GAY GENES HAVE BEEN FOUND! Finally!
 

I read it Saturday's "Winnipeg Free Press"
I am shocked that people would think to abort a Gay fetus....

Is this some kind of a hoax?

I do believe that's crap. If it was true I believe some bigger newspaper, other than the Winnipeg Free Press, would have picked up the story.

And I don't think any such gene will ever be found. I don't think you'll find love in any gene since it's a mind thing, just like homosexuality.

It Doubt that it is a hoax... I have Directly quoted the article from a very reputable paper. CAN-WEST GLOBAL NEWS SERVICE STANDS BEHIND IT!

SCARY... I just don't want to think people would abort fetuses based on sexuality or gender... but apparently they do... I saw a dcumentary about eastern families that do this to avoid paying a dowry for females born in their families. A dowry is the money or other payment they make to the family of their daughters new husband when their daughter is married. The fathers negotiate the dowry when they arrange the marriage, when the spouses "to be" are still children.

I hate to prove you wrong but here it is again from another source...
 

I hate to prove you wrong but here it is again from another source.....

I found it again on a third news service!
 

I have now found this story on THREE different NEWS SERVICES!!!!!!

Thanks for this news post . . . the human genetics field is making huge advances at this time . . . anyone who disagrees with that, please read any scientific periodical and you will find evidence of this . . .

hmmmmm . . . very interesting . . . Let me know when they find the bisexual gene . . . my mom would like to know it's not her fault i like men AND woman . . . :D

And If it is true that people would indeed abort their OWN child over such a thing as their sexual identity is an indication of the discrimination and narrow parameters that our society defines "normalcy" . . . abortion is the choice of each individual or couple to make on their own but this does bring forth some issues of ethics . ..
And what a quandary for those fundamental religious folks who don't believe in abortion and would never have one, but also would believe their child was going to hell if homosexual . . .
The finding of this “gay gene” in our current American society will have serious Medical Ethics concerns surrounding it . . .

Thanks for the post . . .

Sweetpea :)

What's wrong with being gay? It helps control the population, if anything. If this is proven to be true, maybe it will shut a lot of people up. If they start aborting fetuses however... we're in for a lot of evolutionary problems. All the variation that exists in our gene pool as a human race is necessary, god damn it!

i highly doubt that lots of people will accept it even if its proven genetic. especially if its proven genetic. that way they can push it off and call it a genetic disorder or somesuch. people will then instead try and come up with treatments or therapy, and thats just not right. or, as already mentioned, the abortion thing. which is kind of ironic, since most people who are against homosexuals are also against abortions. but i could see it happening, not like there's nothing hypocritical associated with the things some people like that do.

Please include links to the articles you provide here.

The use of "gene scientists" raised an eyebrow... what kind of reporter talking about breakthroughs in science doesn't know what a geneticist is?

From the number of google hits I got using the search string "mustanski gay gene", mustanski being the name of the "gene scientist" :hmm: whose findings are the topic here; I can guess that we either have a massive media blunder the likes of which dan rather has never before fathomed... or there is some truth to the story. However, I have seen so many spins on the same story in the past five minutes, I'll reserve judgment for later.

in any case, I see no reason to try and categorize homosexuality as anything other than different from heterosexuality as if we're pegs waiting to be dropped into the appropriate slot. If there are multiple factors at work, genetic and otherwise, then there are varying degrees of 'gayness,' are we all to be tagged for being more masculine or feminine than normal? The idea that it can be 'prevented' is indicative not only our our naivete but of the biased mindset we have against those who differ from us.

damnit i was going to reserve my opinion...

I can't wait 'til people find the "racist gene" the "bad taste in shoes gene", and other complete bullshit crapload asinine idiocy.

oh wait . . . what about the "likes hot curried food gene" or "way too much into computers gene"? :)

But the difference is Suave . . . being Heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual isn't an aquired taste like those above . . . it's something that people ARE born with IMHO . . . i knew from pratically as young as i can remember that i was bisexual . . . so how do ya figure with that one? aquired taste to like woman at the ripe old age of 7?? :hmm: i think not . . . some things are just built into someone . . . being bisexual is something that is a part of me . . . not aquired.

peace,

Sweetpea

suave, i'm just curious why you find it so hard to believe homosexual tendencies are anything but entirely environmentally based?

what he said, the only behavior that has been positively linked to a gene is mate guarding in millipedes

Unfortunately our behavior is a tad bit more complicated than the reproductive tendencies of millipedes...They wont be close to finding a gay gene in our lifetimes , way too complex

You can do a google search for mate guarding if you feel compelled, if you want some info on the unreliability of this kind of scientific inquiry (linking behavior with dna) read this http://www.dnafiles.org/about/pgm2/topic.html

So you don't think that your sexual preferance (whatever it is) was built into your genes? :) Isn't that what this thread is bringing up . . .

