Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality

I have always thought genetic evolution was directly linked to the LGBT evolution, and now science is finding what common sense dictates.
'Personal preference', 'choice', 'upbringing', etc. is a ridiculous argument. Why would anybody CHOOSE to live and walk what man has made one of the most difficult lives on earth?
Even God waits until after death to judge a person, so what makes my fellow humans think they have the right to judge another?

Some cultures consider a gay person to have been blessed with two spirits.

The ability to tolerate milk is due to a genetic mutation that took thousands of years to develope. If you can tolerate milk, you have a mutated gene! Do you think science should find a 'cure' to replace the pure gene again, leaving one unable to tolerate dairy products?

Man has either caused this through pollution, or it is a natural evolutionary process. Either way, I prefer to honor the spirit in our fellow man- not judge it because of sexual/gender preference.

It's time our species grew up and started worrying about what they could do to make a positive change in the world, dot whether somebody is wearing panties or BVD's.

Genetics, choice, nature vs nurture. It's beyond time that we really just stopped giving a flip about other peoples choices unless directly affected in a negative manner. I honestly have no idea why people cannot just leave the whole issue alone. I'll gladly admit I am a christian, but don't give one iota of care whether or not someones gay, it just flat out isn't my place too. Judge not lest ye too be judged. If it's a gene, so what? If it's a choice, so what? Live and let live. Just my usually unpopular two cents on the subject.

reply to post by butcherguy


You just repeated his point

Phage
reply to post by butcherguy

 

The same could be done by a homosexual member of a society.

You seemed to have missed that that was exactly my point.

Concurring with you means I missed something?

It seems to me that you are looking for a fight that isn't there.

reply to post by BDBinc

You can't claim homosexuality is the result of genetic traits as no proof of this was in this little study it only proves they have not found a "Gay" gene= that no such thing exists.

Very likely true. You won't find a single gene which moderates any particular behavior, much less something as complex as sexuality.
But what this study does shows is that males with a certain gene sequence (one in particular which was studied) have a tendency to be homosexual. Someone said that means it involves "choice". No, it means that there could well be other sequences involved as well.

Deaf Alien
reply to post by butcherguy

 

You just repeated his point

If I hadn't have said it, I would have been blamed for missing his point,

Even though I did post it.... he blamed me for missing the point.

I have to leave this place for a while.... too many people are blinded by their own politics.

reply to post by TheLotLizard

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.

So according to you, being 'gay' is a disease?
Oh please...that is so condescending

What you are stating when it comes to messing with genes, is actually altering the person from their natural self
Isn't that kinda selfish? To change a person to suit another's expectation as to what 'normal' is, such as yourself?

Just because you don't or won't, accept the way they are?

What is normal anyway?
You?
Me?

I've got my faults as I'm sure you do to.
I'm not gay, but who am I to judge them?
I'm no one and gays have feelings just like you or me

Being gay is not a bad thing and people born that way can't help it, not that they should.

And yes, I have believed for years that people are born that way, so when scientists claim they are born with genes that favor one gender or the other, I am not surprised


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

reply to post by Cuervo

Maybe we can find the bigot gene and cure that, too. Maybe the holier-than-thou gene, too, while we're at it.

I would applaud you for that but will have to settle for a 'star'

This gene could be natures way of saying these people should not procreate. If indeed this is natural, then the LG community should heed natures call and skip the parenting.

Well, fact would be that the purpose of mammals is to reproduce. This behavior is non-reproductive.

reply to post by Bedlam


Considering all the rhetoric on how over-populated the plant is, maybe this is natures way of correcting the situation.

Doesn't goal imply purpose? There's no purpose in evolution.

And isn't the 'goal' of evolution survival? Remember "survival of the fittest"?

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


I really wish people were taught the basics of behavior genetics. Did you really think something as complex as sexuality would be determined by a single gene? We already know of at least one other gene that contributes to homosexuality. Even then with the rare exception of something like Huntington's chorea genes are not an all or nothing thing. They merely predispose you towards a behavior. While pop scientists like to perpetuate the nature v. nurture argument the truth is that it ended in the 80s. Nature and nurture are equally important. All genes do is predispose you to a behavior. The more contributing genes you have the less environmental stimuli that is required for the behavior to manifest. So theoretically a person could become homosexual if raised in a certain environment and yet they don't have any genes contributing to it. On the other hand a person with many of the genes that contribute to homosexuality could only require the Ph in the womb being off by a tenth for a week.

