Could Scientists Have Found A Gay Switch?

Oh get over it you idiot.. how about you remover yourself?

This is very interesting... If this proves to be true a lot of those religions that stress propagation (which also tend to be very homophobic) ironically may be contributing to higher percentage of gay people ... (Maybe it's built in counterbalance to fight over population?)

+1 to Phaggamemnon's suggestion

I also find this very interesting. I also like that, as opposed to some other recent Popsci articles, this article isn't inflammatory. It strikes a neutral, factual tone, which I appreciate.

The North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un is gay. He's attracted to male donkeys.

All behavior is a choice. Though what influences behavior may not be.

Ethics should not be based on what influences behavior.

There are also genetic connections to violent behavior, but we do not condone that.

Great article!
Wow at the ignorant people...

@Bagpipes100

And your moral code is a choice. And so is mine.

"...The study provides a very interesting, but as yet untested, genetic mechanism for the evolutionary maintenance of human homosexuality," says Nathan Bailey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of St Andrews in Scotland..."

"...Study co-author Sergey Gavrilets, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and mathematics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and associate director for scientific activities at NIMBioS, says there could still be a "gay gene" or genes, but that there are problems with the idea: "Nobody has been able to present solid experimental evidence for this in spite of significant effort..."

... The article is interesting, but nothing factual yet, so not helpful or useful either.

"Live and let Live"!

ive made similar statements that this could be one reason for homosexuals. im a supporter for gay rights. my cousin is fiercely against it citing biblical reasons. mainly it is an abomination against god will or whatever. guess what i just posted on his wall :)

I hope they do not decide to shut off the "gay gene." The world would become much less fabulous.

@Robot, does Kim Jong-Un go to Mexico for Donkey sex parties?

@ beefymclovin, Same here. At the University of Az there was Brother Jed screaming that homosexuals are wrong and should kill themselves. Some pretty hard stuff. The funniest thing I saw him say and do was display electrical sockets and plugs and show how sockets and sockets don't go together and neither do plugs fit with plugs.

This picture is disgusting, please change it, homosexuality is a mental disorder, not a genetic malfunction

Chutzpah_Coughlin,
In reality, I have no idea what Kim Jong-Un life style choices are; he just appears to be an a#s to the world and his own peoples.

The above illustration might have been taken from an CPR illustration. ;)

calebscape808 - You are correct and it was listed as such for many years (and later removed when social pressures on the psycological community caused them to change their stance on the issue).

Whether you believe that homosexuality is an abomination or perfectly acceptable, it is clearly not "normal" being a minority of any population and is also heavily influenced by sociatal factors.

I perfer to think of it like taste preference. Some tastes we perfer through biology (sugar and fat are good). Some tastes we perfer through culture / social exposure. Some tastes we perfer due to individual expression.

Thus, while there is a great deal of choice involved, they are not simple yes/no choices, but an amalgamation of choices leading to a conclusion that is difficult to adjust.

At the end of the day, however, all behavior is choice - so any manifestion of sexuality is optional. Also, much of the mental side of sexuality is variable. You were not born desiring to have sexual relations - that changed over time. Most people with deviant sexualities will also admit that those changes developed over time (porn, violent porn, to snuff films, to necrophilia - or chasing barely 18 down to almost 8).

So, when the homosexual says that they were "born this way" they are clearly incorrect (I doubt they remember their birth, must less which gender they planned to copulate with). They developed into it over time through culture, thought, and permission of the will.

When they say that being homosexual isn't a choice, they are correct that they didn't "choose" to be gay. That is not the same as proving, however, that they "had" to be gay or would have been gay if raised in a different environment.

As the changes in ideals of beauty have shown us, much of our perception of attraction is culturally influenced.

Why go with the current or swim against it, is a question? It is with ease I can allow myself to go with the flow, but it takes mental or physical effort to swim against the current. To what motivates me to swim against the current; the possibilities are endless. ~ Robot.

Again it should be pointed out to all the skeptics, if homosexuality was a choice, then heterosexuality would also be a choice. Did all of you straights choose to be straight? I could never have chosen a different sexual preference than the one I ended up with because the primal "urge" is just too strong.

