CNN.com wrote:LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Genetic factors, along with cultural and early experiences, influence male homosexuality, Italian scientists said on Wednesday.
Researchers at the University of Padua said the genetic components are linked to the X chromosome which is inherited only from the mother. But they are probably on other chromosomes and could partly explain male homosexuality.
"The key factor is that these genes both influence homosexuality in men, higher fecundity in females and are in the maternal and not the paternal line," Andrea Camperio-Ciani, who headed the research team, said in an interview
Since we've discussed this topic before. Basically from reading the news article...which is not the same as reading the paper, it seems like they have found correlative evidence.
Correlation is not causation...which means they are not saying that Gene xyz makes you gay. They are not at a point whether they can say that these specific genes make a male homosexual because of the following mechanisms, etc etc. It is potentially a step in that direction though.
What you quoted looks like the most inconclusive statement I've ever read on the subject =p
Here's an interesting question though! Let's say, through gene therapy etc, that we do determine homosexuality is an abnormality on the genetic level similar to blindness or myriad other abnormalities. Do we "cure" it in the womb?
Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Paine
Don't ask those difficult questions. This was posed before and not one person would step up and answer that they wanted their child to be gay. Everyone skirted the issue like Kerry being asked where the money for his projects was going to come from if taxes were not being raised.
I assume you are being a bit tongue in cheek by describing that as an ambiguous statement. It is actually concise and direct.
Genetic factors specifically on the X-chromosome (in other words inherited from the mother) are correlated with homosexual behavior in adult men. As stated in the initial post, this is not claiming to be a causal link, but perhaps a preliminary glimpse into a mechanism.
if the question is whether or not we select for non-homosexual children with IVF or whatever, is still science fiction at this point. But as the summary statement says, there are likely many genetic components on many chromosomes that are specifically responsible for the mechanism.
In other words, it isn't the expression level of one gene that makes you gay. So there isn't a "gay switch", like a brown eyes/blue eyes "switch".
We all have seen guys that we believe are gay, but appear not to be (wife, kids, can whoop your ass in hoops). we all have probably seen guys that had no outwardly effiminant behaviors that in fact were gay. And every color of the rainbow (:p) in between. Presumably there is some intermediate state between homo- and hetero-sexuality. I can cite many instances on Skinimax where womenz have gotten down with girls and guys at the same time.
Even if this does conclusively turn out to be partially genetic, you can't select for a trait that is based partially in behavior and experience, only influence it at most.
Voro has the right of it, though. Correlation, not causation is the key here; without a causal link no amount of correlation can rightly be considered proof.
Traz Blackwolfe (Retired)
-------------------- I could turn you inside out
What I choose not to do
yeah i didnt make the post to try to say "see!! genes cause gayness"
we've had some debates on the subject here, and this study supports (but does not PROVE) the argument that there is a genetic component to homosexuality
This definitely follows the point I was trying to get across a couple of weeks ago. You may have the genetic "ability" to be gay but that dosen't mean that you are or will be.
Just like some people are born with the propensity to be obese, or athletic, alcoholic, or smart? So this study seems to conclude that gay is a choice like so much else in the human condition?
Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Paine
Can not, the other people do or do not but at either end of the spectrum there is no choice... that is my theory at least based up observation over the years. If I ever get the time I may try to come up with a study to test it...
Marbus wrote:Can not, the other people do or do not but at either end of the spectrum there is no choice... that is my theory at least based up observation over the years. If I ever get the time I may try to come up with a study to test it...
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Don't ask those difficult questions. This was posed before and not one person would step up and answer that they wanted their child to be gay. Everyone skirted the issue like Kerry being asked where the money for his projects was going to come from if taxes were not being raised.
That is a very dumb question, its like asking if you want a boy or a girl. To me, I wouldn't care what sex, or sexual preference, or if he/she is tall. I'll take what I get.
Rekaar. wrote:You think it's stupid to hope for a boy or a girl?
Yes I do, I think people should be more concerned about the health of the baby than any other thing.
People are young retard. Parents worry first and formost about having a healthy baby. Then they hope for one or the other, but are happy either way as long as it is healthy. Then they hope they don't have a fag, but will accept it if they have to.
Going along with another question posed earlier...I don't see why any more than maybe .000008% of the population would even consider not fixing their baby in the womb from being gay if they could. It's no different than telling a parent..."your kid looks like it will be born deaf in one ear, but we can fix it if you like....."
If only they could genetically engineer child to grow from a YY chromosome, that'd be the manliest man to ever walk the earth. Surely he'd be known as Super Man.
