New Evidence Of Gay Gene Found

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm?z=1728_00000_1000_tn_01

This will drive the fundies into overdrive.

-----------------------------------------------------

<snip>

By Jennifer Warner
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD
on Friday, January 28, 2005


Jan. 28, 2005 - The genes a man gets from his mother and father may play an important role in determining whether he is gay or not, according to a new study likely to reignite the "gay gene" debate.

Researchers say it's the first time the entire human genetic makeup has been scanned in search of possible genetic determinants of male sexual orientation. The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality.

"It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

<snip>

And surprise surprise...

they may be related!

I'd heard loose stuff about the 'God gene' and of course the 'gay gene'. Where did you read about a possible relationship between them? That's really interesting.

I thought SpongeBob caused homosexuality.

or that purple dinosaur that could never have been because dinosaurs never lived or no
IT'S BILL CLINTON's FAULT!!

Stupid, stupid, stupid me.

Thank you I stand humbled.

:crazy:

The Fundies can turn you straight.

You can bet that kid will be indoctrinated from infancy, sent to "special" church camps every summer, and carefully watched for anything approaching artistic talent, forced into sports, the whole macho thing.

The only problem is how poorly it will all work.

That will create some fucked up individuals!

Science is just rediscovering the obvious. If a boy hates sports and loves the arts, or if a girl hates getting gussied up and playing with Barbie dolls; and if they both get brainwashed till the cows come home, it won't change their nature.

Kids are indoctrinated to be straight already. And don't GLBT people know it.

:cry:

but 'forced sterilization', they will re-enact the old Eugenics laws that are still on the books.
:mad:

b is easier.....they only care about abortions they don,t give a fk when its out of the oven. they could write a new slogan, out of the oven and into the oven

If there is never a gene found, then they'll say it doesn't really exist

If there is a gene or other phyical cause found, they'll look for a "cure"

might be aborted by the parents.

While I'd like to see this idiotic notion of one's homosexuality being "a choice", finding a gay gene is a mixed blessing. Calls for a "cure" will certainly come from the American Taliban and the "ex-gay" movement, as well as some parents wanting to abort a child who may be gay.

The ones who hate homosexuals enough to consider aborting the fetus are the same ones who think a 2-celled bioplast is a "baby"... their brains will short-circuit and explode trying to figure out what to do.

Talk about a group of people embracing abortion...

skepital stance.

you're right about that

The Bible tells us otherwise! Ask Dr.Laura and her "transitioning gays to heterosexuals through healing and religion" friends.

and decide that it's the one time an abortion is necessary to preserve the gene pool.

Reputable Scientists will debunk it, over time. It's already being identified in animals as well and regarded as natural population control.

Determining whether or not it's a "bad" gene is purely a social construct.

They have tried similiar BS with their pseudo studies that show blacks have inferior IQs and that it's genetic. Remember the book the Bell Curve? PURE racism and junk Science.

signify our sexuality. Then they can once and for all give up on that converting bullshit. I believe we are BORN with our sexuality hardwired and very little that happens to us after birth changes our basic sexual drive.

Anytime I hear a right winger claiming gay people can just "be straight" I ask them if they can just "be gay." Of course they recoil and say "NO!!!" Then I ask them "so what the hell makes you think a gay person can just BE straight?"

To date, I've never received an answer.

When someone states that it is a choice....she asks them...

Well, at what age did you CHOOSE to be heteralsexual? Of course they say they have always been that way....then realize what they are saying and shut up.

60% concordance is not too good. This is pretty primitive data and shows that the modelling and thinking is rather lacking, not the work done in the lab.

The aggregate of evidence about the heritability of male homosexuality, sharply analyzed, says that a lot, if not most, of it is "maternal effect" from a genetic viewpoint. IOW, some difference in the genetic makeup of the mother is key and affects the fetus in the womb indirectly. In this study there's some evidence of it in the one genetic region that corellates- but only when inherited from the mother. (Maybe the others 'sensitize' the fetus to something?)

I'm willing to guess that these investigators aren't going to come up with a particular gene or set of genes or meaningful explanation for quite a while.

