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.

Yes, I have looked it up and found more sources for this story, so to believe it is a credible story. However, I still will not believe the results of this study until it can be replicated by several more teams of researchers.

the reason I'm so cavalier in dismissing this study as garbage is that geneticists (like my former prof. who heads the lab I intern in) are extremely pessimistic about studies which infer connections by comparing only the sequences of DNA. Rest assured you can find some strange data if you do the right blast searches (which compare overall similarities in DNA sequences).

I would not be surprised if you could link people who ball their toilet paper before they wipe with a unique set of similar genes. These genes would be total garbage that have nothing to do with their behavior, but you can claim youve found the toilet balling genes. Before a researcher claims success in identifying a genes' function they must first explain the function in totality. Gene--protein--function-- down stream effects....

There is so much DNA out there and such powerful tools available for comparing sequences, you can find some remarkable and totally irrelevant coincidences.

Thank you. It's nice to know that someone else around here is using common sense.

No, you're supposed to believe that the scientist did not want to perform two separate studies at the same time. If these genes are not exactly in the same location on the female chromosome (assuming they do exist) then that's a hell of a lot more work. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he's trying to do now. However, he felt he had enough information to publish, so he did. He may have done it this way (in a manner some of you may call incomplete) so he can reference it in a (NIH, probably) grant application.

I personally don't put much credit to it myself. In order for a gene to do anything it needs to make a protein, or regulate another part of the genome which does. They seem to have no idea what these regions of DNA do. Not to say that it'll be disproven, but they're far from convincing me.

I'm not saying that all of these studies are made up, or even that the scientists involved have even chosen a side. I'm simply saying that this is only the most recent in a series of studies that end up with conflicting data. To view this as a final say on the matter seems presumptuous at best.

I don't know how much I believe that a string of several genes is wholly responsible for a person being gay. While I do believe that it is not nessicarily a concious desicion someone makes, I do think that there is definatly some kind of genetic/hormonal difference in homo and bisexuals. I also think that it also has something to do with enviornmental behaviors. I don't quite know how it would all link together for the end result, as we know it.

I am, however, quite shocked that someone would even consider aborting a fetus purely for the fact that the child may or may not carry a gay gene. If that's what this country is coming to then I'm getting out of here first chance I get. I can not believe anyone would condone that or find it even remotly acceptable. Would those people also abort their child if they thought the kid would be born with blonde hair? Definatly calls quite a few ethical questions in to place.

I believe this gay gene(if its true) will better the world for everyone(or at least shut the catholic church up) what we need right now are antidiscrimination laws to give equal respect(i wish) to everyone

The anti-gays will just say that these people are horrible mutants, or use it as an excuse to treat them as inhuman (they have different genes than we do). It will also bring in the possibility of aborting gay embryos, as was mentioned earlier in the thread. No matter which way homosexuality is "explained", the bigots will find a way to use it to their "moral advantage."

Well they only Just Mapped the Human Genome
 

They only finished mapping the human genom approx 2 years ago. When they make a study they often focus on only one gender first, as it removes much of the variability. I know from other studies that they have done that they have focused on female twins instead. The reason the use geneticaly identical twins (male or female) is simple. The can rule out some of the environmental "noise" that occurs in the study.

Example: In a recent (large) study of genetically identical female twins they found what they call a spirituality gene. (not a joke, this even made newsweek and many Large media outlets)

They were able to tell by the DNA who would describe themself as a "spiritual person". It had a lot to do with the formation of the parietal lobe of the brain. The twins would describe themselves as haveing a sense of "God" in thier lives.

Interestingly enough.. being spiritual did not mean that any particular one of the twins would necessarily "go to a worship service", depending on thier particualr faith. So while they would say that they have a sense of "god" in thier lives, they would only go to thier church, synagogue or temple if the community was nuturing enough. So there we have it... they needed external reinforcement in order to fully express who they are genetically.... WOW!

In My opinion this is right where the Nature vs Nurture debate rubber hits the road. It also starts to go where REII was leading us to.

BY THE WAY REII... YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT!!! THANKS FOR MAKING THIS DISCUSSION EVEN BETTER!!

One step closer to creating my genetic super baby.

Just cause some of them didn't go to church does not mean the spirituality gene wasn't still active in them, maybe some of them had their own spiritual beliefs and did not always accept what they had been told.

Zephyr... thats my point..

to feel spiritual = genetic... to go to church = environment

spiritual people didn't necessarily attend a service...

The same thing is done when researching other medical issues, such as heart disease. For years, women with heart disease were treated using the information garnered from studies performed on men, with the expected poor results. Separate studies need to be performed because of the major physiological differences (e.g., hormonal) between men and women.

Not what I was expecting. I read the thread title as "Gay Hens have been found, finally....." and thought, "Gay hens? WTF I didn't think anyone would be looking for such a critter."

Actually, I don't think they're even close to mapping the entire genome. In a Genetics class Im taking, the prof mentioned that they've actually only got 5% or something like that... I'll see if I can find a link to prove I'm not crazy...

C'mon now... I think there's a little blunder in this so called "spirituality" gene conclusion. I would highly disbelieve any idea that genes affect spirituality directly, and I feel this is the way that the research was taken (not to mention that it was performed in a manner to be biased to a religious-based result). Genetics affects more general characteristics. While sexual preference is a "general" human characteristic (at least in my method of thinking) since it does not involve complex thought, religion is a much more complex behavior being somewhat philosophical and requiring many levels of thought. This being said, if their research is accurate, I believe what they may have found is a gene that relates to the propensity of the individual to deal with abstract concepts or some other area of thought which would tend the individual towards religion.

