Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Great news!

Maybe one day they will be able to prevent people from being 'Gay'.

I also think that this proves it isn't normal... it is a defect!

Rosha

BDBinc

Rosha

BDBinc
Third try = there is no gene linked to homosexuality.
Since hetrosexual have these named genes[and they are not genes linked to homosexuality ]what are you really discussing/arguing about?

"Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight"

They are talking about differences observed in gene *expression* on the chromosome, not debating the existence of the chromosome itself.

Ro

Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region.
The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.
Men who are not gay have the same Xq28 region -how do you explain that.
[And why did the study not have a control group.] Studies done today can claim anything by massaging data and using words
Its not a gay gene.
The study was done with only 400 gay men and the results have not been reproduced.
The media as sensationalizing this saying there is a gay gene, these same people have been funded to find the gay gene for ages without luck as it does not exist.
"A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.
Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear."
This is what they should have printed truthfully:No idea its unclear.

I can't do explanations with any authority or authenticity, as this is not my field of knowledge and I am only now reading the studies behind the study, its truly mindsboggling to me....Phage has given a response to your inquiry tho..so...points in his
direction. ---->

cheers

Ro

Yes I liked the study quotes that can be ignored when everyone reads Xq28 is linked to homosexuality when the study did not show that at all.
"A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.
Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear."

reply to post by BDBinc

Then since no genes can be named why mention Xq28 as it is not a gene linked to homosexuality.

Xq28 has been linked to male homosexuality. That's what the article is about.

And the study does not show Xq28 influences male homosexuality.

So you've seen the study? Can you provide a link?

TheLotLizard
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

If not a choice then it's a disease.

They need to isolate the gene and finally remove it. It could be a breakthrough that could life changing for individuals, it could be on the level as the discovery of the polio vaccine.

edit on 14-2-2014 by TheLotLizard because: (no reason given)

Its no different than brown or blue eyes. Its in the genes and if you read carefully, it serves women well. Disease. Trolling for stars.

Phage
reply to post by BDBinc

 

Then since no genes can be named why mention Xq28 as it is not a gene linked to homosexuality.

Xq28 has been linked to male homosexuality. That's what the article is about.

And the study does not show Xq28 influences male homosexuality.

So you've seen the study? Can you provide a link?

The gene Xq28 is in hetrosexual males .

Why are you asking me for another link to a flawed study, do you not have the link to the study, or are you trying to distract and argue about the link to the study?

reply to post by BDBinc

The gene Xq28 is in hetrosexual males .

Yes. Brown eyed people the have OCA2 gene and so do blue eyed people. OCA2 is directely linked to eye color but it is not the only gene involved.

Why are you asking me for another link to a flawed study, do you not have the link to the study, or are you trying to distract and argue about the link to the study?

No, I don't have a link. But since you were so sure that the study did not find an influence of Xq28 on male homosexuality, it seemed like you must have read it. It would like to see the study myself.

BDBinc

Rosha

I can't do explanations with any authority or authenticity, as this is not my field of knowledge and I am only now reading the studies behind the study, its truly mindsboggling to me....Phage has given a response to your inquiry tho..so...points in his
direction. ---->

cheers

Ro

Yes I liked the study quotes that can be ignored when everyone reads Xq28 is linked to homosexuality when the study did not show that at all.
"A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.
Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear."

I was not ignoring the quote. I was being honest with my capability to speak on a subject foreign to me rather than prattle off a series of pseudo-fact or babble on to appease your need to argue.

toodles.

Ro

Phage
reply to post by BDBinc

 

The gene Xq28 is in hetrosexual males .

Yes. Brown eyed people the have OCA2 gene and so do blue eyed people. OCA2 is directely linked to eye color but it is not the only gene involved.

Why are you asking me for another link to a flawed study, do you not have the link to the study, or are you trying to distract and argue about the link to the study?

No, I don't have a link. But since you were so sure that the study did not find an influence of Xq28 on male homosexuality, it seemed like you must have read it. It would like to see the study myself.

edit on 2/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

You still think the study said that gene Xq28 is linked to homosexuality[ they only tried to link to mens sexuality] but when this study used only 400 gay men and there are more hetrosexual men with the same gene a fact that is ignored with the wild claims [as Xq28 is not a gay gene and was not found to be one].
.... and you now say you haven't read the study.
Join in the sensational media claims.
I am disputing them as they are B.S they found no homosexual genes.
Since having Xq28 gene does not make a man gay or determine his sexuality , comparing to having an eye color gene that determines eye color is not a sound argument . "Eye color is a polygenic phenotypic character determined by two distinct factors: the pigmentation of the eye's irisand the frequency-dependence of the scattering of light by the turbid medium in the stroma of the iris."

What on earth are you defending the media claims for without reading the study first?

