THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Web Reports 1997
From Serendip
THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did (5).
One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified (7). Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful (7). The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth. Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality (8). As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.
Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a Ò52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men (8). These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and PillardÕs by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a personÕs sexual orientation (8).
Looking at the results of many of the other studies I have discussed, it seems a little strange to me that the student of homosexual siblings who were both male and female came up with similar result as the studies that looked exclusively at male homosexuality. Hamer's study, along with others, have tried to located a gene that influences female homosexuality, but they have been unsuccessful. More importantly, the region of the X chromosome that very possibly could influence male homosexuality does not influence females in the same way. Female heterosexuals merely pass the gene sequence on to their sons. Knowing this, it seems odd to me that there would be such a high percentage of male and female homosexual siblings. Perhaps this suggests that if genetics are responsible for homosexuality, we have a long way to go before we completely understand the gene loci that determine sexuality.
Aside from the scientists who are researching the topic of homosexuality and genetics, there are many other people who have concerns and vested interests in the topic. The information that is being discovered has been used by people in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, there are members of the gay community who are very excited to find that the life-style they live is not entirely a choice that they made, as homophobic people often like to believe. Some homosexuals feel that if the world realizes that homosexuality is something people are born with, just like the color of your skin or your eyes, then people will begin to be more accepting of the homosexual life-style (5). However, on the other hand, there is also a group a people who believe that if homosexuality is in fact genetically linked, then there should be a way to genetically alter homosexuals in order to make them "normal" (3).
Before I started researching this topic on the world-wide-web, I did not realize what a new and controversial issue the genetics of homosexuality was. From tid-bits of news that I had picked up along the way, I thought that scientists had located, without a doubt, a gene that plays a role in influencing sexual orientation. From the research that I have discussed above, that is obviously not the case. I am eager to follow this subject more in the future and see what biology will discover next.
References
1) Genetics and Homosexuality, from the Gene Letter
2) Homosexuality: Genetics and the Bible, by Tom Terry, Cutting Edge Magazine
3) Statement on NIH Genetic Study on Homosexuality, from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
4) New study says genetics influences homosexuality, from St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1995
5) Homosexuality and Genetics, one person's views
6) A commentary on "Research on Sex Orientation Doesn't Fit the Mold"
7) Genetics Press Cuttings, from The Knitting Circle, South Bank University, London
8) The Hypothetical Genetics of Sexual Orientation, by Keith Bell, a Boston University undergraduate
9) Is there a genetic basis for sexual orientation?, from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
10) Lesbianism/homosexuality - a human surival trait, a commentary on the Queer Resources Directory
11) Homosexuality: Its in Your Genes, an article posted on QRD
12) Genetics and sexuality, a news report
Comments made prior to 2007
I am iranian gay in a gay family, my dad was gay and my brothers and the sons of my brothers all are gay, o know something about the homosexuality factors that is can be proven, i have some ideas so i ll be glade if i receive a comment from a scientist working in this area, by the was i am also aducated person and can help more in this matter ... Kamyar, 28 December 2007
homosexuality, genetics, Nephilim
In response to "acceptance and decline", posted 12/29/2009: I tend to agree with this position. I am an RN, and my son, now deceased, was gay. I saw his struggles and his heart wrenching attempts to become straight. I am also a born-again Christian, as was he. I believe that the blood of Christ covers all sin if we believe in Him and ask for forgiveness. However, I also believe that sin is basically a choice: gay or straight, it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage. Period. I will also admit that I am as guilty as the other guy in this; I am not proud of this behavior, but I made the conscious choice to engage in it.
Anyway, I agree with the genetics explanation given in this post. I want to add one more thing. What if, just what if?? transgenics comes into play here? Every heard of the nephilim and what happened between women and angels before the flood? Why was Sodom and Gomorrah supposedly destroyed? What if the pure genetic code created by God was corrupted in this way back to nearly the beginning of mankind? What if, in fact, this corruption continues in some forms today? Look up transgenics and what scientists are doing in this field- you may be appalled.
I do NOT believe that ALL homosexual activity is generated by genetics. I am convinced that in many cases it is either a conscious choice to participate in an "off-limits" sexual thing just for the thrill, a result of some early physical or psychological trauma, or other unknown (to us) cause.
I will also put in here that I know of one Pentacostal Pastor who is the father of identical twin boys that I met a couple of years ago. They were six years old at the time. One of these young boys already displayed some mannerisms and speech identifiers at this young age. I would bet $100 that child will face the awful existence in the future of being the gay son of a Pastor. I can only imagine what lies in store for him. I am positive he made no choice to be what I am sure he will become. How sad.
