Scientists create lesbian mice: has the 'Gay Gene' been found?

[ars731]

I would have love to have sat in on the pitch for grant money

"you want a grant for what?

we're going to make lesbian mice

lesbian mice?

yept

sounds good to me, approved!!!"

 

[Deleted]

When we get to the point where we can alter unborn babies, people will try to get their kid to be straight. Or get their kid to be gay if they want. It'll cause chaos when people are not allowed to mold their child, they'll think they'llh ave the god given right and it'll only cause trouble.

 

[WestMountain]

What about people who go both ways? If all gay people had a gay gene that made them not attracted to the other gender there wouldn't be any bisexuals.

 

[Jovlo]

I'd be surprised if this gene - I'm going to assume that their work was good and that the gene has the effect they said it does - can explain homosexuality. It's worth exploring, but a lot of human activity simply doesn't fit into the model; there's a tribe (I've conveniently forgotten the name) where males in early adolescence give blowjobs to older youths until the older ones reach a socially defined state of adulthood. At that point, the new adult takes a wife and is, from a Western perspective, a practising heterosexual, with no sexual relations with men at all and no (apparent) desire to do so. The younger adolescents, when they reach (I think) 15 or so, take on the role of the older ones, and are similarly serviced by those younger than them.

If you want to call the new adults bisexuals who for some reason don't practice being gay anymore, I suppose you could, but I don't think the model is accurate. To me, sexuality, in humans if not in these mice, is extremely defined by cultural pressures. Different examples of seemingly aberrant behaviour - for example, in Ancient Greece - seem to say that a purely biological viewpoint is very unhelpful. I think what we can agree on is that sexuality, even considered purely biologically, is not totally defined by procreative impulses in humans. Humans are, so to speak, in "heat" all year round, which is extremely unusual (if not unique) in the animal world. I think human biology primes sexual desire in practically every individual, but the method of expression and identity of the desired object, if it takes any hint at all from biology, is almost wholly a function of cultural/personal identity.

Good point.
Well where we people are different from animals is that we have a thing called ethics.
Ethics can be defined by a collection of behaviours and expectation patterns withing a group. It's also called moral, what we find normal.
This changes slowly over time, and from culture to culture.

These days, homosexuality has gone out of fashion, it is regarded by the majority as condemnable (although it's making a comeback).
In ancient Greece, homosexuality was even encouraged in the military.

Now we need to draw a line here. It's not because you give another guy a blow job that you're gay. We are not defined by our actions.
If it's a normal thing to do in society, than you don't need to be gay to do that. You can be married and have children while being (secretly) gay, the other way around.

And then there's another thing. Kinsey found out that complete heterosexuality is a rather rare thing.
Isn't it possible that we are all somewhere on a scale from 100% straight to 100% gay, with most people sitting around 90% straight?
Now in this society, people who are close to 100% straight would never explore their gay side.
They will probably deny to themselves that they even have a gay side, out of fear to be rejected by the group.

If we didn't have these inhibitions forced on us by public opinion, our culture could be much more like ancient Greece.

What about people who go both ways? If all gay people had a gay gene that made them not attracted to the other gender there wouldn't be any bisexuals.

Read a bit back please, I've tried to explain that several times before in this thread.

 

[Continuity]

I think its pretty obvious that there are genetic or formative influences in sexuality, however all I can say is so what? there's nothing wrong with being homosexual whatever the cause.

 

[Dfskelleton]

Interesting discovery, but pretty useless as well in my oppinion.

 

[TheBaron87]

That leads to an interesting question: Is it ethical to try to 'cure' homosexuality if it were possible?
Or should we accept everyone as they are?

No, it isn't ethical. It's like trying to "cure" a dark skin tone: opressive, bigoted, and ultimately futile.

Then I suppose we shouldn't try to "cure" people with high risks of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, possible birth defects, retardation, etc. etc.

No, I am NOT saying homosexuality is a disease, but they're all the same thing: genes. Who gets to determine which ones make you "who you are" and which ones don't? If you're going to say we shouldn't mess with skin or homosexuality genes, are you willing to extend that to all genes? If you say people can be allowed to turn off their diabetes gene, are you going to deny them the choice of changing their skin and gay genes?

