Study Suggests Genetic Link for Male Homosexuality

Study Suggests Genetic Link for Male Homosexuality
Associated Press | November 17, 2014


Julio Cabrera, pictured here, and his brother Mauricio, of Fort Worth, Texas, are among almost 800 gay brothers nationwide who donated blood or saliva to help scientists search for genetic clues about the origins of homosexuality. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green, File)

CHICAGO (AP) — A large study of gay brothers adds to evidence that genes influence men’s chances of being homosexual, but the results aren’t strong enough to prove it.

Some scientists believe several genes might affect sexual orientation. Researchers who led the new study of nearly 800 gay brothers say their results bolster previous evidence pointing to genes on the X chromosome.

They also found evidence of influence from a gene or genes on a different chromosome. But the study doesn’t identify which of hundreds of genes located in either place might be involved.

Smaller studies seeking genetic links to homosexuality have had mixed results.

The new evidence “is not proof but it’s a pretty good indication” that genes on the two chromosomes have some influence over sexual orientation, said Dr. Alan Sanders, the lead author. He studies behavioral genetics at NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute in Evanston, Illinois.

Experts not involved in the study were more skeptical.

Neil Risch, a genetics expert at the University of California, San Francisco, said the data are statistically too weak to demonstrate any genetic link. Risch was involved in a smaller study that found no link between male homosexuality and chromosome X.

Dr. Robert Green, a medical geneticist at Harvard Medical School, called the new study “intriguing but not in any way conclusive.”

The work was published Monday by the journal Psychological Medicine. The National Institutes of Health paid for the research.

The researchers say they found potential links to male homosexuality in a portion of chromosome X and on chromosome 8, based on an analysis of genetic material in blood or saliva samples from participants.

Chromosome X is one of two human sex chromosomes; the other is chromosome Y, present only in men.

The study authors note that animal research suggests a gene located in one region of chromosome X may contribute to some sexual behavior; it’s one of the same regions cited in the new study.

Specific causes of homosexuality are unknown. Some scientists think social, cultural, family and biological factors are involved, while some religious groups consider it an immoral choice.

Study participant Dr. Chad Zawitz, a Chicago physician, called the research “a giant step forward” toward answering scientific questions about homosexuality and helping reduce the stigma gays often face.

Being gay “is sort of like having certain eye color or skin color — it’s just who you are,” Zawitz said. “Most heterosexuals I know didn’t choose to be heterosexual. It’s puzzling to me why people don’t understand.”

Click to expand...

SOURCE

The same with me! ????????????????????

My main concern about the search for markers that identify us as Gay is the potential for abuse. What if someone, say the leaders of a fascist state hell bent on rounding up Gays for detention or worse, could screen everyone for some genetic markers?

This goes beyond any 'Gay' gene. What will happen when science identifies markers for other 'undesirable' traits? Are 'Gingers' next? What about autism? Do we really want to identify ways to make everyone the same?

I have no doubt I was born Gay. I don't want science to dissect me then use that against future generations.

RockNLol said:

A step forward?? There are so many most important medical issues, illness and so on and these scientists waste time searching for the gay gene?

Please help me because I didn't understand!

Click to expand...

That is a very short-sighted attitude. No science is a waste. Most of the great science comes from unexpected places. Anything we don't know is worth studying because we have absolutely no idea what you'll find.

Remember, Teflon came from trying to get to the Moon, computers from attempts quantum mechanics.

My concern is much more scientific. By using gay brothers as the source, all the research can show is that some homosexuality in males is influenced by genetics. Even if they researchers find a gene, that doesn't mean that all homosexuality is genetic, just some of it.

B.

RockNLol said:

Ah thanks for opening my eyes, who knows may be one day we will discover that the gay gene may treat the cancer.

Click to expand...

LOL :thumbs up: :thumbs up: good retaliated! p

RockNLol said:

Ah thanks for opening my eyes, who knows may be one day we will discover that the gay gene may treat the cancer.

Click to expand...

You mock, but yes, it could.

Scientific research conducted with an open mind is always a good thing, as has been said. Whatever the brains discover need not have any effect on our attitude to equality. We don't need to understand the science behind the fact that the black man is black and the white man is white to understand that racism is an inexcusable evil. No amount of research will explain why some people follow religion X and some follow religion Y, not knowing why won't stop us from believing in freedom of worship. As wonderful as science is, it can't make our moral choices for us.

