Homophobia

Let me clarify. When I said "a genetic link is pretty firmly established at this point(also some environmental factors)" I was referring to causation not the reason for. As it happens I don't know of any study showing anything about the reproductive fitness of people with close homosexual relatives.

I would disagree about a possible selection process eliminating homosexuals though for three reasons:

One: Bisexuals, the problem this produces is self evident

Two: Homosexuality in humans is not even remotely simple, there is no single gene or environmental factor which determines sexual orientation in humans. In other species this is not necessarily true. However the point here is that even if all the Adams and Eves where heterosexual there is no reason to assume that there descendants would also all be heterosexual.

Three: It has rarely been a problem to get people to have more babies until recent times. Frankly, people like sex, allot and before birth control that meant having children, allot. So I don't see a five percent or so 'infertility' among males(and less among females) as being much of a problem. Especially as Operation Ark was planned to give the colonists a high tech base than Langhorn gave them, and even with what Langhorn did they still have medicine(especially public medicine) advanced to a level not seen IRL until at least the 19th century and in some ways(like sewage in large cities) better than many industrial nations managed even into the start of the 20th century. So I don't think population growth is a problem.

From what is implied (my understanding), the CoGA is similar to Roman Catholic leadership, with Eastern Orthordox, Anglican, & some Eastern Rites Catholic combined with a little Judaism and Muslim teachings. Thus we have the teaching of Moses (the lawgiver): "If a man lies with another man, ... ... both shall be put to death."
Refer to the terms: Adams, Eves, Archangels, Temple Followers. Faithful, Reformists, Church of Charis, Vicar, Inquisition, Zion, Jihad, etc.

TN4994, your wrong.

The Church of God Awaiting is not the Roman Catholic Church in a different suit or any other religion. Let me list some of the differences between the Church of God Awaiting and any religion based in any way on the old testament. (Which includes all of the religions/sects you mentioned.

1: The holy write has instructions on agriculture and medicine which are completely accurate. While the old testament has a spell for curing various rashes by dipping one bird in a another bird's blood twirling it around(there is more to it but that is the gist)

2: The church of god awaiting was created out of whole cloth. The are references to parts taken from other religions but you need to remember that the CoGA was created by Langhorn and his adherents in one go and they had no reason to include extraneous passages talking about homosexuality. An example of this is the lack of reference to any passages about slavery(which has been brought up in text as a religious issue, see OAR), which if the old or new testament were used wholesale in the creation of the holy write, would be in there.

3: The CoGA was lead by 'actual' angels for several centuries who would have had plenty of time to correct typos or remove bugs. Not perfectly, but they could remove things like "If a man lies with another man, ... ... both shall be put to death." as unnecessary and possible annoying for the church. Note, is you go back to OAR you will find that there was a different holy writ originally

4: The GoGA history is unambiguous and attested by the writings of millions, and does not and has not had any competing religions, anywhere and all this right from the start.

The similarities:

1: Some names, which are probably that way because RFC knows history and copied those names wholesale from the real world.

2: Nothing else.



A final note. Look up the power structure of the Roman Catholic Church. Aside from the names and the fact that is a parliament and a head of state they are nothing alike. As an obvious example take a look at how vicars are elevated to the vicariate and how the distribution of vicars is theoretically decided,

OK, horrible thought for everyone here that it may be, but what if there is no homosexuality on Safehold. None. Nadda. Zip. Zero.

If you've got control over the genome (and they were supposed to have that in the Terran Federation, at least it's implied), you might have complete control of a person's sexuality, including after they are born. So a person could be hetero one day, homo the next, and bi every other Sunday.

And that would mean that Langhorne could simply remove the trait and anything that might encourage it from the genome. Now, of course, that presupposes that rfc decided to make things realistic and somewhat sadistic in this regard, even if Langhorne only did it because he wanted the Adams and Eves to really get at it.

And what would happen if homosexuality (even as an option) would be reintroduced to a Safehold that had no experience with it? That could be an interesting story for a different author in an anthology.

ti3x wrote:OK, horrible thought for everyone here that it may be, but what if there is no homosexuality on Safehold. None. Nadda. Zip. Zero.

If you've got control over the genome (and they were supposed to have that in the Terran Federation, at least it's implied), you might have complete control of a person's sexuality, including after they are born. So a person could be hetero one day, homo the next, and bi every other Sunday.

And that would mean that Langhorne could simply remove the trait and anything that might encourage it from the genome. Now, of course, that presupposes that rfc decided to make things realistic and somewhat sadistic in this regard, even if Langhorne only did it because he wanted the Adams and Eves to really get at it.

And what would happen if homosexuality (even as an option) would be reintroduced to a Safehold that had no experience with it? That could be an interesting story for a different author in an anthology.

