Gay gene

[Manfromzurich]

@Arete

 

23andme is doing a GWAS on homosexuality!

 

http://spittoon.23an...do-ask-do-tell/

 

I want to become genetican and biochemist. I will still do the individual genome sequencing in 2015 ! I am very sure that I can find the error with this service! When I have done it, I will write it here in this forum!

 

I want to become genetican and biochemist. I will still do the individual genome sequencing in 2015 ! I am very sure that I can find the error with this service! When I have done it, I will write it here in this forum! I am also interested in neuroscience.

 

 

Oh I see you are genetican?! Can we stay in contact?

Edited September 7, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[MattyG]

It is interesting to note that while homosexual behaviour is known in many species, homophobia has only been recorded in one.

This suggests that the latter behaviour is much more "unnatural" than the former.

 

I know this is completely late, but I hope you don't mind if I quote you in the future.

[Manfromzurich]

Wow! They wrote, that in the next couple of month the GWAS of homosexuality will be pubilcated!

[dmaiski]

I know this is completely late, but I hope you don't mind if I quote you in the future.

 

actuayl it was about 400 known species, based on the last time ive heared that quote used (it was ages ago)

 

i was looking back and i saw this:

When people talk about homosexuals they say "They dont have a choice" "its genetic", i refuse to believe that, i dont think you can be born gay, but by the experiences people venture through that makes them gay. Also i dont believe in the gay gene because growing up, most of my friends and i didnt like girls till around 4th and 5th grade. i went through that "girls are icky" phase pretty much. Anyways i dont believe the gay gene exists and i do believe its a life choice, people have their free will to choose or not in my opinion, if the gay gene does exist then its a very confusing part of genetics. what do you guys think?

 

the start of the thread... and i have to say, "the man has a point on that stick he's waiving at us"

 

just because we learn about sexual attraction when puberty hits doesn’t invalidate it

 

 

by the time puberty hits we have a wealth of experience, our brains are also, by that point, fully developed

 

this would be indicative that either,

a: we should be attracted to sex (X) from the day we are born

b: attraction is all mental, and is set by our perceptions up to that point and triggered by a freak event when the hormones kick in(see my appendix)

 

not the only 2 options, and i don’t know the answer (im leaning towards b)

 

appendix (freshly excised from my abdomen!)

what i mean by a freak event is:

when you hit puberty, you begin to have sexual responses to things(not people, things)

you see that people are normally attracted to the opposite sex

you chose to conform to this society

 

or

 

you see your best friend

and you go "i like my friend" "i really want to screw something" "mmmm sexy"

and you become "gay" by accident,

not that you are entirely gay because of this, just not that straight

 

 

i oversimplified things but that’s the basics

there are far worse things you can be attracted to, only limited by your childhood, and perverse imaginations (yay fetish time!!!)

 

 

Edited September 12, 2012 by dmaiski

[jp255]

Reasons why it is unlikely to be a choice:

 

1. sexual attraction/partner choice is not random, with a strong bias toward toward beautiful individuals. If you are arguing that it is a choice, then you should be able to fully explain and justify your own sexual attraction and completely explain your own preference to all traits (eye colour, weight etc). It it is a choice, you should also be able to make yourself be attracted to anyone of the sex you are attracted to, no matter how ugly they might be. If it is free will sexual attraction should be able to be turned on and off as easily as a light switch. Only then is it reasonable for you to claim it is free will, if you possess these abilities then I can understand your reasoning. If you fail to be able to fully account for your own sexual attraction then how do you expect someone who is gay to be able to control their attraction? I argued about this earlier, you can mine back to find it.

 

2. the heritability has been estimated numerous times, and meta-analysed. Not going to go into it, just to say that there is a genetic and environmental component to explaining an individuals sexual orientation.