Just let people be
Everyone should be proud of who they really are, and people should stop trying to push their religion on everybody that does not fit their mold. If you think homosexuality is wrong, then more power to you, but do respect the faith, and the position of those that differ from your standpoint. And, this is for those who believe. Some people do not believe, so what are we going to do, place a gun to their heads? And we should not be so self righteous as to believe we are ABSOLUTELY right.
The Bible is prone to interpretation and much of that interpretation has been made by very conservative thinkers. The most important message is to love one another, and what really matters is what is in your heart. Jesus himself spoke about this in the Gospels. Once a person starts demeaning another person, they are hurting themselves, for only God knows our hearts, and for that matter our biology. Faith, unlike dogma, is ultimately a unique and personal relationship between God and each and every one of us. There are many things that simply we do not know, but what we do know is that is not Jesus like to start demeaning people, or making them less than us, just because we "think," they are sinning. People should mind their own business and look at their own "transgressions." If Jesus did not do it, why should we? He gave the complete opposite example, and that was again, to love one another.
I personally believe that it is genetic in nature. But it should not matter, there have always been GBLT people and there will always be. Let us let them live with all of the rights and privileges that the rest of us have. We need to stop being paranoid, and the GBLT people need to feel proud of who they are and what they can contribute to society, because they are here for a reason and do come to Earth with a purpose. Let us not bring the bulldozer on them, if you do not agree, respect, but do not impose.
acceptance and decline
Is acceptance and non-acceptance of homosexuality the result of influence of strong leadership and public influence or is it a result in the rise and fall of genetic occurrence, or a combination of both?
Here's an interesting observation.
If indeed sexual preference is genetically coded then homosexuality as a percentage of population may be in flux over many generations as the numbers of homosexuals rises and falls with acceptance. If homosexuals are not reproducing due to acceptance then the gene is not being carried forward. If they are being persecuted then they will be forced into heterosexual relationships and the gene occurrence will rise.
Our society today accepts homosexuality. This acceptance may be either that our society is now enlightened and more tolerant to differences or that the percentage of people who are homosexual is sufficiently large enough to sway opinion. Today gay men and women can openly bond without, or at least with much reduced, fear of retribution. Only a few generations ago it was illegal to be gay. Being 'outed' would mean jail and, or, certainly to be ostracized from society. To reduce this risk, gay men would either chose the priesthood or other profession where being single would be normal and acceptable, or marry. And as many did take the marriage option, it would be likely that they would mate. The genetic make-up would then be passed along to the next generation and in time the percentage of gays rises to the point of acceptance.
As we are now in a time of acceptance it will be more likely that the passing of this gene will decline as gay men and women will not be forced into unions with the opposite sex. And over a few generations the decline will mean that the percentage will fall so low as reduce the occurrence of the homosexual gene. And in doing so there will be less gays to defend themselves from religious and, or, societal persecution. Once again gays will be forced to live heterosexual lives and to carry on the gene.
History has shown that acceptance of homosexuality has ebbed and flowed over time and it may be for this reason.
There is always the same
There is always the same debate over a specific question and the relation of it to nature vs nurture issue.
Just look at the cases of twin studies and the correlation found on them, nothing else to say.
Homosexuality and the Bible
I belive there are a couple questions that haven't been asked.
1. Who wrote the bible? (more specifically, the Old Testament)
Men, not God.
2. Who translated the bible?
Men, not God.
3. Isn't it a common belief that the Bible, as we know it and have been
exposed to it (both Old and New Testaments) is incomplete?
There are complete books that "The Church" did not feel were appropriate
and as a result were excluded. (does anyone here know what's missing)
Thanks in advance for the feedback. (both negative and positive)
Response to your taking issue with the Bible
You seem to take issue with the fact that men wrote the Bible and interpreted the Bible. Have you considered the alternatives? If it were not men, would it be angels who wrote it? Would it be some animal? Or do you take issue with the fact that it was not women who wrote the Bible? Who else would have written the Bible if it were not men? Yes, men are fallible, but the fact that it was written by men over thousands of years and has survived and thrived in many cultures including our own, is an amazing positive aspect not a negative one. Because it was written by men guided in a special way by God, the Bible sill stands. Through the centuries but especially the last two centuries, many have tried to disprove or discredit the Bible only to demonstrate the Bible's authenticity and practicality for people in every culture and era. If you know something about the Bible you know that the Bible itself is a picture of a special relationship or cooperation between God and mankind. It is an example of the Messiah- Immanuel -God with us, God in us, the incarnation of deity. God coming into human form -if you choose to believe this. I have come to believe it was God's intent to make his message understandable and practical for people so He had people write it. Regarding the canon, and other books that have not been included, it is those books that you should target as not having the ring of authenticity. Men through the ages have agreed that those books are the ones that are spurious because of textual criticism -the criteria used to verify a a book of the Bible as authentic (canonical). The Bible itself (as well as many archeological findings: Ebla archive, Dead Sea scrolls, House of David inscription, Amulet scroll, etc.) has this ring of authenticity, but it is more than a subjective aspect. With its message and form it demonstrates that being written by men is not a negative aspect, but a positive one demonstrating that even though it was written by imperfect men over thousands of years, they all say pretty much the same thing -a message that is out of this world- and it has not been disproved, but rather believed and tested for life and "street-toughness" by millions upon millions.