Your thesis here is somewhat flawed, in that as of this date there is no specific evidence that I can recall having seen linking homosexuality with a predisposing genetic trait. The jury ( not to mention the researchers ) seems to still be out on this.

Caliban wrote:Your thesis here is somewhat flawed, in that as of this date there is no specific evidence that I can recall having seen linking homosexuality with a predisposing genetic trait. The jury ( not to mention the researchers ) seems to still be out on this.

Granted, but active nanites that consistently scrub the mind of every child when it starts developing sexuality to ensure hetero behavior is a non-starter.

In all seriousness, rfc is highly unlikely to write anything like that. Aside from any personal objections he might have to doing so, about the only person that could get away with writing something like that without being pilloried, no matter how respectful, would be someone who would have to be not only gay, but very openly so. And then only if it's understood that it's about the reconciliation of homosexuality within the human species.

But coming back to actual mechanisms for homosexuality -- the thing is that because we don't know, we can speculate. It's like FTL -- all the evidence says that while mathematically possible, it is physically impossible. But that doesn't mean that we don't stop speculating scenarios with FTL and what it would mean for our species.

Please. The RFC stated sometime ago (during discussion about the "Arc" project alternatives) that the Terran Federation could not even build the zigote from the simple organic. Actually, their biotechnology level even looks a bit anachronistic in light of modern scientific discoveries.

The proposed -

Granted, but active nanites that consistently scrub the mind of every child when it starts developing sexuality to ensure hetero behavior is a non-starter.

Look simply absurd, and even Langhorne would said that it's just make no sense. For what possible reason so complex solution may be proposed for the problem, that is not relevant AT ALL? The main point in medicine - especially in psychology - "if something is not broken, do not fix it".

It would be enormously simple just gave some explanation for homosexual behavior in Holy Writ, in style of "If both partners do not forget about the sacred duty to marry and have children, it's all right." And the problem would be solved for all foreseeable generations.

Caliban wrote:

ti3x wrote:OK, horrible thought for everyone here that it may be, but what if there is no homosexuality on Safehold. None. Nadda. Zip. Zero.

If you've got control over the genome (and they were supposed to have that in the Terran Federation, at least it's implied), you might have complete control of a person's sexuality, including after they are born. So a person could be hetero one day, homo the next, and bi every other Sunday.

And that would mean that Langhorne could simply remove the trait and anything that might encourage it from the genome. Now, of course, that presupposes that rfc decided to make things realistic and somewhat sadistic in this regard, even if Langhorne only did it because he wanted the Adams and Eves to really get at it.

And what would happen if homosexuality (even as an option) would be reintroduced to a Safehold that had no experience with it? That could be an interesting story for a different author in an anthology.

Your thesis here is somewhat flawed, in that as of this date there is no specific evidence that I can recall having seen linking homosexuality with a predisposing genetic trait. The jury ( not to mention the researchers ) seems to still be out on this.

Actually there have been a number of studies showing that the mothers and other female relatives of male homosexuals have a higher fertility than average, and male homosexuals tend to be younger sons. Genetic, environmental and hormonal explanations have been raised for this.
I would expect the colonists were generally selected to avoid any with a genetic predisposition to infertility, difficulty in carrying a pregnancy to full term like eclampsia or female pelvic abnormalities including the male colonists. Having some of them selected by bribery and other forms of corruption is however possible too.
A thousand years of mutations (40+ generations) and in breeding (see effects of royal houses of Europe or the Pharaohs or Egypt on genetic fitness (sleeping with your cousin is bad, your sister is even worse))can throw a spanner in any carefully filtered genome however. The one thing a study of genetics tells you is that there is no such thing as true black and white for most genetics- just endless shades of color. A trait that gives a strong advantage in one location may be maladaptive in another.
I can however, see Langhorne or someone in a similar authority position stuffing in a comment about opposition to birth control and homosexuality to maximize population growth rates and genetic diversity. If Langhorne was homosexually inclined this is even more likely based on the number of homophobic preachers with closet boyfriends... (textev indicates the CoGA leadership has similar issues to the Catholic church with pedophilia (and probably all the other philia's) so genetic filtering for deviant behavior appears to either not have happened or have been ineffective).
There certainly does appear to be some rules about sexual morality in the scripture based on the textev as excuses for executing some of the churches vicars (i.e. pedophilia) and Clyntan's use of this to keep some of the other vicars in line through blackmail (when he knows they are actually guilty).

AirTech wrote:
Actually there have been a number of studies showing that the mothers and other female relatives of male homosexuals have a higher fertility than average, and male homosexuals tend to be younger sons. Genetic, environmental and hormonal explanations have been raised for this.
I would expect the colonists were generally selected to avoid any with a genetic predisposition to infertility, difficulty in carrying a pregnancy to full term like eclampsia or female pelvic abnormalities including the male colonists. Having some of them selected by bribery and other forms of corruption is however possible too.

