Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality

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

Phage
After, females live for quite a while after their reproductive "usefulness" is gone. Hard to see much evolutionary advantage there.

However, once they are done bearing kids, evolution is done with them as well. They're pretty much coasting. Shouldn't be much of a strong evolutionary impetus to improve them. I guess if they contribute to the group's success by grandparenting or something there could be an indirect benefit to having them live longer.

Bedlam

727Sky
I have always had a strong aversion to a man touching me...

I wonder how much of that is upbringing and culture. My entire extended family is touchy-feely, and in general I think Southern culture is more permissive of that than what you see in the northeast.

I dunno I grew up in the south and it is true there are touchy feely huggy kissy (I used to think it was an Italian kinda thing?) families; just not in the farming communities I was around..... We were a tight family and I consider myself lucky having a father who had a job and a mother who was a full time mom.. I would not trade my upbringing or child hood adventures with anyone I can think of.. Mom is dead and dad is 88 and remarried.. still active and I see him when I am in the states quite a bit. He worked for an Airline also but was in management. I do not remember us ever talking about the cause or effect of being gay, but I figure he feels like I do believing it is never a choice; a/c/d/c or a switch hitter as some women are maybe is a choice...I do not know?. Surprising how many supervisor flight attendants used to be gay.

My first double post!!!!!

reply to post by tothetenthpower


It's all about the hypothalamus.

tothetenthpower
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.

But what might your mother have thought, if the doc did a heel stick test when you were wee and said "He's got a 90% chance of being a homosexual. We can fix that by squirting this medicine up his nose"

Should that gene patch be pushed? Suppressed? Would there be a big outcry to ban it? Should there be?

I suspect it would cause a societal #storm.

727Sky

I dunno I grew up in the south and it is true there are touchy feely huggy kissy (I used to think it was an Italian kinda thing?) families; just not in the farming communities I was around...

It might be Irish, too.

I was a farm kid, and it seemed to be pretty common to pat your friends on the back. or shoulder whomp them when you ran into them. Also the roughhousing was epic.

soficrow
When I was little, I thought they were hugging and playing. But what do kids know?

A lot of mammals use mounting behavior to set social dominance, but I'm not sure it's the same as sex. Is that what you mean?

reply to post by Bedlam

Should that gene patch be pushed? Suppressed? Would there be a big outcry to ban it? Should there be?

Had that occurred, when I was born, with the dark past of homosexuality? Hell yes she would have done it.

IMO in today's society, it would have to be made a choice to people. Get 'cured' or stay who you are.

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

tothetenthpower

DeepVisions
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Lets say there is a society of homosexuals and a society of heterosexuals. Which society will last the most generations?

Considering homosexuals are generally from heterosexual couples

.

~Tenth

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

Lol I guess that's true. I may have overreacted a little. After re-reading the article it seems that having the gene does not definitively make someone homosexual but is more of an influence.

reply to post by Bedlam

I guess if they contribute to the group's success by grandparenting or something there could be an indirect benefit to having them live longer.

Sort of my point. Just because a survival aspect isn't clear, it doesn't mean there is none. But in any case, homosexuality does not preclude reproduction.




Perhaps fabulous clothes are important to the survival of the species. *ducks*

I wouldn't be surprised if it was on the X. Mom is the basic genome for the human race and only produces female offsprings. It takes special interaction with the male and lots of minute fine tuned nano chemical firing off precisely at the right times to produce a healthy male offspring. Because Mom is the default and backdrop of the universe basically, and Mother's Love the way back home, ie compassion and equality. Its all a part of the tests.

So, makes a bit of sense that it would be X related, possibly something that interferes with the correct male blueprint in full.

I also believe that many of the homosexual populations are opposite soul/spirit. They're women in mens body and men in womens bodies and probably can't adjust. I think it can be both ways, physical and spiritual.

reply to post by Phage

Perhaps fabulous clothes are important to the survival of the species. *ducks*

Having seen people of walmart, I would agree.

~Tenth

Bedlam

727Sky

I dunno I grew up in the south and it is true there are touchy feely huggy kissy (I used to think it was an Italian kinda thing?) families; just not in the farming communities I was around...

It might be Irish, too.

I was a farm kid, and it seemed to be pretty common to pat your friends on the back. or shoulder whomp them when you ran into them. Also the roughhousing was epic.

Yep I got that tee shirt too! Epic fights was all part of making long lasting friends and growing up.. Punch on the shoulder or a slap on the back was just a normal acceptance ritual..

i'm not gonna weigh in on the right or wrong or choice matter. but i would like to point out this,

from the quote in the op post.

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.

notice the word in green.

some [ sum ]
1. a little: used to indicate an unspecified number, quantity, or proportion of a total, generally a fairly small to average or reasonable one
2.quite a few: used with a slight emphasis to indicate an unspecified but fairly large number or quantity
3. particular but unspecified: used to indicate an unspecified single person or thing, often in a dismissive way

i was taught in school the first definition is usally the best and most often use for a word. so to me this says, it has a little unspecifed influence generally a faily small or reasanable influence..

now to add that to what this says futher down in the article linked to.

The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact. 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.

"have a limited and variable impact", this says to me that, even if the gene is present there is still a choice in the matter.

also they say 400 gay men, they never say if all 400 hundred have or if just a percentage have it.

i say that the jury is still out on this.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

i say that the jury is still out on this.

Oh I agree entirely, I wasn't proposing that this is the find of the century that proves anything, but it does show that genetically, within SOME people, there are factors regarding sexual orientation to consider.

This is a find that will lead to further, more targeted research that should yield better results.

~Tenth

reply to post by Phage

fter, females live for quite a while after their reproductive "usefulness" is gone. Hard to see much evolutionary advantage there.

Maybe teaching both their offspring and the generation to follow about the best ways to survive in order to procreate? Life lessons accrued through a long life?
You don't see anything useful there?
The same could be done by a homosexual member of a society.
As I said, I am looking at this from a apolitical viewpoint. Not sure why anyone would need to try and paint my comment as such.

tothetenthpower
I suppose another nail in the coffin to the " it's a choice" argument?

Source

A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. 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.

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.

Researchers have speculated in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men may have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This may be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers.

So apparently, it's all because of mom. Kidding of course, but as we can see, the more we research this, the more the conclusion seems clear.

Homosexuality is the result of naturally occurring genetic traits. I believe it's also partially environmental, but that's purely a personal perspective.

What do you think the odds are that further research will eventually find that exact genetic mechanism that determines sexual preference?

Thoughts in general?

~Tenth

So the 400 hetrosexuals in this one[ un -repeated] uncontrolled study group did not have these two chromosomes?

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.
Generally my thoughts on these kinds of claims...
NO IDEA . Scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.
UNCLEAR .Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation[and probably hetrosexual] – though again the precise mechanism is unclear.
SPECULATION The researchers have speculated.

reply to post by Phage

But in any case, homosexuality does not preclude reproduction.

Correct.
It just makes the chances of it happening in nature much lower.

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.