Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality

LewsTherinThelamon

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)

Why don't we cure black people while we're at it?

That is a great idea. Mate them with the pastey whities and cure them both of their sickness.

Now we are cookin' with grease

reply to post by Skyfloating


It matters to those that claim this is our "Selected Preference" or our "Lifestyle/Life Choice" and thus not only can we be cured of this "Gay Disease" but we shouldn't ask for Equal treatment because we decided we wanted to be Homosexual

essentially, don't ask to not be discriminated because this is your choice etc

As I keep reading the posts there are a few other things that we should consider before even thinking on playing with the genetics of a person:

The human genome is something that was mapped recently, however it is only the surface of the entire science behind it. Only a good 10% of the human genome has been looked at and ultimately figured out, that leaves 90% of it that is still a mystery. And like most in the field will tell you, many times the very genes that would determine one trait, affects many other aspects of the body. A point in case for this could be seen in canines, and the pure bred dogs. Many of the same genes that give one breed of dog the traits that are found to be desirable, also affects other traits, like a house of cards. A good example of this would be seen in Greyhounds. Greyhounds are known for their speed, and the gene that gives them that speed, also controls the muscle growth and development in the animal. If they mess with that, it would become a wild card gene, and could either make the animal very fast, or very bulky.

The same thing is also seen in say Chickens, if you give a hormone at the correct time, and you would end up with a chicken with say teeth or a longer tail.

We do not know about what all those very genes that have been identified also control, and what the ramifications of messing with them would be. Could you or would be willing to take that chance, on say a living person or an unborn child? What if that very gene was responsible for say intelligence, and by messing with it, it ended up making the child have a very low IQ, or lacking any empathy, creating another Hitler or serial killer?

Right now this is just the preliminary research, looking at a reason for why some people are one way and another. The other truth of the matter, is that science cannot really state why a person is attracted to another. The science is new and still being looked at and figured out. All this is, is just a piece of a very complex and complicated puzzle.

sdcigarpigThe human genome is something that was mapped recently, however it is only the surface of the entire science behind it.

What's frustrating is trying to find details behind the "We've got it all mapped". For instance, the 2001 release of Celera Corporation's rough draft was touted as the full thing, wasn't it? Then a release from the Human Genome project was in 2003, but they wilfully ignored more complex areas of DNA that don’t produce proteins in order to tout completion--and the estimate on the things not sequenced yet was set to a 10-20 year range.

Plastics... plastics have "supposedley" been the cause of lower sperm count in men as well as higher estrogen levels.

I thought i'd throw that out there.

Skyfloating

tothetenthpower
Thoughts in general?

In this our year 2014 we`re too ignorant of how life works and cannot for certain say what causes homosexuality. We`ll be looking back 500 years from now and laughing about our naive and ignorant nature/nurture discusssion and will have discovered that its something completely different entirely.

The ancients looked at the sun and thought it was a deity. Later they said it was a planet. Then it was discovered it was a star but they thought it revolved around the earth. Today they say its a star and the earth revolves around it. Such is the evolution of knowledge.

Is it really important what causes homosexuality?

I've never thought about whether my heterosexuality is biological or whether its a personal preference. Fact is, I am attracted to the opposite sex. Who cares whether its nature or nurture? I tend to think it some of both. Its in my nature to be heterosexual, but I could also suppress my sexual nature and not feel attraction if I put my mind to it.

This thread is about a claim which helps explain homosexuality. Thus that is the subject matter being discussed. I think it is important to figure out if it is a developed tendency or a natural tendency, as if it is developed and people wanted out, then therapy could be an answer, which of course would not work if it was natural. Maybe it is both. I would personally be relieved to know it was completely natural as such information would allow myself to properly frame the condition and not have doubts in the back in my mind that the person in front of me possesses some deeply rooted psychological issues which causes their gayness. I know if people knew my deep down psychological issues they may be on guard about me as well. Probably goes for most people. It's just that people distrust irrationality and gayness is irrational to a large portion of the population. Sexuality is the deepest rooted human emotion for most of us. Proving gay sex is natural in some people would be a banner day for gay people and their acceptance in society.


People also like to be different, so I would expect if it was proven to be a natural condition, then many gays would probably come to the realization that they aren't really gay. Just like when countries legalize drugs, usage actually goes down.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

Problem is that there are identical twins where one is gay, and the other is straight. The same genetic code, just different life experiences.

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 b
e on the level as the discovery of the polio vaccine

As another poster mentioned this would not fall into the category of a disease, you are comparing a physically healthy human being who was born with a genetic variant that is not contagious, will not cause harm such as illness, permanent disfigurement or death to those in contact with the person, to an extremely harmful disease that is contagious, can cause permanent disfigurement or even death within society.

