Gene determine sexual behavior

hiphopopotamus

hiphopopotamus

Active member
Yesterday published in the journal Cell, a group of scientist discovered 16 genes that influence sexual behavior in mice. This discovery, yet still new and needing more research, might have a huge affect on the way our government looks at equal rights of the people that prefer different sexual orientations.

here is the article

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867411015716

If you don't have a higher education in biology

SPARKNOTES:

There are genes in mice that when they are turned on they effect the brain chemistry that then determines sexual behaviors.

pretty simple

I am wondering what you guys think will happen with new information and if you are anti-homosexuality will science actually convince you or will you keep on being your ignorant self.
 
tumblr_lmp46t23ta1qbgb2h.png
 
IMO it's fucking obvious this is the case. But anyone that doesn't believe that your sexual orientation is innate will continue not to believe it regardless of scientific findings. God himself could come to them and tell them there are genes that determine your sexual behavior and they still won't believe it. So it doesn't really matter. Still a cool finding non-the-less.
 
If there is in fact a "gay" gene (or set of genes, transcriptional elements, etc.), it would be interesting to find out why it has survived in our genome. It surely can't be passed from generation to generation (2 guys/girls can't produce progeny), so I suspect whether one is gay or straight is heavily influenced by the environment one grows up in, not just their genetic makeup.

 
So if as a child, my parents painted my walls with flowers and dressed me in pink clothes, I would become gay? Fuck, you're stupid.
 
That's not what I meant at all. I meant that its most likely so much more complex than just the expression of the gene(s). The regulation of the genes necessary to determine sexual orientation (as well as everything else), are influenced by more things than you could ever fathom.

And Flowers and pink clothes have nothing to do with being gay.
 
I didnt say it was entirely a product of the environment. I'm saying that the gene isn't like an on/off switch that determines sexuality. The environment has an effect on transcription and translation of every gene.
 
Ah, you're right, what was I thinking? Class of 2014 Queen's University. My bad. Freshmen don't even take bio courses anyway.
 
I can't give you an answer to that. All I can tell you is that the relationship between genes and their expression is so much more complex than just simply having the genes. If in fact we know what the genes for determining homosexuality are, our next step should be to see how they're regulated/expressed.

 
I would argue that beyond genetics, it does in part have to do with your personal experiences. Everyone in the world sees different things, feels different things and being straight or gay is not 100% due to genetics, but in part personal experience. I would imagine any factor of life, be it personal experience, or genetics shapes who you are.

Background: I'm straight, non-religious, and have no hard-feelings towards straight or gay people. I just honestly believe that no single factor (though genetics is probably most influential) moves you into being straight or gay. I believe a culmination of all factors is the ultimate determination. Argue on.
 
I understand where you're coming from, unlike others in this thread who cant see both sides of an issue
 
siekierski is right in that there is always a environmental factor in gene expression. Genetics is never just simply turning on a gene and something happens. But it would be ignorant to say that environmental factor has a major impact on expression of a trait when there is a proven gene for that trait.

Its like saying I have dark skin because i am out side a lot, when really it is your genetic makeup that determines the darkness of you skin.

In the question of how it passed through a generation is simply that if a gene doesn't physically prevent you from having offspring there is still a chance of having kids.

This guy knows somethings about being gay and having kids: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4588998
 
It seems to me there can't be any one factor that makes one homosexual/straight/bi it's most likely a combination. However, i do believe gay people will be gay, and there really is no way to make them something they are'nt.

also this picture is somewhat relevant, the sexuality one... its all one sorry. its cool though

monstrepancies.jpg
 
genes ultimately control all behavior. your senses gather info, which is processed by the brain has developed as your genes response to its environment growing up. also, at the deepest level, your hormones which have a huge effect on all sorts of behaviors, risk taking behavior etc. because at the deepest level your brain asks your dna how the organism should behave.
 
Definitely a combination of factors.

Studies based on twin's/sibling's sexuality found that in identical twins, if one was gay there was only a 50% chance the other one was. So that there tells it's not entirely influenced by DNA. However if they were fraternal twins the chance went down to 30% and it was even lower if they were merely siblings, so as the DNA shared decreases the chance they have the same sexuality decreases, suggesting there is still a strong link between DNA and sexuality. Plus there is still the chance of epigenetic influences, as these aren't necessarily the same in identical twins and can be triggered throughout life (hence why they'll seem REALLY similar as children but then become more different as they get older).

As for how it could be passed on through natural selection, as somebody mentioned above, you have to take into account it isn't ONE gene coding for gay. These different genes likely influence a number of different factors with alleles which are advantageous and selected for separately. There is also the chance that they are advantageous in heterzygotes, like the example we all learn in school of sickle-cell anemia continuing in populations because with one copy of the allele resistance to malaria is hugely increased. I've also heard kin selection suggested but I find this less likely to be a complete explanation.
 
No AR6 your being a dbag again. Buddy put forth a decent point that actually makes some sense and your cutting him down for no reason again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top