Okie-dokie, let's take a deep breath...

Once upon a time, long, long time ago, there was this thing called blue blood and peoples with blue blood in most countries and regions of Europe.

Kings and emperors had blue blood, and so had dukes, earls and barons, likewise queens, duchesses, countess and baroness. But ordinary people, craftsmen and merchants and peasants and other groups of ordinary people, who made up some 97.5% of the people had nothing but ordinary red blood. How ordinary, how dull...

So I want to do a scientific study on this most fascinating thing - blue blood and people with blue blood running in their veins. Maybe a study on the genetics of blue blood? Or maybe on the endocrinology of blue blood people?

But the fundamental problem with those studies won't be it's methodology. The problem runs a lot deeper. It's ontological, which means - blue blood is a non-existant entity... Oh shit...

And there are other kinds deeper problems, that "comes before" scientific methodology. So let's switch over from blue blood to - homosexuality...

The modern field of scientific studies into homosexuality emerged from the late 1860s on, conducted mostly by doctors and psychiatrists mostly of German, Austrian and French origins. The British and Americans were decidedly nothing but Johnny-come-lately's.

The whole field was often named sexual psychpathology, named after the most important book of one of the most influential pioneers, the Austrian psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing (blue blood, he-he...): Psychopathia Sexualis, which first edition was published in 1886, and which had continually expanding new editions almost every other year.
Krafft-Ebing truly became the scientific Adam of European sexuality - no one has contributed so many scientific names for so many different peculiar sexual pathologies. But with one exception which must have been a bit irritating for Krafft-Ebing, since the most important and most "famous" terms were coined by a totally other guy, Karl Maria Kerbeny, who made up homosexuality and heterosexuality and first published anonymously in a pamphlett in 1869.

One of the more important characteristics of this new scientific field became the fundamental dichotomy between immoral behaviour and sexual pathology, or to use Krafft-Ebings vocabulary, between immoral perversity and pathological perversion:
"Everybody" knew, that wellnigh anyone could lust for buttfucking and cocksucking and mutual wanking every now and then without having any fundamental constitutional difference from other men.

What did you do with the immoral horndogs? The same good old procedure as usual, miss Sophie - send them off to jail and give'm a good christian whipping, of course!

No, the true turf of the psychopathologists were that purportedly new figure, the constitutional homosexual.

And he was defined as a problem. The new science became governd by the desire to "fix" the problem, and since the most influential scientific fields were medicine and psychiatry, what did you get? The eternal hunt for the "causes of homosexuality".

It's the DEFINITION OF HOMOSEXUALITY AS A PROBLEM - medical, social, psychological, judicial/criminal, whatever - that craves the causes. And this comes "before" any kind of formal scientific methodology.

Another important thing in the article quoted in this thread is, when the writer says, that it's a scientific study on "sexual orientation".

Well it isn't. It's a study on homo boys, nothing more, nothing less.

IF this really were a truly scientific study on sexual orientation, the very first thing to do would be to COMPARE ALL KINDS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION, i.e. to SYSTEMATICALLY compare heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, asexuality and whatnot. But that doesn't happen.

Of course it doesn't. In this fundamentally ideological and fiercely unscientific study, the real intention is to describe the gay boy as "different", "strange", "queer" etc etc etc etc.

Every gay teenage boy knows this. But he won't get the title of university professor, and even less will he get the professors salary.

As usual gorgik you have distilled the essence of the matter and bottled it for all to see clearly.

As I said I know I'm Gay by nature not by choice and I don't need some study to categorize and label me as something other than a natural man the same as everyone else.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge in a way that is easy to understand for laymen such as myself without being pretentious or dismissive. You are a treasure and I feel enriched each time you share gems of wisdom.

xoxo

You are a treasure and I feel enriched each time you share gems of wisdom.

This sentence from Sniff is the very best what ever can be said about you Gorgik. This is an article for every big newspaper and mostly an article these "scientists" shouldn't forget it! Gorgik again virtuoso! G R E A T

@Shelter and Sniffit (and everybody else)

I'm truly glad that you liked what I wrote; most of my writings on GH is just for fun (not that "just for fun" hasn't it's own peculiar importance), but what I write about in this and other related threads is not for fun, it's dead serious.

