PDA

View Full Version : Study suggests genetic differences between gay, straight men


alexusjonesfan
Jan 31st, 2005, 02:32 PM
UIC News Release

University of Illinois at Chicago Office of Public Affairs (MC 288)
601 S. Morgan St., Chicago, IL 60607-7113, (312) 996-3456, www.news.uic.edu

Release Date:

January 27, 2005

Media Contact:

Sharon Butler, (312) 355-2522, sbutler@uic.edu

Genetic Regions Influencing Male Sexual Orientation Identified

In the first-ever study combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, a University of Illinois at Chicago researcher has identified several areas that appear to influence whether a man is heterosexual or gay.

The study, which is currently available online, will be published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics.

UIC's Brian Mustanski, working with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes in the nucleus of cells of the human male.

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski, a psychologist in the UIC department of psychiatry and lead author of the study. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.

While earlier studies had focused solely on the X chromosome, one of the two sex chromosomes, the present study examined all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes in addition to the X chromosome. The other sex chromosome, called Y, was not explored because it is not believed to contain many genes.

Identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 -- were found to be shared in about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study, compared to about 50 percent expected by chance. The region on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only if it was inherited from the mother.

"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation."

Other researchers involved in the study were Dean Hamer, at the National Institutes of Health; Nicholas Schork and Caroline Nievergelt, at the University of California at San Diego; Michael DuPree, at Pennsylvania State University; and Sven Bocklandt, at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

UIC ranks among the nation's top 50 universities in federal research funding and is Chicago's largest university with 25,000 students, 12,000 faculty and staff, 15 colleges and the state's major public medical center. A hallmark of the campus is the Great Cities Commitment, through which UIC faculty, students and staff engage with community, corporate, foundation and government partners in hundreds of programs to improve the quality of life in metropolitan areas around the world.

For more information about UIC, visit www.uic.edu (http://www.uic.edu/)


One bioethicist says this discover, if true, would counter the argument that being gay is a matter of choice and therefore morality.
However, some parents will want to test fetuses and abort them if the carry genes that suggest a child could be gay, just as some fetuses are aborted for being female, he said. Some people doing in-vitro fertilization would also want to discard embryos with any sign of "gay genes."

jochem
Jan 31st, 2005, 02:54 PM
If it is true.... I might consider taking this message to the pope next week while I'll be visiting the vatican in Rome with my parents next week haha. Hopefully he'll survive it!
:) :) :) :) :)

nash
Jan 31st, 2005, 02:56 PM
Whoa, talk about spin... Sounds to me as if they've just about proven that homosexuality is highly environmentally influenced and are trying to deny the truth...

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski



"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."


Identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 -- were found to be shared in about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study, compared to about 50 percent expected by chance. The region on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only if it was inherited from the mother.



The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed

You mean there's been no confirmation? Why publish the results unless they've been confirmed?

alexusjonesfan
Jan 31st, 2005, 03:31 PM
You mean there's been no confirmation? Why publish the results unless they've been confirmed?
No, few if any studies are definitive. It's the same as when studies suggest that Vitamin B6 supplements may lower stress. They've published results because statistically the findings are above the threshold of random spread. It suggests that homosexuality may be partly innate and that's about as much as one can conclude from the data. Interpretations and infereneces of the info are of course subject to personal opinion :)

Crazy Canuck
Jan 31st, 2005, 04:24 PM
Whoa, talk about spin... Sounds to me as if they've just about proven that homosexuality is highly environmentally influenced and are trying to deny the truth...

The nature vs nurture debate is such rubbish. The vast majority of our traits are a combination of both. More than one gene is responsible for many of our traits... why not our sexuality as well? If anybody is putting spin on this and wants to deny possibilities, it is you.

You mean there's been no confirmation? Why publish the results unless they've been confirmed?


Have you EVER read a scientific journal before? :confused:

Scotso
Jan 31st, 2005, 05:01 PM
You're right, Becca. Everything is nature and nurture.

But it *IS* true that homosexuality is not a choice, either way. I know this to be true because:

1) I am gay
2) I did not choose to be so

alexusjonesfan
Jan 31st, 2005, 05:06 PM
You're right, Becca. Everything is nature and nurture.