If you get more fertile women out of the same genetic stock that produces more homosexual men, then you've got some reason to include people out of that genetic stock in a group intended to reproduce well - or at least, not to exclude them if it's a wash. And that's not even considering the whole range of sexual orientations, preferences, and habits apart from strict heterosexuality and heteroromanticism and strict homosexuality/romanticism. You'd probably have to sort people pretty thoroughly and fanatically, with a lot of other considerations given short shrift, just to get a bunch of people with whole family histories chock full of nothing but sexual and romantic inclinations focused exclusively on opposite sex partners with great big doses of specifically reproductive sexual desires.

So the Ark planners probably could not have purged Safehold's first generation of other-than-heterosexual Adams and Eves had they wanted to and may well not have even had reason to want to.

A thousand years of mutations (40+ generations) and in breeding (see effects of royal houses of Europe or the Pharaohs or Egypt on genetic fitness (sleeping with your cousin is bad, your sister is even worse))can throw a spanner in any carefully filtered genome however. The one thing a study of genetics tells you is that there is no such thing as true black and white for most genetics- just endless shades of color. A trait that gives a strong advantage in one location may be maladaptive in another.
I can however, see Langhorne or someone in a similar authority position stuffing in a comment about opposition to birth control and homosexuality to maximize population growth rates and genetic diversity. If Langhorne was homosexually inclined this is even more likely based on the number of homophobic preachers with closet boyfriends... (textev indicates the CoGA leadership has similar issues to the Catholic church with pedophilia (and probably all the other philia's) so genetic filtering for deviant behavior appears to either not have happened or have been ineffective).
There certainly does appear to be some rules about sexual morality in the scripture based on the textev as excuses for executing some of the churches vicars (i.e. pedophilia) and Clyntan's use of this to keep some of the other vicars in line through blackmail (when he knows they are actually guilty).

The textev so far seems to be about sex without consent, either coerced or where the other party is too young to consent. What sex the other party is seems to have gone back and forth, if I recall correctly, and I don't recall any that's specifically condemnatory where it's same-sex.

For encouraging parenthood through marriage, well, you're only going to get so far condemning selection of sex partners when people do not experience sexual orientation as a choice. Lots of despised and shameful people in the closet face a pretty serious hurdle being genuinely good parents - not that they can't, by any means, but for pity's sake, the Ark planners and Langhorne both could do a lot better just encouraging people to marry who they love and adopt if they're going to be childless. There will certainly be orphans to care for.

Highjohn wrote:TN4994, your wrong.

The Church of God Awaiting is not the Roman Catholic Church in a different suit or any other religion. Let me list some of the differences between the Church of God Awaiting and any religion based in any way on the old testament. (Which includes all of the religions/sects you mentioned.

1: The holy write has instructions on agriculture and medicine which are completely accurate. While the old testament has a spell for curing various rashes by dipping one bird in a another bird's blood twirling it around(there is more to it but that is the gist)

2: The church of god awaiting was created out of whole cloth. The are references to parts taken from other religions but you need to remember that the CoGA was created by Langhorn and his adherents in one go and they had no reason to include extraneous passages talking about homosexuality. An example of this is the lack of reference to any passages about slavery(which has been brought up in text as a religious issue, see OAR), which if the old or new testament were used wholesale in the creation of the holy write, would be in there.

3: The CoGA was lead by 'actual' angels for several centuries who would have had plenty of time to correct typos or remove bugs. Not perfectly, but they could remove things like "If a man lies with another man, ... ... both shall be put to death." as unnecessary and possible annoying for the church. Note, is you go back to OAR you will find that there was a different holy writ originally

4: The GoGA history is unambiguous and attested by the writings of millions, and does not and has not had any competing religions, anywhere and all this right from the start.

The similarities:

1: Some names, which are probably that way because RFC knows history and copied those names wholesale from the real world.

2: Nothing else.



A final note. Look up the power structure of the Roman Catholic Church. Aside from the names and the fact that is a parliament and a head of state they are nothing alike. As an obvious example take a look at how vicars are elevated to the vicariate and how the distribution of vicars is theoretically decided,

As I wrote, it's implied.
Please research the History of European Religions, Myths and Justifications added to the Bible and Koran, Coffee allowed by Pope Clement 8th, mammals designated as fish, the differences between Western and Eastern Rite Sects of the Catholic Church, and evolution of the Vatican and College of Cardinals (also it's banks, military organization, and the inquisition. And as the Bible incorporated certain known aspects of the cultures involved, the Writ incorporated certain known advantages. Coffee might have been left of the colony's manifest, or DW knows it was once banned as the Devil's Drink. And yes, the Book of Pasquale should list procedures to prevent STD's. But if Langhorn was intolerant of the gay community?