Skip to comments."Gay Genes" May Be Good for Women
Posted on 06/22/2008 11:19:03 PM PDT by neverdem
As gay couples race to the altar in California this week, scientists may have found an answer to the so-called gay paradox. Studies suggest that homosexuality is at least partly genetic. And although homosexuals have far fewer children than heterosexuals, so-called gay genes apparently survive in the population. A new study bolsters support for an intriguing idea: These same genes may increase fertility in women. Despite some tantalizing leads over the past 2 decades, researchers have yet to isolate any genes directly linked to homosexuality. Nevertheless, a number of studies have shown that male homosexuals have more gay male relatives on their maternal lines than on their paternal lines, leading some scientists to suggest that gay genes might be found on the X chromosome. And in 2004, a team led by evolutionary psychologist Andrea Camperio Ciani of the University of Padua in Italy reported that women related to gay men had more children than women related to heterosexual men. The differences were striking: The mothers of gay men, for example, had an average of 2.7 children, compared with 2.3 children for the mothers of heterosexual men. A similar trend held for maternal aunts.
In new work, reported online this week in PLoS ONE, Camperio Ciani and his colleagues used mathematical modeling to see what kinds of genetic scenarios could explain these results. The team looked at more than two dozen possibilities, such as the number of "gay genes" (one or two), how much of a reproductive advantage the genes provided, and whether the genes were located on the X chromosome or other, nonsex (autosomal) chromosomes. The model that best explained the data consisted of two "gay genes," with at least one on the X chromosome. These genes increased the fertility of women but decreased it in men--a phenomenon previously studied in insects and mammals called "sexual antagonism."
Camperio Ciani's team suggests that these gay genes may actually increase how attracted both men and women are to men rather than making gay men more "feminine," as some researchers had earlier proposed. Although this is bad for male fertility, it is good for female fertility and allows such genes to survive at low but stable rates in a population, the authors say.
Dean Hamer, a behavioral geneticist at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, who pioneered the search for gay genes, calls the study "an elegant mathematical analysis." He adds that the team has come up with a "simple solution" to the Darwinian paradox posed by homosexuality: "What is a 'gay gene' in a man is a 'superstraight gene' in a woman," he says.
PLoS stands for public library of science. The articles are FReebies.
The key problem with a genetic source for homosexuality is the inevitable fact any gene that adversely affects reproduction - males sexually attracted to males or females sexually attracted to females - will eventually disappear from the gene pool.
Tney’re good for women on Skinemax, anyway.
In other words, there is no scientific basis for the article. The rest is statistical analysis based on preconceptions with no basis in actual genetics.
What minimal results are here can be explained by sociological factors;.
I have to agree. There are a variety of factors tht can be attributed to society or environment that are merely coincidental.
For example, we could say that the amounnt of sexual partners could be a sub-consciously driven behavior to reproduce. Then we could look at the population of Sweden and find out that blue-eyed people have much more pre-marital sex than brown-eyed people. We could create a whole lot of biological hypothesis on that except that the actual reason would be that the blue-eyed people are generally ethnic Swedes who have far fewer morals in regards to sex than the Muslim immigrants who are primarily brown-eyed.
Unless homosexuals have mated with heterosexuals. Remember, this open gay culture is quite new, to human society. Until now, it was all hidden and rarely revealed openly.
In a discussion on a BBS some years ago, it was postulated that:
(1) There was more of a genetic basis for male homosexuality than there was female homosexuality... that is, that it was more “hard-wired” into men than women;
(2) Even if there were homosexual genes and it kept most gay men from reproducing, those same genes would be carried by the women in their families, most or many of whom presumably would not be gay and would therefore reproduce. So... it would still be passed on.
In other words, if you’re a gay guy and your sister is not gay, if she reproduces she’s passing on those genes (she’s a “carrier”).
Now, whether or not stuff like this will ever be proved, one way or another, is an open question.
‘Remember, this open gay culture is quite new, to human society. Until now, it was all hidden and rarely revealed openly.”
ummmmmmmmmmm The Greeks? errrrrrr The Romans?
Gay marriage is new though. Previously the gays didn’t care about destroying a fundamental part of the culture.
Greeks, Romans, yes. They were more like bisexuals, than just homosexuals. They had households too.
Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
2. In a polygamist society where birth control was not available to boot, the best women were taken by wealthier men, necessitating an outlet for sexual urges, which often led to homosexual activity. This persists among peoples such as the Pashtun, who face the same issues.
