Unless you are born with a leg missing or something similarly obvious it won’t make the slightest difference to the bigots. it has to be really obvious for them, and only then and very reluctantly would they abandon their puerile activity.
The holy ones will just pay a tame “researcher” to contradict it. Remember, a lot of them haven’t emerged from creationism yet.
Be carewful – the gay cure wackos will twist this into some sort of wierd diet treatment.
or go to bloodletting as a cure. The wold would be a lot better off if 60% of the people were gay.
shrink the population by many fewer babies. More gay people to overcum the jesus freaks
Live and let live, we are who we are, we are the way we are, accept it and live with it…..why not put all this ‘research’ and money into something more productive like disease research, cure research, homelessness, hunger, etc
Matt, that’s a very reductive view of scientific research. Scientists study a range of things that don’t immediately, if ever, lead to health or welfare benefits, but do add to our deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Geneticists, for example, study all aspects of inheritance, so why would they ignore sexuality?
I’ve always thought Mother Nature was one smart lass. She has peppered the populations with the “gay gene” as a type of pressure valve so populations don’t over-procreate – which would detrimental to the populations as a whole. It’s man’s artificial denial of this vital component of Mother Nature’s plan that has caused so much pain and overdraining of available resources.
really punches a hole in the churches argument that marriage is for procreation – this research shows that procreating too much causes the very thing they hate yet they actively encourage it.
Interesting theory but the opposite of what this research is claiming.
Now we just need to prove a link between insanity and christianity and we can starting curing the sick.
…This is one thing we don’t need new research for. It has already been proven. If I start saying that I hear voices in my head telling me this or that I will very likely be getting a visit from some burly dudes in white coats who will whisk me off to somewhere secure and and then they will attach electrodes to my head and apply a large jolt of the national Grid in an attempt to rid me of these voices.
However if I attend a largely redundant weird looking building with a dude in a frock and pointy hat then i am considered devout and no one will think those sort of voices in my head, while still as irrational as the former, is a not OK.
Anyone who believes that when we die we don’t really die, but go off to some place up in the clouds to hang out with a dude who supposedly lived thousands of years ago and who irrationally thought he was a deity, for ever, is obviously in any rational mind, insane to some degree. What more proof is needed??
Quite right, who needs science. We can suffice with the eyeballs and ears test.
The existence of each and every one of us whether gay, straight, bi, trans or whatever is strongly genetic and related to female fertility and I didn’t need a research grant to figure that out.
Ditto and as I said below, I think it applies in some way to woem too…fed up of hearing we’re just more’ fluid’….pish is what I say to that one!!!
You have to weigh that against research that shows that the more older siblings a person has the greater their likelihood of being gay. Are the mothers with the gay children more fertile because they have gay children or do they have gay children because they have had more children?
Its been a while since I read the particular research that you are commenting on but from memory the study suggested that the more children a woman went full term with the high the out come of having a child who is homosexual. This particular study did not if I remember correctly explain first born gays, but it was interesting reading.
That was the point they were making about per-natal exposure to certain hormones.
I’ve read and seen programmes on that subject too. although i’m the eldest child, I wasn’t the first born as my mum lost a boy! it’s interesting that although my brother, who is the youngest, is straight. My two sisters are bi and I am gay! (don’t like the word lesbian! lol)
Absolute trash. Having studied evolutionary biology I know that whole point of evolutionary success is for a species to have as many offspring as possible in order that at least some of them (the survivors and therefore the fittest) go forth and pass on their genes. Why on earth would evolution deliberately throw up sexual duds for the sake of it because some women have more children? How many more does it have to be? If this really was the case then there would be less gay people now because women now tend to have less children than they did before. This junk science and the authors know it. It doesn’t prove a thing. Just another excuse to look for a reason for something that doesn’t need reason. t’ll go the same route that gay men’s brains are somehow closer to heterosexual women’s brains. Another load of rubbish that’s been quietly swept under the carpet because it’s disproved. There is no ’cause’ for being gay. It just is.