I'm quite sure that it will be almost impossible to guess from fetal genotyping whether a male fetus is going to be homosexual or not. Combine the fetal genotype information and that of the mother, and I think in time the chances can be statistically estimated. Determining whether a female fetus is lesbian is probably going to be easier, eventually, because the mode of inheritance/expression of the trait is straightforward by comparison. But even there there seems to be substantially less than 100% 'penetrance', so again only a probability will be established by testing.

So there isn't going to be a lot of aborting of foeti known to give rise to gay kids in the near or middle future. It will all take a bunch of years- say, 10-15- to sort out science and the numbers.

I'd say there's more to worry from cell-level resolution imaging technology that is being developed Out There. It might become possible to scan a fetus and find that the neuronal hardwirings in e.g. the spinal cord is set up opposite in gender-associated pattern to the chromosomal gender, or something of the kind.

Damn. I learned a new word today!

I always wondered why Rayburn acted so pal-ly with Charles Nelson Reilly as host of Match Game '73, '74, '75... etc.

Is named Eugene. Those of us he's more open too, he now calls himself "Gay Gene."

Who would have ever thought? This does date you know....:-)

Nobody more dated than Gene. He died last year.

I can hear the cries now.

I wonder what happened to her, anyway.

Once we're able to test for the "gay gene", the wingers will become the most vocally pro-choice group in America.

And why do they have to call him that?

Think about it:

They force gay people to re-produce... spreading more gay genes.

went to a movie. Good times.

I think that activists trying to point out data like this to show fundies and say "See! It's genetic! That means God made us this way, so it's okay with God!" is all wrong, and rather offensive.

The implication is that if it's NOT genetic, and thus "approved by God", then it must somehow be wrong. Let's say that it's purely a choice. I say that it is a perfectly good one. The notion of it being a "sin" is artificial and imposed by religious groups.

I object to religious groups telling ME what to do or not to do, but this approach of trying to use biology to prove that homosexuality is okay with God is just wrong. Why on earth would you want the approval of hateful fundies? Even if you DID prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was genetic, they would STILL not approve and would STILL try to turn you into a glazed-eyed "ex-gay".

Homosexuality, Bisexuality, Heterosexuality, regardless of the reasons for preference, are all valid and good choices as a way to live one's life. Stop asking for fundies' approval!

Identifying genes is an important endeavor and opens the door for other research.

IF Scientists can identify this gene, it will make all arguments that one "chooses to be gay" MOOT.

SCIENCE AND FACT vs. FAITH BASED IDEAS

Which will win out in the end? Superstition and mystical beings or provable fact?

I find nothing offensive about using Scientific fact to support a position. I do however find it offensive when one uses solely selective Bible quotes to support their position. Just because the "Bible tells us so" doesn't make it fact or right.

Using it against an argument loosely based on 2000 year old parables and fables is what bugs me.

Religious nuts have no right to impose their belief systems on others, period. Genetics has nothing to do with it.

It is trying to show that homosexuality is normal and those that choose to marry one another should have all the rights any couple has. Right now the unreligious right is doing everything possible to stop such acceptance.

And since when is "normal" good? God, I would NOT want to fit in with those people.

"Choice" and is linked to the biological function of the human body... Gays may be able to be treated as "Normal" people instead of outcasts.

Besides, the Christians can argue that the attraction may not be a choice, but where one puts one's genitals is (and they would be correct). They will say that the attraction can be overcome through prayer and behavior modification. They already acknowledge that there may be some genetic factor, but it doesn't stop them from their campaign of shame and trying to convert people.

Sorry, but as far as advancing GLBT rights goes, this "gay gene" stuff is a dead end.

Better to make people realize that:

A. Religious people have no right to impose their mores on others, and people have a right to love whoever they choose. Period.

B. There is more than one school of thought among Christians, and there are a significant number who don't think that the bible forbids romantic/sexual bonds between couples of the same gender.

C. Gays ARE normal people. Kinsey showed that all people fall on a scale of sexual preference from exclusively homosexual to bisexual to exclusively heterosexual. Everyone on the scale IS normal. Sexual identity is not black or white, gay or straight. It is as varied and nuanced as is humanity itself.

:evilgrin:

And I hope this scares them into opening up the whole stem cell line.

My neighbor has ALS (final stages) and I'm a paraplegic; yeah, I have a vested interest in stem cell research.