Thanks for the numbers & link.
Seems like all those people would have had the same environment as well as the same genes. ( aside from adoptive)
all said and done, gays make up about 2.5% of the population but are making about 90% of the noise.
Naturally, families that perpetuate a climate which fosters neurotic, ego-centric, co-dependent women will fall victim to this "phenomenon". It is these neurotic women who are more likely to "pass on" their hyper-effeminate, dependent behavior (i.e. nuture, not nature) to their children. No big mystery there. Where is the "lisping gene" or the "gossip gene" or the "without a man to abuse me my life is imcomplete" gene?
GAY scientists who loosely use science to promote GAY AGENDA have CLAIMED that their study SUGGESTS that being GAY is innate like being white or black or Asian is innate.
They are WRONG once again,but hope the weak-minded and the gay sympathizers promote their pseudoscience.
Homosexuality is nothing new. Ever heard of the sodomites mentioned in the Old Testament?
It is behavior - pure and simple. Pure genetic driven homosexuality doesn’t exist.
Now, could there be a biologic, post-conception cause for some homosexuality? Possible but rare.
I believe, however, that a biologic cause is not the case for the majority of homosexuals or bisexuals today. Practicing psychologists and psychiatrists say that sex is 98% in the brain: IMHO, that is more likely what is driving the homosexual culture craze today.
It has become a subconcious lifestyle choice.
Exactly...which is the problem addressed by this article. What they are saying is that “gay genes” (postulated ones at this point) adversely affect male reproduction, but increase female reproduction, so there is a positive as well as a negative pressure on the gene to stay in the pool.
Of course, this doesn’t explain female homosexuality.
Now I want all those people who were flaming me for doubting that there is an ‘alchoholic’ gene on another thread to come on over and make fun of this ‘gay gene’. Cause we all want science to say what we want it to.
In the prior scenario, people had strong incentives to suppress homosexual displays simply because the punishments for such behaviour was death or something as violent. In that sort of a climate, a homosexual would more than likely marry a heterosexual, AND indulge in homosexuality outside this marriage. This presents a good means for homosexuality genes, if ever present, to be transmitted.
Pure genetic-driven homosexuality doesnt exist.
Do you have proof? I recall reading about hormones the mother produces during late pregnancy, affecting the sexual orientation of the offspring.
Again, someone on comment #10 mentioned a mode of genetic transmission. Until we can rule out all of these, none of us can have either the arrogance, or the confidence, to say that homosexuality is purely behavioural.
“The key problem with a genetic source for homosexuality is the inevitable fact any gene that adversely affects reproduction - males sexually attracted to males or females sexually attracted to females - will eventually disappear from the gene pool.”
Apparently not, if this study is correct. If I read it correctly, the genes that promote male homosexuality also promote fertility in women. That’s hard if you have a the genes and are male. It sounds as if they aren’t on the “Y” chromosome.
Genetics is a complex science, and it’s never been as simple as one gene, one trait. Mendel was lucky.
I always thought it was a choice. Being a libertarian, I am okay with that. If it is a genetic disease, however, we should start looking for a cure.
LOL. Genetics is a lot easier and simper than human sexuality, it seems. There are a lot of people out there who seem to be gender confused!
It’s a shame that geneticists haven’t tested this X gene hypothesis. Oh yeah, they did.
Oh no! So sorry about the italics and run on sentences. Don’t know how it happened but it wasn’t intentional.
Yeah, I vaguely remember it was a link on Drudge a while back. Kind ‘a wiped out the genetics angle.
Still, it leaves the biological cause of homosexuality wide open.
And the point of the article is that the increased fertility of females as a result of the gene would more than compensate for the decreased fertility of the male. It only takes one male to impregnate many females
I’ll agree a good percentage of homosexuality is most likely behavioural. Figures of 10% and so on, are abnormally high, for natural selection to allow for.
But figures like 0.5% to 2% are not too much for the “leaks” in reproductive genetics, to allow. Pure genetics will, without doubt, eliminate homosexuality genes, over the years. But what happens when homosexuals willingly mate, or, because of cultural and societal constraints, are forced to do so, with heterosexuals, and produce offspring with those genes? Surely this is a means to allow for transmission, if such genes ever existed. Besides this, one has to contend with recessive genes that become dominant, under certain genetic pairings, as the earlier poster pointed out.