I have to laugh thinking about your line of thinking on this. See although I had no choice in the matter, either due to a variant gene in my DNA, or evolution or who knows, a part of me physically developed differently than everyone else I knew. Recently I have since discovered that currently around 35% of the population now share this difference with me, but I'm 53 so maybe I'm one of the first.

Now based on your logic, if it's not a choice and it's not what you might consider normal, it's a disease in which the gene should be isolated and removed. This type of sentiment is not at all unusual, a great many people have difficulty dealing with things that don't fit into their concept of normal. People stare when they see someone with a large discolored birthmark on or around their face, or someone missing an arm or leg, or the elbows and knees of someone with psoriasis, it makes them uncomfortable and they may turn away, cross the street to distance themselves from them, or at the very least dwell on how uncomfortable they were and how they wished they hadn't seen it.

The reason I laugh though, is if it is proven that a gene is responsible for homosexuality you are not the only one that will be viewing that gene as a disease and abnormal, as opposed to a natural genetic occurrence based on whatever triggers, demand it be isolated and removed from those carrying it, with no consideration as to how it might effect physically, genetically, or emotionally the individual that is carrying it. THE GOAL....to make them NORMAL, LIKE the MAJORITY.

But if it one day is proven that some variant gene in my DNA or some mutation elementally triggered by something in my environment, the GOAL of the MAJORITY.....the 65% of the population who are NORMAL will be clamoring for science to identify the gene or environmental factor responsible for my abnormality, no longer viewing the gene that caused me to be different as a disease as illustrated in the above situation, but instead viewing it as a prize mistakenly granted to an abnormal minority which obviously should have been granted to the NORMAL the Majority,

I bet that 65% of the population...the MAJORITY, would welcome the abnormality of never having wisdom teeth!

TheLotLizard
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Like I said it causes "social problems" does it not?

Honestly the only social problems that it causes are amongst those who aren't really effected by it. Homosexuality is not contagious, if parents are worried about their children whom they are raising with religious values seeing it, hearing about it, finding out that there are people that are homosexual out in the real world, they should be involved in their children's lives and teaching them to live the kind of life they want for them, but also teaching them that we live in a world of many people, from many cultures, countries, some are rich, some poor, and not all share the same faith and belief as your family does, and while it never hurts to reach out a hand through faith to help them, you cannot force your beliefs and faith on another who's differ from yours'" So respect their right to live on this earth without hate or violence, as you expect them to respect your rights.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


I enjoyed the points of your response and agree wholeheartedly. You mentioned greyhound dogs and what could happen if people messed with their DNA. While such things did not occur in a laboratory with scientists tweaking their DNA to ensure positive breed aspects, the history of breeding pure bread dogs of long standing pedigree, blue ribbon winners, has in fact adversely effected some breeds. Rottweilers are prone to hip displaysia, Cocker Spaniels are prone to rage syndrome and so on.

reply to post by MALBOSIA

This was always conclusive to YOU. when did you ever consider any other view point???

Let's be honest here. Your view point has been conclusive. Have you really considered the 'other side'? Otherwise, nice double standard.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

Problem is that there are identical twins where one is gay, and the other is straight. The same genetic code, just different life experiences.

Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets

"In both studies the rates of concordance for MZ twins are sufficiently high as to suggest a strong biological basis for sexual orientation. The rate of concordance for both MZ and DZ twins is considerably higher than might be expected by chance."

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?

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

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.

reply to post by BDBinc

Men who are not gay have the same Xq28 region -how do you explain that.

The indication would be that there is not a single gene which is responsible. It is quite common for a number of genes to be involved in the expression of a trait. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of genetics should be aware of this. en.wikipedia.org...

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.

The media often messes up the actual science. But the media in the the OP got it right. This study shows that this gene has an influence in determining male homosexuality. It is quite clear.

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

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

Oh they did map it out, was able to gene sequence the entire human genome, that they did do. But what the individual genes do that is another story, that is more complex and difficult to say.

What they do know is that some genes, as say those that cause some cancers, have been identified, and can lead to some cures. But this is what they do know about genes and the genomes of most creatures: As they develop, starting at fertilization, there are hormones that are introduced at different times during the development of the new life, that determine many traits of that life form. It is what tells the body how tall it will be, or what blood type, what hair color, eye color, skin color and so on. Introducing a protein or a hormone during that time will either turn on or turn off a gene in the growing body, that affects the entire sequence and its off spring for generations to come.