 

[RN7]

This would be an interesting turn of events, but ultimately meaningless. Bigots will still be bigots. They've ignored facts and science before, there's no reason they won't do it again. On a different note, however, this seems like it could be the spark that brings genetic engineering into a new light. If people wanted to find out if their baby was homo or heterosexual and possibly want to choose their child's sexuality. Research could commence, opening new doors by the way of genetics.

 

[Lucifus]

Edit: Oh and I forgot the discussion part.
I've noticed how many people (even here) are convinced that homosexuality can't be genetic.
If a gay gene would be found, would you think people would be more acceptive towards not-straight people, or wouldn't that change a thing because nobody knows a thing about genetics?

This is one study. Other studies have found its a mix of environment and hormone levels in the womb. There are strong argument on all sides but this does not PROVE its genetic.

 

[Kagim]

I'll believe in a gay gene the same day i believe in a gene that causes any other sexual decision.

No, i don't have a problem with homosexuals, or any other sexual fetish as long as everyone is consenting and of age.

I just don't buy the "it's my genes and nothing else what so ever I'm the VICTIM HERE!". Because if there is a gene that causes homosexual preference does that mean every person with a differing sexual appetite has some form of S&M gene? Maiseophilia gene? Furry Gene? Hentia Gene?

What about a pedophile gene? What about a Necrophilia gene? Before you call me some insulting name think about it seriously. If there is a gene that causes people to have sexual desires towards the same sex why not towards children? Or the dead? Or any other sexual fetish.

If pedophilia is a gene and not a illness of the mind would you start to defend them? Protest there incarceration? After all it is just the way they are born.

Why is Homosexuality called a genetic disposition but watching Charlie Brown get head from snoopy just someone with a sick mind? Mass acceptance? What if there is a gene for that?

People have differing sexual desires. And many people will think your sexual desire is strange or weird. A sexual preference is NOT something you should be judged on unless you are forcing people agaisnt there will to take part, or if you are doing such things to children.

Hell, my psych books say that certain sexual decisions are based on growing up. Some research shows that people who find significantly older men or women(10-15 years) hot likely had some issue with there mother or father growing up. Men who have significant interests in breasts(suckling the nipple in particular) can be a sign of improper weening as a child, or never getting breast milk in the first place.

Many people turn to certain form of sexual eroticism due to the intrigue of the taboo. Most S&M fans do not start off being hogtied with a lit candle 6 inches up there ass and being wiped with a cat of nine. Despite what porn wants us to believe people usually start small. Why is nobody looking for the S&M gene. Its usually not considered normal to enjoy having a high heel pierce your ball sack.

I think its about time people just stop trying to make themselves out to be victims of their genetics and realize were just horny creatures with advanced frontal lobes that allow us to experiment with sex. People have different desires. If someone says "but not wanting to breed is unnatural!" then you might want to talk to the legions of people who don't want to have kids despite being straight. Or the homosexuals that want to have kids and are fighting for the right to adopt or artificially inseminate a third party.

If the homosexual communities WANT children and many straight people are AGAINST children who is the 'unnatural' one.

I'm not going to paint myself into a corner and say "There is absolutely no possibility of genetics playing a role in sexual preference whatsoever the end!" because that's as close minded as saying that every single instance of homosexuality is caused by a single gene in a child.

I am however saying that overall people make the choice of sexuality. No one forces a person to get off to people taking a piss. Yet people do, and the react the same way you do when you see something you like.

In the end its up to you what you make out of your life. Regardless of environment, raising, or genes you are accountable for your own actions. For better or for worse you hit an age where you can take control of your life and live it the way you want to, or live it the way your told to.

As for your topic question. If for some reason our sexual fascinations are just underlying genes, and people masturbate to humanoid fox people because of a mutation on one of there genes, then no. People won't be more understanding.

After all. Being Black, or Native or anything like that are not choices. People still hate them relentlessly for it.

 

[Trebort]

This is brilliant.

I can see the god squad wading in, in a little while, and then the government and pharmeceutical companies.

I'll have to go around under the cover of darkness, me and my gay ways...

They will develop a "Puff Cure" and turn it in to something similar to the mutant cure in X-Men The Last Stand.

I shall be darted like some form of animal while I'm happily humping some other gentlemans leg in a public loo perhaps?