 

 

Please justify why you know that homosexuality is a choice. That it is not possible for it to be out of the individuals hands. If anything, you should really be more inclined to think that sexual attraction and orientation are not a choice. Anyway, for what reason would someone choose to remain in a category which is subject to prejudice if it is so easy to so freely choose to revert sexual orientation?

 

Personally, I think some do choose, but others don't. I also think that sexual attraction/partner choice is an illusion of free will.

 

 

 

[dmaiski]

to answer number 1...

i offer you 2 plates of food, in one plate is the tastiest steak you have ever seen (but you are a vegetarian, or at least trying to be one because your parents are), in the other plate, a salad, not the best salad ever made... admittedly its wilted and limp, and there a dead fly in it.

to make things more interesting you have just come out of a starvation diet, consisting of your fine leather shoes as your primary food source

which plate would you pick

 

to answer number 2...

the studies indicate a predisposition to being homosexual

this means you can also be bi sexual, or even straight and still have the trait

my theory dosen't omit genetics, it just proposes the possibility of it being mental

for all that we know the trait being studied actually determine how closely you are willing to conform to society’s expectations of you and chose option 1 instead of option 2

 

(for the terminally stupid, and those incapable of understanding metaphor)

part 1:

the starvation diet represents a very horny teenager

the tasty steak is your best friend(same gender as you) who also happens to be a attractive(boy/girl)

the parents who are vegetarians are your heterosexual parents, and the society you live in

the wilted salad is the other gender option(you have never really sampled them that well, and they do act like idiots most of the time)

it is your choice whether you obey society or your very horny brain

(for the terminally stupid, and those incapable of understanding metaphor)

 

by the way, has anyone seen a good study into the sexual orientation of the children of gay couples?

to be more precise the adopted children (meaning no genetic relation)

hypothetically this would demonstrate if sexuality is environmental, and how much of an effect it has.

ive seen some studies that show positive results towards them being more likely to be homosexual, but there’s a lot of noise and the studies are older then 10 years

 

 

[jp255]

it is your choice whether you obey society or your very horny brain

 

I couldn't understand the metaphor! Anyway, at least you understand the influence of the brain in the decision process. This is why I think it is like an illusion of free will, because you have the choice but the choice you make is biased in the sense that you are more likely to choose one option than the other based on a range of factors. Prejudice probably helps people realise this, and the lack of it means heterosexuals are likely to be the ones to say it is free will.

 

 

the studies indicate a predisposition to being homosexual

Yeah, one that has a genetic and environmental basis.

 

my theory dosen't omit genetics, it just proposes the possibility of it being mental

for all that we know the trait being studied actually determine how closely you are willing to conform to society's

So what if it is mental? every trait's variance is explained by genetic and environmental factors (just differring levels of contribution).

Edited September 13, 2012 by jp255

[MattyG]

to answer number 1...

i offer you 2 plates of food, in one plate is the tastiest steak you have ever seen (but you are a vegetarian, or at least trying to be one because your parents are), in the other plate, a salad, not the best salad ever made... admittedly its wilted and limp, and there a dead fly in it.

to make things more interesting you have just come out of a starvation diet, consisting of your fine leather shoes as your primary food source

which plate would you pick

 

The debate isn't about whether or not genetics makes you have sex with the same gender. The debate is about whether genetics makes you attracted to the same gender. No one is arguing that a guy who's attracted to men can't or won't choose to have sex with women. Just that he can't choose to be attracted to them. Your thought experiment corroborates this, seeing as even if this starving dude chooses the salad, he actually wants the steak. He's genetically predisposed to carnivorous behavior. He can't help it.

[dmaiski]

The debate isn't about whether or not genetics makes you have sex with the same gender. The debate is about whether genetics makes you attracted to the same gender. No one is arguing that a guy who's attracted to men can't or won't choose to have sex with women. Just that he can't choose to be attracted to them. Your thought experiment corroborates this, seeing as even if this starving dude chooses the salad, he actually wants the steak. He's genetically predisposed to carnivorous behavior. He can't help it.