"whether sexual preferance is a choice or in the genes" ??

peace,

Sweetpea

I was having a debate about this with my cousin a few days ago. I have read once that someone believed that homosexuality was a genetic trait, the bases for this theory was that in the animal world. There are also homosexual tendencies. Ask any breeder from dogs to horses. They all have encountered animals that refuse to breed or mate with the opposite sex.

However. I also believe what skier says. Not all homosexuals are gay because of a gene. But because of the environment that they are in. Man is a thinking creature. Therefore is not constrained to mental genetics. But is greatly influence to metal training and exposures.

Anyway, that's my take on it. Personally it doesn't bother me. I have friends that are gay. And I consider more then a few as best friends.

I echo the above, in addition,
This could actually be a good thing in the long run- it in effect makes for some strong anti discrimination laws- this country is supposed to be about both freedom of choice and freedom from being discriminated against because of the circumstances of your birth- It gives gay people more to claim than just a lifestyle, it gives them a special set of genes- and I would like to remind the religious right that if this is correct, gays are as god made them...... kind of puts a hole in the whole "unnatural act" arguement, does'nt it???????

We don't need to understand every physiological detail of sexual attraction to find a "gay gene." Most genes that have been associated with behaviors are found by correlation (and those correlations are not 100%). The detailed mechanisms involved are usually not known.

It is also likely that someone's probability of developing a homosexual preference could be strongly influenced by simple things. There have been experiments showing how varying the intrauterine concentrations of particular hormones will masculinize or feminize rats (and probably other animals). Of course the same experiments can't be done in humans for ethical reasons, but I'm sure the principles are similar. It isn't very hard to conceive of a group of genes which would change the concentration of a particular hormone at a certain portion of the fetus' development. It could also modify concentrations of receptors for that hormone. Both of these possibilities are reasonable things to search for.

It's not that I'm saying sexuality is purely environmentally-based, because that would be too extreme on one end of the spectrum of biological-social. I simply refute the idea that there is a "gay gene" or "gay genetic combination" which ultimately determines one's sexual orientation. There may be genetic factors at play in the development of people's sexual preferences, but I am firmly against biological determinism in most areas and believe that even something as seemingly ingrained and "natural" as sexual preference is heavily affected by social forces. It probably came off as though I was completely discounting the biological side of it because I become indignant and aggressive at this pop culture idea that everything is reliant on genetics. This obsession that people seem to have with finding a "gene" for everything is absolutely ludicrous to the point of being laughable.

genes say what color eyes, hair, and skin you have. Genes say how tall you are, whether you're male or female, how muscular you're capable of being, or how mch of a propensity you may have to become overweight. I could go on. The idea that genes say who you are sexually attracted to is not hard to fathom. Sexual attraction and love are two different (but sometimes related) things.

Very few people would assert that a gene and ONLY a gene contributes to a person being homosexual, but genetics have a great deal to do with the likelihood of it. Of course, someone who does not have the genetics for homosexuality may still become homosexual due to environmental variables, but it is FAR less likely than someone who already has a propensity for it. This is not something that is widely disputed among scientific circles.

I think a lot of the resistance to some of these discoveries comes from some sort of human hubris to insist on control over one's own life and choices. Or, in cases where sociological control is conceded, there's a resistance to accept such seemingly arbitrary control as genetics. Of course one's taste in fashion has little to do with genetics. If you can't see the difference between that and one's taste in food, or taste in sexual partners.....you need to think more clearly about it.

I once did a paper on the genetic basis of sexual identity. Turns out that many genetic disorders can have a tremendous effect on sexual identity via hormone exposure in the fetus. Particularly, the amount of testosterone the brain is exposed to determines male/female sexual identity, although there are other hormonal problems that can actually alter the sex of the individual with complete disregard to his genetics. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if there was gene identified that the individual more likely to be gay.

If anyone is interested in this kind of stuff, read up on these disorders:
Klinefelter Syndrome
Turner Syndrome
Trisomy-X
Jacob's Syndrome
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome

I sum them up quite nicely in my 12-page paper. If anyone wants it, just PM me your e-mail and I'll send it to you.

Not suprised, I don't think anyone who is gay really does not feel like being ridiculed by most of the poplulation (who is intolerant) is something they choose everyday. It is kinda ironic if we are able in the future to find out whether our baby will be gay, it will be interesting if the christian conservatives will accept it or abort the baby which they also don't believe in.