But it *IS* true that homosexuality is not a choice, either way. I know this to be true because:

1) I am gay
2) I did not choose to be so
It's not a conscious choice for sure but that doesn't mean it's not environmentally influenced. I didn't choose my personality either but I'm sure a lot of it had to do with my experiences ;)

Crazy Canuck
Jan 31st, 2005, 05:21 PM
I don't doubt that environment plays a part. If it didn't, we wouldn't have individuals who live 50 years before going "uh... wait.. something isn't right here.. why am I married to somebody of the opposite sex? Am I supposed to enjoy sex with this person?... because I don't!". However, saying that the environment plays a role does not preclude a trait from being genetic. Why people like nash insist on seeing it the other way around (that traits must be either one or the other, not a combination of both) makes me question their scientific literacy. I am by no means an expert, but this is basic "intro to biology" stuff.

kabuki
Jan 31st, 2005, 05:21 PM
Whoa, talk about spin... Sounds to me as if they've just about proven that homosexuality is highly environmentally influenced and are trying to deny the truth...
You mean there's been no confirmation? Why publish the results unless they've been confirmed?


You can always count on Nash to post in any gay thread.

Hi, Nash! :wavey:

alfajeffster
Jan 31st, 2005, 05:26 PM
I've been concentrating on men's jeans for years now...

griffin
Jan 31st, 2005, 05:28 PM
Nature or nurture is an interesting question, but I don't think it should matter.

Race and sex are biological (even if our interpretation of them aren't - but that's another thread :p ), but religion is a choice. Yet most (sane) people agree race, sex and religion shouldn't be a basis for discrimination or persecution.

alfajeffster
Jan 31st, 2005, 05:43 PM
Nature or nurture is an interesting question, but I don't think it should matter.

Race and sex are biological (even if our interpretation of them aren't - but that's another thread :p ), but religion is a choice. Yet most (sane) people agree race, sex and religion shouldn't be a basis for discrimination or persecution.
I personally feel that it's a lot easier to discuss these things at a bar...:lol:

griffin
Jan 31st, 2005, 05:43 PM
Certainly, it's more fun ;)

alexusjonesfan
Jan 31st, 2005, 05:47 PM
I've been concentrating on men's jeans for years now...
you mean concentrating on seeing through men's jeans? :p

Pureracket
Jan 31st, 2005, 09:43 PM
Well, I've always questioned whether the fear from pointing to a "gay gene" would mean that one or both of our parents is genetically "gay" too.

*pureracket begins to wonder why his dad is so crazy about his Vietnam buddies:(*

Oleh
Jan 31st, 2005, 11:35 PM
I have nevr heard any gay person say "I choose to be Gay as the lifestyle appealed to me" or what ever nor have I heard any straight person say "I Choose to be Straight because the lifestle appealed to me".

The Gay person is Gay because they find members of the same sex attracting.
The Straight person is Straight because they find the members of the opposite sex attracting.

Hmmmm...It sounds a bit biological to me, I didnt choose to have my color hair, I didnt choose to be 6"3 and I didnt choose to like women...What makes Gays any different? Nothing they are human beings who are flesh and blood too with the same "flesh and blood" that makes them all individual and their sexuality is part of their individuality as a human being.

I still cant get the hypocracy of the hetero where they say "I didnt choose to be straight, no way its cause its natural" and they cant get the same argument that homosexuals didnt get that choice either and it IS "natural" for them too to be born who they are.

If it is a gene it is probably reccisive like many MANY genes we have that develop into expressions. But a genetic make up IS natural as its flesh and blood thus nature.

I dont like bible bashers either for making it their excuse, as if they read it for whats there (Like the official Judaism stance which angers me some Jews ignore too) where only ONE "Homosexual" sexual act (Anal sex) is prohibbited they will see NOWHERE the prohibition of being Homosexual or having "Homosexual relationships".

And its not just a Homoexual "Sex act" that is forbidden in it either but we dont hear bible bashers insulting all heterosexuals because say adultery or Voyeur falls into their catogory..if i can even use "catagory" as no where in the bible does it catagorize "Heterosexual" or "Homosexual".
ONE little ACT is forbiden by the bible/ torah TO THOSE WHO FOLLOW IT so I cant see the "biblical" ground for sites like godhatesfags.com ..it makes no sense as not all gays a) Follow the bible/ torah or b) Have Anal Sex c) nor does it collectivize homosexuals, it calls them "Aish"-"Human" only like everyone else it mentions.

