NationStates Jolt Archive

LONDON (Reuters) - Genetic factors, along with cultural and early experiences, influence male homosexuality, Italian scientists said on Wednesday.

Researchers at the University of Padua said the genetic components are linked to the X chromosome which is inherited only from the mother. But they are probably on other chromosomes and could partly explain male homosexuality.

"The key factor is that these genes both influence homosexuality in men, higher fecundity in females and are in the maternal and not the paternal line," Andrea Camperio-Ciani, who headed the research team, said in an interview.

More than a decade ago scientists in the United States reported that they had found evidence of a "gay gene" in men. But other researchers questioned the finding when they could not duplicate the results.

Camperio-Ciani and his team suggest there several genes could be involved, including those on the X chromosome.

In their research, which is reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, they found an increase in homosexuality in the maternal line of gay men they studied which suggests the X chromosome.

"We know that at least one of these genetic factors in on the X chromosome but that it not enough, there must be other genetic factors that are important but are elsewhere," Camperio-Ciani added.

The results are based on a study of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and about 4,600 of their relatives. The scientists compared the frequency of gay men on the maternal and paternal lines of the families.

Among homosexuals there were a greater number of gay men in the maternal line of the family, as well as greater fertility in the female relatives.

An early interest in sex before the age of 10 was also a predictor of homosexuality, according to the researchers.

"We can no longer say that is it impossible to have a gene that influences homosexuality because we found out that genes might have different effects depending on gender," Camperio-Ciani.

But he added that cultural and individual experience also play a part.

Source: Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&u=/nm/20041012/sc_nm/science_homosexuality_dc&printer=1)

Interesting quandry for the nature v. nurture debate in the world today; what happens if scientists can confirm that homosexuality is indeed biological in nature.

What about female homosexuality? Is that nature, culture or unknown?

What about female homosexuality? Is that nature, culture or unknown?
All chicks are lesbians deep down, of course.

Genetic factors, huh (actually I heard about this a coupla hrs ago)?

Now, knowing our genius president, he'll decide to break his stance against stem cell/genetic research so we can have genetic research to modify the homogene! (pardon my pun right there).

SARCASM! *quoting Letila* Which will then catapault us into genetic research elsewhere, leading to a Gundam SEED future of war and destruction */quoting Letila* END SARCASM!

Honestly, just allow Gay Marriage already!

On November 2nd, Arkansas votes on Amendment 3, which would ban Homosexual Marriage in the state. Since Arkansas would never allow homosexual marriage any time in the near future and Amendment 3 will pass no doubt, I'm considering writing "Who effin' cares anyway?" on that part of my ballot...

The problem is when you look for a singular factor that causes a person to behaver outside of "the norm". I don't think that the people running these studies would ever feel that a list of seperate factors could be involved.

So, gays have a genetic defect then?

On November 2nd, Arkansas votes on Amendment 3, which would ban Homosexual Marriage in the state. Since Arkansas would never allow homosexual marriage any time in the near future and Amendment 3 will pass no doubt, I'm considering writing "Who effin' cares anyway?" on that part of my ballot...
ill so vote "get a life you rednecks" if alabama even bothers having a vote to ban homosexuality, not marriages, the actual homosexuality itself, they WOULD do that.

So, gays have a genetic defect then?
Roffle...


And if there was a vote to ban homosexuality, I'd vote no without question.

Depending on what you believe, banning homosexuality would be either like
1) repealing the 1st amendment
or
2) banning cancer

So, gays have a genetic defect then?

You're thinking of downies.

It's not a defect because it is not detrimental. I feel perfectly fine being gay.

Banning homosexuality would be like banning heterosexuality.

Depending on what you believe, banning homosexuality would be either like
1) repealing the 1st amendment
or
2) banning cancer
1) I don't care about the 1st amendment
2) Sounds like a plan
I was just asking cause I was to lazy to read the article.

It's not a defect because it is not detrimental. I feel perfectly fine being gay.

I feel perfectly fine with you being gay.
Let's make a club.
And then beat people to death with it.
:D

So, gays have a genetic defect then?

I wouldn't call it a genetic 'defect' since so-called 'defective' genes can actually have benefits that keep them in the population, sometimes occuring in numbers far higher than they should be present statistically. For example, the Cystic Fibrosis or Sickle Cell genes which have been known to counteract cholera and malaria, respectively. A normal person with so-called 'healthy' genes would die from cholera/malaria easily, but someone possessing at least one copy of these genes (known as a 'carrier') would be immune from cholera/malaria and would NOT have CF/anemia. However, have two of the 'defective genes' and you get CF/anemia (although still immune to cholera/malaria the genetic factors would/could kill you instead :( )

'Defective' is a short-sighted name we give these genes which may in fact be stronger than the ones we call 'normal'.

The question now is, "Since homosexuality is so widespread throughout nature, what part of homosexuality is favoured by evolution to keep it occurring in high numbers?"

