Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Study: Homosexuality passes from fathers to daughters and mothers to sons

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. They probably need to work on this theory a bit more. Even then, they probably won’t convince the religious lot.

    1. Epi-genetic shows that our behavior and actions affects our lineage. Like alcoolism, suicidal tendencies etc… this confirms religious beliefs that “the sins of the parents are passed on down to the children.”
      Epi-genetic is not in favor of the theory that Homosexuality cannot be changed. So to say that we are born that way is not going to work anymore with Christians people who see traditional marriage as a lineage improvement. Epi-genetic may prove them right

      1. Simon, your talking rubbish, actually is does show were born this way and doesn’t prove we can be changed. I for one would like to see if we can genetically remove the need for bigots like you.

        If sins are passed down please explain how devout christians can have gay children and are so devout that they thrown their gay child into the street. Where is the sin in you’re twisted view.

      2. Jock S. Trap 14 Dec 2012, 9:19am

        Sorry but what a load of crap Simon!!

      3. I think you need to read the article again, you didn’t understand a word. Go back to elementary school!

    2. Yes indeed, They like something more concrete or visible such as a missing leg or skin colour, although in the past a different skin colour was no free pass with these people.

    3. My mother is a lesbian. I am a 26 year old gay man. My brother is a 32 year old gay man. We have different fathers.

  2. …and what!? I don’t need science to validate my existence!

    Homosexuality by ‘choice’ [if there even is such a thing] is an equally valid sexual expression as ‘standard’ heterosexuality. Why do we need to show a genetic, eip- or not, explanation?

    What if research showed there to be absolutely no genetic component to our homosexuality, what then!? It wouldn’t make us any less human – I am not defined by my biology, however I accept it certainly influences the form I take.

    But I do get that the nay-sayers’ main argument is that we are ‘un-natural’ so in that context I guess it’s good to have some scientific amo in our corner, but I mean come on!!

    We don’t look to science to explain art, or love, or stupidity, or indeed most other human characteristics / traits / behaviours, yet we accept them all the same…

    1. If science investigates why red hair persists, I don’t know why it shouldn’t investigate why I like men rather than women. Genetics, and science generally, studies the whole spectrum of human characteristics, including love. The concerning thing isn’t that it’s studied, but that people might make political judgments on people’s rights based on the results.

  3. An interesting piece of research, if only that it begs the question who were all those lesbians with gay grandfathers or gay men with lesbian grannies? The USA is still one of the most closeted of Western cultures – I cannot imagine that many folks could know for sure whether or not they had a gay grandparent or indeed great-great-grandparent.

    An interesting study, but lets look at the situation in a few generations time.

    1. The survey doesn’t suggest that I’d have a lesbian granny, but that the genes that made it more likely to be gay came from my mother’s side. They could have been manifested in a gay uncle somewhere along the way. Not that I know of any, just clarifying what it’s saying.

  4. Heather Norum 13 Dec 2012, 5:07pm

    This study is loaded with problems. It relies on the assumption that masculine female = lesbian and feminine male = gay man. It also completely ignores bisexuality, suggesting that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the only two options.

    Sorry to say, PinkNews, but this is not the positive piece of research this article makes it out to be.

    1. I’m not sure how it ignores bisexuality, the phrase “more likely to be gay” surely considers the spectrum of sexuality. And just because it come genetically from the opposite sex parent, that doesn’t mean it’s linked to the idea of masculine women and feminine men.

      1. It actually makes sense to me. I know of at least two gay males on my father’s side and none on my mothers, so for me to have gotten the traits from my father’s side does make sense.
        Nothing in this denotes masculinity/feminity, just attraction.

        But honestly I don’t care all that much where I got my bisexuality from. Sure, it’s interesting, but it’s not like it will change anything for me.

  5. Guglielmo Marinaro 13 Dec 2012, 6:31pm

    It struck me years ago as perfectly plausible that whatever it is that causes a mother to grow up being sexually attracted to men – and we still don’t know what that is – might be inherited by a son, thus causing him to grow up gay. Mutatis mutandis, the same for fathers and daughters. Only an idea, of course, but I don’t see how, in the present state of our knowledge, it can be ruled out. However, just as heterosexuality is both natural and good no matter what its cause(s) may ultimately turn out to be, so also are homosexuality and bi-sexuality.

  6. What next mother make daughters and fathers make sons? What a load of bollocks

  7. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Dec 2012, 6:49pm

    So why hasn’t a parallel study been done to determine what causes heterosexuality? The fact of the matter is, nobody chooses their orientation, it chooses us, although the religious bigots won’t subscribe to that of course.

    The day that praying away the straight can be achieved, then I’ll believe in ex-gay therapy.

  8. James Savik 13 Dec 2012, 6:56pm

    I’m not sure that this is a good thing. How long will it be before there is a test for “gay markers” in a fetus and elective abourtions based on the parents wishes, biases and perceptions of normal?

    Once a test is available, watch how fast the right-wing wackos change their position on abortion.

  9. Could the funding for these stupid research studies be spent on more vital science –

    Why do we persist in trying to convince the ignorant that be gay is totally normal -

  10. This makes no sense. How many Gay people claim it is a choice? Practically none. It may be PC to say that even if it is a choice it’s still a human right. Fine. But it isn’t a choice.