Just like some people are born with the propensity to be obese, or athletic, alcoholic, or smart? So this study seems to conclude that gay is a choice like so much else in the human condition?
Just wondering.. you claiming that people aren't born with different levels of athleticism etc? Do you believe everyone are born with the same level and potential and then it all depends on practice, choice and repetition?
Just wondering.. you claiming that people aren't born with different levels of athleticism etc? Do you believe everyone are born with the same level and potential and then it all depends on practice, choice and repetition?
If so.. I'm amazed.[/shadow]
How you could totally get my statement reversed is beyond my comprehension at this time. Maybe I can clarify it though!
If you're born with the propensity to be the next Michael Jordan but don't make the choices to pursue that propensity, then you made a choice, and regardless of your in-born characteristics you did not follow that course because of that. Similarly a fat guy may be a fat guy for different reasons than another fat guy just because of how their chemical makeups differ - but both could be fit and within the norm for weight if they made the appropriate choices.
Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Paine
Rekaar. wrote:What you quoted looks like the most inconclusive statement I've ever read on the subject =p
Here's an interesting question though! Let's say, through gene therapy etc, that we do determine homosexuality is an abnormality on the genetic level similar to blindness or myriad other abnormalities. Do we "cure" it in the womb?
Rekaar. wrote:If you're born with the propensity to be the next Michael Jordan but don't make the choices to pursue that propensity, then you made a choice, and regardless of your in-born characteristics you did not follow that course because of that. Similarly a fat guy may be a fat guy for different reasons than another fat guy just because of how their chemical makeups differ - but both could be fit and within the norm for weight if they made the appropriate choices.
I don't think anyone has a choice on their sexuality, but I agree that how you practice your sexuality is a choice. Up to this day, some people feel the pressure to fit in so strongly, that they ignore/hide what is natural to them (see Gov. McGreevey).
As far as homosexuality being a disease or an abnormality, I disagree with both notions. Saying something is abnormal assumes that most people are the same. I believe that sexuality encompasses a much broader spectrum than just "gay", "straight", or "bisexual". Two people who both identify as straight given this limited selection, may in fact still differ on how they would react sexually given similar circumstances. As far as describing homosexuality as a disease, that would imply some kind of inability to function "normally", which would again be based on an artificial sexual norm.
Rekaar. wrote:You think it's stupid to hope for a boy or a girl?
Yes I do, I think people should be more concerned about the health of the baby than any other thing.
People are young retard. Parents worry first and formost about having a healthy baby. Then they hope for one or the other, but are happy either way as long as it is healthy. Then they hope they don't have a fag, but will accept it if they have to.
Going along with another question posed earlier...I don't see why any more than maybe .000008% of the population would even consider not fixing their baby in the womb from being gay if they could. It's no different than telling a parent..."your kid looks like it will be born deaf in one ear, but we can fix it if you like....."
Still waiting for Midnyte to suggest that abortions are ok if your child have the genetic setup to maybe be gay.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich"
Everytime someone throws the abnormal shit out there, I think of people growing a tail out of their ass or having a 6th and 7th finger. To me thats abnormal, not being gay or blind or left handed.
Edit: And if 10% of the population grows tails, I wouldn't call it abnormal anymore, but evolution.
If only they could genetically engineer child to grow from a YY chromosome, that'd be the manliest man to ever walk the earth. Surely he'd be known as Super Man.
when you use abnormal and "cure" in the same sentenece it normally refers to a disease. Alzheimer's is called a disease ... but bob can't go sneeze sally and she gets alzheimer's now can he?
That all depends on how you define abnormal. IF it means, not the norm then you could say left handed people, blind people, gay people etc... are outside the norm of the population. However to do that you have to have a pretty strict, and close minded IMHO, view of what is "normal."
Normal is pretty simple guys, it's the common ground the majority of people share. Don't get all fuzzy over the word abnormal, it just means traits outside the norm.
No judgment placed on those traits is implied nor intended. My question is, as a parent given the choice, would you correct any abnormality in your child in the womb? Where do you draw the line between some conditions and others? And what side of that line is gay (assuming it's even genetic in nature)?
Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Paine
It really comes down to the life of your child. Regardless of my own sexuality, if my doctor told me that my child was going to be deaf for his/her entire life but that they could cure it - I would most definately go ahead and have it cured.
But being gay is not something that adversly affects a child's -physical- life...yes it will have a major effect on their emotional and social life (that could be in a positive or negative way, depending on where you live).