I wouldn't call it a genetic 'defect' since so-called 'defective' genes can actually have benefits that keep them in the population, sometimes occuring in numbers far higher than they should be present statistically. For example, the Cystic Fibrosis or Sickle Cell genes which have been known to counteract cholera and malaria, respectively. A normal person with so-called 'healthy' genes would die from cholera/malaria easily, but someone possessing at least one copy of these genes (known as a 'carrier') would be immune from cholera/malaria and would NOT have CF/anemia. However, have two of the 'defective genes' and you get CF/anemia (although still immune to cholera/malaria the genetic factors would/could kill you instead :( )

'Defective' is a short-sighted name we give these genes which may in fact be stronger than the ones we call 'normal'.

The question now is, "Since homosexuality is so widespread throughout nature, what part of homosexuality is favoured by evolution to keep it occurring in high numbers?"

It's not short sited as such, defective means that it poses an everyday risk to the individual, usually directly.

Do genetic factors make one gay?

First off: are you calling my dad gay?

This may indeed prove that homosexuals are born gay, rather than decide to "go gay" at some sexual epiphany in life.

Is there a defect in bi-sexuality too or is that considered a partial defect?

The question now is, "Since homosexuality is so widespread throughout nature, what part of homosexuality is favoured by evolution to keep it occurring in high numbers?"

Generally species that have homosexuality don't require the homosexual individual for continuation of the species. That is, often it will occur most in animals where only one male is required to be sexually active in a single group.
Also, many animals are in fact bisexual. Nature not being designed just requires that a male have sex with a female only a small number of times; what he does after that is up to him as far as nature is concerned.

I'm fine being gay, too, I just wish I could get married. :mad:

I'm fine being gay, too, I just wish I could get married. :mad:

You need a dose of Hollandaise.
Go through the ceremony there and a lot of people will accept that it is binding, even if the law doesn't.

You need a dose of Hollandaise.
Go through the ceremony there and a lot of people will accept that it is binding, even if the law doesn't.
Eh...but there are still legal issues...

John Kerry said that gay marriages are unacceptable in law because it would be easier to cheat on income tax.

I'm more interested in what makes people heterosexual ... how come nobody studies that?

Eh...but there are still legal issues...

I'm talking about from a moral point of view, not a legal one.
Even if the law doesn't recognise a marriage doesn't mean that one hasn't taken place.
After all, marriages were initially civil and not legal affairs.

I'm more interested in what makes people heterosexual ... how come nobody studies that?

Defective gene.
:D

Interesting quandry for the nature v. nurture debate in the world today; what happens if scientists can confirm that homosexuality is indeed biological in nature.
I don't think it'll ever come to that. I don't think It'd never be "definitive". For one thing, people have their own right to discount the validity of things science holds to be true. For the other thing, the study also suggested (if I read correctly) that cultural/envoronmental factors are still considered as playing a major role. Thus, I read into it, it's the combined effects of these multiple factors that the study says produces the result.

You need a dose of Hollandaise.
Go through the ceremony there and a lot of people will accept that it is binding, even if the law doesn't.
The law in the Netherlands does recognise it as binding. Not just ceremonial. There are just 2 exceptions with a gaymarriage and a heteromarriage here.
If 2 men are married and one or both of them have had children in a previouse marriage both of them automaticly become the childs dad under the law. Eventhough he's not the father in a biological sence.
Women however do not automaticly become the childs mother. Again, in the legal sence. They do however become the stepmom. And therefor she has the same duties to provide for the child and not try to marry the child in question. In this case the child in question won't have a legal mother or father anymore because of the adoption. Also she can demand custody over the child in court. Women do not get the same legal status as men untill she formally adopt the child as her own. If her partner however is the only legal guardian of the child they get shared custody over it.
And second, many countries of course do not recognise the legal status as the Netherlands do.

What is intersting is that the same gene that these scientists have linked to male homosexuality is also linked to improved fertility in women. Amazing how that balances out in succeeding generations. Higher number of births to compensate for having gay boys.

Nature is wacky. :D

The law in the Netherlands does recognise it as binding. Not just ceremonial. There are just 2 exceptions with a gaymarriage and a heteromarriage here.
If 2 men are married and one or both of them have had children in a previouse marriage both of them automaticly become the childs dad under the law. Eventhough he's not the father in a biological sence.
Women however do not automaticly become the childs mother. Again, in the legal sence. They do however become the stepmom. And therefor she has the same duties to provide for the child and not try to marry the child in question. In this case the child in question won't have a legal mother or father anymore because of the adoption. Also she can demand custody over the child in court. Women do not get the same legal status as men untill she formally adopt the child as her own. If her partner however is the only legal guardian of the child they get shared custody over it.
And second, many countries of course do not recognise the legal status as the Netherlands do.

I mean that you could go through a marriage ceremony in the Netherlands which would be legally binding there.
Then if you were a citizen of a country that did not recognise it legally and went back to said country then a lot of people would still accept that a marriage has happened, even if it is not seen as legally binding in the country in question.
It's what quite a few gay couples have done.

What is intersting is that the same gene that these scientists have linked to male homosexuality is also linked to improved fertility in women. Amazing how that balances out in succeeding generations. Higher number of births to compensate for having gay boys.

Nature is wacky. :D

lol. :D