I truly mean no disrespect
I truly mean no disrespect and can only imagine some of the heartache that people who are gay have gone through. I am heterosexual and am in no position to dispute anything. However, I must take issue with the position that there is a gay gene. There may be - there may not be. However, as of today there is no scientific study that has been replicated to indicate with 100% accuracy that there is a genetic reason for one's sexuality. Just because you'd like something to be true doesn't make it true.
There have been very few
There have been very few replicable studies that have been able to pinpoint with 100% accuracy the location and effect of genes on certain psychological or personality characteristics. One needs to keep in mind that all organisms on earth are incredibly complex beings--and that sexuality and the choices we make can be determined by a number of biological factors. Even wild animals in nature experience attraction to members of the same sex. Due to the fact that a great deal of wild animals act mostly on instincts, we can assume that a sexual preference can be attributed to an innate sexual instinct towards members of the same species.
It seems there are far more correlations supporting the theory that genetics can effect sexuality. I don't think anyone is saying there is a "gay gene." I think they are saying that your genetics effect the way you perceive the world: your likes, dislikes, moods, emotions, etc. In addition, there is a great emphasis on nature-nurture in today's society. The fact that today's society is more accepting of homosexuality and that it is increasingly seen in mainstream media can account for more homosexuals feeling comfortable with expressing their innate sexual feelings--which may even be mixed between both sexes--explaining how people who have been closeted homosexuals in the past have had families and sexual relationships with those of the opposite sex.
I don't think anyone "wants" or "doesn't want" any of this to be true. But I think the ultimate question is why do we like the things we like? Yes, animals are generally created to be attracted to the opposite sex for reproductive purposes (in our genes). This can also account for homosexuality. Perhaps some were created by a genetic defect (defect merely meaning deviation from the norm) to be attracted to the same sex.
If someone asked you, as a heterosexual male, why are you attracted to women? What would you say? Because it's right? Because you made the choice? No--you'd say it's simply the way you feel.
AS OF 10 YEARS AGO WE WERE
AS OF 10 YEARS AGO WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE GENE THAT INDICATED ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE. RESEARCHERS ARE NOT ALWAYS WILLING TO COMMIT TO 100%, KIND OF LIKE THE WEATHER MAN. MOST PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T FOUND IT, DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST. AS TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT IS DISCOVERED.
What?
I still don't understand why some people can't get over the fact that not everyone likes what they like or are how they are. It doesn't matter if it's genetics or whatever. How you feel about someone, regardless, isn't because it was your decision, you just do.
...and the ancients probably just married and had children because they HAD to. And in those days if you didn't belong you ended up dead.
Just ignore this... I mean,
Just ignore this... I mean, Homosexuality is not a gene, as I think it's merely a choice. BUT! I believe it's how you think of the same sex. All I have to say is, you can't help on who you fall in love with, whether it be male or female. I find it really terrible to be commenting on such things. I mean... What if you were gay, but you were scared to admit due to death in some countries?
Sadly, it's really sad not to be able to accept the fact we have been changing since the beginning of time...
I have known I was gay since
I have known I was gay since I was 4 years old. It was probably the very first thing I learned about myself. My brother is gay. My maternal cousin is gay. Paternally, I have both a gay aunt and uncle. You think it's just coincidence?
Sexuality is without a doubt fluid. I have enjoyed sex with and have loved both men and women. But when I fantasize... it's always the ladies. Quit worrying about falling in love with a penis or a vagina. When the right human being comes along, you'll know. Don't settle- you'll end up breaking that person's heart.
So what all of the tests
So what all of the tests have proven thus far is that there might be a chance of genetics possibly having an effect on homosexuality kinda sorta?
As the study states, homosexuality has been around for a long time. Roman, Greek, Sailors and countless other cultures and societies use to practice it. HOWEVER, these occurrences took place mostly in the absence of women or when there were too few women for the men and vise verso. but when the chips were on the table, the men still married and had children with women.
three main reasons ancient cultures used homosexuality are: (this applies to both men and women)
1) humiliation
2) to establish dominance
3) to satisfy carnal needs in the absence of women
I am a woman and I was in a
I am a woman and I was in a homosexual relationship. I was certainly in love, did not want to be gay, but I ended up sleeping with a woman for a full year. I could not help it.
