The Search For The “Gay Gene”

When this report first came out last week I didn’t feel tempted to write about it, but it did lead to a lengthy and interesting discussion with some friends on social media. It involves the release of the results of a study conducted in Great Britain and the United States that’s being billed as the biggest study ever conducted on genetics and same-sex attraction. I’ll have to confess… I was kind of shocked at the conclusions. But long story short, while some possible correlations were noted, they concluded that there is no single “gay gene” that determines your sexual orientation. (NBC News)

The largest study to date on genetics and same-sex sexual behavior was published last week, and it concluded something many queer people have been saying for a long time: Sexual orientation is complicated and can’t be explained away by a single “gay gene.”
This takeaway pushes back on what seemed like a resolute determination among earlier scientists to show sexual orientation is a product simply of biology, while it also backs up millions of us who’ve discussed our varied experiences regarding our sexualities. And it helps clarify where the priorities of LGBTQ people should be in fighting for civil rights in the political and legal arenas.
Sexual orientation is complicated and can’t be explained away by a single “gay gene.”

The author goes on to offer a number of arguments as to why this study should never have been published, many of which have been around for ages and are worth consideration. Gays and lesbians have long been concerned over the possible discovery of the mythical gay gene because that information could be misused in the wrong hands. What if someone wanted to push the research in another direction and develop a “cure?” Or would parents begin prenatal screening and start aborting gay babies? Prior to recent changes in policy, there were suggestions the military might start screening blood tests of recruits and rejecting those that “failed the straight test.”

Much of my surprise was no doubt due to my highly limited, layman’s understanding of genetics. For some reason, I had always assumed that there would be some sort of definitive gay gene or genes. After all, there seem to be specific genes dictating every aspect of our makeup that we look at. There are genes that determine whether individuals find the taste of a particular food or spice pleasant, bitter and awful, or they detect no taste at all. There are genes that seem to predict whether you will prefer coffee or tea. Why wouldn’t something so fundamental as your sexual orientation be driven by something hiding in your double helix?

But then I was reminded by some of the people I was chatting with of some other factors to consider. One of the biggest was the idea that, aside from random mutations in each generation, genes are passed down from parents to children. The elephant in the room here should be obvious. How would a gene be passed down if its primary function was to make you vastly less likely to engage in the activities required to produce children? Good question.

In the end, will any of this matter? I highly doubt it. People are just people, straight, gay or in between. And while we have mapped the human genome, precisely what all of those tiny strands are up to will probably remain a mystery for a long time to come. In fact, most researchers appear to believe that most genes don’t “act alone” for any particular result, with the outcome depending on combinations of multiple genes. And some “turn on” or “turn off” at various points in our lives, so the picture is constantly shifting. So I’m not drawing any conclusions here. I just find the science behind it fascinating.

Just my nonscientific theory - one possibility is that gayness happens much like imprinting (baby chick and its mother). Or something happens to the infant, prior to birth or post birth, that affects how the child perceives procreation.

I don't think that there is a gene. Otherwise, after thousands of generations, the gay gene would have been discarded as being useless because it is not reinforced through procreation. Discarded because gayness means no or very few offspring.

Prior to birth: hormones?
Post birth: relationships and bonding with the mother? Relationships with the father?
Post birth: abuse (sexual and other).
Post birth: perversion of the individual because of the availability of extreme forms of sex — innocence lost. Much like a drug addict searching for the next high leads them to more extreme sexual situations including homosexuality.

One thing that's rarely mentioned in this DNA debate is that our genetic make-up might give ALL of us a predisposition to certain undesirable behaviors, but that doesn't give us an excuse for acting out on those tendencies, nor will society make excuses for us if we do. "But, judge, I was born with a bad temper, and that's why I beat my wife" is unlikely to be a successful defense in court.

In Christian theology, through the doctrine of "original sin" or some milder version of it, we are taught that we are born into a sinful world and are born with sinful tendencies which must be curbed through education and discipline, both self-discipline and the discipline enforced by parents and other authority figures. "God made me this way" is never an excuse - except, we are now told, with homosexuality.

Of course, once the LGBTQ movement gained legal status as a protected group, the argument eventually changed to the claim that gender is "fluid" and can change from week to week based on personal whim and choice, and that there are dozens of genders distinguished by nothing more than personal fiat, subjective belief, and arbitrary definitions. So much for "God made me this way."

‘’A resolute determination among earlier scientists’

The ‘studies’ were done by two researchers only. They said they arrived at their results independently. I saw them on TV in the early 90’s. They both appeared to be gay and I believe knew each other before conducting their studies. The news that there is no ‘gay gene’ was known very shortly after this proclamation there was a gay gene, but the libMedia ignored it. I have several friends with family members and very close friends who are gay/lesbian. They all absolutely believe in the gay gene. But those of us who have been paying attention are aware that it really is mostly nurture, not nature. I have known at least one child though who was obviously not going in the direction that was in line with his birth gender. I have no idea what his home life was like, but at age 5 he wasn’t even remotely interested in ‘boy things or boy activities’. This will not get the attention it should, but way too many people are bound to give excuses for aberrant behavior. So they will stick with old, faulty research to give them cover.

RE: It’s called the Sin gene.
Everybody has it...

______________________________________

A non-believer seems to have hit the nail on the head and indirectly and implicitly agreed with the above statement you just made.

The writer ( and regular debate protagonist of conservative author and TV debate host, Bill Buckley ), GORE VIDAL was gay himself.

He however, refused to be called homosexual and insisted that we are all potentially bi-sexual.

Writing for an edition of Esquire magazine in 1969, he wrote:

Quote:

“We are all bisexual to begin with. That is a fact of our condition. And we are all responsive to sexual stimuli from our own as well as from the opposite sex. [...] regardless of tribal taboos, homosexuality is a constant fact of the human condition and it is not a sickness, not a sin, not a crime [...] Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Notice I use the word ‘natural,’ not normal.”

This for me, explains why a lot of gay activists want schools to “educate” children to “find” their own innate sexuality. They want company. The more, the better.

I agree with much of what you say here. I believe imprinting is a strong factor, but many straights have been successfully raised by single women. I also think there is a trend of not accepting any responsibility that seems to be native in some. The denial of traditional responsibility associated with “being a man” or “being a woman” could cause denial of manhood or womanhood itself. Likewise, those who cannot accept their same sex attraction feel they must have been born into the body of the wrong sex. Again with feelings instead of thought.
When children are young, the opposite sex is icky. We fully believed girls had cooties, whatever those were. I remember when all that changed, the day school started back and I was in 6th grade. There was something suddenly different about Lisa, whom I had known for years. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it, but I knew I wanted to. Maybe some guys still believe in cooties, who knows...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.