So you read the article and decided that did you?
Or did you come with an open mind and willingness to understand and appraise the methodology, approach and conclusions of the research with rationality rather than instictive judgement?
The closed minded tend to jump to conclusions and thus miss logical facts – often they are both misguided and indoctrinated.
It does make sense if you think rather than following set paths of logic. That’s what marks us as different to computers.
Tribe of 100 people. None are gay. 100 adults look after 100 children.
Tribe of 100 people. 2 are gay. 100 adults look after 98 children. Each child has better nourishment and more adults to provide protection.
Which tribe is going to produce more healthy and reproductively active adults? Tribe two of course. Social creatures benefit from socially useful traits as much as individually useful ones. It’s obvious that the advantage of higher fertility outweighs a few gay children – who provide extra manpower for the social group to provide for children without producing more mouths to feed.
Nature does not design – or plan logically. Nothing in nature is ‘perfect’ – it’s a law of “it’s good enough to do the job”.
Mike – as you claim to have studied evoluntionary biology I can only assume that you somehow missed the discussion in respect of how culture has an an influcense on a species. If you are talking about a single cell organism or a very basic life form then you are totally correct but once you start dealing with cultural & genetic factors you are either un informed or willfully ignorant! The most successful spread of genes in lions for example is where one lion procreates and his brother defends the pride and helps defeat the alpha male at the sametime.The second males genes are secured by his brother, so genetically the same but they have an an advantage over the single alpha male. A simular relationship has been observed in over three hundred mamal species. Perhaps re studying would be a good idea
So a woman who has many children has a higher likelihood of one being gay? And to determine this, they had to do a study? Sounds like common sense to me.
No, the research points to an increasing likelihood of each child being gay as the numbers rack up. For instance, if you put together the children of ten women who each had ten children and the children of one hundred women who each had one child, there would be significantly more gay people in the former cohort than the latter. That isn’t intuitive or obvious, but it does seem to be the case.
Nicely explained. Thanks!
except almost ALL of the hundreds of gay people I’ve known in my life come from VERY small families. often single children.
two aunts of mine (by marriage, on my mother’s side) had 10 kids.. none of them gay, none of their children’s children gay either.
I don’t buy this study. not that I think there’s something wrong with it. just that it most definitely doesn’t fit the reality I have lived in.
The research consistently points to the fact of orientation being innate.
Yet bigots refuse to accept logic, fact, evidence and reason.
But it is in any case irrelevant to the case for equality. ‘It’s alright if you can’t help it but we reserve the right to punish a choice’ is a highly condescending and oppressive argument.
Equality should go without saying is crucial in a civilised society.
Surely, arguments for equality are benefitted by demonstrating the factuality of innate characteristics?
Agree with that. One the one hand, if it was just purely a choice, it still wouldn’t be right to deny people that choice. However this sort of evidence still invalidate a lot of the bigot’s arguments.
Or it could be just the law of averages. I’ll bet if they gathered all the children from large families together, counted how many were gay and then compared that percentage with the general population they would find no difference.
No, that has been done. The differences are statistically significant. Most of these scientists do have at least the barest notion of how to do their jobs!
Erm, surely a mother who has eight children is more likely to have a gay son than a mother who has only one child. Similarly, the mother of eight is more likely to have a left-handed child.
but it is not about that – it seems to say it increases the fertility chances in extended – the maternal aunts etc.
In evolutionary terms it makes sense – although ironic that after all the discrimination based on glbt (supposedly) not doing their part for procreation when in fact our mere existence, according to emerging findings, increases the reproduction ability of our female relatives.
I’ve got gayness in me jeans! It’s jeanetic!
Yea-YAH!! We just love those jeans (501 my favorite)
And yet the silly little bigots will still take no notice of this latest study!
Those of us who grew up with several brothers were always sure that male homosexuality is nature and genetic and so this is hardly news., but this research will really set the cat among the pigeons with the Anti equality camp. They are sure to second guess this and attempt to put all sorts of spin on how the parameters were wrong or that it is somehow anti religion. Frankly one can’t wait for the shyte to hit the proverbial. It will be fun pointing and laughing uproariously at them.