In all seriousness though. What a load of bollocks. Gay Gene, yeah right. Me being attracted to men primarily was a personal choice. Nothing to do with genes I'm afraid.

 

[manythings]

Can they prove that it had nothing to do with the upbringing of the mice? Until then, I refuse to believe in a "gay gene".

I'm getting a vision of female mice getting hit by their fathers and so never trusting men enough to be around them. It's funny in a ridiculous way but I'm pretty sure it's not something that should come to mind if you are an alright person... then again I've known plenty of normal people who are fuckers.

Didn't they "discover" the gay gene in humans about 10 years ago? It was called XQ29. I could be thinking of something else entirely so someone feel free to correct me.

i dont remember but i think Xq29 is for a blood clotting factor?

I know there was a like a Gay pride shirt that was all over the place with the name on it but it was probably just a half-truth or something.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

That leads to an interesting question: Is it ethical to try to 'cure' homosexuality if it were possible?
Or should we accept everyone as they are?

No, it isn't ethical. It's like trying to "cure" a dark skin tone: opressive, bigoted, and ultimately futile.

Or trying to cure heterosexuality. Let's face it, we're running out of planet here...

Although the white baby born to Nigerian parents was interesting. [http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=178835] Pity it's only in the Sun/Mail, so we can't be sure if it's correct.

On the white baby matter: I didn't read the story, but it's possible that he/she is an albino. You know, those guys without pigments (or at least I think that's what makes them albino). I read somewhere that there were actually more albino black people than albino white people (I said I read it, I can't guarantee that it's true).

As for genetics: As long as they don't start churning out xenomorphs, I think we're okay. Maybe. (makes a run for the hills - there are bunkers underneath)

 

[lukenhiumur]

interesting. there are still other factors that go into sexuality, but this is proof that gay/straight isn't a choice.

 

[benbenthegamerman]

Well, i dont really mind homosexuality to begin with, but i think they should continue experimentation, on males. If this is conclusive and true, then yes, i do think people will be more accepting.

 

[Blind Sight]

Well I suspected this was the case anyway, so I'm not surprised. Doubt it'll change much though: people who accept gays will continue to do so, religious fundamentalists will ignore the science as usual, and homophobes will probably continue to be homophobic.

This is, of course, unless they find a way to remove the gay gene and eliminate homosexuality, which would probably change things quite a bit.

Or, alternatively, gay terrorists make some kind of disease that writes the homosexuality gene into its victims. THAT'S going to be awkward.

I'm going to go with this being a good thing, but now I'm wondering how bisexuality occurs if homosexuality is purely genetic. To be honest I think that both genetics and environmental factors shape a person's sexuality. A gay friend of mine had an identity crisis because he realized he was in love with his best (female) friend. Situations like that somewhat complicate things.

EDIT: Oh, and an answer to the whole 'will gay people be accepted more if their choices are genetically based?' question: Put it this way, does the fact that skin colour is genetic stop people from being racist? Or does blonde hair being genetic prevent blonde jokes? I don't think so, bigots are bigots, regardless of the factors involved.

 

[OceanRunner]

If this true (though I doubt it), they should leave it/them alone. We've had enough of a palava with GM food and such.

 

[zhoominator]

People who say that homosexuality is not genetic usually are people who say that homosexuality is somehow morally wrong. These people are usually the type of people who cannot be convinced otherwise. Ofcource there are a few sceptics here and there who refuse to believe something that hasn't been fully proved by science, but I'm pretty sure they are the minority.

Actually, it also works the other way round. Many people who are morally objectionable to it treat it like it is like some kind of disease, and if a "gay gene" is found this may only fuel their argument further. They might legitamitely be able to claim homosexuality as a genetitic defect which wouldn't really help matters as I see it.

 

[captaincabbage]

I'm not sure about the 'gay gene', but they sure as hell found the best pets ever! XD

 

[DarkHourPrince]

Being a gay female out of boredom and a love of genetics I decided to map out my family tree and see if I could, in theory, use genetics to explain the proportions of the gays/straight/trans ratio in my family and came out with surprising results that only led me to believe that there is some degree of genetics involved in this. If there is some change in the brains between gays and straights, then it is entirely possible from my viewpoint that this could be a breakthrough in some studies and the age old question could eb answered for good. And I'd finally have some hard, tangible data ammo to smack people in the face with.