If one of them isn't a "breeder" then it doesn't count, at least as far as ongoing gnentics is concerned.
I would suggest that 'nurture' is the overwhelming factor.
If a family will not tolerate 'gayness', there will be less of a tendency within it to even entertain thoughts of homosexuality.
Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality - Dennis Prager
Excerpt: “Inventing homosexuality: The revolutionary nature of Judaism’s prohibiting all forms of non-marital sex was nowhere more radical, more challenging to the prevailing assumptions of mankind, than with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That division was the Bible’s doing. Before the Bible, the world divided sexuality between penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (passive partner). [....]
“Naturally, families that perpetuate a climate which fosters neurotic, ego-centric, co-dependent women will fall victim to this “phenomenon”. It is these neurotic women who are more likely to “pass on” their hyper-effeminate, dependent behavior (i.e. nuture, not nature) to their children. No big mystery there. Where is the “lisping gene” or the “gossip gene” or the “without a man to abuse me my life is imcomplete” gene?” ~ pawdoggie
Here are two relevant comments posted by Christians who are also scientists:
 “What do we do with a study like this one: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/280943 — which suggests that pedophiles have different brain structures than other people. Note how the researches in this study portray the “wiring” differences as “defects.” Why are these “defects” instead of innate “differences” that should be respected?” - David Opderbeck - Tue Jun 17 2008 - 15:27:42 EDT
 “I wonder what characterizes the brains of bisexuals. This story is the sort of thing that gays use to justify their behavior. They say that (A) they were destined from birth to have this orientation and A implies (B) they are justified in behaving as they do. It appears that many Christians agree with the second statement (A=>B) since they focus on challenging A rather than challenging A=>B. Does having a certain temptation make it all right to give in to it? For example, is having a genetic predisposition to alcoholism a valid justification for drunkenness? Another question that could be raised on the basis of the conclusion of this study is whether it takes a miracle of healing to change orientation. - Gordon Brown (ASA member) - Tue Jun 17 2008 - 17:10:17 EDT
Those 2 comments are posted in this thread:
[asa] Homosexuality & brain scan study (click on “next in thread” to read the whole thread on the subject):
Rush made the point years ago that abortion would once again be made illegal and the abortion industry would be forced out of business in the case of your above referenced scenerio. :)
No, abortion would not be made illegal. The TEST for "gayness" would be made illegal and a hate crime, any researcher attempting to develop such a test would be labeled homophobic, and any lab attempting to process such a test would be bombed by ACT-UP
Something that occurs to me is other sexual behaviors/preferences. Why do some heterosexuals prefer oral sex over intercourse for example? Or one position over another. Some like feet. Some like amputees. Is that preference genetic? Anyone with Google can catalog 1000’s of sexual preferences. Sex isn’t one dimensional for heterosexuals either.
It is a stretch for me to conclude that homosexual activity is not just another preference on the vast landscape of sexual proclivities.
There is no gay gene.
this is way too much before morning coffee
There is a good example of a gene that induces male infertility, that still persists in the population. The gene is a sex-linked gene, residing on the X chromosome. The condition is known as androgen insensitivity syndrome.
Women may function as carriers. One half of their XY offspring will be affected by the trait. Half of their daughters wil be carriers.
The trait does not adversely affect female fertility. However, an XY individual carrying the gene will be infertile. The individual will also have the appearance of being female, but sterile in the case of complet androgen insensitivity. Cases of partial androgen insensitivity will result in an apparent male will impaired fertility.
The condition persists, because it does not impair female fertility.
Yeah, gay genes benefit women by producing more hair stylists, fashion designers, and interior decorators.
Liberals truly are insane. They claim that gender is just a social construction which doesn’t really exist. They claim that race is just a social construction which doesn’t really exist. They claim that an unborn child is a “part of a woman’s body” despite the fact that it has different DNA from the mother (half of which came from the father). But then they do a 180 and are adamant that a freak abnormality which occurs largely in people who don’t reproduce is genetic and inherent while gender, race, and sperm are not.
Gotta love the stupidity of liberals, as well as their deviousness.
And that is why there are no gays in my family. I am the family historian and would know if there were. Anyway, they also seemed to have taken over other channels besides LOGO, Bravo, IFN, etc. They now have totally polluted HGTV. Almost unwatchable now.
Brought to us by the same “scientific” community that brought us Global Warming? Yeah, real reliable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.