People define "mapping" differently in this regard... They do have it "sequenced", but they don't know what the heck most of it does. A la they know what the letters are but they're still mostly illiterate.

You may be right... but then again you didn't do the study. Read for your self.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...725072,00.html

From Time Magazine..
S O C I E T Y
Is God in Our Genes?
A provocative study asks whether religion is a product of evolution. Inside a quest for the roots of faith
By JEFFREY KLUGER
(click link to read the ARTICLE)

That's not the study... That's an article about the study which actually cites very little of the study itself, and provides more of a vague background on both genetics and religion. I find very little useful information is actually presented in it. Now if someone actually wanted to track down the actual published scientific article (from whatever scientific journal it was published in... Nature or GENE, perhaps?) then that may actually provide some insight into whether or not this is total crap.

........Sigh....

i can't believe that.....how can anyone think of giving up a baby just because it might be gay?

The mind and the body are not seperable, they both function from the feedback of the other. If your sick it can make you depressed.

Its not JUST in the mind or JUST in the body, it can logically only exist as a relationship between the two.

In statistics its called stratifying data. And anyone educated in statistics knows that NOT doing it would constitute a lack of common sense.

How about just loving your child? If you plan on being a parent, neither the gender or sexuality should be a concern or a choice imo.

Exactly! If I were gay, the discovery of a gene is the last thing Id want. Itll open a can of worms for gays where the bad will outweigh the good. ie itll be called illness like alzheimers, and the possibility of corrective genetic surgery which is bound to happen. And many gays are unhappy about being gay, so how many of them would elect to take corrective surgery if given the chance? Itll make a rift in homosexuality.

i agree with the fact that environment plays a large part, and the whole gene thing brings an interesting twist on things, though the lesbian thing isnt really explained so it could just be coincidence, if they can find the same thing in females then it will be a lot more solid, it is kinda sick to abort a fetus because they "might" be gay, but its their choice to make not ours i suppose

I've wondered about this, I'm straight with some gay friends. We've talked and they claim they always knew it, but at some point, they made a conscious choice. No matter to me, its their life.

My question....I love to cook, better than a lot of women I know, got a decent fashion sense and prefer to do the shopping... but I really like boobs... is it possible to be ''half gay''??

wow gay gene must have been found by a christian scientist(hehe), this may sound really bad you have to face the fact that being gay is a choice not a genetic predisposistion, and to say that there is a gay gene is about as factual as telekenesis, dragons, and mind readers :)

You're post makes no sense, christians are the ones who think they made a choice, because it can only be a sin if they made a choice. Also, the least you can do is back up your argument with anykind of at least semi-factual evidence. Fuckin' ignorant people.

Christian Scientist is an oxymoron science is the study to explain the unknown ie how the earth was created etc. All i can say is that if theres a gay gene there must be a gene that decides wether your a coke or pepsi person is because being gay is a personal preference, i dont have any scientific proof this is how i feel and what i will believe, and if you believe in subconscious decisions then you will might agree with me. Id also like to note im very atheist.

P.S ill finish post later.

I find it amazing how many people just "beleive" with out using reason.

This thread has nothing to do with Christianity, religion or a politcal issue.

Scientists found a group of genes that were "exactly the same" 60 percent of the time in a large group of homosexual twin males.

These genes were not found to be the same in other non-homosexual males. We are not talking about a single gene... but a group of them.

Statistically speaking this is a very significant find. It will inevitably lead to further study and possible to a conclusive find.

Interestingly some of the people who claim to be the most "objective" on the tilted forum have shown their true colours. Let's check our "beleifs" at the door if we aren't willing to back them up with either "sound philosopy" or science.

Not a judgment... just an observation.

for only 60%? Is that actually significant? I don't know anything about bioinfomatics, but it seems kinda low. I wouldn't go around calling it the "gay gene" on a 60% match.

60 percent is Very significant especially when they are finding a GROUP of genes sequenced the same and not found in non-gays. Remember that this is not about ONE gene.. but a whole section of genes.

also there were sections in other gays that were similar.... but not 'the same'.

Wow, interesting.

Hmm but I thought being gay had more to do w/ hormones (levels of testosterone or estrogen .. or maybe lack thereof ) . I swear I read that somewhere.

And if this is all true and people would consider aborting a fetus b/c it has a 'gay gene' ...

wow, just wow.

I didn't read most of the second page because I couldn't take it anymore. Too many posts about "the male chromosome" and lesbians being affected by "the female chromosome" because they're female.

Genetics 101:
Normal people have 23 pairs of chromosomes. 1 pair (the "sex" genes, X/Y) was previously the concentration of research for "gay genes". Nobody ever found anything significant. This study looked at the other 22 pairs of chromosomes, called the autosomal chromosomes, which both men and women have. Men have chromosomes 7, 8, and 10 (or whatever chromosomes they claimed these DNA sequences are on). Women also have chromosomes 7, 8, and 10.
Please, I'm begging you, no more posts about "man genes" and "woman genes".

As for the issue of the actual article, a lot of people who seem to have a knowledge of genetics have pointed out that absolutely no characteristic of an individual is influenced solely by genes. Everything is a combination of genes and environment. They did find a gene or two a while ago that they claim to be "God" genes, I think they calle them VMAT1/2, which make people more apt to seek some form of spiritual belief. Who knows.