Grrr sorry but "Gay bashing" annoys me so much its just like racism..."Its not natural to be different" :rolleyes:..bull shit it IS Natural to be different, thats whay we arnt like Aphids and clones of each other!!!!

jenny161185
Jan 31st, 2005, 11:51 PM
nobody chooses to be gay in fact most ppl usually wish they werent - ppl are made that way so it wouldnt surprise me

Crazy Canuck
Jan 31st, 2005, 11:55 PM
I think it's highly unlike that there is just *one* gay gene. It's probably a combination of many genes.... and that is precisely what this study was getting at.

Nash - not the "probable" here. As in, the possiblity. Read a scientific journal, preferably one not sponsered by your church, and you might learn that a large number of published articles deal with "probable" relationships... not definite. I could give you a dozen examples off the top of my head that I read in the last week. At least science is testable, and thus refutable.

alfajeffster
Feb 1st, 2005, 01:42 PM
A small Jean Genie snuck off to the city

Strung out on lasers and slash back plazas

Ate all your razors while pulling the waiters

Talking bout Monroe and walking on Snow White

New York's a go-go and everything tastes right

Poor little Greenie



The Jean Genie lives on his back

The Jean Genie loves chimney stacks

He's outrageous, he screams and he bawls

Jean Genie let yourself go!



Sits like a man but he smiles like a reptile

She loves him, she loves him but just for a short while

She'll scratch in the sand, won't let go his hand

He says he's a beautician and sells you nutrition

And keeps all your dead hair for making up underwear

Poor little Greenie



The Jean Genie lives on his back

The Jean Genie loves chimney stacks

He's outrageous, he screams and he bawls

Jean Genie let yourself go!



He's so simple minded he can't drive his module

He bites on the neon and sleeps in the capsule

Loves to be loved, loves to be loved



The Jean Genie lives on his back

The Jean Genie loves chimney stacks

He's outrageous, he screams and he bawls

Jean Genie let yourself go!

griffin
Feb 1st, 2005, 01:57 PM
As to how environment plays a role... I just don't see how.

It's actually pretty easy to see how if you take even a quick look at how differently same-sex attraction has been constructed culturally over time. The very concept of a "gay person" - or straight/heterosexual, for that matter - is a recent idea (late-19th, early 20th century).

The attraction, imo, is biological, how we understand/decide to act on it is not.

Bezz
Feb 1st, 2005, 09:01 PM
I really dont understand how environment can have an effect, yu can have people in Europe, america, china, brazil ,russia, anywhere in the world that are gay, all have been raised in differnt cultures with different traditions and religions yet they still turn out to be gay. I find it hard to beleive that something there mum or dad says/ or they are exposed to when they are 4 or 5 year olds ( or possibly younger, since most gay people know from very young they are differnt) switches them from being "straight" to "gay".

I think the main focus shud be one the genes and biology, There is some research to suggest it is the level of hormones released by the mother that may affect whether the child will be gay or not, which is highly more likely than accidently exposing a boy to the wizard of oz and turning him gay or giving a girl an action man to play with and she turns out to be a lesbian.

:cool:

Crazy Canuck
Feb 1st, 2005, 09:07 PM
which is highly more likely than accidently exposing a boy to the wizard of oz and turning him gay or giving a girl an action man to play with and she turns out to be a lesbian.

I don't think that anybody worth listening to actually seriously thinks that way ;) I know that isn't what I meant by the environment playing a role. I meant along the lines of what Griffin wrote up above.

canadian_bass_2
Feb 1st, 2005, 09:39 PM
However, some parents will want to test fetuses and abort them if the carry genes that suggest a child could be gay, just as some fetuses are aborted for being female, he said. Some people doing in-vitro fertilization would also want to discard embryos with any sign of "gay genes."
This is actually my biggest fear, is that people want there to be a "gay" gene in order to erradicate it by aborting it, or by doing everything in their power to make sure the child grows up to be straight.

Like most things, people are searching for an answer of "nature vs nurture" or "this vs that." Why can't it be a healthy mixture of both? For some things, I think that there may be a definite answer, but, I don't believe that it's true for all things, especially psychology and behaviour.

One other thing, environment doesn't mean "If we make little Jimmy watch Wizard of Oz over and over again, he'll be gay..." environment means something on a more personal level, such as the way a person is treated. The Wizard of Oz is just a stupid fake-ass stereotype, and has very little to do with environment.