 

you know this how?

saying you cant help it is rather silly, you can say you don’t want to

saying you cant help it means its a compulsion

i don’t know about you but ive never felt compelled to ba attracted to anyone

ive been attracted to their minds, their bodies, personality, once even their confidence in them selves(ie they were really cocky)

it may be because i am bi, or it may be the cause of me being bi, but there is allays a reason why i am attracted to someone

 

now i may be wrong, ive read alot, talked to people, and have accumulated numerous experiences

and based on all these experiences, i would say attraction is mental

you respond to a person because you are attracted to a person because you like them, not their gender

otherwise you would have an erection in response to any vaguely female shaped object in existence even if you caught a small glimpse of it

 

 

[MattyG]

you know this how?

saying you cant help it is rather silly, you can say you don’t want to

saying you cant help it means its a compulsion

i don’t know about you but ive never felt compelled to ba attracted to anyone

ive been attracted to their minds, their bodies, personality, once even their confidence in them selves(ie they were really cocky)

it may be because i am bi, or it may be the cause of me being bi, but there is allays a reason why i am attracted to someone

 

now i may be wrong, ive read alot, talked to people, and have accumulated numerous experiences

and based on all these experiences, i would say attraction is mental

you respond to a person because you are attracted to a person because you like them, not their gender

otherwise you would have an erection in response to any vaguely female shaped object in existence even if you caught a small glimpse of it

 

Having a broad range of features that you find attractive is not the same as choosing who you find attractive. And no one was saying that physical appearance is the only single factor that determines attraction, but for most people it is a big part. Could you meet an ugly, stupid, hateful person and just make the concious decision to be attracted to them? My guess is no. You may personally have a very broad range of traits that are attractive to you, but I don't believe that you just sat down one day and decided what those would be. It's not a decision, it's a combination of your genetic makeup and whatever environmental factors play into it.

 

Edit: Additionally, no one said that there wasn't a "reason" for people being attracted to someone, nor that physical attractiveness is the sole reason. Just that you don't get to choose the reasons you're attracted to someone. And for both the hetero-sexual and homo-sexual community, gender is a big reason. I know a guy who's only attracted to red-heads. There are almost definately environmental factors that shape what you find attractive alongside genetics, but it's not just a rational decision.

 

I would like to ask you, if you believe that being attracted to someone of the same gender is a choice, why would anyone choose to do that in a society where they'll face abuse because of it? There's a large number of homo-sexuals who have been led to believe that it's a sin, and they feel awful about it. So why, in your opinion, do they not just choose to not be attracted to the same gender?

Edited September 13, 2012 by MattyG

[dmaiski]

me i chose to do so because it seemed like fun at the time

and yes it was a conscious choice, at least for me it was

i don’t know about you but the sexual response in my body is linked to certain mental patterns

when those patterns are used i get an erection, when they aren’t, i don’t,

i get a sexual response to whatever i find attractive,

also things that i can pervert for my own pleasure,

the idea of pleasure or the prospect of it are also quite useful for this

 

unfortunately few humans get anywhere close to understanding how the software in their minds work

so i cant imagine many people are able to grasp these concepts, at least not without a lot of work

(if you think im wrong, answer me this question "how dose your mind work") (its rhetorical any actual answers will make you sound crazy)

 

 

[MattyG]

i get a sexual response to whatever i find attractive,

also things that i can pervert for my own pleasure,

the idea of pleasure or the prospect of it are also quite useful for this

 

Dude, that's not special. Anyone can get aroused if they think of something they find arousing, and anyone can pick up additional fetishes along their life. That's normal.

 

It's not about choosing to get aroused, it's about what you find arousing. A homo-sexual guy can probably have sex with a woman if he chooses to, but if he has to imagine her as a dude to do it, that doesn't make him straight.