So thanks!!!

I just couldn't resist quoting philosopher Edward Stein in his important book The mismeasure of desire: The science, theory, and ethics of sexual orientation.,(Oxford University Press, 1999):

"Historically, almost every investigation into the causes of homosexuality has aimed at its elimination, that is, such research was directed at discovering "treatments" for homosexuality. The results of such research have been used to force many lesbians and gay men to undergo various procedures to change their sexual orientation, even when there was little reason to think such procedures would have any effect." (p. 329)

"Merely pointing out that scientific research on sexual orientation has a bad history does not, on its own, constitute strong criticism of it." (p. 330)

"Despite the fact that all sexual orientations are equally in need of scientific explanation, even "gay-friendly" researchers often assume that homosexuality needs more of an explanation than heterosexuality does. This assumption, whether implicit or not, biases much scientific research." (p. 331)

Gay gene discovery has good and bad implications
NewScientist dot com | November 19 2014

The finding that male homosexuality has a strong genetic component should be a boon for gay rights – but it could backfire

FOR gay rights activists, it's a dilemma. Does it help or hinder their cause if science shows that homosexuality is partly or largely biologically determined, rather than a lifestyle choice?

On the one hand, if sexual orientation is something people are born with, and cannot change even if they want to – akin to skin colour or handedness – this should overturn the notion that people choose to be gay and could equally well choose not to be. That knowledge would help rebut those who suggest that gayness is the result of a morally unacceptable decision, or a psychological disorder. It might also help people who struggle to understand or declare their own homosexuality.

On the other, some could try to redefine homosexuality as a biological abnormality. There is no way to change people's sexuality, but if key genes are found, it might be possible to detect homosexuality before birth, or to "cure" people by altering those genes. Even the threat of this could be used to persecute: consider the ugly histories of prenatal sex selection and of coerced and ineffectual "therapies" for homosexuals. It is no wonder that some activists see in such research the "seeds of genocide".

This debate has rumbled on for years. But as we report this week, there is growing evidence that male homosexuality has a strong genetic contribution (see "Largest study of gay brothers homes in on 'gay genes'"). Other biological components of homosexual behaviour have also been found: brain structures that differ with sexual orientation, for example, and robust theories for how genes survive in the population despite rarely being passed on by homosexual people.

To socially liberal and tolerant people, this new knowledge will be entirely unchallenging. It is in circles where homosexuality is still considered problematic – of which there are many – that it could have implications.

There is some evidence that people who see homosexuality as biologically determined are more tolerant than those who see it as a lifestyle choice. But it is not clear which way the arrow of causation points: it may be that tolerant people are more inclined to believe in biological determinism. And there is also a growing understanding that simply presenting people with evidence that contradicts their world views does not change their minds: rather than assimilate the information, they just intensify their efforts to reject it.

This seems a likely response among those who object to homosexuality. Homophobia has deep and complex causes. It may itself be partly biological in origin: for example, straight people with a stronger innate disgust response are also more likely to oppose gay marriage. You might as well ask: why not search for genes that make some people virulently homophobic?

Science cannot overturn such prejudice on its own, particularly when it clashes with world views that stipulate how society should be ordered. From these spring the urge to show that homosexuality is "unnatural", which the genetic evidence disputes. But human sexuality is in any case flexible and creative. Deeming certain behaviours unnatural is absurd: most of us have desires that could be labelled thus, and the natural world abounds with practices no human would attempt.

Ultimately, what causes homosexuality doesn't matter as much as the fact that homosexual people exist, and have always existed, in every society on earth. In the words of the activists: some people are gay. Get over it.

Click to expand...

SOURCE

That last article brings to mind an interview in which a scientist went head to head with an evangelical about creationism. The scientist, with rising exasperation, said
"I have supported every point I have made with facts, facts you can check up and prove to be true. You have not supported your case with anything except your wish to believe what you already believe"
The religious lady answered with
"Facts, I'm not interested in facts. I know what I believe and that's all I want to know. You can't fool me with your facts and your proof, I know I'm right.
That is the kind of mental attitude we are up against.
Whether the topic is gun control, drug control, climate change or sexual equality, the truth is already out there, it's the brick wall of the conservative mind that we need to find a cure for.