Could there be a gay gene?

[Satya]

A recent study in South Korea has definitely raised some eyebrows...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/15/have-scientists-found-gay-gene/

The sex habits of mice have long been an intriguing subject for scientists. Now, mouse sex just got a lot more interesting for the rest of us.

A group of Korean geneticists has altered the sexual preferences of female mice by removing a single gene linked to reproductive behavior. Without the gene, the mice gravitated toward mice of the same sex. Those mice who retained the gene, called FucM, were attracted to male mice. (FucM is short for fucose mutarotase.)

The geneticists' study, published last week in the journal BMC Genetics explains that female mice without FucM avoided male mice, declined to sniff male urine, and made passes at other females.

Lead author Chankyu Park, of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
in South Korea, says this shows the absence of FucM tricks female mouse brains into functioning like male brains. "The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental program in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference," he told the London Telegraph.

Park said he now wants to research whether this finding has any relevance for humans.

The fact that he is in South Korea, where bioethics are notoriously bendable may prove important as he goes forward. Research that gets anywhere close to searching for a gay gene -- even with animals -- has been highly controversial in the U.S., where opposition cuts across the political spectrum. Some still remember a 1995 study where scientists from the National Institutes of Health performed a similar procedure on male fruit flies, yielding what one journalist called "all-male conga lines." (For the record, the male flies became bisexual, not strictly gay.)

Even in South Korea, though, Park admits he may have trouble recruiting human volunteers for the next leg of his research.

There is substantial biological evidence to support homosexuality in nature. Hundreds of species of animals, both in the wild and in captivity, have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior. Roughly 8% of rams in a wild population have been documented to only pursue other rams and ignore ewes. Bonobo chimps which share approximately 98% of our genetic code utilize sex and engage in rampant bisexual behavior, using sex as a social bonding agent.

[youtube]ggl5ZGaJFFM[/youtube]

However, I have long supported epigenetic theories on homosexual behavior. If homosexuality was purely genetic, then one would expect that in every case where one identical twin was gay, the other would also have to be gay. Afterall, identical twins share the exact same genetic code. However, this is not the case. But scientists have discovered that hormones that we are exposed to in the womb can differentiate brain development between twins, and may even increase likelihood of one being gay. Furthermore, if one identical twin is gay, the likelihood that the other is gay does statistically increase. The same pattern holds true for fraternal twins. Birth order studies have shown that for each older brother a male has, the chances of him being gay increase substantially. Studies where the fetal hormones of rats have been manipulated have also produced interesting results.

[youtube]z6zPh97qYd4[/youtube]
[youtube]0_bfVvo3dd8&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]saO_RFWWVVA&feature=related[/youtube]

There is also a certain dishonesty to the idea of a "gay gene". Its an oversimplification of genetics. There is no single gene that causes height, skin color, or personality, or any other complex feature of human beings, and yet sexual orientation is suppose to be caused by a single gene? In actuality, the argument that there is no gay gene comes from the Rice study which disproved another study that indicated a potential gay marker in the genetic code. The Rice study could not recreate the results of an earlier study which suggested a certain set of genes could not be responsible for sexual orientation.

To make matters worse, there is a strong political divide regarding homosexuality. A good share of religious organizations have found the potential for a biological cause of homosexuality to be great enough to issue proclamations that even if such finding were found, it would not change the immoral nature of homosexuality and that gays would still be called upon to bear the burden of their "ailment" and live celibate lives. Some individuals have gone so far as to argue that homosexuality is a disease that clearly has a biological cause and which needs to be treated and cured.

So what are your thoughts? I know I've asked if sexuality is immuteable before, but this is a more specific question. Is homosexuality genetic? Is it epigentic? Is it pyschological? I think a poll is in order.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I think there is more then one way to be gay. Not all biological conditions are caused by genetics, some are, but some aren't. I think that there is a series of genes that controls sexual interest. It would explain the fluidity of sexual attraction (very much a parallel to eye color which is controlled by around 8 genes and loosely follows Mendelian genetics). It could also be caused by a hormone flood early in development which would alter the phisology.

I firmly believe to every core of my being that being gay is biological, but the exact mode for it is variable (personally, I believe that I am genetically gay).

 

[Peppermint]

Some individuals have gone so far as to argue that homosexuality is a disease that clearly has a biological cause and which needs to be treated and cured.

http://www.queerty.com/doctor-discovers-possible-cure-for-lesbian-kids-uh-oh-20100630/

There is also a certain dishonest to the idea of a "gay gene". Its an oversimplification of genetics. There is no single gene that causes height, skin color, or personality, or any other complex feature of human beings, and yet sexual orientation is suppose to be caused by a single gene?

I wouldn't be surprised if genetics had some part in it, but I also doubt it would be caused by a single gene. At best it could treated as a quantitative trait.

 

[Daeledin]

Another video to add to the pile Satya

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3951664787962910599#

The presenter puts it in a manner I really like, "there is no one [gay/sexual orientation] gene, this is too complicated a picture for it to be dominated by one gene."

My answer will be pretty boring and say that it is a little of both, nature and nurture with a great leaning toward nature (like 9:1 leaning that way). Most of the studies that have been done in the past are population based and there isn't a lab test that tells you immediately if you're gay/straight/bisexual. So proving someone has base desires for same or opposite sex isn't possible, only that person can do it. The base orientation would be nature. The actions can be a mixture of both. Its sad but completely possible for someone to be troubled or tortured to the point where they'll deny themselves and never act on any homosexual desires (or never act on heterosexual ones if such a situation was present in that person's environment)

Now that we're getting more advanced in our genetics research this will prove to be an interesting time. I enjoyed the article. We can go beyond the pedigree (linkage) studies and get down on the molecular level and start playing.