Rosha

BDBinc

Rosha

I can't do explanations with any authority or authenticity, as this is not my field of knowledge and I am only now reading the studies behind the study, its truly mindsboggling to me....Phage has given a response to your inquiry tho..so...points in his
direction. ---->

cheers

Ro

Yes I liked the study quotes that can be ignored when everyone reads Xq28 is linked to homosexuality when the study did not show that at all.
"A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.
Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear."

I was not ignoring the quote. I was being honest with my capability to speak on a subject foreign to me rather than prattle off a series of pseudo-fact or babble on to appease your need to argue.

toodles.

Ro

edit on 16-2-2014 by Rosha because: (no reason given)

Heaven forbid you would prattle and babble on an unknown subject just to appease your need to argue.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


thumbs up to you for telling your story on page 1. I got half way through page 2 and stopped reading. it does my head in that in this day and age we still have people thinking they are superior to others because of the way they live their lives.

I don't remember to many wars being started over gay people....think about that one to all those who oppose homosexuals because of their religion.

All of the people arguing that this article is proof that homosexuality is a natural defect fail to see one point. The idea of homosexuality being perverse stems from religion. The Christian religion says that homosexuals will go to hell for being gay. Other religions have similar misgivings and punishments for homosexuality.

But if homosexuality is a born in trait that means that the god of these religions PURPOSELY created a human that is ultimately doomed to eternal torture. Sure you could argue that the homosexual not act on those thoughts. But be real here, you are asking someone to act contrary to how their bodies are telling them to act. It's easy for heterosexuals to ask this of homosexuals, they are naturally inclined to like the opposite sex. But asking a homosexual to act heterosexual is like asking a heterosexual to act homosexual. I use the word "act" here because they will never BE the other option, just putting up a front.

Other posters are advocating that treatments could be made that alter people's DNA to make them straight (by the way, the third X-Men movie was an allegory for that very concept). But that outlines another failure in the religious reasoning, this god of the religions purposely made homosexuals then makes it a damnable offense to partake in those urges then hides the key to altering those urges in deep science so that the only true cure for it is for people to wait until their sciences are advanced enough to get rid of it. Meanwhile, all homosexuals are doomed to hellfire or misery while alive if they decide to pretend to be straight while waiting for science to catch up.

I mean seriously, has it EVER occurred to any of you religious gay hating types that maybe you are wrong and that God doesn't think that homosexuality is perverse? I know it's a crazy concept because the word "wrong" and religion don't seem to gel well together, but hey give it a thought.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I see no nail in any coffin here. Clearly a biased pro gay study and simply states there may be evidence. "Evidence", not "Proof"

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Wrong again. My wife's manager is an atheist and will be the first to tell you that homosexuality is perverse and unnatural. I assure you it is not Christians only by a long shot.

Christian Voice
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I see no nail in any coffin here. Clearly a biased pro gay study and simply states there may be evidence. "Evidence", not "Proof"

That's ironic coming from someone that believes in something that we don't have any proof nor evidence of existing

reply to post by soficrow




I was only referring to human beings and no other 'species' as I believe that

is what is being discussed on this thread?

As far as I am aware no human being has ever changed sex naturally?

reply to post by Christian Voice

My wife's manager is an atheist and will be the first to tell you that homosexuality is perverse and unnatural.

And what is this person's argument for why it's perverse and unnatural?

Christian Voice
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Wrong again. My wife's manager is an atheist and will be the first to tell you that homosexuality is perverse and unnatural. I assure you it is not Christians only by a long shot.

Please point out with a quote from where you got the idea that I was saying that only Christians think homosexuality is perverse and unnatural. I know I certainly said this:

The idea of homosexuality being perverse stems from religion.

But I never realized that religion means just Christianity. Sure I went on to address Christian tenants, but that is only because that is the religion I am most familiar with, having been raised Catholic and all. Not to mention, Christians tend to be the most vocal about homosexuality being wrong, Mr. CHRISTIAN voice.

Why don't you illuminate us as to why this atheist woman believes that homosexuality is wrong. Would you care to clarify how she formed this opinion? Did she read some scientific journals about it, weigh all the arguments, and carefully form an opinion based on the most logical result? Or did she perhaps just form an opinion because she saw that homosexuality was "different" and let humans' natural instinct to fear and hate things that are different take over? Me thinks, that the latter is the most likely answer, but your mileage may vary.

Krazysh0t
But if homosexuality is a born in trait that means that the god of these religions PURPOSELY created a human that is ultimately doomed to eternal torture. Sure you could argue that the homosexual not act on those thoughts. But be real here, you are asking someone to act contrary to how their bodies are telling them to act. It's easy for heterosexuals to ask this of homosexuals, they are naturally inclined to like the opposite sex. But asking a homosexual to act heterosexual is like asking a heterosexual to act homosexual. I use the word "act" here because they will never BE the other option, just putting up a front.