However, I traveled in the summer and worked in a place with more guys around my age. There I realized that I was developing real sexual interest and desire for these men. Changing my environment and interacting more with guys have definitely affected my sexuality. I broke up with my girlfriend. Of course, when I know that I can be straight, I would not want to choose to be gay.
I have been in contact with one of the guys and I am even thinking of settling down with him and getting married. (I have never had sex with anyone other than that one woman, because I did not want to).
Here is the question: Is sexuality fluid? If my environment changes and I am around more women, will I find women attractive again? Am I doing any injustice to the man I am planning to marry?
I am sorry, but in my case, I just don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. Though I definitely believe that I can't help who I develop sexual desire for. It can be a specific man or a specific woman.
It doesn't matter
whether a person is homosexual because of genetics, environment and learned behaviors, or choice is irrelevent. if homosexuality is what makes an individual happy then the rest of us should accept that with no questions asked. we should each live our lives for what we feel is right and let others do the same.
Having a hard time understanding...
I've been reading on this for a while now. Some say they have definitive proof through research that homosexuality is purely genetic. There are others who claim the opposite with similar experiments. There are those who take the middle ground and say there is a genetic element but environment/experiences/relationships play a large factor also.
I am sick to death of hearing all of these people who have "decided" that research shows one or the other when there is CLEARLY contradictory evidence on BOTH sides in MANY countries through MULTIPLE tests and surveys and experiments.
Would you open your minds please and stop acting like children? There is too much contradictory evidence to know for sure! STOP picking the side that works best for you just because you want an excuse to feel the way you do. STOP IT. You are not helping your cause by looking like a fool.
In the long run, it will be nice to know. BUT WE DON'T KNOW YET. I for one have seen evidence on both sides of the argument and then seen it flipped completely around. If you are all gonna pick sides on scientific evidence that has yet to securely hold it's conclusion, we may as well bring religion back into the conversation and argue over whether God exists or not. Hell, lets argue over the gender and sexual orientation of the higher power. The arguments will be the same. "GOD IS. I've seen evidence." and "GOD IS NOT. I have seen evidence."
For what it's worth, I believe most of us are born with a predisposition to swing one way or the other on that orientation chart. I believe that predisposition solidifies more firmly as we age but I believe that trauma can offset the balance (as evidenced by research on abused children). BUT THAT DOESN'T ENCOMPASS EVERYONE. There is still so much we don't know.
Science is always a compilation of fact and theory...
The facts will always be there, it is just the theories that may differ based upon the observations. In many cases, whence you add up a number of complimentary theories, science fact is made. For example, say 10000 years ago, "science" accepted the fact that the sun rose and set with a predictable rhythm, but had many "theories" about how many times, how long, etc.. Some centuries later, adding to the incontrovertible fact of the sun, observations were made proposing a geocentric view of the solar system thus debunking previous theories. Some years later heliocentric theory came next, which turned into fact, so now we had two facts: the predictability of the sun and the fact that it was the center of the solar system. But we had no facts of the heavens other than the theories that abounded. In time, with the proper heliocentric and sun observation facts, we came to accept the fact that the heavens did not revolve around us but that in fact the heavens were composed of trillions of stars. But many centuries of accepted fact led up to (taking the scientific method into account here) that our observed universe was the Milky Way galaxy (a theory as it turns out). Up until the early 20th century the facts led to the theory that the Milky way was our entire universe, and we were alone. Edwin Hubble quickly discovered that there were galaxies outside of our own, thus taking all the existing facts (and throwing out now debunked theories) and creating the new fact that we live in an expansive universe.
I don't think there is anyone in this world (that is in their right mind at least) that does not accept that the universe is indeed real, and there are 100%, incontrovertible scientific facts about it. Over the centuries, what we have discovered is that theories will come and go, and often many of the complimentary theories form facts down the line (take the search for background radiation using early radio telescopes -- the so called calling card of the birth of big bang). And at some point, we will find out that indeed we are not alone in this universe.
In summary, homosexuality obviously has a genetic connection. There is not a SINGLE ONE connection. That theory, when put to the test and scientific method, would (and has I believe) fail(ed) horribly. That is what the religious right clings to and THAT is what they teach and want the world to believe. What ever happened to Jesus' love and acceptance for all mankind. Sin or not, we are all sinners in God's eyes, and no sin is worse than the other so long as you accept that Jesus the Lord "died" for your sins. Remember that the bible is man-made, and man-authored by men who depended upon memories reaching only as recent as 30 years from their discussions with Jesus, thus no man can tell another what is right or wrong based on their interpretation of the bible. We are all sinners, but it is our duty to live the best life possible in service to our fellow man and live by the Golden Rule. Now THAT is incontrovertible FACT.
