| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory |
| 2005-02-11 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #9 FYI, its UIC that did the study, not the university at the link. And the outcome was that there might be sites in the DNA that are suspected, but NONE of them, alone or in a combination was a valid predictor of homosexuality. So, homosexuality *is* a choice, if you can overcome the environment you grow in. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-11 7:33:55 PM |
| #8 FYI, its UIC that did the study, not the university at the link. And the outcome was that there might be sites in the DNA that are suspected, but NONE of them, alone or in a combination was a valid predictor of homosexuality. So, homosexuality *is* a choice, if you can overcome the environment you grow in. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-11 7:33:55 PM |
| #7 FYI, its UIC that did the study, not the university at the link. And the outcome was that there might be sites in the DNA that are suspected, but NONE of them, alone or in a combination was a valid predictor of homosexuality. So, homosexuality *is* a choice, if you can overcome the environment you grow in. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-11 7:33:55 PM |
| #6 LH, in evolutionary terms a pure gay gene is 100% lethal (you don't have children). Therefore the gene is eliminated from the gene pool in one generation. I initially thought an altruism explanation might work (James is gay. John has children. Gay James, has no children, and instead helps to feed and protect Johns children similar to dog packs where only the alpha male and female breed) but on reflection I concluded it is no longer a gay gene, its a gay tendency gene, i.e. your environment determines whether you become gay or not and you are just genetic suseptible. BTW, I find this a persuasive explanation for why gays exist, although not the only one. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-11 6:34:50 PM |
| #5 Grove City College (PA) is clearly not strong on scientific theory. A 'gay gene' is impossible unless you invoke some kind of beneficial recessive expression explanation (Like the way sickle cell anaemia protects against malaria) Sociobioligical explanation. John is a carrier. His brother James is gay. John has children. Gay James, has no children, and instead helps to feed and protect Johns children, thus making it more likely that the gene will survive. Presumably in some environments this will be a better strategy than each brother for his own kids. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-02-11 5:22:23 PM |
| #4 Sexual orientation--what sex you think you are--is determined about halfway through the gestation period. In male mammals, the testes secrete a small amount of testosterone which travels to their brain, "telling" it that it is a "male" brain. Female fetuses do not secrete this chemical, so their brain remains "female". When this chemical is blocked in male fetuses, the male mammal grows up thinking it is female. And when testosterone is introduced into only half of its brain, it exhibits both male and female behaviors. However, what sex you think you are and what sex you are attracted to are not the same thing. But if you think you are of one sex, you generally will be attracted to a member of the opposite sex, even if you are of the same sex. So, as it were, homosexuality can be induced in the majority of fetuses. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-02-11 5:17:09 PM |
| #3 Grove City College (PA) is clearly not strong on scientific theory. A 'gay gene' is impossible unless you invoke some kind of beneficial recessive expression explanation (Like the way sickle cell anaemia protects against malaria) |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-11 5:08:20 PM |
| #2 A rare treat -- an article that blames something on the environment instead of on the U.S. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-02-11 1:55:44 PM |
| #1 Boy, howdy! How intolerant and un-diverse to suggest that actual SCIENCE doesn't back that theory. Wonder how much we spent on that study? |
| Posted by: BA 2005-02-11 1:42:45 PM |