 

It's like food preferences. I personally find beets repulsive. Yeah, maybe I can stomach beets, but no amount of mental willpower is going to change the flavor. There might be someone else who is able to eat absolutely any food under the sun and obtain pleasure for it, but that doesn't mean he chooses to like the flavor of beets. He just does. From what you're indicating, you're most likely pan-sexual (or omni-sexual, I can never remember which means which). That is a completely valid sexual identity. However, that doesn't make it a choice. Perhaps you've internalized it as a choice because that what makes sense to you, but the scientific evidence indicates that it's a result of genetic pre-disposition combined with uncontrollable environmental factors.

[dmaiski]

that the interesting thing, i don’t imagine A is actually B, i decide to like A for being A (or at least a flavour of A) i can't stand stupid manly men, they irritate me (but i dislike the stupidity, not the man)

you see you may not like beets on their own but have you tried the various recipes that use beets?

im sure you have never tried borscht it tastes nothing like beets...

 

its all a mater of opinion, perspective, and preference(for personality traits not gender)

 

but we have strayed from the topic quite far

back on track

 

IS BEING STRAIGHT GENETIC!!!(ie the STRAIGHT gene)

(did you expect me to say gay? how silly of you you know me better then that)

(ignore the fact that genes are actually super-coiled and about as far from straight as you can possibly be)

 

the previous statement will blind you if you stare at it too long !!beware!!

 

 

 

 

also isn’t picking up a fetish in a way proof that the gene for sexual attraction to X gender isn’t actually a gene for sexual attraction to X gender but more likely just a gene for sexual attraction(non specific), and mutated copies can give you a broader or less specific attraction, or limit your attraction to more specific items, or make you unable to be attracted to other things when a certain trigger is initiated.

 

You are limiting the gay gene to making people gay, genes aren’t like that, they usually serve 10 different functions, influence 100 processes, and moderate another 500 linked processes

 

 

[MattyG]

that the interesting thing, i don't imagine A is actually B, i decide to like A for being A (or at least a flavour of A) i can't stand stupid manly men, they irritate me (but i dislike the stupidity, not the man)

you see you may not like beets on their own but have you tried the various recipes that use beets?

im sure you have never tried borscht it tastes nothing like beets...

The borscht analogy is awful. Maybe if a male has a sex change operation so they no longer resemble a male, I might be attracted to them, but anything that "tastes" male will be repulsive.

 

 

IS BEING STRAIGHT GENETIC!!!(ie the STRAIGHT gene)

(did you expect me to say gay? how silly of you you know me better then that)

(ignore the fact that genes are actually super-coiled and about as far from straight as you can possibly be)

 

the previous statement will blind you if you stare at it too long !!beware!!

Is that really necessary?

 

 

also isn't picking up a fetish in a way proof that the gene for sexual attraction to X gender isn't actually a gene for sexual attraction to X gender but more likely just a gene for sexual attraction(non specific), and mutated copies can give you a broader or less specific attraction, or limit your attraction to more specific items, or make you unable to be attracted to other things when a certain trigger is initiated.

 

You are limiting the gay gene to making people gay, genes aren't like that, they usually serve 10 different functions, influence 100 processes, and moderate another 500 linked processes

 

Bolding mine. That's exactly what I'm saying! Different genetic combinations affect the range of things you're attracted to. That's what all the science since Kinsey has indicated. Most of the population is skewed towards a hetero-sexual bias (as would make sense from an evolutionary stand point) with a range through bi-sexual, to homo-sexual, to pan or omni-sexual. Some people are more influenced by different factors, ranging from physical to personal to mental, but to say that gender isn't an actual factor for anyone is ridiculous. From a purely reproductive standpoint, it wouldn't make sense for gender to play no role for anyone in the matter of attraction. However, there is definitely a range that you can fall in.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that you pick a fetish, but a fetish picks you through exposure and possibly some previous, psychological experience. No one just sat down one day and decided that they wanted to start getting erections from being pooped on. There was something beforehand that made them curious about the experience, and then when they tried it they found it satisfying.