Everyone has choices and my worldview
I would like to pre-face this with: I am a Bible-believing person and a chemist. The comments that I am about to make are sure to draw ire and ridicule from both side of this discussion, so ... here goes.
I am, I believe different from many "true" followers of Christ in that I do think genetics plays a part in homosexuality. That comes as a great shock to many I am around, so I rarely discuss it, but I do when I see fit. However, I also, believe that God's word is infallible, so how can I reconcile these differences. Genes are said to be the root cause of many things in our society. Some families have strong predisposition to drink alcohol or engage in risky behaviors. Some families' genes predispostion them for heart disease, etc. My family is one that has an extremely high rate of diabetes, type 1 and 2, and as a precaution I have chosen to be more careful in my diet and exercise. This is something I find very difficult. But, the choices are mine to make. As far as homosexuality goes, I think myself and some others may feel like the choice isn't in what or who you are, but how you chose to live your life. For a Bible believing person, who feels that they are gay or is gay, however you want to say it, that person either chooses to live within God's law or not. The alcoholic has the same choice, the adulter too. It isn't who we are that is the problem sometimes, because God say that we are all sinful and fall short of his glory. To NOT participate in behaviors contrary to His word take stregth that we do not have on our own. It take a relationship with Him through Jesus.
Thanks for letting me post. I appreciate you reading even though I know I am probably making many of you angry. Please know though that I keep homosexuals in my thought often. I feel they do need the true love of Christ, not some man's made up version of Him. Thanks again!
Wait a minute now...
Okay. I CHOOSE not to get cancer.... even though it runs rampant in my family's genetics. Wait, how about this. I CHOOSE to avoid the risk factors that can aggravate my GENETIC predisposition to cancer. You see the paradox here? Some homosexuals simply cannot CHOOSE to ignore their make-up. Sure, some who are genetically predisposed to homosexuality can make life choices that steer away from homosexual trigger points, if you will, but that would still require a level of awareness of the disposition, hence the struggle and paradox at hand! You feel what you feel, and you can't CHOOSE to avoid it. Let us not mince words, err, beliefs here. I am a Christian and a very well educated man in the sciences and I do not confuse the facts with the fictions. Christianity is simply a way to live ones life by the rules set forth in biblical teachings regarding human decency.
CRAZY TALK
I don't know if it is ignorance, religious practices, or selfishness that causes some to believe that homosexuality is a choice. Especially after knowing and reading previous accounts of the hardships associated with being gay. I have a little sister, who I love dearly, and am sad that she has to endure such criticism from people who don't even know her. She has been clearly gay from puberty on. She is a smart, creative beautiful woman who is also a doctor. Those of you are so ignorant to suggest that anyone would live a homosexual lifestyle have already made up your stubborn minds and clearly have issues yourselves. And let me tell you all something, you can't change the fact that homosexuality exists, so you may as well go with the flow. These days, thinking that homosexuality is a choice makes you appear uneducated. I am talking about people who are truly homosexual, not just looking for some attention or satisfying their curiosity.
I've come to think that it
I've come to think that it is ignorance, fiefdom-protection, fear, and control on the part of certain Christian LEADERS that continues the myth that homosexuality is a huge, damn deal in the Bible. These leaders spread ignorance, they are afraid of rocking the boat, and the people think they "have" to go along. If they use the intellectual power that ostensibly would go with most of their high-level of education, they would not come to such outrageous conclusions -- the Bible simply doesn't give a flip about homosexuality one way or the other. It is entirely consistent that one should love ALL, though. You will see more and more religious leaders (Christians and others) taking a courageous stand that exposes the hypocrisy of this current disproportionate emphasis on scapegoating homosexuals.
From this information,
From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did
Ask Any Homosexual
A great experiment would be to ask any amount of homosexuals if they feel as if they chose their orientation or if they feel as if a genetic predisposition played a role in their sexuality.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that 100% of participants say that homosexuality is not something that can be chosen.
I am a young (25), successful and attractive woman and I haven't had/wanted/or even thought about for that matter, any sort of sexual contact with a man in eight years. Being gay is not an easy lifestyle and no one would choose this. Reading posts about the bible and God's will are actually entertaining to me at this point. Hopefully, someday everyone will get it.
