"Gay Genes" May Be Good for Women

ScienceNOW Daily News ^ | 18 June 2008 | Michael Balter

[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.

[Southerngl]

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.

[CarrotAndStick]

You need to read what I wrote, again. I didn't imply homosexuality is something new. I pointed out that homosexuality was something that was suppressed by society through the ages, until these recent years. If homosexuality is indeed behaviour-based, then how would you explain its presence in strictly Islamic countries, where such an indulgence gets one immediate death? Go beyond this, how does this behaviour continue to exist in the animal world?

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 doesn’t 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.

[CarrotAndStick]

Of course, this doesn’t explain female homosexuality.

Polygamy.

[GAB-1955]

“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.

[Soliton]

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.

[SatinDoll]

That is biologic, and I don't rule that out, though I suspect it is rare and would account for 2-3% of all male chidren born (it does not seem to affect females, though there could be an as yet undiscovered biolobical reason for lesbianism). If homosexuality were purely genetic, then it would, as I stated, be eliminated over time because few homosexual men or homosexual women reproduce. Genes are funny that way; if a trait in any way interferes with reproduction, it self-eliminates. I'll use a personal example. My nephew's paternal aunt was a lesbian until she fell in love with a man. By the time she met the man of her dreams she had already had a child (AI) with her lesbian partner who had gone through a sex-change operation. Talk about messing up people's lives just because you can't keep your life straight!! Her new husband doesn't want the little boy so the "father" raises him. He/she is a very good and kind person, doing a fine job as a parent, but has endured a terrible emotional toll because of this situation. As to homosexuality in Islamic countries, that is a whole other culture with separation of the sexes taken to extremes. And I never said that homosexuality didn't exist, only that it isn't as prevalent in the population as one is led to believe by the MSM today. It has become "way cool" to be bisexual or gay and human beings are curious about such things. Sex is mostly in our heads.

[SatinDoll]

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!

[Soliton]

It’s a shame that geneticists haven’t tested this X gene hypothesis. Oh yeah, they did.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/284/5414/665?andorexacttitleabs=and&HITS=10&hits=10&maxtoshow=&andorexactfulltext=and&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT&fulltext=homosexuality+gene&searchid=1&RESULTFORMAT=

[SatinDoll]

Oh no! So sorry about the italics and run on sentences. Don’t know how it happened but it wasn’t intentional.

[SatinDoll]

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.

[SauronOfMordor]

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.

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

[CarrotAndStick]

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.

[Smokin' Joe]

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.

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.

[Lucky Dog]

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation merely clouds the issue and refers to a “feeling” that is irrelevant to reasoned behavior.)

Any human behavior (excluding autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

On the other hand, if homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure.

Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual.) By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such, non-reporducing individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders, e.g., Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrome, which prevent their victims from procreating, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

[Matchett-PI]

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality - Dennis Prager
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml

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). [....]

bttt

[Matchett-PI]

“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:

[1] “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

[2] “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):
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200806/0529.html

[Matchett-PI]

"Well I don’t know.......what if there is a “gay gene”, and you could detect it before birth, like any other birth defect. How do you think the queer community would react if the number of abortions went through the roof because the fetus tested positive for the “gay gene”??? Think about it."

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. :)

[originalbuckeye]

The genetic origin for homosexuality has been debunked many times. Our press just won't report it in this country. Gayness is likely a personality aberration. Too bad our Psychiatric/Psychological Associations bought into PC in the 70’s and redefined it as a variation on normal. PC pressure before actual science. Very sad.