to expect human beings to contain their passions.  Yet at the same time, God gives men passions for each other and says they can't act on them.  How cruel is that?

Those passions are not from him.

Yes, we say kleptomaniacs can't exercise their preferences, and pedophiles can't exercise theirs -- examples where there are victims, and God still allows those cruel passions.  And in the case of victimless homosexual bonding, we have humans opposing it.

NOTHING is 'victimless'.

It just seems rather ridiculous.

you speak from a position of ignorance. Read the Book

[Sanguine]

This is a problem I have with the interpretation many have provided of the Christian God.

He creates many with heavy, cruel burdens that He could relieve in a heartbeat.
...

I agree with you that we should feel compassion for gays; it's a heavy burden.

OK, I'm not the best person to explain this, but I know your questions come from a very real place and are asked earnestly, so I'll try.

I guess the seemingly slightly flippant answer would be: "because that's the world we live in".  That normal distribution curve requires the deviations on each end of the "normal" part of the curve.

Animals who do what they were born to do, tigers eating antelope, elephants pushing over trees to get at the leaves, sharks gnawing on the occasional surfer, etc., are doing exactly what they were designed to do and are not good or bad.

For reasons unknown to us, God decided to imbue us, animals at that point and made of the same "dirt" as were all other living things, with His spirit - his breath.  This created in us a dual nature.  We are children of God, but fully human/animal too.  God directs us to transcend our animal nature and become more like Him, but our physical animal nature wars with that command. 

God gave us instructions as to how to live our lives according to his instructions: Torah.  We are supposed to do our best to live up to God's instructions, and we live in faith knowing that God will reward us.

Hopefully, others wiser than I can add to this.