Why so few homosexuals?

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

It is not the question whether homosexual can become or make Children (not with each other, but with somebody of the opposite sex); but whether can we accept homosexual in and beyond the church? As a person I can accept everybody which is no sexist, racist or anti-Semite. So also homosexual. Only that what they ACT, is against the commandments of God, against the commandments of the church, and a sin which is called in the Bible an abomination. The prophets warn us many times about the sin of  homosexuality.

While I appreciate your feelings, the question of "acceptance" isn't relevant to the secular issue of this thread--i.e Why so few homosexuals?". It also muddies the water when it comes to crafting public policy that actually helps rather than hurts homosexuals and society as a whole. Sadly, the vague notion of "acceptance"  has been instrumental in distracting from and even masking real issues (health and mortality). It has been the means for promoting "abomination."

To me, within the Church, it ought not be about accepting homosexuals, but about gathering and uniting with the family of God. Homosexual identity, as with racial and gender identities, and identity politics in general, ought to be irrelevant. For, in Christ there are neither male or female, rich or poor, bond or free, Greek nor Jew, circumcision or uncircumcised. ( see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Maureen]

On 05/04/2017 at 10:47 AM, wenglund said:

...Yet, if one assumes that homosexuality is genetic, then it can easily be explained by the fact that homosexuals have had heterosexual sex, resulting in offspring....

I will argue that homosexuality is genetic and possibly due to a recessive gene. Which would mean that if one is genetically homosexual then that would mean you would have two copies of this recessive gene, one copy from each parent. Therefore a parent does not need to be homosexual to produce a homosexual child. Very similar to someone who has red hair or CF.

M.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

I will argue that homosexuality is genetic and possibly due to a recessive gene. Which would mean that if one is genetically homosexual then that would mean you would have two copies of this recessive gene, one copy from each parent. Therefore a parent does not need to be homosexual to produce a homosexual child. Very similar to someone who has red hair or CF.

M.

The fact that there is only 20% greater chance of homosexuality for identical twins kind of throws a wrench in the whole homosexual gene thing. If the alleged gene were recessive, as with red hair, then the chances should be closer to, if not 100%,

Here is an alternative theory: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb

Here is another similar theory, though pertinent only to gay men: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9818557

Other studies have attempted to establish a link between handedness and homosexuality, but the results have been mixed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness_and_sexual_orientation

Thanks, -Wade Englund-, 

[Maureen]

25 minutes ago, wenglund said:

The fact that there is only 20% greater chance of homosexuality for identical twins kind of throws a wrench in the whole homosexual gene thing. If the alleged gene were recessive, as with red hair, then the chances should be closer to, if not 100%,...

I doubt very much your 100% idea is correct.

Recessive inheritance works like this:

Autosomal recessive inheritance

Who is “affected”

When both parents are carriers for a recessive disorder, each child has a 1 in 4 (25 percent) chance of inheriting the two changed gene copies. A child who inherits two changed gene copies will be “affected,” meaning the child has the disorder.

There is a 1 in 2 (50 percent) chance that the child will inherit one changed copy and one normal copy of the gene, and therefore be an unaffected carrier (just like the parent).

There is a 1 in 4 (25 percent) chance that the child will inherit both normal copies of a gene, and be unaffected and not a carrier.

If only one parent is a carrier and the other is not, none of the children will have the condition. But each child will have a 50 percent chance of being a carrier.

 

https://www.my46.org/intro/autosomal-recessive-inheritance

 

M.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Maureen

[wenglund]

56 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I doubt very much your 100% idea is correct.

Recessive inheritance works like this:

Autosomal recessive inheritance

Who is “affected”

When both parents are carriers for a recessive disorder, each child has a 1 in 4 (25 percent) chance of inheriting the two changed gene copies. A child who inherits two changed gene copies will be “affected,” meaning the child has the disorder.

There is a 1 in 2 (50 percent) chance that the child will inherit one changed copy and one normal copy of the gene, and therefore be an unaffected carrier (just like the parent).

