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.

final sentence of first para should read "in the world"

I'm confused.

Would a bisexual person have the 'gay gene' or the ' straight gene'?

Do you need therapy if you are gay then?! I am not saying scientists should just research cancer? I am sure there are many other diseases that can be researched further. If they have the funding then good luck to them, just not sure what they will achieve with it.

Sorry Composhat I misunderstood you, I thought you were saying that the scientists were trying to find a cure for 'gay' I see now that you were not. Apologies.

What you are looking at in the DM is the headline story not the actual research data which may have implications for helping people with illness caused by genetic conditions.

I don't think this type of research WILL deter the homophobes. Rather worryingly, it will allow them to define homosexuality in the same context as genetic disorders and disabilities. Is it progress to move from 'Homosexuality is a choice (therefore they can choose not to be)' to 'Homosexuals are genetic freaks (we are being punished/god hates us)'.

Homosexuals are no more genetic freaks than blondes (hair colour is also down to the interaction between many genes).

"Homosexuality is only partly genetic with sexuality mostly based on environmental and social factors, scientists believe.

^^

But this is the finding

I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding what I say. I used the word "therapy" in the context of what you appear to think scientists should work on. A curative therapy just means "curative treatment". You seem to be implying that scientists should only ever research curative treatments for human disease, rather than investigating whatever natural phenomena they find interesting. This team are not the kind of scientists who can do that kind of research.

Saying that all scientists should only ever work on human disease is a staggeringly scientifically short-sighted opinion.

They can no more 'define homosexuality in the same context as genetic disorders and disabilities' than they can black skin.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried. Come to that black skin is a curse from god to some Christians.

Which is why I suppose what we need is a cure for religion.

Well thats an open minded comment , back only briefly .

Let's defend one oppressed group while vilifying another

Nice

Which oppressed group is that? Bigots?

I know they do get a hard time of it lately.

All The people I know who are anti gay are also vehemently anti abortion.

So probably would only be useful for IVF like with gender selection.

BackOnlyBriefly, completely agree, it's not a legitimate comparison. But watch them make it so.

Calling for a " cure for religion " is no more legitimate than calling for a " cure for homosexuality ". And your doing so makes you the bigot, not me

I don't recall calling you a bigot. If you hate gays, either because of a deep prejudice or because you are religious and it is required then yes, that would include you, but you will have to decide for yourself. I have no idea what you believe.

I was making a point when I said cure religion because of course there can be no such thing and I wouldn't stand for it anyway since to some extent religious people are victims too (of those who made them that way)

But consider the situation where we'd like to find a gene to prove that gay people are born that way and that's mostly to stop homophobes from abusing and discriminating against them. And consider that the vast majority of homophobes will be that way because religion encourages or requires it.

It would be more logical to tackle the source of the problem which is the homophobes and the religions which create or nurture them.

You don't have to be religious to be homophobic, but all the abrahamic religions have a book which tells them to kill gay people. So it's no surprise that an awful lot of homophobic people got that way through religion.

Actually in a lot of cases you could argue that they are not technically homophobes, but only act like homophobes because god wants them to. But to be honest I don't think that's much of an excuse and a pointless distinction.

This subject fascinates me. I know a lot of gay people as I come from a theatrical background (a cliche, I know). I realized a few years ago that well over half of my gay friends were twins where - with the exception of one - their twin was straight.

Therefore I believe that it is hormonal rather than genetic. Something is going on with the ratio of hormones during pregnancy.

None of my many gay friends are twins

Unless they are all identical twins they aren't any more alike than other siblings though?

Genetically speaking non-identical twins aren't any more alike than siblings but they will be more alike due to environmental factors.

Eugenics caused so much suffering and misery in the last century that you'd think we'd have learnt our lesson by now! This is horrid and can only lead to something awful further down the line.

Whoever is funding this gay gene nonsense really ought to re prioritise where they send their money so that it helps humanity.

It's not as if there aren't enough horrid syndromes and diseases where gene therapy could genuinely alleviate suffering for scientists to study. A cure for cystic fibrosis, or some cancers would be a good start.

Is that true Queenstromba? I thought they would share more genes.

I think from a research pov this would be hugely interesting but agree that if you couldn't parent a gay child you shouldn't be a parent.

It suspect if we did find the 'gay gene' (and surely it can't be that straightforward) then it would be worth doing to advance genetic research.

My child's sex life, when he's old enough to have one, is none of my business.

Bochead - I should imagine that this research will help other genetic research some of which will be used to find out more about genetic disorders. It's one side of the same coin. And this research had to get ethical approval before it goes ahead.