@Bagpipes100: I am so sick of people like you trying to compare violent acts with homosexuality. Even one of our supreme court justices has recently done the same thing.We don't condone violence because it directly effects innocent people.What two consenting adults do in there own home and life don't effect anyone but them.So according to you even if there was some genetic trigger that causes them to be gay they still don't have the right because they could choose to be with the opposite sex even if they were not attracted to them and could not ever love them. So they are wrong because they would like to be happy. What if everyone decided that you should have a same-sex partner. You would be miserable and could not love them but that's OK because everyone else knows what is best for you and society. You probably wouldn't be so quick to spew that ignorant BS if so.I am not trying to bash any one and i am straight but It is less ethical to impose your will on people for being the way they were born to be. People with ideas like this are what is wrong with the world today. Why cant you worry about things that actually pertain to you instead of trying to ruin others life because you cant handle the things going on in your own life

Well I can tell the chubby dorito coated fingered basement dwellers are out in force today. While Oaksparr's comment is long and seeming well written it's as intelligent as a pile of bricks. If you think environment IS a factor then people can be changed.. that's clearly not the case... ie. twins where one is gay and the other is not. Also the case of both twins being gay is about 75% of the time well above the 25% threshold used to determine genetic correlation of inherited traits, attributes or diseases. In addition to that the environmental argument goes out the window because gay people are of every race, class, social group, and etc. Typically if something is "environmental" it's found in specific populations not all over the place like homosexuality. Also as the years roll on and more research is done I am sure bi-sexuality as stated in the article above will be found to have a much larger presence then anyone realizes.

Surprise, we humans come in varieties of personalities.

In reality this is not news, now get over it and most important learn get along.

@Phaggamemmnon

Funny name lol. I like it.

@Everyone

It seems interesting that a large population of homosexuals talk in a certain tone and manner. Ever judged someones sexual orientation based off of their voice? To me this seems to hint at a genetic factor.

This "study" will never be proven true. For one, it doesn't leave open discussion for bi-sexuality, and since Transgenderism has been proven to be genetic, who cares?

Interesting study. Epigenetics is fascinating. The epigenome is affected by everything from diet to environment to lifestyle choices. And those traits can be passed on to our progeny. Whether or not homosexuality is determined by epigenetic changes remains to be seen. Epigenetics or no, the finding that homosexuality tends to run in families doesn't seem surprising. Alcoholism and other addictions, abuse, and other counterproductive behaviors tend to run in families too. Perhaps there's an epigenetic component in these too. If so, it has been demonstrated that people who change their behavior in response to a particular predilection (e.g.; ending a cycle of abuse or addiction) may also pass on that changed behavior to their children. Our destiny is not determined by what we're born with; it's determined by what we choose to make of ourselves.

Gay Switch! Hahahaha

But, in all seriousness! This is a dark ages type of scientific stupidity right here. Can anyone tell me why money that could be used for something that could actually benefit the world is being used to find a gay gene? A gay gene?! What's next? Are they going to look for the gene that causes me to like the color green? How about the douche bag gene that I seem to possess. For all the dumb ass ways of trying to win an argument. For instance. Oh, this gene here makes me susceptible to liking explosives, and enjoying the company of sheep's on a cool desert night. Nope! You enjoy those things, because your woman have no rights which also leads to your sexual frustration. Your reward is 2,500 virgins, or some shit. Shouldn't that say something about your priorities? Ok, that has little to do with homosexuality, but the point is everyone is influenced by life events. I have never had problems with anybody who was a little dandy, but the reasons you like men is likely no different than the reason I like green, or Hispanic woman. I'm white for the most part, so I really doubt I'm programed with a gene that determined this. So, everybody just leave everyone else alone, and shut your cock suckers. Well, unless you like that, so do whatever floats your boats.

;D Bye, everybody!

If you're not gay, why do you care? If you're gay, why care what others think? I'm tired of people having an opinion on what doesn't concern them.