Why are the pharma companies wasting all my hard earned "cold symptom
relief" money on junk like "gay genes".

Why aren't they out curing real diseases like you describe!

I just spoke with him the other day. Yup, me, Elvis, and
a Yeti were having some coffee over in the Bermuda Triangle.
He yelled out, "Hey, Prag... It's me Gay!" I waved and replied,
"Howdy Mr. Gene...".

Yup.

<nods>

:)

Since in the womb we all start out as women essentially. Ya know the clitorous elongates to a penis, the vulva goes on to form the scrotum, etc. i am sure we all have a little lady in us. Same with females, maybe they had a few genes from the male side kick in during fetal development.

"i am sure we all have a little lady in us."

A little or a big lady?

Two different things.

I thought the recent human genome project showed that simple genetic determinism is not correct, ie, there isn't a 'gene' for everything. For example, there turned out be far fewer genes than predicted.

nt

human genome project. It mentioned that humans have 30,000 genes, not 100,000 as expected. Plus, one gene may control many characteristics, and many genes one characteristic. If I understand the OP's article correctly, they haven't identified a single gene which can accurately predict one's sexual orientation, just different genetic areas that *correlate* somewhat with orientation. Environment / surroundings might also have an effect, for example some people are genetically more likely to have heart attacks, but the kind of food they eat (for example) may determine whether they have a heart attack or not. I need to read more on this subject.

I had a gay aunt. My husband had a gay uncle. My sister-in-law has 4 children, 2 of whom are gay. My husband and I have 2 children, 1 of whom is gay.

Remember those genetics questions from school? If you have one blue eyed parent and one brown eyed parent, how many of the offspring will be blue eyed and how many will be brown eyed? lol

Perfect example.

rights granted to heterosexuals? Does America deny rights to some based on their race or creed?

There can't be any such thing. Genes encode proteins or regulatory RNA, not complex emergent properties.

I remember an old study about birds and their brain wiring that caused them to drop food into fledglings' gaping mouths. Turns out that they are just as likely to drop the food into fish mouths--one pair let their babies starve while feeding trout in a nearby stream. So the wiring isn't 'for' feeding baby birds, it's for dropping food into orifices of a certain size.

So any gay gene is going to be really for something else. The occurence of whatever may lead to homosexuality, or not, depending on a lot of other factors.

Also, remember the cloned kitten with a very different calico pattern than its mother? That's because there is no gene 'for' the calico trait. There are X chromosome genes for melanin (black/dark brown) and eumelanin (red/orange/ginger). A male offspring of a calico will be either black and white, or orange and white. The females with be black + whatever color their father's single X carries or orange + whatever color their father's single X carries. Each spot on a cat is a clone from a single cell, and which X chromosome compacts to a Barr body that does not express color is strictly random. Plus, timing of gene expression is critical and also variable. If the gene expression is early, the cloned cell patch gets larger, like a small spot drawn on a balloon before you blow it up. If it is late, the same small spot is drawn on a larger embryo, with less room for expansion. For all these reasons, the development of any particular calico pattern is strictly random.

Now what is 'gay' more like? Is it more like a pattern, or a single color in a single cell?

How do they know this? The studies don't make sense. I am just skeptical. Why would their be a gene that determines what your sexual tastes are? Are there other genes which mean you like oral sex, this gene means you are bi-sexual.

And if there is a gene that determines this, then in 100 percent of the cases it would have to be so. How many men have the gay gene, but are hetero sexual. Are they jist denying gay's?

Sexuality is formed as you develop. You develop a sexual identity when you grow up and this can not be undone.

Sex is a biological function for pro creation. Being hetero or homo is irrelevant. Animals engage in homosexual behavior, but they also engage in heterosexual behavior for procreation. How many gay aimals are there.

Being gay or being straight has nothing to do with genes or biology. Straight and gay is purely a social construct.

I understand why many want to be told they are gay from birth. The truth is you arne't gay or straight when you are born you develop as you grow older. Your sexual identity is a social construction.

It is ok t be gay. Just because you weren't born guy doesn't mean you had a choice in being gay. There are too many homosexuals in this world spanning different cultures, times, and societal situations to think of being gay as deviant sexual behavior.