Study of gay brothers seeking genetic clues

[KagomJack]

Study of gay brothers seeking genetic clues

By Lindsey Tanner
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 10/16/2007 12:28:20 AM MDT

CHICAGO — Julio and Mauricio Cabrera are gay brothers who are convinced their sexual orientation is as deeply rooted as their Mexican ancestry.

They are among 1,000 pairs of gay brothers taking part in the largest study to date seeking genes that may influence whether people are gay. The Cabreras hope the findings will help silence critics who say homosexuality is an immoral choice.

If fresh evidence is found suggesting genes are involved, perhaps homosexuality will be viewed as no different than other genetic traits like height and hair color, said Julio, a student at DePaul University here.

Adds his brother: "I think it would help a lot of folks understand us better."

The federally funded study, led by Chicago-area researchers, will rely on blood or saliva samples to help scientists search for genetic clues to the origins of homosexuality. Parents and straight brothers also are being recruited.

While initial results aren't expected until next year, skeptics are already attacking the methods and disputing the presumed results.

Previous studies have shown that sexual orientation tends to cluster in families, though that doesn't prove genetics is involved. Extended families may share similar child-rearing practices, religion and other beliefs that could also influence sexual orientation.

Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn't one so-called gay gene. It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist.

Many gays fear that if gay genes are identified, it could result in discrimination, prenatal testing and even abortions to eliminate homosexuals, said Joel Ginsberg of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

However, he added, "If we confirm that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, we are much more likely to get the courts to rule against discrimination."

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7187607?source=rss

[-Spector-]

Sounds pretty gay :rolleyes:

[Demosthenes]

I have almost no doubt in my mind that there is, at the very least, a genetic component to homosexuality. What I don't quite understand why that component would not have been entirely selected out of existence.

[osmoses-jones]

i don't believe gays come from ancestor gene. It just another sickness society had to offer.

[Vollstrecker]

I have almost no doubt in my mind that there is, at the very least, a genetic component to homosexuality. What I don't quite understand why that component would not have been entirely selected out of existence.

Well, if bisexuality is related to this, you could have carriers still passing it on. It could also be a recessive gene. /shrug

[Kaneda]

I'd ROFLMAO if they're wasn't any link at all. Ahhh I'd love it. Like it's some kinda of excuse or something. lol

[Demosthenes]

i don't believe gays come from ancestor gene. It just another sickness society had to offer.

I don't think all those lambs, dogs, and sheep are succumbing to peer pressure.

[Kaneda]

Uh. Your saying that there are lambs, dogs, and sheep that simply will not have sex with females of the same species in heat and spread right in front of them but instead take 4 steps to the left and stick their little doggy dicks in another dogs butt. Links please.

[Demosthenes]

Uh. Your saying that there are lambs, dogs, and sheep that simply will not have sex with females of the same species in heat and spread right in front of them. Links please.

I'm saying that homosexual tendencies are exhibited in more than just humans. Bisexuality, at the very least, has been observed in a bunch of species. Again, I said a component of homosexuality is tied to genetics, not entirely.

[Vollstrecker]

I'm saying that homosexual tendencies are exhibited in more than just humans. Bisexuality, at the very least, has been observed in a bunch of species.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and back you up on this for Kaneda's benefit, it's been noticed and documented for years. I remember even seeing some kind of show that had a little side-blurb about this on Discovery or The Learning Channel ages ago.

[Kaneda]

Ugh.

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm

http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=&cat=gayanimals

I think the fact of the matter is as humans we must label and catagorize everything in the name of science. Therefore, we must fit into certain groups. So instead of just being like all other species and simply get sexual pleasure from whatever pleases us we have to be "gay" or "bisexual" or "straight." The previous to being much more seldom, it goes with our nature to reject it and count them as outcast. Which I don't see is so wrong really. I mean certain animal packs reject the old, the weak and hurt, or even just based off of markings and such.
And yes homosexual tendencies, which really don't exist except in our system. So no animals in the animal kingdom seem to be completely GAY just by our standards exibit what we would consider gay.

[Demosthenes]

Well, if bisexuality is related to this, you could have carriers still passing it on. It could also be a recessive gene. /shrug

Even so, I would expect nature to strongly select against it. If the case is that it is a recessive allele then selection should play a part on it as it does for every other recessive allele. If we're dealing with genes that code for bisexuality rather than homosexuality altogether, I would speculate that it is still a deleterious gene. Only half of those genes should be passed relative to genes for heterosexuality. If the gene had not been eliminated, you should expect to see some sort of decline. The fact that we fail to see any is an enigma to me.

[Demosthenes]

I think the fact of the matter is as humans we must label and catagorize everything in the name of science. Therefore, we must fit into certain groups. So instead of just being like all other species and simply get sexual pleasure from whatever pleases us we have to be "gay" or "bisexual" or "straight." Such a bunch of crap.

Well, it makes sense. You have to be able to describe things/actions.

[Kaneda]

Edited. So maybe we're just like the animals and either society has taught us the "straight" ones to reject the "gayness" and the completely "gay" people are also influenced by other factors. Bi-sexual people are normal.

[!King_Amazon!]

I have almost no doubt in my mind that there is, at the very least, a genetic component to homosexuality. What I don't quite understand why that component would not have been entirely selected out of existence.
Could the same not be said for stuff like Autism?

I mean, I'm in no way suggesting that homosexuality is a form of retardation, but perhaps it's similar. I think there are a lot of things that seriously hinder the ability to reproduce but those things are still around.

Sorry if I'm not making much sense, it's late and I'm not feeling very eloquent.

[!King_Amazon!]

Edited. So maybe we're just like the animals and either society has taught us the "straight" ones to reject the "gayness" and the completely "gay" people are also influenced by other factors. Bi-sexual people are normal.

That's actually pretty likely and I would probably tend toward that explanation. Back when I was discussing this with Chruser, we pretty much came to somewhat of an agreement that all people are bisexual by nature but it is suppressed by society.