Fraternal Birth Order and the Genetics of Homosexuality
I wrote a blog post "Fraternal Birth Order Threatens Research into the Genetics of Homosexuality": http://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/?p=40. Here I present one paragraph from this post:
Let us create a theoretical model where homosexuals would be born randomly with a fixed probability if they are the first sons of a woman, and increasing probability for subsequent sons. In this model there would be two interesting consequences:
* Mothers of homosexual men would be more fertile on average than mothers of men in general. Remember, this random consequence can be misinterpreted as a genetic correlation between homosexuality and fertility.
* If a homosexual person has a brother, then the probability that this brother is homosexual might be very different from the probability that a random person is homosexual. Again, this might create the suggestion that there is a genetic component, when it is not there.
If homosexuality is normal
If homosexuality is normal then why are homosexual men and women unable to have children on their own?
Why is the anotomy of the homosexual men the same as a straight man.
If something is normal then everything else is normal.
Why is it that in africa and Asia homosexuality is not common as it is here.
If homosexuality is normal: answer
{"If homosexuality is normal then why are homosexual men and women unable to have children on their own"?}
Your question assumes that sexuality and romantic attractions are for the sole purpose of reproduction. Not so. Homosexuality and bisexuality run rampant throughout the entire Animal Kingdom. It is normal for a certain percentage of people to be gay. Just as it is normal for a certain percentage of the population to be left handed.
But sexuality is anything but a gay/straight issue. People are naturally gay and naturally straight. But far more often, we naturally fall somewhere in between. Welcome to the natural world.
It is very commen in Africa
It is very commen in Africa and Asia.. you need to do your research. It was very commen in Africa for young men to have homosexual partners before they married. It was Christians that brought fear to Africa. Before Christians Africa was more accepting of Homosexuality.
RE: If homosexuality is normal
Your measure of whether homosexuality is "normal" is pinned partly on the observation that homosexual men and women are unable to have children (through homosexual intercourse). Of course, all of the sexual acts that homosexuals engage in are also engaged in by a majority of heterosexuals. Since these acts do not result in pregnancy, by your definition they are not "normal." Presumably then, you would agree that all non-procreative sexual acts are not "normal" -- regardless of the gender of those involved, right? If procreation is the standard for what is normal, then all sexual acts between persons incapable of reproduction for any reason are abnormal. If you believe otherwise, then you are applying a double-standard purely based on the gender-orientation of the individuals involved.
You also assert that homosexuality is not as common in Africa and Asia as it is "here." (Where is "here" incidentally?) Could you please cite studies regarding the frequency of homosexuality in Africa or Asia and offer similar studies establishing its frequency in your own country? Oh, and regarding homosexuality in Asia, please be sure to include analysis of how the brutal repression of homosexuality in China and most Muslim societies in Asia might tend to skew the results of research on frequency. (Asking a man who is subject to beheading for being gay if he is in fact gay might elicit a less than truthful response, you see.)
Re: Gene of homosexuality passed from mother to Child
I would like to have concrete evidence that actually does prove that the mother actually does pass down the "gay gene". I may have had several cousins that are gay, but that is neither here nor there, I would just like the facts,one more thing I think that most people that are gay really did not choose to be gay, and alot of different religions they would be an outcast.
Mixed evidence on genetics and homosexuality
There is a mixed record on whether or not homosexuality is genetic or not. The consensus seems to be that genetics does play a role in influencing homosexuality, but it seems that genes might pre-CONDITION people to homosexuality, but not pre-DETERMINE homosexuality, and that homosexuality is no more determined by genes, than is interest in playing guitar or interest in reading.
-Ted
iam depressed
everyone there listen:
i am a homosexual who is living in an islamic country.i didnot chose to be gay,
if you just think for one second you will realize how redicolous it is to chose to be gay in an islamic country,because the punishment of homosexuality in islam is just DEATH.
from the very first day of my puberty i realized that i have homosexual desires
i was truly terrified,because i didnot want to be like this.
year after year i understood that its something inside me and i dont have any control over it.you know can imagine how hard it is that you are a gay and you cant change it.
now iam 25 years old man,who is a medical student and have many achievements in my life(imnot saying it as a compliment),but has a very sad aspect of life,which is iam still a virgin ,because iam gay.and if i find a partner ,and i be arrested ,i will be killed.
i have no desire for sex with women.and let me tell you another fact:
my twin brother is homosexual too.and we were both afraid to tell this truth to each other.
you cruel people who think that homosexuality is a choice,is better to go and discuss with gay people.you will find out that we all were born that way.
again its soooooooooooooooooo rediculous to think that i chose to be gay in an islamic country
bollocks
this story seems fabricated. purely to slander muslims. out of curiosity, which islamic country would this be?
also, your twin brother is gay yet you cant find the courage to tell each other you are both gay....which strikes the question, how did you know he is gay?
also, puberty doesn't hit you overnight, its a slow process and if you claim that it is not a choice, why did you not know you were gay earlier?
ive always known im straight. if you claim this is genetic then shouldn't you have always known you were gay?
the death sentence has been abolished regarding homosexuality in islamic countries with the exception of one or two small countries. all you would face is either a fine or a prison sentence. i hope you find a job as a doctor out of the fictitious country you speak of to escape prosecution.