I don’t really care why I am am gay – nature, nurture genetics – who cares.
Regardless of WHY we are gay, it does not mean that we deserve discrimination.
And as for this ‘gay gene’ – well if that is ever discovered, then I’d worry, as it would then theoretically give the parents the choice whether or not to carry the pregnancy to full term.
Good point. Should the scientists are able to pinpoint the gay gene, I fear those anti-gay tyrants, mad clerics and homophobes will abuse such discovery to eliminate homosexuality even before the baby is born. Proving homosexuality is genetic is one thing, I simply fear what this could mean to humanity should the gay gene is discovered, all of us will have to fight against discrimination in supporting every child to be born.
We know from China and India alone that selective abortions (in those cases, gender-selective in favor of boys at the expense of girls) can become appallingly common with a bit of prenatal information combined with cultural bias.
And many people seem keen to head the same way with testing for Down’s syndrome kids.
“First they came for the Communists…”
That’s very true about what you say about the gay gene. Hell you can already choose eye colour etc! scary stuff! I think I’d rather not know too!
I’ve always thought the same – about the gay gene and abortions. It leads to an interesting dilemma for the gay-hating anti-abortion christians,though!
I am not happy that science is trying to root out the cause of homosexuality, it will only end up with parents wanting a genetic screening of their children to make sure that they are “ok”. At least not before a better world-wide acceptance of homosexuality is established.
Science has been trying to understand why people are different races – and predominantly people do not try to change that.
I see no problem in science trying to increase its knowledge base and would be concerned by anyone who sought to restrict this.
The pursuit of knowledge is a noble and admirable thing. It’s what makes society worth protecting. A fear of knowledge is the beginning of barbarism.
Instead of being unhappy with scientists trying to improve our understanding of the world and tell us why we are who we are, why not be unhappy at the bigots and religious arseholes who seek to promote anti-gay attitudes instead? They’re the ones who cause the problems, not people who seek merely to understand.
You might as well blame climatologists for studying the environment rather than the petrochemical corporations who pollute it, or medical scientists for studying immunology rather than anti-vaccine nuts for opposing it.
Totally agree with your post Vp. Thanks. I wonder how many early scientists wound up being murdered by the religious zealots for disagreeing with them.
you can bet that the anit gay people – the catholic leadership and evangelicals – will if possible to predict gays at womb time
Call for abortions.
Hey, in a different way thats what hitler did. He was austrian catholic
hImmler, Goebbels, Eichmann Dr, mengele – the inner circle were all catholic in a country then only 1/3 catholic.
Are you still beating your wife Ken?
A crucial part of the report that PN (deliberately?) omitted
“Of course, no single factor can account for the varied array of sexual orientations that exist, in men as well as in women. “It is quite possible that there are several influences on forming a homosexual orientation,” said Gerulf Rieger, a sexual orientation researcher at Cornell University. He noted that environmental factors — including the level of exposure to certain hormones in the womb — also play a role in molding male sexuality. But as for why genetic factors would exist that make men gay, it appears that these genes make women, as well as gay men, alluring to other men.”
1. Environmental factors also lead to people being gay. i.e some people choose to be gay
2. The so called research suggest that it is the the same gene that makes women attracted to men which makes gay man attracted to other men. Does that make sense?
3. More generally, the research suggests that being a lesbian is laregly by choice.Hmmm.
You clearly have misread Ken, or (deliberately?) mininterpreted the results because the reprot clearly states that orientation whilst possibly having some environmental influence is not a choice.
“1. Environmental factors also lead to people being gay. i.e some people choose to be gay”
No, I think your misunderstanding has led you to a false conclusion, environmental factors here are within the mothers womb things like hormonal changes etc.
“2. The so called research suggest that it is the the same gene that makes women attracted to men which makes gay man attracted to other men. Does that make sense?”