Genes govern how a person can react with their environment (at all levels). It's a spectrum of probabilities that are laid out at birth. For instance, there are genes that predispose people to be more violent or susceptible to drug abuse and addiction. But in the absence of such environmental factors such as child abuse or drug exposure, these genes do not illustrate their predisposition. The same goes for positive traits....actually the same goes for ALL traits, just to various degrees and probabilities. Understanding this is difficult but eye opening. Genes interact in extremely convoluted ways, that can take a lifetime of scientific study to fully appreciate. It is important to understand how we are merely vessels for our genes, whether they be detrimental, beneficial, or neutral, they have created complex organisms such as humans through natural selection. Epigenetics is an even further level of complexity in how genes interact with environment. It is important to realize when people say there is a gene for "this" and a gene for "that," it is not always that simple. Genes can be necessary for certain phenotypes or simply part of a group of genes that contribute to a phenotype, or simply a modulator of that phenotype. It is in no way irrational to consider the role genes, their interactions, and there regulation of expression play in the phenotype of homosexuality.

In other words, genes send you into the world with probabilities for certain phenotypes (at all levels, from the cumulative effects of proteins to the behaviors human beings express). However, these probabilities can both be subject to change or be deterministic in nature depending on the environmental exposure of a particular individual.

In other other words...Its all about nature AND nurture that determines who you are.

Why put a label on anything? Just do what feels good. As long as it's consensual it's all good.

-

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

- Stephen Roberts

Mmmmm, kisses to all and to all Merry Christmas!!!

@Robot Well a Merry Christmas to you............GayBasher.
Oh I'm sorry you just seem to have a problem with different life styles.

How cute, someone decided to copy me.

Just so you know 69, your comments are YOURS!

"While Oaksparr's comment is long and seeming well written it's as intelligent as a pile of bricks."

Thank you. After all, a pile of bricks has been the standard of great inelligence in society ever since the Egyptian started doing it.

Your arguements are all over the place. A 75% return on what would have to be a recessive trait proves environmental effects, multiple races and cultures would disprove any strong genetic link, identical twins growing up seperate would disprove a strong genetic link.

I see nothing that would disprove that

"attraction is a socially developed trait, which may or may not have genetic predispositions."

Thus, there is choice involved, though not necessarly a single choice in time.

For example, Tommy and Jimmy are identical in every genetic way, but divided at birth, they are raised into two different cultures.

Tommy is raised in a traditional two parent home and his first exposure to homosexuality is its use on the playground as an insult. He has a positive view on heterosexuality and a negative view of homosexuality. When he reaches adolescence he thinks about sex all-of-the-time like any young boy. Most of this is directed at the girls his peergroup defines as attractive. Any time his thoughts go elsewhere, he immediatly quashes the thought as "gross."

Jimmy is raised in a traditional two parent home, but they are open to homosexuality and often have their homosexual friends over for dinner (no abuse, no broken marriage, nothing like that is necessesary). He goes to school and the kids who make fun of others using homosexual terms are punished by the teacher. When he reaches adolescence he thinks about sex all-of-the-time like any young boy. Like most boys his age he is more comfortable around boys than arround girls (those wierd creatures who dislike bugs, dirt, and fighting). When his thoughts go elsewhere, rather than quashing them, he wonders "am I gay? can I be gay? does this mean I am gay?" He might idolize his cool "uncles" and think - hey, I must be like them. He might get into conversations with his friends about which girl is cutiest and dismiss those other thoughts completely.

That would be an example of how a homosexually permissive society would increase the % of proclaimed homosexuals (it isn't that huge portions of the population are "in the closet" - an open society does produce more homosexuals).

There are also, other factors (broken homes, abuse, etc), but I wanted to stick with a more "positive" scenario.

So, did Tommy or Jimmy choose to be homosexual or heterosexual? Choices made did accumulate into a result - and those choices could be different. Tommy had very little choice in being straight, he would have had to overcome a great deal of social conditioning not to be (something that only a small portion of the population ever does). Jimmy would have been much more likely to choose to be "undefined" in his early sexuality - and as he developed, depending on exposure, could have gone either way. Again, Jimmy didn't choose, but choices were made (some of them inside of himself).

After all, most young people try on different roles as they attempt to "choose" who they will become (jock, emo, gamer, popular, nerd, etc).