 

I never said that there was a single gene that makes someone either gay or straight. There are most likely a number of genes that help influence sexual preference, as well as a number of environmental factors (like the amount of testosterone that you're exposed to in the womb) that come into play. These things have been studied and high correlations have been found. I argue against attraction being a purely rational decision. You have things that you find pleasurable, and things that repulse you. Over time you might discover new things, or different variations, or your taste may change through some factors. But if you could just choose to like something independent of your experiences, well everyone would just decide that doing their taxes should be an orgasmic experience.

[dmaiski]

how can i say this

 

it is difficult to predispose someone to a specific psychological response to a very specific observed trait, especially if that trait is as variable as gender interpretation and is not always straight forward

 

it is far easier to develop a mental circuit to do the same task and it will be far more effective (orders of magnitude easier)

 

mental circuits develop after birth, based on experience, and independent of genetics

 

hence it is unlikely to be genetic

 

occam's razor (the simplest solution is often the correct one)

 

to make you genetically sexually attracted to a specific gender would involve the modification of almost very receptor you have, and that would have to happen once for male once for females, on the same gene

 

im not saying it is impossible just very unlikely to happen

 

it is also almost exclusively done chemically in nature (pheromones, they don't work on humans any more)

 

on the other hand, making a predisposition to a certain mental circuit for a general behaviour (like conforming to society, we have this trait, its called peer pressure) is easy, mainly because it can be tied into the learning process

 

the problem is learning is not an active process (you don't do it, it just happens on its own)

and it is influenced by experience (very heavily influenced)

so experience can change what you learn, even if the experience is non specific or loosely related it can effect subsequent development

 

that is what the "gay gene" is, a misnomer for a a trait dictating basic human behaviour (social interaction)

 

 

 

 

my problem is not that homosexuality can have a genetic factor, it can, and probably dose, but a genetic factor that is keyed SPECIFICITY to homo- or hetro- sexuality is too complex, it requires more changes to genes, receptors, and metabolic pathways, then there are coded for on the Y chromosome. It would also be highly unreliable, prone to misidentification, noticeable in its action, and always on, or it would be very slow to react to stimulus.

 

 

 

 

It would also mean that a homosexual would need numerous mutations to become homosexual, making them very rare, since these traits code for sexual attraction and loss of a few genes in a population would be selected out.

 

 

Is that really necessary?

 

 

yes, yes it is (not that much but it was colourfull)

Edited September 14, 2012 by dmaiski

[MattyG]

The point that I realized that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about:

it is also almost exclusively done chemically in nature (pheromones, they don't work on humans any more)

 

Look, I have nothing against you. For all I know, you actually are some kind of 10th level Jedi Zen-master who sees through the petty illusions that bind us lesser mortals. If so, congratulations. However, it's impossible for me to argue about genetics against someone who bases their arguments on personal feeling and intuition. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors, and would highly recommend that you do some research into pansexuality, seeing as that seems to be the way you identify yourself. As for me, I'm done with this conversation.

[jp255]

Post 115 has a lot of trash in it.

 

genetic factor that is keyed SPECIFICITY to homo- or hetro- sexuality is too complex, it requires more changes to genes, receptors, and metabolic pathways, then there are coded for on the Y chromosome. It would also be highly unreliable, prone to misidentification, noticeable in its action, and always on, or it would be very slow to react to stimulus.

Assumptions. you must explain why you are making them. Why must a homosexuality contributing genetic factor be specific to homo or hetero individuals? why must it be limited to the Y chr? you are, again, not considering all the possibilities and are wrongly eliminating potential possibilities with no reasonable justification. You do this often. Be more critical of your own ideas.

 

 

mental circuits develop after birth, based on experience, and independent of genetics

independent of genetics, really? all mental circuits are based on experience and after birth?

 

 

hence it is unlikely to be genetic

No, your incorrect opinions are not evidence against the heritability studies. Try again.