Again you’ve got it back to front Ken, what the report you cite says is that
it appears the same gene that makes women especially attractive to men also makes gay men especially attractive to other men.
Do you perhaps suffer from reading comprehension difficulties Ken?
Perhaps people chose to be exposed to hormonal influences in the womb?
Do straight people have some sort of internal debate when they reach puberty and after much deliberation choose to be heterosexual? Of course not, it just happens.
Breaking News 1
Ken is several days out of day and the research he mentions is discredited, bogus and linked to hate groups.
Breaking News 2
If you look at the research the conclusions admit that in ethnic communities there is a reluctance to come out due to cultural sensitivites and perceived or real homophobia causing real fear. Thus, the findings can not be established without significant margin of error and reaching a firm conclusion is impracticable and impossible.
All this does is re-affirm older studies.
We already know that women carry the gay gene.
Let’s just hope that it is never discovered.
In the Univ Padova they published similar results already some years back. Results then pointed the same direction: maternal fertility and sons being gay are statistically significantly correlated. This, however, explained only a fraction of the number of people being gay.
The constant re-affirmation of findings is how science progresses. It’s vital for the accumulation of knowledge. The whole point of science is that the results are robust, repeatable and secure. That’s what makes it such a powerful tool for approaching the truth of a matter.
I am very interested in what exactly it is that makes some of us gay and others straight. It can’t, obviously, be entirely genetic. I’m living proof of that, because I have an identical twin brother who is straight. But that it is genetic to a significant degree is incontrovertible. The twin studies done on the matter show the classic pattern for a genetically-derived trait, with identical twins sharing an orientation far more often than regular siblings, who share it more often than random strangers.
I think it will be pretty neat when we’ve finally solved the mystery and worked out what exactly it is that makes us different. We’re lucky to live at a time when science is beginning to show us the answer – were we born even a couple of generations ago we would never have known.
There’s also that story from last year of the two twin brothers where one turned out to be a transgender child (which doesn’t mean she’ll necessarily grow up as one). There definitely is more to gender and sexuality than genetics. Hormone exposure too has an effect, and I guess that doesn’t have to be equal in twins? I don’t know enough about that …
Yeh that’s interesting what you say about twins. In the John Barrowman documentary he spoke to identicale twin boys and they were like you; one gay and the other straight. So going on that one, it makes you wonder about the so called gay gene. And if women are supposed to be the ones who carry the gene that make men gay…why am I gay when I’m female?
I’m not sure the JB documentary is an especially good argument here. Whatever talents John may or may not have, scientific documentary making isn’t one of them. The section with the twins with very distinct interests in toys lost the plot completely and got bogged down in the tenuous link between gender conformity – boys toys and girls toys – and sexual orientation. Whether the kid who liked pink teddy bears grows up gay or his GI Joe brother grows up straight is nowhere near as clear cut and simple. If it was, there wouldn’t be the argument about gays in the military and other ‘men’s’ roles. They’d all be working in hairdressers and leaving the fighting to their straight brothers. Or are we supposed to believe that girls who join the army or drive racing cars, play rugby etc are all lesbians who didn’t play with Barbies as kids?
I am the gay first-born son of a woman who is the first born of two girls. I have two str8 younger brothers, and my maternal aunt has a girl and a boy, both str8.
I am the first gay in the family tree on all sides, according to records… at least inasmuch as I was born in an era of education and self-actualization… earlier generations were arguably more trapped and hidden…
I don’t think this theory applies to me – but two generations ago, my grandparents were born into Twenties and Depression-era large families… but you could blame that on poor birth control of the era…
Like you I’m first born son of a family of four – all siblings are straight. I do have a gay uncle on my mothers side – he was the youngest of 12 children but since my mother and father are first cousins – country folk,not illegal but no one told me until I did a family tree – the family kind of merges when you go back a generations. So I’m not sure I go with the gay gene or female multiple birth theory.
My partner is from a family of four his eldest brother is also gay and he’s the youngest, the two middle siblings are straight.