  11. Every son has a mother and every daughter has a father, so we have learned?????

    1. Oops I’m getting red marks, obviously didn’t make my point well, I’m trying to say it is a pointless piece of research that proves nothing as everyone gay or straight has a mother and a father.

    2. I’ve obviously misunderstood something as I thought I was agreeing that this research was rubbish by saying we have learned nothing from this. Next person who reads it differently please reply and tell me what I have said that is upsetting people, I’m obviously missing something. sorry.

  12. This is propaganda to suggest that gay people have gay babies. It is a complete lie. Most likely coming from ant-gay Christian scientist working for the Catholic/Christian church. Since their Bible states God created man then it is God who creates LGBT people and straight people. The nature of man’s being is a spirit and they only inhabit a human body until God calls them and the body as we all knows decays and is buried and so it is the human spirit is gay or straight as determined by God, the creator that lives and ascends when the human body dies.

    1. I completely agree with the latter point you make in this.

      As a gay Christian myself, that is whole-heartedly what I believe, even inspite of the obstacles other, more closed-minded “Christians” try to place in my way.

    2. Jock S. Trap 14 Dec 2012, 9:28am

      Indeed, Christians (extreme ones) base their (not-) know how on assumptions that make little sense.

      My son is ‘Straight’ and has a steady girlfriend….

      Let’s face it it detracts from the real issues of the world such as over breeding and not being able to have enough food to feed the population.

  13. What a load of tripe. The whole report is loaded with observer bias – homosexuality is wrong, therefore something must cause it. Having studied biology at university I can tell you that this kind of ‘loony science’ goes into the same basket as creationism and Intelligent Design. There is nothing ‘wrong’ about being gay – it just is. There is nothing concrete about these ‘findings’ except in the minds of the researchers, if you can call them that. Take a closer look at it and all you see is opinions, what ifs and could bes. In other words, they are seeing what they want to see and nothing more. Ignore it.

  14. Jock S. Trap 14 Dec 2012, 9:17am

    Wish they would stop being so hell bent on finding a gene to ‘explain’ us!

    As far as I know there isn’t a gene to suggest people are straight it’s just assumed.

    Fact we are born who we are… they should deal with it!

  15. Maybe there is some truth in this? My mother is a lesbian. I am a 26 year old gay man. My brother is a 32 year old gay man. We have different fathers.

    1. Well I have the same mother and father as my two older straight brothers. There is nothing in this biased and badly done research, when will these bigots realise we can see through their attempts to undermine us.

  16. Of course, the obvious problem with this study is it’s cis-centicism. What about people like me? I am a transgender man who is attracted to men. Does that mean I got my gayness from my mother? Or did I get it from my father? Or did I not get it at all because I’m “still a biological girl and therefore a heterosexual”? That last one is degendering and very offensive so if that’s the line of reasoning they’re going to use then I can’t support this study at all. My biology shouldn’t be what determines my gender and my sexuality.

  17. An editorial observation – in a May 4th pinknews.co.uk article, author Edmund Broch, in quoting Mitt Romney, added “[sic]” after the term “sexual preference”. Here the term is used without contentiousness. Which is it?

  18. Adi Himpson 15 Dec 2012, 8:56am

    As Mike said this kind of ‘loony science’ (not a phrase I like but it very deftly gets the concept across!) counts for very little in the scientific community unless it has the right kind of data, is reproducible and can demonstrate it has been produced without bias.
    Interestingly, my father (a serially unfaithful and rabidly homophobic *******) has 12 kids, 3 of whom are gay each from different mothers. A 25% incidence could be seen as significant and might *possibly* suggest that in this case our homosexuality was passed paternally rather than maternally.
    If this is so it wouldn’t mean that homosexuality *can’t* be passed as suggested in the article, but might suggest that it is just one of many ways in which sexual preferences can be passed from one generation to the other.
    Either way, identifying why we are the way we are is a perfectly scientifically valid question and no more diminishes our validity than understudying why a sunset is red makes it less beautiful…

  19. I personally think this is nonsense. This seems to be no more valid than research suggesting that there is an “increased likelihood” of me sneezing twice on a Tuesday, if my mothers great granddad once drew a Hippo.

    There is so much information passed on through genetics, I don’t discount the possibility. I discount the accuracy of making such a statement as they seem to be making.

    What does this vague and general assumption mean in comparison the vast decades of research conducted by Kinsey and his followers?

    What these “scientists” have conveniently neglected to mention is that the sexual labels of gay, straight and bi are all man-made. We created them, and now they are trying to mould scientific study around them.

  20. !Andy Cordero 16 Dec 2012, 6:11am

    After investigating the research more, it seems that their conclusions are a bit suspect, at best! Any scientific work that claims to find some genetic (epi- or not) linkage of homosexuality from generation to generation, yet refers to it as ‘sexual preference’ cannot expect to hold up under scrutiny! What’s more, when probing further, the study appears to contradict itself. Apparently, these so-called ‘epi-marks’ should fail to survive natural selection, yet do so with so much frequency that they mirror an actual genetic link. Huh?? Love how strong & special that should make us, yet the likelihood of such evolutionary exceptions repeated throughout the history of humankind is a bit much to accept. Sounds like they are making up conclusions to justify their research, imo, anyway.

  21. Really? Father to daughter (because men like women) Mother to sin (because women like men)???? I don’t see really science at work with this. Are these the same people who are still trying to find their way out of a wet paper bag?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all