 

Can you alter who you are attracted to freely? by changing the features that you find attractive. For instance, you decide to include eating habits into the decision process, like whether or not someone likes jam. You come across somone which you previously thought was attractive (based on different traits), is now not attractive because they don't eat jam.

 

i don’t know about you but the sexual response in my body is linked to certain mental patterns

when those patterns are used i get an erection, when they aren’t, i don’t,

 

Using your own analogy. Can you change your mental patterns, such that you are attracted to someone only if they have a hitchhikers thumb? If you can't then you do not have complete free will over your own attraction. Can you freely change the traits that you find attractive? Can you turn off the attraction, and not be attracted to someone you previously thought attractive?

 

If you still fail to see the argument, then i'll leave you to be deluded by the illusion of free will (concerning sexual attraction).

 

You keep harping on about homosexuality being mental. this falls under the environmental factor and genetics category, and how it must be the cause. Those are the only two categories which can affect variance of traits in a population, mental arguments are not a third category. They are present in the heritability studies and their effects are contributing. They do nothing to reduce the validity of the conclusions of those studies, that 30-60%ish is genetic and the rest environmental. So you should be saying that they are the factors which contribute most.

[dmaiski]

ok, you say that i am wrong in what i say, i probably am.

there is no research that i have seen to show:

how sexual attraction works in homo/hetro individuals

what receptors, signalling systems, or processes, are responsible for it

how these genes that have been identified have any effect on sexual preference (xq28 is a MELENOMA ACOCIATED ANTIGEN, AND IS RESPONCIBLE FOR AUTISIM, AND ANXIETY (mental diseases, and personality disorders))

 

so based on what i know i must make an assumption on how such a system COULD work to induce some form of predisposition to homosexuality

 

if you have evidence to the contrary please post it

if you have a better theory on how it could work post it

if you want to criticize my assumptions, provide better assumptions, ones that are more likely to work

if you have research that shows how such a system works, to induce attraction post it

that is a constructive argument

 

by the way, you do not seem to understand that an association study shows the association between 2 things

like people eat peaches and cream

an association studies dose not explain how it works, why peaches and cream complement each other, or how the chemical interactions with the taste receptors trigger specific neural circuits that tell you that peaches and cream are tasty

 

waving around an association study, as conclusive proof that there is a specific process occurring and not a side effect of another process is meaningless

because an association study dose not differentiate between the two

 

 

[jp255]

that is a constructive argument

 

My post was constructive, even if it did contain some acidic adjectives. It raised some questions about your assumptions, asking you to justify and explain.

 

Also, your arguments suggest to me that you were not considering homosexuality to be a complex trait (the whole specific genetic factors for homo and hetero argument), or that penetrance was 100%, or genomic imprinting, etc. Maybe you should be more clear on that.

 

Anyway. The major weakness of your arguments is that they completely disagree with the heritability studies.

 

I also hope you realize how important it is to criticize your own arguments in this instance because if you begin searching and testing various genes/environmental factors that meet your requirements, you might never find a causative factor if you made an error in your reasoning.

 

by the way, you do not seem to understand that an association study shows the association between 2 things<br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">like people eat peaches and cream<br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">an association studies dose not explain how it works, why peaches and cream complement each other, or how the chemical interactions with the taste receptors trigger specific neural circuits that tell you that peaches and cream are tasty<br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">waving around an association study, as conclusive proof that there is a specific process occurring and not a side effect of another process is meaningless<br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">because an association study dose not differentiate between the two

 

 

The meta-analysed heritability studies have low p values, at the significant level. Your opinions, are opinions, nothing more. They don't mean much, especially after reading your illogical judgments. It is a little ironic that you criticize the heritability studies so strongly (which actually have conclusions based on statistical analysis from observational data), and then propose opposing ideas with no logical basis.

