Gay gene testing

[heatseeker]

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2559021/Being-gay-DNA-researchers-claim-controversial-new-study.html

I don't know why they are wasting time or money researching this no good can come from it. I think it is a backward step in thinking and terminating a baby on the grounds of its apparent sexuality is a nasty concept.

You might be interested in the article linked to in this thread, with respect to Daily Mail reporting of science.....

Lots of people have happy relationships with someone of the opposite sex, and then meet and fall in love with someone of the same sex and decide they are only attracted to people of that sex. Some people do seem to change their sexuality, while others knew from when they were children and never change.

So I very strongly doubt there is a gay gene. I think humans and sexuality are too complex for that. And that as long as our sexualities are not harming anyone, we should just accept that.

here is the telegraph's take on it: www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

worded slightly different from DM but still says 'it could still be possible to develop a test to find out if a baby was more likely to be gay' - but why FGS?!
I understand that many find DM a load of tripe and their way of wording the article will be more sensationalised, but that's not the point really. I don't care who wrote the article, I just don't see why scientists are wasting their time doing this.

It's an absolutely disgusting concept to allow a prenatal test for a potentially gay baby.

I have always been 99.9999999% 'certain' people can't choose their sexual orientation. Otherwise straight people would have no qualms becoming gay or bi if it was 'so easy' to do and then reverse. We as humans cannot help who we are attracted to. Some people favour brunettes, some people favour blondes etc. Just as some people favour males and some people favour females.

People will argue that 'but the whole point of survival of the human race and indeed the animal kingdom is to produce offspring with stronger/faster/fitter/better-adapted-to-the-environment genes so the species can survive' and whilst I think this statement is true, it doesn't correspond to the people who choose a life mate of the opposite sex and choose not to procreate. These people aren't gay, they are clearly straight yet they 'override' their animal instinct which is to have children.

I don't think sexuality is a personal choice at all. I have a partner of the opposite sex, yet I still find myself extremely attracted to females to the extent that I would like to experiment. I can't help who I am attracted to and yet I fancy the pants of my DP

This isn't really groundbreaking or helpful.

A few years ago wasn't there a scientific article proporting that there are actually 7 different human sexes?

Frambridge - There was an interesting article I read that put forward the theory that we need some people who don't rocreate, to offer help to those who do. This article argued that people being gay was therefore necessary for the survival of the species.

What is certainly true is that in most animal species, gay relationships/couplings exist.

My first thought was money. This will undoubtedly make LOTS of money. I can think of lots of families who would honestly pay good money for this kind of genetic testing.

That is very sad to hear Joules

Grennie - the article does indeed sound interesting, do you have a link?

Utter tosh. Why not start looking for a 'fat' gene, a 'clever' gene, a gene for all occasions, then we can eradicate fat/gay/stupid/criminal/whatever we choose types. Hitler tried a similar idea as I recall albeit in a more dramatic,violent way. But somewhere there would be people who pay lots of money to see their child was whatever conformed to their parents ideals

Sorry no Fran. It was one that was shared in facebook. Googling might bring it up?

Of course the reason for this is because some people think being gay is wrong. Instead of just accepting.

Well it couldn't be conclusive as I know a set of identical twins where one is gay and one is straight. It's not a choice for the one who is gay, he really did not want to be gay. Plus I am totally at the idea of terminating a healthy baby because he / she has a higher chance that average of being gay.

Nothing wrong with being gay. We can't all be the same and life would be boring if we were. Live and let live I say

I've not read the article but I think it's incredibly sad that there are a group of people who are so homophobic, that they'd rather invest their money in discovering a "gay gene" so they can avoid having gay babies, when that money could do so much good in trying to find a cure for many genuine genetic problems.

I think the research will probably end up revealing a much more complex process than the mutation of a single gene. The more we understand about genetics, the more we are coming to see a much broader picture, involving multiple genes working together and genetic mutations caused by environmental factors in the womb.

Furthermore, to some extent all sexuality is influenced by life. Personal sexual preferences can be set by the most obscure experiences from baby and toddlerhood, for example.

Also, I tend to think that sexuality is on a spectrum, rather than an either/or basis and that it's possible to move along it at various points in life (kinsey scale). THere is a lot of corroborating research in this area and from my own experience it holds true as well.

In a way the sexual orientation debate is a one-issue representation of the nature/nurture debate. We are coming to realise that they are inextricably linked rather than separate.

And ultimately, who cares? If you're talking about switching off a genetic predisposition to the development of cancer, that's one thing, but I don't give a damn about someone's sexual orientation because unless you actually want to shag that person yourself, why would it ever matter to you?

forever that's a good point, I also know a set of twins where one is gay and one straight.

