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

[Hallow'sEve]

Give it a few years and we'll have the "gay cure"

 

[Finnboghi]

I know I'm going to get flamed and bashed for this, even if I preface it with this statement:

I do not support nor condemn any sexual or other issues, related or not, to biology, environment, or choice. I am merely an observer attempting to regard said issues without bias.

Furthermore, I use the term 'carrier' to describe someone carrying the 'gay gene'. This is not to imply that it is a disease, but to remove any bias towards male/female or gay/straight, as everyone is a 'carrier' of their own genes.

Homosexuality cannot be caused purely by a gene.

It's not physically possible.

Due to natural selection, it is impossible for homosexuality to be caused purely by a gene (or, even moreso, genes) - genes can only be passed between individuals from parent to child; there is no other way for one person's genes to directly affect another's, other than through direct descendance. Because of this, the only way for a 'gay gene' to still exist today, is if the mutation spontaneously occured everywhere this generation (which is statistically impossible), or carriers of the 'gay gene' would have to procreate with non-carriers, which, while nowhere near impossible, is less likely than two non-carriers procreating. As per natural selection, this would eventually cause the decline of the carriers until they became extinct, much like a species would adapt to a changing environment.

Because of this, it becomes very clear that homosexuality cannot be caused solely by a gene - however that is not to say that genetics can't be involved.

A far more likely scenario for the cause of homosexuality is a genetic predisposition to sensitivy; for example, a particular gene may not directly cause the carrier to be homosexual, but instead tends the individual to be more sensitive to certain environmental changes. Say a male gene causes the developping brain of a fetus to be more susceptible to a certain female hormone - if the mother were to drink a large number of acidic beverages contained within aluminum cans (which are coated with a plastic to seperate the can and beverage, that contains bisphenol A, a chemical which mimics estrogen), then the increased concentration of estrogen-like substances, combined with the fetus' increased senstivity, may cause a developmental abnormality in the infant, which could lead to homosexuality or any number of other 'deviations'.

It could also be that it is not related to genetics at all, and is purely determined by environment, though this is unlikely; the rareness of homosexuality (7-10%) suggests that there are more limiting factors than merely environment.

 

[DazBurger]

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.

If the parents wants a child with another skin-tone, who is to stop them?
Who cant stand out of the crowd and deside?

 

[Plurralbles]

so... you must be stupid to be attracted to females?

The smaller brain piece... lol, joking.

 

[Digikid]

Interesting.....wonder how this will affect us.

 

[Yeslek Ssomllur]

Due to natural selection, it is impossible for homosexuality to be caused purely by a gene (or, even moreso, genes) - genes can only be passed between individuals from parent to child; there is no other way for one person's genes to directly affect another's, other than through direct descendance. Because of this, the only way for a 'gay gene' to still exist today, is if the mutation spontaneously occured everywhere this generation (which is statistically impossible), or carriers of the 'gay gene' would have to procreate with non-carriers, which, while nowhere near impossible, is less likely than two non-carriers procreating. As per natural selection, this would eventually cause the decline of the carriers until they became extinct, much like a species would adapt to a changing environment.

*In a sarcastic tone*
Yes, because no one who is homosexual has ever procreated with the opposite gender in order to appease social and familial pressures.
*sigh*

 

[Baneat]

I think it would be a big kick in the teeth to all those people (generally homophobes) who say that its a choice to be gay.

problem is that statement would have blown apart any argument before you even got to genetics. If it's a choice, what right do others have to restrict it?

 

[Indiscrimi]

The "gay gene" was discovered by Dr Robert Hamer years ago. He published his findings in a book called "The God Gene". This is nothing new.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I knew a pair of identical twins. One gay one straight. I still say it's a choice.

 

[Kollega]

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?

For the record: i didn't mean homosexuals willingly changing their own genes/biochemistry, i was talking about being forced to do so against their will.

 

[ZeoAssassin]

I know I'm going to get flamed and bashed for this, even if I preface it with this statement:

I do not support nor condemn any sexual or other issues, related or not, to biology, environment, or choice. I am merely an observer attempting to regard said issues without bias.

Furthermore, I use the term 'carrier' to describe someone carrying the 'gay gene'. This is not to imply that it is a disease, but to remove any bias towards male/female or gay/straight, as everyone is a 'carrier' of their own genes.

Homosexuality cannot be caused purely by a gene.

It's not physically possible.

Due to natural selection, it is impossible for homosexuality to be caused purely by a gene (or, even moreso, genes) - genes can only be passed between individuals from parent to child; there is no other way for one person's genes to directly affect another's, other than through direct descendance. Because of this, the only way for a 'gay gene' to still exist today, is if the mutation spontaneously occured everywhere this generation (which is statistically impossible), or carriers of the 'gay gene' would have to procreate with non-carriers, which, while nowhere near impossible, is less likely than two non-carriers procreating. As per natural selection, this would eventually cause the decline of the carriers until they became extinct, much like a species would adapt to a changing environment.

Because of this, it becomes very clear that homosexuality cannot be caused solely by a gene - however that is not to say that genetics can't be involved.

A far more likely scenario for the cause of homosexuality is a genetic predisposition to sensitivy; for example, a particular gene may not directly cause the carrier to be homosexual, but instead tends the individual to be more sensitive to certain environmental changes. Say a male gene causes the developping brain of a fetus to be more susceptible to a certain female hormone - if the mother were to drink a large number of acidic beverages contained within aluminum cans (which are coated with a plastic to seperate the can and beverage, that contains bisphenol A, a chemical which mimics estrogen), then the increased concentration of estrogen-like substances, combined with the fetus' increased senstivity, may cause a developmental abnormality in the infant, which could lead to homosexuality or any number of other 'deviations'.