 

 

 

there is no research that i have seen to show:<br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">how sexual attraction works in homo/hetro individuals<br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">what receptors, signalling systems, or processes, are responsible for it<br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">how these genes that have been identified have any effect on sexual preference (xq28 is a MELENOMA ACOCIATED ANTIGEN, AND IS RESPONCIBLE FOR AUTISIM, AND ANXIETY (mental diseases, and personality disorders))<br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">so based on what i know i must make an assumption on how such a system COULD work to induce some form of predisposition to homosexuality<br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">if you have evidence to the contrary please post it

if you have a better theory on how it could work post it

if you want to criticize my assumptions, provide better assumptions, ones that are more likely to work

if you have research that shows how such a system works, to induce attraction post it

 

I have posted the evidence already. Of course, it is not that meaningful because there are next to no studies/literature on human sexual attraction. The arguments I use are: 1) human sexual attraction is extremely non-random 2) sexual orientation and sexual attraction are similar and so the heritability studies can suggest attraction is also has genetic contributing factors 3) sexual attraction is known to be highly non-random in many animal species 4) genetic factors causing changes to sexual attraction/partner choice have been observed in some animals. This batch of evidence, at least to me, leads to me to think that a genetic component to human sexual attraction is likely (even if there is some inference of human attraction based on some other species observations).

 

I have not discussed the genetic mechanisms at all. I do not intend to either, it would just be speculation/guess work. Nor do I intend to discuss the environmental factors either. I would not consider the exact mechanisms, but only make comments on penetrance and other aspects of the factors as I have done.

[dmaiski]

Ok, simple put i agree that there is a genetic component in sexual attraction

i DISAGREE that there is a gene, or set of genes, that specifically make you "gay"

 

i think these genes control other aspect of human personality, which as a result predispose an individual towards a more open sexuality

i base this idea on:

1. how many studies have shown that "gay" people are usually more socially adapted, better parents, and generally better people then straight people

2. on the fact that it is a simpler explanation

3. i cant imagine how such a specific mechanism as a "gay gene" would evolve, since it is: very complex, needs 2 sets of functions(for male and female), genome wide alterations to gene expression(at least), and its not beneficial(ends the individuals line)

 

(no metaphors, no similes, nothing to confuse anyone)

 

 

[jp255]

i DISAGREE that there is a gene, or set of genes, that specifically make you "gay"

I don't think it is very likely either.

 

i think these genes control other aspect of human personality, which as a result predispose an individual towards a more open sexuality

 

Sure, that is a possibility. I don't really see how the reasoning you gave is suggestive of this though.

 

i cant imagine how such a specific mechanism as a "gay gene" would evolve

This quote and the quote above are contradictory. You are saying you think that genes could contribute to homosexuality by personality changes that lead to more open sexuality. That is a genetic factor which contributes to homosexuality, so it did evolve didn't it.

 

needs 2 sets of functions(for male and female). genome wide alterations to gene expression(at least),

 

Why? explain your reasoning.

 

and its not beneficial(ends the individuals line)

 

So what? you can say the same for many genetic diseases. For instance, no one really knows why some genetic diseases are so prevalent. Last I checked Cystic fibrosis allele frequencies cannot be explained, and the allele frequency it is at today in europeans strongly suggests that it has been under selection in the past. And yes, homosexuality can be compared to genetic diseases because they are selected against in the exact same manner. Which is reduction in the average number of children that reach reproductive age.

 

Also with the whole ending the individuals line thing, this assumes that the trait is either 1) (Full homosexuality (no attraction to females)) is 100% penetrant or 2) dominant trait. Only in these two scenarios would it be a true end of the line for the trait. If you make these assumptions then explain your reasoning.

 

It seems to me that you are not think of homosexuality as a quantitative trait (homosexuality =/= end of the line in all cases, there are varying degrees). We already talked about this in the earlier pages. Penetrance was also brought up in earlier pages as well. Since it is quite prevalent and there is suggestive evidence for genetic factors for homosexuality, I think it is likely that it is a polygenic trait and so the threshold model should be applied where genetic factors are not necessarily highly penetrant.