To see the power of social conditioning, ask a bunch of teenagers what their favorite music is (the music industry is very adept at condintioning teens to like and take ownership of "my music"). They generally say "I like what I like" and yet will almost universally choose the music that goes along with their social clique.

I do not like the idea that it's an issue that needs to be identified, so it can be fixed.

They might as well identify red hair people and why they are red hair, so that can fix that too. (Sarcasm)

If there is something for society to grow and learn towards, it would be best to learn tolerance of others.

^ this research wasn't conducted to understand a genetic link and then try and curb it to treat homosexuality. It was just conducted to examine the possibility of an epigenetic factor that predisposes people to become homosexual. If anything it promotes tolerance, because evidence for an epigenetic factor would mean there is less room for religious folks to reprimand homosexuals for making the "choice" to be homosexual.

@Oakspar7777

I would disagree with you about the extent to which choice plays a role in sexual preference. There are certainly many complex societal factors that contribute to sexual preference, but sexual desire is highly regulated by hormones. And epigenetic changes in the womb that regulate testosterone can yield some pretty drastic differences in brain development. Besides I think there is skewed societal pressure for homosexuals to stay in the closet (tho more and more will come out in our increasingly tolerant society). For instance, look at all the people, religious or not, who end up coming out of the closet well after they have been married for years and have children.

@calebscape808

Haven't you heard? The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder since 1973. The American Psychological Association since 1975 and the World Health Organization since 1990.

Believing in a mythical deity and unproven myths however is still classified as a delusional disorder.

In my educated opinion the genetic tests on the gay gene hunt are over reaching just like the MRI Psychology tests. Scientists are impressed and fascinated with their new tools to study humanity and they want to try to answer questions with it. As to the question of am I gay or not? This is a question of identity, the psychologists domain and I say it is a choice to be gay. There is a strong but flawed counterarguement to the choice reality. The question of identity in us all is a lifetimes journey or a complicated test extremely rarely completed. We are self avoiders, untrue to self, superficialy generating a suspended identity of who we think we are alongside the true "id" based self. This artificialy suspended self does not have the surety and beleif in self that true to self people have. It's a bluff of a character that just fakes it. A person claiming to be gay compensates for this with the classic need to convince you that they are gay and to make the arguement of its validity and not being a choice. They convince you to convince self of that which they do not know or believe. Development of male or female identity traits in manifestation of your hormonally driven definition of self is like the "id" something we are lost at and self avoid. Testosterone says be, go, thrust, yang forward, its a drive incarnate that shapes our personality into common traits of men we all know. We fail at this feel lost, do not know who we are? The question of identity lingers and when presented with who am I and the cool, macho, Hollywood concept action adventure hero of a superman seems to much the gay male says, I'll take the easy route, lay down, whiny, wimpy and just be gay. Its the easy route. As to the supposed gay mans attractions to men, or finding beauty in your own sex, don't confuse lust with someone they have identifyed as a sexual object who rewards them with attraction. They're horny not cockeyed in the beauty contest to pick a man over a woman.

I have no problem seeing actual men kissing, but that graphic is disturbing as hell!
And everyone, stop calling people ignorant. They aren't ignorant they're just stupid.
Act like scientific minded people and call it as you see it.

This is interesting. As a gay man I know that I had more attraction in the same sex than the opposite sex since since as long as I can possibly remember. I cannot look at someone of the opposite sex and be attracted to them in anyway. I know when a woman is beautiful, but there has never been physical attraction. I knew I was different sexually perhaps even before puberty.

very interesting article. I know it runs in my family for sure. On both sides. As for those that don't care for it? Don't want to see the picture? don't read the article. It is your choice to click on the article and read it.

All things in life are about choices. We have to decide if we will act on any of our needs and physical drives. This includes sex as well as eating. One should be free of religious dogma when choosing what is best for their life. If you don't like something then don't choose it. If you like something choose it.

P.S. if a man is having sex with a male animal that doesn't make him gay... where were you educated? in the backwoods of Arkansas? That is called bestiality not homosexuality. Just like a child molester is a pedophile not a homosexual. Good gods if you are going to be a close minded bigot at least be intelligent about it!