I found the gay jeans a while ago.


As far as I'm concerned? Ewwwww. But I support their right to be gay. :thumbsup:

am i the only one who finds it odd that the article is talking about male genes? last i checked, both men AND women can be homosexual. so what is the explanation for women who are gay?

My understanding of this particular field of research (as it applies to men, not women), is that the relative levels of testosterone/estrogen at critical developmental stages of the embryo/fetus determine a man's sexual preference, and it can be anywhere on a continuum.

Those hormonal levels can be influenced by the genes of both mother and fetus.

They can be also influenced by environment. For example, the more male babies the mother had in the past, the higher the estrogen levels she produces to counteract the androgens produced by the fetus, and the more likely the baby is to grow up to be bisexual or gay. So the more older brothers somebody has, the more likely he is to be bisexual or gay.

So there's a complex mix of genes and environment, but ultimately the decision is made in utero most of the time.

And that applies to men only. I'm not familiar with the corresponding research in women.

I think what people need to keep in mind with this article is that hardly any traits are 100% genetic or 100% environmental. DNA carries "blueprints" for every characteristic that a human being has; this sets the range for possible pheotypes(outcomes from the genes). The environment that we grow up in, prenatally and postnatally determines where in that genotypic range that characteristic falls.

Just a quick comment for those people not familiar with the endless nature/nurture debate . . . .

Every individual is equally a product of genes and environment. It makes no sense to ask how much of yourself is caused by one or the other. Without genes, you're a pile of dirt. Without the environment, you're a pile of dirt.

However, any difference between two individuals could be caused 100% by different genes, 100% by different environments, or anything in between.

So when you're asking about a "gay gene" or whatever, you're asking whether there's a measurable difference between two people, one who has the gene and another who doesn't, in sexual preference, on average.

Nobody is arguing complete determinism, either genetic or environmental.

The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is more than the 50% expected by chance alone.


Did you miss the point of the articles?

Amazing astute Question....
 

Excellent point...

Lets see what happens with this...


RCALyra

Studies like this one come up every couple of years. It's part of the constant release of articles "proving" homosexuality is genetic or personal choice. Both sides embrace the studies that support their point of view and discount the rest.

Not to sure ... the Math is pretty solid
 

The Mathematics behind a genetic link are pretty substantial... I am not sure they have discounted other studies either... in fact I think they kind of explain much of the nature nurture question... it all starts in the womb!

Perhaps you saying the geneticist made this information up?

I find it about as ethical as ripping a child out of the womb who'd grow up with a birth defect.

Everyone has known about the gay genes for a while. They are the group of genes known as the designer genes.

HaHAHAHA!. I kill myself!

*stab*
Aside from my righteous indignation and all that crap, I'm curious as to why people care about the "causes of homosexuality". Do they hope to "cure" it? What good can come of it? I can see only negative consequences coming of it.

Judging by the private message I received, I take it my post was not clear enough:

This study is pseudo-science, if it generates enough media induced hub-ub it might warrant being contradicted by about ten other better run studies. People have been searching for a gay gene for a long time, and pointing to genetic trivial similarities in sequence proves nothing.

Until you can prove gene---->protein---->function. You have proved exactly NOTHING, NADA. Show me the polygenic gay gene group, show me its cascading effects, show me how its protein products alter behavior. Until you can talk about the issue in completness you got nothin.

Do you understand how far we are from understanding the connection between dna and behavior? Mark my words, this study will fizzle like so many before it

While all this "research" has been going on, i'm not going to believe a word of it until i find out why they don't have an answer explaing female homosexuality.

This 10% diffference didn't look statistically significant to me, so I wondered why they even reported it, until I realized that your math is a little off. First of all, the genes in question were fround in 60% of gay BROTHERS, not just any men. If that was the case the expected rate would be way less than 50% (like... powers of 10 kind of less). Since they are brothers, the probability of BOTH of them having the gene by chance is 25%, not 50%. The probability of either of them having the gene is 50%, and there's 2 of them.

For those questioning the integrity of the reporting or the research... You can look up Brian Mustanski on the University of Illonois at Chicago directory and the story appeared today in BBC News. Whether it gets disproved, who knows? I don't do behavioral neuroscience.

Perhaps because they didn't investigate it yet?

so i am supposed to believe scientists that don't have the common sense to research men and women at the same time?

^ That's a very good point. Investigating male and female homosexualty separately necessarily involves certain assumptions, some of which may ultimately prove to be incorrect. Also, none of these articles quote the authors, and talk more about possible consequences of the "gay gene" than the actual study. Until there is some better analysis, I'll reserve my judgements on the accuracy and scope of the study.