 

The environmental factors should not be ignored either, as they have the potential to persist over generations and contribute to homosexuality.

[dmaiski]

i think these genes control other aspect of human personality, which as a result predispose an individual towards a more open sexuality

i base this idea on:

1. how many studies have shown that "gay" people are usually more socially adapted, better parents, and generally better people then straight people

2. on the fact that it is a simpler explanation

3. i cant imagine how such a specific mechanism as a "gay gene" would evolve, since it is: very complex, needs 2 sets of functions(for male and female), genome wide alterations to gene expression(at least), and its not beneficial(ends the individuals line)

 

i did explain my reasoning, it is supported by psychological studies (when they tried to ban gay parents, so these aren't biased)

please don't omit the bulk of an argument, its just bad technique on a board where you can scroll back

 

even traits that have very low penetrance, but effect reproduction(and only reproduction) are usually selected out fairly quickly

 

hetrozygote advantage, probably the reason it dose persist is because its useful, or vital, for human survival

 

and i said "predisposed" not "causative agent" this means that that the trait increases the chance of being homo/bi-sexual based on the environment the individual is raised in

 

for a "gay" trait, you would also need a "straight" trait

these traits need to be split between male and female(in theory women need to be attracted to men, and men to women?)

you already acknowledged that the traits are multifactorial, and cannot be limited only to the Y chromosome

and it simply doesn’t have the space for all those traits

this is an overly complex a system if it exists,

 

thus I have to opt for the simpler system where there are no specific “gay” genes

rather genes for personality, which influence sexuality, through learned behaviour

 

this fits with all the information: the low penetrance, the familial inheritance, genetics, the psychology, and the behavioural studies

 

it can be wrong, but its a far more elegant system then some “gay gene” that makes you more likely to be gay through random chance, magic, and who knows what else

Edited September 17, 2012 by dmaiski

[Manfromzurich]

Pheww I am so happy taht the GWAS of homosexuality comes soon in the public!

 

 

Here I made a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJomVTKNhtI&feature=youtu.be

[jp255]

even traits that have very low penetrance, but effect reproduction(and only reproduction) are usually selected out fairly quickly

I'm not so sure about that, as I said previously there are quite a few genetic diseases for which the prevalence suggests positive selection despite the obvious negative selection. I believe Cystic fibrosis is one. CF does affect reproduction, but still it is not necessary to limit the argument to only reproduction.

 

hetrozygote advantage, probably the reason it dose persist is because its useful, or vital, for human survival

 

This is only one mechanism by which a genetic factor can persist despite negative selection. Genetic hitchhiking is another.

 

for a "gay" trait, you would also need a "straight" trait

 

Yes, Heterosexual behaviour is a trait.

 

these traits need to be split between male and female(in theory women need to be attracted to men, and men to women?)

you already acknowledged that the traits are multifactorial, and cannot be limited only to the Y chromosome

and it simply doesn’t have the space for all those traits

this is an overly complex a system if it exists,

 

Yes. It does not have to be limited to the Y chromosome at all though.

 

thus I have to opt for the simpler system where there are no specific “gay” genes

rather genes for personality, which influence sexuality, through learned behaviour

 

it can be wrong, but its a far more elegant system then

some “gay gene” that makes you more likely to be gay through random chance,

magic, and who knows what else

 

I really don't understand what you mean by "gay gene". You keep talking about genes which alter sexuality by personality, if they can contribute to homosexuality are they not considered to be a gay gene?

 

Any genetic loci which contributes to homosexuality is a part of the estimated heritability. That and the environmental factors determine whether or not someone will be homosexual or not, or to what degree they are.

[Manfromzurich]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCh6WfAgMiQ&feature=plcp

 

@dmaiski

 

 

There are genes which have mutations in homosexuals! Is this so dificult to understand!