But surely genetics can differ in identical twins anyway? I also know a set of identical twins where one has downs syndrome, the other doesn't.

There is no such thing as a tall gene that decides if you're going to be 5 foot or six foot. There are likely dozens of genes where having a particular allele (gene variant) will make you a few mm taller. There's also a huge environmental element to height - you could have the genetic potential to be six foot tall but but if you are malnourished as a child then you aren't going to be tall.

Homosexuality will be similar - many genes working together to increase or decrease your chances of being gay with environment playing a large part. We know that it is not entirely genetic because, depending on which study you read, only 20-50% of male identical twins are both gay when one of them is gay. Interestingly, identical twins often have one twin who is left handed and one who is right handed and if one of those twins is gay it's almost always the left handed twin - we have no idea why.

I think this is the study that was also reported in the Times and Telegraph today.

I don't see anything wrong with studying genetic influences on human sexual preference, and as I understand it that's all the study shows - that they find some genetic commonalities among gay men, but that they also suggest that environmental influences are probably a much bigger determining factor in development of sexuality - environmental influences not being limited to social influences, but including things like exposure to hormones in utero. The test mooted is only hypothetical.

We do know that human sexual preferences once formed are very fixed - that it's basically impossible to change your sexuality - but that's not quite the same thing as what the 'born this way' philosophy claims, i.e. that you are straight or gay solely as a result of your genetics. Just because you can't choose your sexuality doesn't mean that it's a solely genetically determined thing.

I think sexuality like most things human is a continuum They are people on the gay end and people on the straight end and everything in between. I am also a little sceptical of there being a single gene and I think there are far more significant genes, like serious congenital illness that might be curable, to be going looking for.

That's really fascinating QueenStromba

As MaidOfStars said there's no real need to find a gay gene because even if it were a choice that should be enough.

However any new knowledge about how we work is good and in this case it could be used to shut up the homophobic churches once and for all. They'd have to admit that their god designed it that way (or that he didn't exist). Not to mention that those who wrote the bible didn't know that.

It's interesting for its own sake. People have often asked how on earth evolution could go down a path which leads to people not reproducing.

Consider this bit.
studies suggests that conditions in the womb also influence sexual orientation. For instance, the more older male siblings a man has, the greater chance he will be gay. It is thought that carrying a male baby in the womb triggers an immune response in the mother, creating antibodies that attack part of the unborn child's brain linked to sexual orientation. This response gets stronger the more boys a woman carries, raising the odds of homosexuality.

Now that would make perfect sense to me and it would demonstrate that gay people are an essential part of how we work and not an aberration as some would have it.

In primitive times, having aunts and uncles who didn't have children of their own, but were available to hunt, farm and protect the children would surely be a real advantage.

Isn't it just that they think they have isolated a gene which many predispose someone to homosexuality? Part of the whole nature/nurture debate?

And isn't this a good thing? It is further evidence that homosexuality isn't and illness or an aberration, or unnatural or a perversion; some people are just genetically predisposed to fancying people of the same sex, for others it's a lifetstyle choice or a mixture of the two things.

As for antenatal testing - the NHS would never do that. It is unethical.

Here is a balanced view from The Torygraph

"Homosexuality is only partly genetic with sexuality mostly based on environmental and social factors, scientists believe.
A study found that, while gay men shared similar genetic make-up, it only accounted for 40 per cent of the chance of a man being homosexual.
But scientists say it could still be possible to develop a test to find out if a baby was more likely to be gay.
In the most comprehensive study of its kind, Dr Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, has been studying 400 sets of twins to determine if some men are genetically predisposed to being gay.
The study found that gay men shared genetic signatures on part of the X chromosome - Xq28.
Dr Bailey said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.
“But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved. “The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation.
“Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.”
Dr Alan Sanders, associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University, who led the study said that it was it was an 'oversimplification’ to suggest there was a 'gay gene.’
“We don’t think genetics is the whole story. It’s not. We have a gene that contributes to homosexuality but you could say it is linked to heterosexuality. It is the variation."

I don't think the antenatal testing will be a problem any time soon. Firstly they say it will never be that precise and secondly for the religious homophobes they can't admit it's in the genes without first stipulating that god put it there.

A slightly bigger worry is insurance companies refusing to pay out, or charging more, because genetic testing shows you were born with a tendency to get a certain disease.

Is this a re-hash of the infamous "Abortion hope after 'gay gene' finding" story?