Bezz
Feb 1st, 2005, 09:40 PM
It's actually pretty easy to see how if you take even a quick look at how differently same-sex attraction has been constructed culturally over time. The very concept of a "gay person" - or straight/heterosexual, for that matter - is a recent idea (late-19th, early 20th century).

The attraction, imo, is biological, how we understand/decide to act on it is not.
I am not all that convinced by your argument (if i am understanding it), cos it would imply children understand the complex cultural constructs and somehow decide from that they are goin to be gay. I think they know they are gay before they fully understand the "world"

:cool:

Crazy Canuck
Feb 1st, 2005, 09:44 PM
I am not all that convinced by your argument (if i am understanding it), cos it would imply children understand the complex cultural constructs and somehow decide from that they are goin to be gay. I think they know they are gay before they fully understand the "world"

:cool:
You don't need to understand the complexities of your culture in order to react to it.

Bezz
Feb 1st, 2005, 09:50 PM
You don't need to understand the complexities of your culture in order to react to it.
But i dont think children are 'that' aware in order to react to it. Not on something like homosexuality.

Crazy Canuck
Feb 1st, 2005, 10:10 PM
But i dont think children are 'that' aware in order to react to it. Not on something like homosexuality.
Then why do we have people who don't realize that they are homosexual until they are well into their 50s, married and with children? Clearly they reacted to something. While they may have always known that "something" didn't feel right, if they had no way of knowing what that "something" was... then it's awfully difficult for them to act on it.

Bezz
Feb 1st, 2005, 10:16 PM
Then why do we have people who don't realize that they are homosexual until they are well into their 50s, married and with children? Clearly they reacted to something. While they may have always known that "something" didn't feel right, if they had no way of knowing what that "something" was... then it's awfully difficult for them to act on it.
Its called denial and accepting social norms. All gay people know they are gay, some try and hide it for themselves or for their families others dont. Its not a sudden Ureka moment for any of them, they know, they just cant accept it. There is also the obligation they feel they need to fullfill to thier family, they may not want a divorce or seperate from wife/kids.

If anyone gay thinks i am just chatting shit plz say so, i am only expressing my opinion and own experiences here. If your not gay, your opinion is still welcome but less so ... j/k lol ;)

griffin
Feb 1st, 2005, 11:37 PM
But i dont think children are 'that' aware in order to react to it. Not on something like homosexuality.

If by "aware" you mean they know they're being given cues about accepted norms, expectations, behaviors, etc., no, we don't pop out of the womb as social scientists...but do we all start absorbing those things at an early age? Yes.

Whether it's simple shit like "mom/dad come running when I cry - I should cry when I need something from them" or more complex things like what boys and girls are supposed to like (not what you like - what you're supposed to think that and of what other kids like), we start picking that up almost at birth.

alexusjonesfan
Feb 2nd, 2005, 03:12 AM
This is actually my biggest fear, is that people want there to be a "gay" gene in order to erradicate it by aborting it, or by doing everything in their power to make sure the child grows up to be straight.

That point was definitely startling. Hopefully, that's waay off in the future in a time when people won't see homosexuality as a genetic defect ;)

Who'm I kidding....this could get scary :o

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Feb 2nd, 2005, 03:14 AM
http://img199.exs.cx/img199/2254/lolman2ic.gif

Crazy Canuck
Feb 2nd, 2005, 03:36 AM
I have a hard time believing someone older than 25 y.o. STILL doesn't realize that he's gay - if he is. Just because you are married and have kids - and are conforming to society - doesn't mean that deep inside you know dawn well that what sexually attract you are men.

It's the kind of thing people lie... There's not going to be a man who'll say loud: "you know I always knew that deep inside I like men, but I lived a lie with a woman during 20 years." They're more going to say something like "Oh I knew there was something wrong, but I didn't realize that I was gay."

But I'm not into other's people mind, so I might be wrong of course.

I don't disagree with any of this... but just keep in mind that this is very easy to say when you live in a culture where "being gay" is an actual concept that people are familiar with.

Also, I've never made a point of arguing that the "decision" to be gay is even at decision at all... I don't doubt that ultimately, that is biology. My only comment on the matter has been that environment may determine how that trait is expressed. That's it.

Captain.Canada
Feb 2nd, 2005, 06:26 AM
There are two kinds of gay people. Gay people living their lives as gay people and gay people living their lives as straight people. The reason these people are gay in the first place is because of genetics. The reason the second group is straight is because of the environment. Environment plays a role in suppressing someone from coming out and being gay. Society discourages people to be gay and encourages people to be straight. Being gay is genetic.