But 90% of those sequences are not know, they still do not know what is the critical part during the development of say a fetus that will determine if a child will grow up to have cancer or not. Gene sequencing right now is like looking out at a pasture and saying: "Yep the horse is not in the barn." This stuff takes years and years to work on and usually it is one small part of a complex puzzle. I would think that the big news would not be that this can be fixed, but hey they are starting to unlock and put more pieces of a complex puzzle together that explains what makes a human. And maybe do something useful with it, like ending some really dibilatating diseases, such as cancer, sids, and life altering diseases, such as parkinsons and Alzheimer's.

But knowing about some groups, they will see this and look to use it to try to fund groups that can alter a person before they are born, and when Frankenstein's monster is released, I can only hope it is not too late.

eletheia

@soficrow

We were talking about cases of natural transexuality - the previous poster cited the wrasse, I said I'd been hearing about it a lot but couldn't remember the species.

I looked up 'natural' transsexuality because homosexuality is natural and the man/woman who is homosexual is not after changing their sex.

There is noway a transsexual can change their actual sex organs without human intervention, so you cannot get 'natural' transsexuals.

Individuals in some species DO change their sex organs without human intervention. As has been discussed, many species exhibit such "natural transexuality" as well as homosexuality (one being the wrasse). Do what ever you need to do to justify your own prejudices and life view, but please, stop trying to involve me in your efforts to re-write science and natural history.

The wrasses are a family, Labridae, of marine fish… Sex change in wrasse is generally female-to-male, but experimental conditions have allowed for male-to-female sex change. Placing two male Labroides dimidiatus wrasses in the same tank will result in the smaller of the two becoming female again.[13] Additionally, while the individual to change sex is generally the largest female,[14] evidence also exists of the largest female instead "choosing" to remain female in situations in which she can maximize her evolutionary fitness by refraining from changing sex.[15]

reply to post by Phage


I just love it that homosexuality is seen as inheritable.



Kkkkukkkkuk.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by Bedlam

 

But back to the question - if you could fix it by spraying a carrier virus with a gene patch up your nose for $20, what would you do? What would society do? If you were gay, would you do it? Would society mandate it? Ban it?

No, because I don't consider it a defect. I'm biased though as I am gay and have lived my entire adult life married to a man and have raised 4 children in that scenario. Successfully I might add.

Considering the issues we currently have with people having too many children they aren't taking care of and the rising cost of keeping people alive ( see the baby boomer generation now and then next 15 years), it makes perfect sense that a natural trigger like homosexuality would appear.

Considering we also seem the same behavior in over 100 species of other animals, sometimes increasingly so where over population has occurred, that shows me that there's more to it than just being 'broken'.

So IMO the defect issue is entirely subjective and a matter of opinion. Outside of the moral arguments, gays aren't hurting anybody.

It's not like we discovered how to get rid of sociopaths. I'd get behind that because sociopaths are an actual danger to society as a whole. See what I mean?

~Tenth

edit on 2/14/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

I think one could argue that the world would not be what it is without sociopaths, and that, a small amount of them are necessary for the advancement of society.

I also like to harken back to those who say homosexuals influence culture; this is true, but would it not be true if there were some way to change their orientation?

Who's to say that a fashion designer who is gay, would not still be a fashion designer if he were straight.

Also, maybe it is an intended natural form of population control. Maybe it's required. Maybe it's not.

Gay or straight, I don't think either position has room to play "bias" here. Nobody knows the answers to these questions because of insufficient data. The only way to get sufficient data is by testing.

The point is, nobody should get their feelings hurt or feel attacked because people are discovering new properties of genes, nor should anybody get upset or their feelings hurt if they started gene therapy testing on willing subjects. It's for the betterment of advancing knowledge, and those who put arbitrary road blocks in front of that advancement are only doing harm to the condition that is human.

Chill out, and let science do it's thing.

Phage
reply to post by BDBinc

 

Men who are not gay have the same Xq28 region -how do you explain that.

The indication would be that there is not a single gene which is responsible. It is quite common for a number of genes to be involved in the expression of a trait. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of genetics should be aware of this. en.wikipedia.org...

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.

The media often messes up the actual science. But the media in the the OP got it right. This study shows that this gene has an influence in determining male homosexuality. It is quite clear.

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

Then since no genes can be named why mention Xq28 as it is not a gene linked to homosexuality.
If you still believe that there are a number of other genes that homosexuals have [and hetrosexuals don't] name them and give me the study. As you know the study could not name genes linked as hetrosexuals have been found to have Xq28 and they noted the fact that the findings were unclear .But those who want to believe there are gay genes read what they want into a study.

I am saying is the media have messed up and the study proves nothing.
And the study does not show Xq28 influences male homosexuality.
How do you think it showed that.