I’ve thought about previous partners and most have been only children or eldest of the family so after 40 years of living with a multitude of gay men -that sounds trampy doesn’t it – I really don’t think there is a pattern – everybody has been different, I never had a type, and the only recurring theme is they all preferred being with and loving their own sex.
I think some of usare just are gay and I for one am thankful to be what I am.
That’s not “trampy”, that’s “experienced”.
I’ve heard this before, a long time ago. So the theory isn’t new. But in any case, interesting results at least :)
Interesting hypothesis. Could be tested by monitoring pre-natal hormone levels in women with that genetic profile and see if there is a pattern.
However the comments about ‘Mother Nature’ are not quite accurate. The ‘balance’ that seems to emerge from this thesis is not ‘designed’ by anyone. Instead, natural selection over time means that communities where over-procreative women are balanced by their non-procreative offspring will suffer less from over-population.
However, if this is true it would suggest homosexuality will decline eventually – overprocreative women who do NOT bear homosexual male children will eventually outproduce those who do, and there will be less detrimental effects of over-population.
Don’t explain the monkey attracted to same sex or even the other animals of nature bonding sexually to same sex… is it pleasure? or is it control?
Answering that will most likely solve some of our questions.
Breaking News 2a!!!
Research in the UK shows that there are few openly gay people from ethnic minorities – which, as a 9-year-old could probably understand, could well have something to do with the conformist pressures and/or religious conventions so many of them are brought up with.
I hope it’s not another unbased study like the theory of the older male brothers Ray Blanchard developed in the 80s.
This seems to contradict the experience of every gay male I can think of (including myself)…
Where is Padova? (Italy?)
I’m tempted to say that I think they’re barking up the wrong tree by basing their study within Italian cultural norms and assuming that the rest of the world works in the same way…
(As I said: it most certainly doesn’t for my close male gay friends…)
Just as I have always thought…and I am 70+ and of course am no scientist; it cannot be any other way.
I LONG FOR the day and hope I am here to see it, when the Catholic Church has to apologise for its statement that homosexuality .. .. “is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”. – BENEDICT XVI.
This can be added to the apology made by, was it JOHN PAUL II about GALILEO GALILEI, regarding the sun/earth/which- revolves-around-which nonsense.
Give me ONE Alan Turing, give me one Galileo Galilei and you can have all 260-odd popes and I’d throw in all their fancy hats, bling and their mam’s curtains that they float about in.
I’d give them a cruise ship and they could all sail off into the sunset until the end of time and not (please, please not) bother the human race again.
“at least one of those genes appears to be located on the X-chromosome, of which females have two and males have one”
yay, more biological essentialism. Remember, male does not necessarily mean XY and female does not necessarily mean XX. Please remember trans people, pink news!
I don’t think knowing the reasons for one’s gayness should have any political import… although it does seem to have temporarily confounded the religious right when confronted with the “it’s not a choice” argument
Personally though I think it is a compelling subject. In favor of the genetic argument I have a gay gf whose two brothers are also gay. On the other hand I know two identical twins – one is a lesbian and the other is hetero… go figure that one out… neither nature nor nurture can explain it.
It’s all very interesting research, but i do get fed-up of reading about female sexuality apparently being more fluid and that there for not inbuilt! I have ALWAYs been this way. I have met plenty of good looking guys in my life, and I’m no kid, and never ever felt a need to leap into bed with them. The thought of sleeping with a guy reulses me frankly. Even as a small child I knew I was very different. And I do know plenty of gay women who are anything but fluid and, like myself, are gold star lesbians. I think it’s just there are more bi-sexual women than men! I am fed up with bisexuality being refered to as ‘fluid’ as if they’re two different things when they’re not. And just so people don’t think I’m anti-bisexual…BOTH my sisters are bisexual.
So I think that it would be interesting to see some research into what makes women gay. I personlally don’t see why it would be one genetic rule for men and another for women. It’s completely ilogical!