So yes this study is not definitive. No study regarding behavior genetics ever will be. It told the truth. It contributes to the behavior but just because you don't have the gene doesn't mean you won't exhibit the behavior.

soficrow
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I grew up on a farm with cattle and a variety of animals. Homosexuality -or at least bisexuality- was rampant in our animal populations - and not from overcrowding either. Our herds had hundreds of acres to roam around in. I doubt it was genetic, seemed more like a natural expression of natural affection. When I was little, I thought they were hugging and playing. But what do kids know?



F&S

You do realize they do that to settle dominance in the social hierarchy, right? It's an extremely means of settling who's on top. Pun intended. We kept fancy rats for a time, and the females did it. Dominant animals over sub-doms.

sligtlyskeptical
This gene could be natures way of saying these people should not procreate. If indeed this is natural, then the LG community should heed natures call and skip the parenting.

So using this logic your solution is that a heterosexual couple biologically incapable of having children are unfit parents as well?

I do have a question:

Gays have a problem here. If they want the world to believe they are born that way instead of made through nurture, then they need to have a dominant genetic influence found. Of course, if genes were the dominant means of deciding sexual orientation identical twins would wind up both being gay far more often than they actually do.

But, given that whenever a child has some kind of genetic abnormality (and yes, something that would make you part of about 2% of the population is an abnormality) that would lead them to live a life that we are constantly told by gays themselves is so miserable ... many parents are led to think they should abort. Parents want the perfect child, and this could become something that could be screened for and removed by parents who are more pro-choice.

Now, I'm not arguing for. I'm pro-life. I'm just pointing out that maybe you all ought to be careful what you're wishing for here.

Maybe you should be happy that we are still in the stage of thinking it's more a product of nurture.

Another way to look at it is this: We are rapidly entering the era of designer children when traits will be actively chosen by parents. If parents had that power to pick and choose traits from their DNA, how many would opt for that particular one? And I'm not saying that to be hateful; I'm asking you to be honest. How many parents do you think would choose that for their child?

For the record, I'm not anti-GMO. So don't hit me with that one.

KeliOnyx

sligtlyskeptical
This gene could be natures way of saying these people should not procreate. If indeed this is natural, then the LG community should heed natures call and skip the parenting.

So using this logic your solution is that a heterosexual couple biologically incapable of having children are unfit parents as well?

It could very well be. Who knows?

reply to post by KeliOnyx


I think he intended it to be tongue-in-cheek.

Hahaha I love it when you say one thing and people write you an essay you haven't seen the likes of since grammar school...

If there is a gene malfunction somewhere in your chromosomes that changes you drastically from your species, causing social issues, I am sorry but that sounds a lot like a disease.

Obesity is a disease is it not? What is the difference? And I'm meaning on a mental outlook. They don't "choose" to be obese.

I'm not for or against homosexuality. But what I was saying is that if they are able to cure it, think of the people who do not want to be gay. The ones who do not embrace who they are.

Because after all there ARE people that are gay that wish not to be.

tothetenthpower
Although I HIGHLY doubt any adult would want to rewire their genetics twenty plus years after having had them a certain way, for something as silly as sexual orientation.

~Tenth

That would make an interesting movie. Happy gay couple, one toots the fix and one does not. Do they still love each other after the rewiring...just not "that way"?

reply to post by TheLotLizard

If there is a gene malfunction somewhere in your chromosomes that changes you drastically from your species, causing social issues, I am sorry but that sounds a lot like a disease.

Is people wanting to survive as a whole a disease?

reply to post by TheLotLizard

Obesity is a disease is it not? What is the difference? And I'm meaning on a mental outlook. They don't "choose" to be obese.

Obesity was classified as a disease by the AMA because of the detrimental health effects which occur directly as a result of it. There are no detrimental health effects associated directly with homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a disease. Your comparison is specious.

“The suggestion that obesity is not a disease but rather a consequence of a chosen lifestyle exemplified by overeating and/or inactivity is equivalent to suggesting that lung cancer is not a disease because it was brought about by individual choice to smoke cigarettes,” the resolution said.

www.nytimes.com...