It could also be that it is not related to genetics at all, and is purely determined by environment, though this is unlikely; the rareness of homosexuality (7-10%) suggests that there are more limiting factors than merely environment.

i believe you are forgetting about carriers. the "gay gene" can be carried by people who aren't gay just like carriers of a genetic disease/disorder (NOT SAYING HOMOSEXUALITY IS ONE I AM JUST SAYING HOW THE GENE CAN REPRODUCE) do not actually have the disease but if they have kids with another carrier of the gene, their child has a chance to be gay OR has a chance to be a "gay gene" carrier.

so yes being gay can still be completely genetic (which i believe)

source here:

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/genetics-carrier-identification


Edit: also sexuality is hardwired into our brains for the purpose to reproduce, so to think that a person can "choose" against their hardwired biology seems impossible. having a different wiring in your brain makes more sense.

 

[Jovlo]

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.

I've once done the same once. I've got three priests in my family.
It's not a surprise I am what I am...

Me being attracted to men primarily was a personal choice. Nothing to do with genes I'm afraid.

OK, could you explain that to me please? Why on earth would someone choose to be gay and carry the social stigma?
If I had the choice, I would be straight as an arrow.

 

[Jovlo]

Finally, if there were a gay gene, or any form of sexual gene, that would involve it having to be part of one of the parents genetic makeup, unless it was a mutation in which case it WOULD be a bad thing, however i don't think its a mutation. As well most pedophiles do not come from a long line of pedophiles, just like homosexuals do not come from a long line of homosexuals.

Keep in mind that there does not need to be a long line of homosexuals to produce more.
It's just like how parents who both have brown eyes can still have a child with blue eyes.
The brown eye allele of the eye-colour-gene is dominant over the blue eye allele.
Of each gene, you have two alleles, one from your father, one from your mother.
If you have a blue allele and a brown allele your eyes will be brown. Only if both are blue, your eyes will be blue.

The straight allele of the sexual orientation gene is clearly dominant over the gay allele, if not, about 75% of the population would be gay.
Still, if parents who both carry a straight and a gay allele have a kid, they have a 25% chance to have a gay kid, even though they are straight.

And then we're not talking about all the closet cases, who force themselves to reproduce anyway and pass on even more of the gay allele.

 

[Kiju]

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?

If the "Gay Gene" is found, then that would mean people who aren't as acceptive towards bisexual and/or gay individuals would be inclined to believe that it's a "flaw" that can be "fixed". It can also, theoretically, through genetic research be 'corrected' so that no homosexuals are born.

Trust me on this. It would actually be a bad thing for the "gay gene" to be found. At least, it would be to homosexuals.

On the bright side, it may jump-start the Church's acceptance of genetic research...they'll put their lot in with anything that removes one of their so-called "stains" from the world.

 

[Jovlo]

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.

Well this gene controls the effect of those hormones in the womb on your brain, so it would be more a confirmation of what we knew before.
And guess what could influence the hormone level in the womb? Environmental factors, and your mother's genes.

 

[Trebort]

Me being attracted to men primarily was a personal choice. Nothing to do with genes I'm afraid.

OK, could you explain that to me please? Why on earth would someone choose to be gay and carry the social stigma?
If I had the choice, I would be straight as an arrow.

What social stigma? I have to say I've never encountered any social stigma in the real world. Secondary school, yeah of course, but everyone is bullied.

Men are just as attractive as women, I just prefer men.

Homosexuals have been around for centuries, until the god squad started their form of population control, it was considered healthy and perfectly normal for men and women to sleep with both genders.

I guess I don't face social stigma because I don't ram my sexuality down peoples throats (and gays that do piss me right off), put on a high pitched voice, have really limp wrists I like to flail around, or wear leather and parade down the street. I simply don't need to do that.

 

[Jovlo]

Me being attracted to men primarily was a personal choice. Nothing to do with genes I'm afraid.

OK, could you explain that to me please? Why on earth would someone choose to be gay and carry the social stigma?
If I had the choice, I would be straight as an arrow.

What social stigma? I have to say I've never encountered any social stigma in the real world. Secondary school, yeah of course, but everyone is bullied.

Men are just as attractive as women, I just prefer men.

Homosexuals have been around for centuries, until the god squad started their form of population control, it was considered healthy and perfectly normal for men and women to sleep with both genders.

I guess I don't face social stigma because I don't ram my sexuality down peoples throats (and gays that do piss me right off), put on a high pitched voice, have really limp wrists I like to flail around, or wear leather and parade down the street. I simply don't need to do that.

It's exactly the same here, yet you didn't quite answer the question.
You said you prefer men, and that you chose to be attracted to them.
How was that a choice?

 

[TheBaron87]

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?

For the record: i didn't mean homosexuals willingly changing their own genes/biochemistry, i was talking about being forced to do so against their will.

What will? We would be talking about changing the genes before birth. Personally, I don't think a half-developed lump of cells has the self-awareness necessary to care if you flip a couple switches with chemicals. It would be the parents' decision. Then again I'm pro-choice, so I'm a soulless monster that isn't privy to the beautiful secret of life that makes us so much better than the animals.

Anyway, I'm against any sort of genetic manipulation. We need diversity, diseases and all, to prevent extinction. The "gay gene" might be the key to surviving some deadly alien plague in the future, and our homosexual successors would at least survive and get over their fears for the sake of rebuilding humanity, rather than us all being wiped out because we decided it was worth kicking the overpopulation crisis into overdrive to get rid of some social cooties. You never know.

 

[fletch_talon]

It won't stop people from descriminatng against homosexuals.
When met with the statement that homosexuality is naturally occuring and not a choice they just say that its not being gay that gets you a one way ticket to hell, its sodomy.
Which begs the question as to why lesbians are evil.

It may just be homosexual sex in general thats bad in their eyes.