I think you guys are all
I think you guys are all foolish for even believing or thinking about believing that there is a gene that causes homosexuality, it is a choice and lifestyle that people choose the bible says that God has not made man bent toward the unatural relationship but towards the natural and homosexuality is not natural.
Re: I think you guys are all
{"I think you guys are all foolish for even believing or thinking about believing that there is a gene that causes homosexuality, it is a choice and lifestyle that people choose the bible says that God has not made man bent toward the unatural relationship but towards the natural and homosexuality is not natural".}
Oh yeah? And I bet you believe that the Earth and the entire Universe are only 6,000 years old.
Ok. I used to be really
Ok. I used to be really religious. I remained that way for awhile and I fought my gay feelings thinking I could trick my mind into liking girls. I still am not fully out cause I'm completely uncomfortable with it, but I can't change it. I've tried. Thank you for your ignorance. I am no longer religious partly because the bible persecutes gays and I didn't choice this and the other part is because the story's in the bible were so juvenile. You have to realize everyone has a different perspective. See from another persons for once. It will teach you more than to like gay people
There are many reasons why
There are many reasons why homosexuality could be seen as a positive. A couple hypothesis are that homosexuals in a species help more with rearing the offspring than the heterosexual males, this is seen with a lot of primates and heard animals (as stated in the above articles). Another hypothesis is that in heard animals homosexuality helps with a peaceful means of population control. Just because someone is a carrier of a gene that has a potential of building a person this way or that way doesn't make it 100% so. In science nothing is 100% true, any study that will show you otherwise is not scientific. There is always a potential of fallibility.
Oh boy...
Oh boy... here is why good moderate Republicans like me are given a bad rap. Why oh why did McCain choose Palin??????? :)
Swish! He shoots! He scores! Score one for science there big guy. Drop your personal interpretations of the bible at the door and at the very least go give the Methodists a ring. At least they allow gays AND gay clergy. Wait a minute, are not Methodists Christians? Does not that make you a hypocrite?
Spoken like a know it all
Spoken like a know it all straight guy. How can anyone who isn't gay really truely understand?
And what about the human rights element?
Homosexuality is not natural?
Dear Anonymous, I am currently writing a paper on homosexuality and it's significance in anthropology, sociology and psychology. I am curious to understand where you come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not natural? Is this something that you were taught or something that you blindly assume? I know that sounds harsh but it is not intended to be, obviously you are reading this with some sort of open mindedness or curiosity. Homosexuality is prevalent throughout nature. Petter Boeckman had an exhibit in Norway displaying homosexuality in the animal kingdom. If you need examples of this there are many articles I am uncovering that might help your understanding that homosexuality is definitively NOT against nature:
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
You can check those out. I have been reading a lot of the comments here and it seems that some people are missing a basic understanding of genetics and the roles of genotypes and phenotypes. I don't claim to be an expert but I do understand enough to say that 58% is a pretty good indicator that homosexuality is affected by genetics. In nature many of the animals that practice homosexuality still produce offspring. There are many reasons why homosexuality could be seen as a positive. A couple hypothesis are that homosexuals in a species help more with rearing the offspring than the heterosexual males, this is seen with a lot of primates and heard animals (as stated in the above articles). Another hypothesis is that in heard animals homosexuality helps with a peaceful means of population control. Just because someone is a carrier of a gene that has a potential of building a person this way or that way doesn't make it 100% so. In science nothing is 100% true, any study that will show you otherwise is not scientific. There is always a potential of fallibility.
The big question raised in my mind is that if more people were educated to know that homosexuality is not against nature and is about as natural as breathing, what would the next argument be? I would think that if the people that are saying this are implying that God created nature and God's will is infallible then it would be a contradiction to say that god is against homosexuality at all.
nature and homosexuality
I think you need to read Romans 1:26-27 you need to notice how many times natural is used.
verse 26 exchange the natural use for that which is against nature
It is sad to hear people lower themselves to the standard and level of animals to justify their behaviour.
Just because a monkey does an act you think that a good reason to do the same?
hey
hey Travis
I read your article, have you finished your paper. I would be interested to see it as i feel you have very relevant views and would be deeply interested to read it. Many Thanks Harry
Homosexual gene and evolution?