As far as I'm concerned psychologically in early development of countries or in today's more primitive hunter-gatherer cultures if we see homosexuality incorporated into the society it would be because those people had a desire to engage in that behavior. I'm saying it would be a marker that it is nature based. On the other side of it, what individuals are thinking; I just don't know anything near enough about psychology to break down sexuality based on traumatic events or disorders.

So my vote: nature (genetic/epigenetic)
In my mind, I am genetically gay. I also get to add fuel to the fraternal theory since I do have an older, straight brother.

 

[Quinlan]

I have done no research so this is just gut instinct. I think it's unlikely to be monogenetic like the mices in the OP but maybe many genes working together like height. Just like height it is mostly genetic but the expression of the genes can be modified to an extent by environment.

 

[Norton]

The jury is still out. Whatever the etiology, it's not simple.

 

[arbygil]

First off - this really does sound like something good to investigate. Not only will it bring up possibilities for sexual equality, but it might be able to aid in helping others with various sexual freedoms or difficulties.

Something else...

This is terrible, but (this should tell you where my mind is today)

How funny is it that the fucose mutarotase gene, the gene apparently for sexual characteristics, is abbreviated "FucM"? All you need is an "e" on the end.

 

[Silently Honest]

You don't need an "e". I already read it as "Fuck em"

 

[arbygil]

You don't need an "e". I already read it as "Fuck em"

Heh - this is true, too! See, I missed the obvious one. Se fail!

 

[Satya]

How funny is it that the fucose mutarotase gene, the gene apparently for sexual characteristics, is abbreviated "FucM"? All you need is an "e" on the end.

I actually had the exact same thought and resisted posting it. Thank you for being a fellow pervert and making me feel less ashamed at how quickly I made that connection.

 

[Norton]

Something else...

This is terrible, but (this should tell you where my mind is today)

How funny is it that the fucose mutarotase gene, the gene apparently for sexual characteristics, is abbreviated "FucM"? All you need is an "e" on the end.

Find a gene and you get to name it. Some of the names are quite strange. "Sonic Hedgehog" is a well-known one. How about: knirps, tinman, methuselah, Van Gogh, maggie (from the Simpson's), lava lamp. These are all Drosophila (fruit fly) genes. Noggin and frizbee are frog (Xenopus) genes.

 

[VH]

In every mammal species that has been documented through the course of overpopulation, instance of homosexuality increase in population is in direct proportion to the rate of overpopulation. If that's not genetic, I don't know what is. I'm not saying that everyone who becomes gay is genetically predisposed, but clearly it could be one of the factors for some if not many.

 

[Raccoon Love]

I believe it has both genetic and environmental components. Homosexuality is seen throughout the whole animal kingdom. A lot of it has to do with over population, when there are no more mates available, the animal naturally seeks companionship of a same-sex partner. To some animals, it even comes natural to them. Same-sex animals have been shown to ''play'' with one another in entirely sexual ways, such can be demonstrated in dolphins. There has been evidence of different brain structures between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and scientists are coming closer to the conclusion that it is genetic. I can however, discount the environmental effects which might triggered homosexual feelings on a person who is genetically prone. The way in which the events later followed such a personality traits since one is small later affect the overall sexual orientation of the person. This is of course like any other human trait we might have(eye color, hair, skin color, even weight..), is completely normal but society does not seem to understand that.

 

[Satya]

Hm...the NFP in me wants to pick "a choice" on the poll just so I can say, "F*** you all! You can't label me! I choose to love the c***!"

 

[Daeledin]

Well Satya, does your building have roof access? I know exactly where to shout things like that.

 

[sassafras]

From a scientific point of view, I personally think its more hormonal than genetic. Hormonal levels are more fluid as they can be directly influenced by the individual's psychological development and their physical and cultural environment. It's not to say that genetics might not have a stake, but it is my personal belief that homosexuality is chiefly a psychological phenomenon that is reinforced by the physiological effects of said psychological make up. Then again, I think psychology is pretty much paramount in any kind of behavioral and/or societal phenomenon.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I wouldn't be surprised if "gay" was a combination of tons and tons of factors. Quite honestly, I believe that some people are "born" gay, whereas some others have a sort of higher likelihood and is further developed via environment. Or, possibly it could be simply the latter -- hormonal balances in the womb, "gender cues" in very young childhood, and other such things could still play a very big role.
Although I think it's stupid to think that it's simple. A "gay" gene or a single childhood event is probably not the cause of all homosexuality, in my opinion. Yeah, the presence or absence of a gene could definitely change sexuality, but that doesn't mean everyone that is homosexual is following that pattern. It's more complex than that.

As for the poll, I really think it could be caused by nearly every single one of those things except for "a disease." They could be working in tandem with each other (and probably do), but I believe there are many ways it comes about.

 

[arbygil]

I actually had the exact same thought and resisted posting it. Thank you for being a fellow pervert and making me feel less ashamed at how quickly I made that connection.

I think we all did; we were just too polite to say it ('cept me. Which is extremely ironic, but part of my true sense of humor).

 

[the]

You don't need an "e". I already read it as "Fuck em"

So did I

 

[Faye]

Homosexuals, at least the males, are physiologically different from heterosexuals. Areas of their brains are comparatively smaller or larger.

I don't see how that couldn't be genetic.