There is a 1 in 4 (25 percent) chance that the child will inherit both normal copies of a gene, and be unaffected and not a carrier.

If only one parent is a carrier and the other is not, none of the children will have the condition. But each child will have a 50 percent chance of being a carrier.

 

https://www.my46.org/intro/autosomal-recessive-inheritance

 

M.

What part of IDENTICAL twins do you not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 9, 2017 by wenglund

[Maureen]

33 minutes ago, wenglund said:

What part of IDENTICAL twin do you not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A fertilized egg that splits and forms into two embryos should typically share the same genetics, which still only has a 25% chance of inheriting two copies of a recessive gene (and only when both parents each have one recessive gene). But maybe there's a chance that identical twins do not have identical genes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

M.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Maureen
adding to post

[wenglund]

16 minutes ago, Maureen said:

A fertilized egg that splits and forms into two embryos should typically share the same genetics, which still only has a 25% chance of inheriting two copies of a recessive gene. But maybe there's a chance that identical twins do not have identical genes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

M.

Even given what is said in the article, odds are somewhere around 1 in a million where identical twins will have different in hair color, or sckin and eye color: http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/news/a37038/mixed-race-twins-different-skin-colors/

This is no where close to only 20% of identical twins where both are homosexual. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MrShorty]

8 hours ago, Maureen said:

I will argue that homosexuality is genetic and possibly due to a recessive gene. Which would mean that if one is genetically homosexual then that would mean you would have two copies of this recessive gene, one copy from each parent. Therefore a parent does not need to be homosexual to produce a homosexual child. Very similar to someone who has red hair or CF.

M.

The problem here is that, if homosexuality is heritable, it seems pretty clear that it does not follow the simple dominant/recessive single allele model that we all learned in beginning biology. The mechanism for inheratiance, if it is heritable, is fairly complex, probably a mix of alleles, and who knows what other factors figure in. For example, in social animals, there is usually some mechanism (pheremones or some other mechanism) that causes the workers to be asexual (naked mole rats, as mammals, could be an interesting study), but once these "environmental" factors are removed, the asexual females develop a sexual nature until one establishes herself as the new queen. It seems that there are similar suggestions for the development of homosexuality, where it is hypothesized that homosexuality develops in response to hormonal factors and such during gestation. Part of the problem with this discussion is that we have so little understanding (if any) of the mechanism of inheritance, so that it is difficult to establish any kind of explanation.

[Maureen]

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

...Part of the problem with this discussion is that we have so little understanding (if any) of the mechanism of inheritance, so that it is difficult to establish any kind of explanation.

I agree. All we can really do right now is speculate.

M.

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The problem here is that, if homosexuality is heritable, it seems pretty clear that it does not follow the simple dominant/recessive single allele model that we all learned in beginning biology. The mechanism for inheratiance, if it is heritable, is fairly complex, probably a mix of alleles, and who knows what other factors figure in. For example, in social animals, there is usually some mechanism (pheremones or some other mechanism) that causes the workers to be asexual (naked mole rats, as mammals, could be an interesting study), but once these "environmental" factors are removed, the asexual females develop a sexual nature until one establishes herself as the new queen. It seems that there are similar suggestions for the development of homosexuality, where it is hypothesized that homosexuality develops in response to hormonal factors and such during gestation. Part of the problem with this discussion is that we have so little understanding (if any) of the mechanism of inheritance, so that it is difficult to establish any kind of explanation.

Going environmentally from asexual to heterosexual (queen) in insects is quite different from humans having a heterosexual body and homosexual desires, and seems more than a little implausible to me. Whereas, hormonal factors during gestation deserves looking into. 

However, you are right, there isn't enough data to warrant anything more than wild speculation, and besides, not being able to explain the existence of homosexuality in the population isn't necessarily pertinent to explaining why there are so few. Whether homosexuality is product of nature or nurture or a combination of both, their tendency towards non-reproduction and their unhealthy lifestyle, has a way of keeping their numbers few.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-