Captain.Canada
Feb 2nd, 2005, 06:30 AM
Then why do we have people who don't realize that they are homosexual until they are well into their 50s, married and with children? Clearly they reacted to something. While they may have always known that "something" didn't feel right, if they had no way of knowing what that "something" was... then it's awfully difficult for them to act on it.

I think people know early on and try to supress it or hope it'll go away. But it just eats them up inside and they have to come out, even if it takes that long.

Captain.Canada
Feb 2nd, 2005, 06:33 AM
Some people's environment's can be welcoming to be gay, but often it's often a strong-willed, self-assured person that comes out because most of the time, the environment isn't positive towards gay people coming out.

bionic71
Feb 2nd, 2005, 10:04 AM
I echo the above, posted by Nathan27.

The "environmental" factor in an individuals homosexual orientation is whether the environment they occupy is one that allows a gay person to live openly and without fear.

The "environment' does not shape their orientation, but it does have an influence on whether they live in fear, conceal their sexuality or in some cases never fully come to grips with their orientation.

Many gay people never reveal their sexual orientation in the environment they grew up in....many do.

A safe, loving and informed environment is one where a gay person can feel at ease.
An environment consisting of misinformation and fear is a repressive one, and one that is not conducive to an individual feeling comfortable enough to reveal their sexuality.

It is such a pity that many "environments" continue to stifle and repress those who identify with being gay or lesbian or whatever.

Still too many hang ups surrounding sex in general....too many hang ups, embarrassment and misinformation about something that is common to us all as human individuals....our unique sexual identities....whether you identify as straight, gay, bisexual or somewhere in between...our sexual identities are our own and should not be boxed into simplified categories.

My brother and I were both products of the same environment....a loving, safe, nurturing family....a family unit that promoted respect and compassion...
My father was a football playing, masculine and emotional man, my mother a strong, feminine, devoted mother and wife. My brother is straight, I am gay. By the time I was 11 years I was aware I was gay...and despite some teenage angst associated with my own acceptance of my sexuality, my transition into adulthood was assisted by the loving and accepting environment I was brought up in, and still am part of. My parents made and make no issue of my sexuality, they love and accept me and see my sexuality as a non defining aspect of who I am. They love and accept my partner of 11 years as one of the family...just as they accept my brothers wife.

My environment made my trasition easier...but it did not shape my sexual orientation. I am well aware that many people do not have the luxury of such a smooth transition...I see it is the eyes of the gay youth I teach at school, or hear the fear in their voices when they open up to you because they have either been rejected or fear rejection from those closests to them. This fear is what keeps many gay people from ever accepting themselves fully...and it saddens me greatly.

Enough said..I could go round and round in circles as I have done before on this messageboard in similar thread topics.

Bezz
Feb 2nd, 2005, 10:05 AM
I echo the above, posted by Nathan27.

The "environmental" factor in an individuals homosexual orientation is whether the environment they occupy is one that allows a gay person to live openly and without fear.

The "environment' does not shape their orientation, but it does have an influence on whether they live in fear, conceal their sexuality or in some cases never fully come to grips with their orientation.

Many gay people never reveal their sexual orientation in the environment they grew up in....many do.

A safe, loving and informed environment is one where a gay person can feel at ease.
An environment consisting of misinformation and fear is a repressive one, and one that is not conducive to an individual feeling comfortable enough to reveal their sexuality.

It is such a pity that many "environments" continue to stifle and repress those who identify with being gay or lesbian or whatever.

Still too many hang ups surrounding sex in general....too many hang ups, embarrassment and misinformation about something that is common to us all as human individuals....our unique sexual identities....whether you identify as straight, gay, bisexual or somewhere in between...our sexual identities are our own and should not be boxed into simplified categories.
Completly agree :cool:

Sam L
Feb 2nd, 2005, 10:32 AM
Nature or nurture is an interesting question, but I don't think it should matter.

Race and sex are biological (even if our interpretation of them aren't - but that's another thread :p ), but religion is a choice. Yet most (sane) people agree race, sex and religion shouldn't be a basis for discrimination or persecution.
griffin, you do realize that you've just kicked all those religious nuts in the balls with that statement? :lol:

They shouldn't even come in to argue against homosexuality anymore after reading that. :eek:

:haha: