Gay DNA Found?

[Boston Guy]

365Gay.Com is carrying a story reporting that "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 straight or gay."

 

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012705dna.htm

 

If the results of this study are born out by other researchers:

 

1. Do you think people will accept the results?

2. What effect do you think it might have on the people who insist today that being gay is a "choice"?

3. What effect do you think it might have on the various religions as they deal with gay issues?

 

BG

[HotdadENYC]

>365Gay.Com is carrying a story reporting that "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 straight or gay."

>

>If the results of this study are born out by other

>researchers:

>

>1. Do you think people will accept the results?

>2. What effect do you think it might have on the people who

>insist today that being gay is a "choice"?

>3. What effect do you think it might have on the various

>religions as they deal with gay issues?

 

 

Boston Guy, this is a pretty cool thread, but in my case, to reply, brings up some really personal issues.

 

I don't know if gay is inherited or not, or if there is a gene for it; I knew I was gay when I was 7 years old, when not only did I get hard watching Sean Connery as James Bond, but I often got hard watching my naked or underwear clad dad parade around the house (and speaking of genetics, I only wish I had the size and beauty of my dad's dick...but that's another story).

 

Notwithstanding the gene theory, there is some empirical evidence that being or acting gay, or engaging in gay behavior IS a choice. How else would one explain the many so-called straight men who engage in same sex activities? Or the recent trend for many men to proclaim themselves as bi-sexual and participate in derivative activities?

 

Was THAT so-called gene just dormant? Did it take a guy like me to make it active? ....SMILE.....

 

Regardless of whatever science and health officials come up with, I'm quite sure that established religions will either ignore or whitewash the findings. Not that this is a bad thing. In my opinion, the role of religion should be for people to worship a common god and live by rules which are reasonably acceptable. Just as there should be no marriage of state and religion, I don't know that science and religion would make a good couple either. Consider what the Catholic Church did to and against DaVinci.

 

Not to make light of anything, but God might be everywhere, and I'm cool with that, but my priest doesn't belong in my bedroom. Unless of course, he's young, hung, Coptic and has half of his cassock buttons undone.

 

Seriously, though, science is great because it evolves and tends to correct itself, without little regard for moral posturing.

 

Tomatoes were once thought to be poisonous; now they are pure anti-oxidants; too many eggs were thought to be contra-indicated, but we now know that eggs aren't all that bad; we have just recently learned that cholesterol is a product of many things, not just food, and so on and so on.

 

Take my DNA, if you want, but I'm quite sure I can provide much more concrete evidence that I am truly and totally gay.

 

And so it goes.....

 

hd NYC

[noviceny]

Yo Boston,

 

I have a shitty connection so I will have to try again later to see the article.

 

My experience is that so many people do not change what they believe no matter what the evidence. Those who want to believe it, will use the evidence for their advantage. Those who dont will dismss it or say that science can only tell us so much.

 

It would be great if we could be like science, and evolve and change and correct ourselves. Thats what Im gonna try to be like...

[Athan]

I personally think that a large majority of our personality and habits can be related to genes. If you think of Humans as computers (which I think we are very similar) then our hardware (genetics) sets the perameters by how we can behaive while our experience and the things we learn (or programs downloaded), of course, affect our desicions in life. Like animal insticts. Traits and behaviors that are not taught but are genetically programmed into the speices...the main difference is that animals have the luxury of survival to weed out the undesirable traits, so their genetics become stream lined for their specific niche. As for we humans, we have the burden of thriving that we do not seem able to be responsible for, therefore we have passed on many traits and behaviors that not only are not desirable but sometimes cripples our evolution. Not to imply that being gay is an undesirable trait, on the contrary, I would say being heterosexual is an undesirable trait, now that we are no longer in survival mode.

Now, this is just my opinion, and I know it is a bit bias, but I think because of our ever climbing population, that everyone should be homosexual. then we could all have awesome sex (because homosexual sex is usually better than heterosexual sex according to some studies done years ago, don't ask me specifically, I have no idea) and never worry about accidental pregnancies. then we could consciously choose when and with whom to have babies. By which we could then take control of our evolution. *sigh* if only in my dreams. :+

 

Also, if any of you happen to read my meaning of life thread in the "Politics, Religion and War issues" forum, then you would know that I believe that free will on the conscious level is an illusion and only before you incarnate do you truely have free will. So being gay is a choice, but not one made within the lifetime of the homosexual (or whatever the person may be). It was a choice made by the homosexual before he/she/he-she ever incarnated into a physical body. Like customizing your vehicle before it is built.

"Yes, I think I would like the 1980 White-Asian Hybrid Human...hmmm...looks like a good machine. Well, built, nice lines, sexy curves...and flexible...yes, I could do allot with this slice of heaven! Does it come in GAY? It would be so much more fun if it came in GAY. It does! I'll take it!" Genetics is just the blueprint we created for the body we have.

 

So, if people are smart, then their present spiritual beliefs have room for science...like mine do. I believe Science tells you "How" where as Spirituality can lead you to "Why". I also believe that the more science uncovers the more Why's we will be able to comprehend.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>If the results of this study are born out by other

>researchers:

>

>1. Do you think people will accept the results?

 

Some will, some won't. The acceptance will grow over time, fastest in the government/business community.

 

>2. What effect do you think it might have on the people who

>insist today that being gay is a "choice"?

 

Some will reconsider their position. For those that don't carry other baggage I think many will change their view. However, I suspect that most people in this category also carry other baggage.

 

>3. What effect do you think it might have on the various

>religions as they deal with gay issues?

 

None. As far as I know none of the big three western religions have forsaken 'The Creation' for Darwin. Mainstream churches continue to embrace religious dogma over scientific fact. Those few churches that are open to acceptance of gays in their flock will continue to embrace the gay community.

 

The downside is that religious zealots will see this as proof that gays are 'defective beings' whose exclusion and possibly worse is sanctioned by the Word of God.

 

I think that both the history and modern day status of the Creation/Evolution fight gives a clear indication how this will go with one exception. Many more people view 'gayism' as a personal threat to them, their family, and their innate self identity than they view Evolution as any threat. Knowldege of the fact that they or family members are 'wired' for it won't overcome this 'fear' overnight and may infact make it worse in the short term.

[noviceny]

>None. As far as I know none of the big three western religions have forsaken 'The Creation' for Darwin. Mainstream churches continue to embrace religious dogma over scientific fact.<

 

Much has happened in churches over the past 35 years...Catholics had Vatican II which allowed for a much gentler and accepting interpretation of many issues. It is hard to follow the changes in different religions unless you subscribe to certain publictions or even work in the Church.

 

Maybe it was just the Jesuits but we were taught in college (Fordham) that evolution was not contrary to Catholicism. One thing that was said is that the human body/form can evolve,but the soul is "provided" by God and does not need to evolve. It has all it needs, and its up to us to actualize that potential. Grace helps us do that.

 

St Augustine also spoke of "rationes seminales", the seminal reasons or thing that were created in potentiality, while other things were created in actuality. He went on to say that everything was created, in potentiality or actuality, at the beginning of time. In the fullest of time, the potentialities came to be.

 

My professor (a Jesuit priest) postulated that the Big Bang could have created the universe, as long as we agreed that it was part of God's design and we did not seperate it from Him.

 

There are so many different groups that make up the Church and I think people who be very surprised at the differences between them. Mother Teresa was great and I have rarely heard here attacked. However she did come to the US and chastise our entire nation as being the most spiritually country in the world and tied it directly to the abortion issue. No one speaks much of that...I dont know why

 

This is becoming religious so Ill end here. I was just trying to clarify a point.

[+ Charlie]

There are many people who consider science a fraud (look at the efforts to make "creationism" an acceptable alternative to evolution in school curricula), so they are not likely to believe any evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined. More thoughtful observers are also aware that what is considered "scientifically correct" at one time may turn out to be false later (Einstein corrects Newton, Planck corrects Einstein, etc.), and they may hold off on accepting this genetic theory. Even those who accept the idea that orientation is fixed will still feel that choosing to act on that orientation is morally wrong, just as it is morally wrong to commit violent crimes even if evidence exists that there is some genetic disposition toward violence.

 

Western intellectuals since the 18th century have tended to view what is "natural" as good, but the older religious tradition (at least the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition) has always viewed the "natural" as bad, so finding a genetic basis for homosexuality is not likely to have any effect on the attitude of those who believe in that older tradition. Where it will have an effect is on those in the secular rational tradition, who will be forced by their own principles to regard homosexuality as acceptable. Luckily, these are the same people who currently control the legal system, but there is no reason to assume that they will remain in control as those from the older religious tradition gain political power over the legal system.

 

And I hope that the moderators don't decide that because of the word "political" this whole thread needs to move to another forum!

[Rod Hagen]

I wonder if Dean Hammer was involved? He and Copeland were the first to finish a solid study on genetic influences on sexuality. They found that loci XQ28 (X Chromosome, Q, right wing, location 28) and published in SCIENCE. Unfortunately, nobody ever repeated the results successfully, so no one stood by him, and his latest book, a collection of non-peer reviewed studies on the genetics of religiosity, has made him look foolish. Unfortunate" because his original, XQ28 study, was remarkably solid.

 

The only way people could accept a Gay Gene(s) is to force them to understand that no scientists believe these things are deterministic, only that it's POSSIBLE that genes INFLUENCE behavioral development. But what we're most likely to hear is ignorant, "I don't need a gene (scientist) to tell me who or what I am."

 

Rather sad, actually.

[Flower]

Well, I for one, hope there in NOT a gay gene. That is not to say sexuality is a choice because we all know it's not, but I'd hate for it to be so identifiable as to be isolated to a specific gene.

 

The real down side to the gay gene theory is that if it were true, then there'd be a lot of folks out there calling for research on how to eradicate the gene and get rid of the (gay) problem :-(

 

It might be enough to motivate this President to modify his stance on stem cell research }(

[Athan]

Well, if there is a gay gene, then it might not be JUST a gay gene, it might be linked to other behvavior as well. Like when they found the gene in (some type of) flies that would make them albino (white flies with red eyes). When they produced large number of these white flies they all started acting weird. The females woud group together face to face while the males would start to "court" eachother in long "daisy chains" of gay fly orgies. So allot of genes, I presume, are not specific to what they do, but might play a part in certain traits and behaviors.

 

Who knows, if they produce men without the gay gene they might very well grow up to have no fashion sense, be color blind, and be completely insesitive to the needs of women. hehehe :+

[Trixie]

I do hope it's not as simple as one gene, or set of genes. Because if it is, Science, led by it's harsh taskmaster Politics, will be looking for a way to cut it out, and flush it down the toilet.

 

Trix

[+ deej]

>Who knows, if they produce men without the gay gene they might

>very well grow up to have no fashion sense, be color blind,

>and be completely insesitive to the needs of women. hehehe

 

Funny, that's just what I was thinking. Heavens! It would be the end of musical theater, and Hollywood would all but shut down! }(