Being gay is a condition that does not put your child's health at risk whereas other conditions such as blindness and a plethera of other abnormalities during birth can cause your child's health to be put at risk or at the very least affect it enough that he/she will have to live with said abnormality.
Normal is pretty simple guys, it's the common ground the majority of people share. Don't get all fuzzy over the word abnormal, it just means traits outside the norm.
How does one determine/define normal?
Is it 51%?
Is it limited geographically?
Is it based on a community?
So are women 'abnormal' because they don't belong to a majority?
Fuck the term 'abnormal'.
There's a negative conontation that goes along with the word.
The world is not black and white where everything is either normal or abnormal. Everything is a shade of grey when it comes to acceptable and unacceptable.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
Actually technically - women would be in the majority
Something interesting that was brought up earlier was the idea of evolution..
This idea that being LGBT could be genetic makes me wonder...
Our world population is becoming more female with each decade...the number of LGBT identified people increases (not decreases) every single year...and according to Akaran's new post in the general section, more people are finding themselves not attracted to anyone...
Is our society's sexuality/sexual drive and/or gender being affected by evolution? thoughts?
Going along with another question posed earlier...I don't see why any more than maybe .000008% of the population would even consider not fixing their baby in the womb from being gay if they could. It's no different than telling a parent..."your kid looks like it will be born deaf in one ear, but we can fix it if you like....."
What if the doctor told you that your child would be born with a propensity towards prejudice, hate and racism towards everyone that is not exactly like them (religion, skin colour, sex, sexual preference, etc).
Would you have the fetus aborted if this condition could not be cured?
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
I'm sorry. Being gay is not a "condition" . It's life choice. People stating that homosexuality is a disease is just like saying that pregnancy is a disease as well...
Bren wrote:I'm sorry. Being gay is not a "condition" . It's life choice. People stating that homosexuality is a disease is just like saying that pregnancy is a disease as well...
Doesn't sound very "nomal" does it?
While I agree with you that it isn't a condition or a disease....I'm not so sure how much I agree that it is a life choice. I am gay but I didn't sit down when I was 11 years old and CHOOSE to be attracted to men instead of women. It was a natural to me. Some people DO choose to be gay and that is their own choice, but I think it is very hard to legitimately argue that being gay is a life choice.
The suicide rate is high for teenagers in general....Their sexuality can play a role in that yes...but like someone previously said...theres a grey area for all things in life.
As for the choice thing...I'll rephrase myself...you choose to come out. Which is a wonderful thing. To me in MY opinion, thats making a life choice, you're now choosing to be who you want, however you want to. I know its a natual thing. And I love how society is more accepting to the gay communitee. I'm so gung ho for the gay/civil rights here in Oregon that I'm an advocate for the No on 36 measurement here in Portland, making it legal for gay couples to be married.
While that's all peachy keen....it isn't reality...
Yes SOME communities in SOME places of this country and in the world are in fact becoming more and more accepting of the LGBTs....and yet there are parts of this country and parts of the world that are becoming less and less accepting of it
I point you to the recent brutal murder of Fannyann Eddy in Sierra Leone (Africa for those of you who skipped Geography class). Ms. Eddy was raped, beaten beyond recognition and had her neck snapped in two....why pray tell? On the sole fact that she started one of the first pro-LGBT groups in the entire continent of Africa 2 years ago
This world, this country and this society that purports itself as being tolerant and accepting has centuries ahead of it, I believe, before it is even at a level of tolerance that is acceptable...
The suicide rate is high for teenagers in general....
Compared to the teen suicide rate, the suicide rate of homosexual teenagers is astronomical. I'm pretty sure that specific demographic (homosexual teenagers) has the highest suicide rate.
Yes, coming out is a choice.
It really shouldn't have to be a choice, in my opinion.
It's nice to see the societal view of homosexuality evolving in that it's becoming more and more accepted. But, unfortunately, they still have to deal with the religious right and their ingrained/taught intolerance of homosexuality.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
miir wrote: But, unfortunately, they still have to deal with the religious right and their ingrained/taught intolerance of homosexuality.
When you blanket label the religious right for what some pathetic hateful people do is no different than a racist labeling all blacks as niggers because of what a handful of pathetic criminal types do.....or labeling all muslims as terrorists for what a large visible portion of them are doing now.
Rivera Bladestrike wrote:If only they could genetically engineer child to grow from a YY chromosome, that'd be the manliest man to ever walk the earth. Surely he'd be known as Super Man.
Actually this happens naturally from time to time. There seems to be a tendency for these people to become hardcore criminals though.