The idea of a "homosexual gene" is difficult to reconcile with the theory of evolution. Two points: 1 Carriers of such a gene would be much less likely to seek heterosexual partners and procreate, causing such a gene to be eliminated from the pool; 2 What possible evolutionary advantage would such a gene bring to the carrier?
In fact, a "homosexual gene" is in flat condradiction with the basic idea of genes battling incessantly to perpetuate themselves; it would be self-sabotaging.
Would you choose to be gay?
I sincerely agree with the research. People who are truely homosexual (not just bi or curious or whatnot), but are truely and innately gay DO NOT have a choice. They are born to be gay, just like someone who is heterosexual is born to be that way. Now, if we DO propose that it is due to environmental factors, then why are some brothers or sisters who live in the same household, and grow up with the same influences, opposite in their sexual orientation? As far as the twins argument goes, genes do not play the entire roll when it comes do determining who we are. The human design is so complex that any change in its design can result in dramatic changes. To say that being homosexual is wrong would be like saying someone born with down syndrome is wrong. If you are going to say that homosexuality is a choice, than you must say that heterosexuality is a choice as well, and that we are all born neutral, and deside "I want to be gay or I want to be straight," which is ridiculus. Imagine if someone ridiculed you for being straight, you would think to yourself, "I can't help it," so why should it be any different for someone who is gay?
homosexuality
Hi there
The bible says in Romans that the act is against nature in other wods you cannot populate the world naturally by homosexual behaviour.
The other thing that interest me is that in the 70's the homosexuals would always proclaim how different they were and didn't want to be like the rest of society.
Now they want to have children and get married and have tax breaks etc... what is even more amusing is I have a lesbian at work who calls her partner her wife
A great example of what the bible calls confusion in a text speaking about these types of relationship.
This is absolutely true for me
I completely agree. Being truly homosexual is not a choice. I believe genetics play the largest part by far in determining an individual's sexuality. I know this as i have always been attracted to boys and men all the way through my life growing up (i am now 23). When i was very young, even though i couldn't interpret my feelings at the time, i recall having sexual desires for boys my age as early as when i was 4 years old.
To me this is all the evidence i need to believe the environment i grew up in was irrelevant in determining my sexuality considering i started having these feelings so early. The only choice to make is whether or not to embrace or suppress your inherant sexual desires
hi friend
thanx for your comment
iam gay and i didnot chose to be gay ,it is not a choice
iam living in an islamic country and the punishment of homosexuality is DEATH,so am i a fool to chose to be gay????
thanx
A genetic component of homosexuality
Scientists have identified genetics as a cause of homosexuality. This has been accomplished through a type of study on people who identify as homosexual (and non-homosexual as a control group) and a region of the genome to identify whether there is a genetic component to homosexuality. Another type of study, "twin studies," uses pairs of non-twin siblings, dizygotic twins, and monozygotic twins, who share between half and all of their genetic information (non-twin siblings-50%, dizygotic twins-50%, monozygotic-100%). One sibling (or twin) is compared to the other one of the pair in terms of their sexuality, and the co-occurrence is measured across the three types of pairs. A higher co-occurrence of homosexuality among monozygotic twins, who share the same genetic information (compared to dizygotic twins and non-twin siblings who share only half), provides evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality.
Both of these types of studies, as well as others, have shown with statistical significance that there is evidence of a genetic component to homosexuality. I have provided links to webpages that reference studies on the topic of a genetic link to homosexuality. Here are a few that seem to support the idea of a genetic influence on homosexuality:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/10/12/news/16168.shtml
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene
Evidence or Proof
Would you please clarify; are you saying genetics is a cause of homosexuality or that there is evidence to suggest genetic is a cause of homosexuality?
Thank you!
Straight-ness
How can homosexuality be genetic, when almost everyone is born to straight parents??? This entire argument is pointless.
gays and genetics
That would have to be the most ridiculous statement I have seen in a long time. I am left handed, both my parents are right handed- so saying that gays are born to straight parents is a pointless argument is utterly absurd. Are you under the ridiculous assumption that every gene is passed and expressed? Then we would expect our fathers to have breasts, and our mothers to have beards
Just because your parents carry genes does not mean you get and express them. Both parents can have blue eyes, but the children have green. Why? Because the parents possess the green gene, and therefore have the POTENTIAL to have it expressed in their off-spring. Besides, they have already said very clearly that genes can play a part but not the entire role. Your stupidity astounds me, you should really stick to commenting about things you understand and not waste space reserved for those that have at least a sensible comment.
Post new comment