Sexual orientation proven genetic

by drwtsn32 22 Replies latest social current

  • drwtsn32
    drwtsn32

    The evidence is compelling!

    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=644275

    Sexuality determined by nature or nurture? Fruit fly gives the answer
    By Tom Anderson

    05 June 2005

    The long-running scientific debate about whether homosexuality is determined by nature or nurture is dramatically closer to resolution after new scientific evidence was published yesterday.

    Biotechnologists have found evidence that sexuality is, after all, determined by genes and not environment. Researchers discovered a single "switch gene" that swaps the sexual orientation of males and females.

    In the research, published yesterday, genetically altered male fruit flies spurned females and became attracted to other males. Genetically altered females engaged in complex male mating rituals, vibrating their wings, licking other female flies' genitalia and curling their backs ready for copulation. They rebuffed males that tried to mate with them.

    The heated debate about the nature of gay sexual orientation has divided opinion for decades, with many gay men and women saying that they were born homosexual. Anti-homosexual activists say that gay sexual orientation is learnt and can be "cured" with psychological help.

    The paper's lead author, Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, said: "We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behaviour," he said. "It's very surprising."

    Dr Michael Weiss, chairman of biochemistry at Ohio University, was as surprised at the findings. "It seems that none of us chooses our sexuality. It just happens. The results are so clean and compelling, the whole field of the genetic roots of behaviour is moved forward tremendously by this work," he said.

    "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Unfortunately bigots (as per the dictionary definiton, not as per the baseless insult) will say it hasn't been proven in humans yet and thus, if only to them, justify their continued bigotry...

  • Gretchen956
    Gretchen956

    Unfortunately those that believe that being gay is a moral failing are also the same people that reject most if not all scientific research.

    Sherry

  • drwtsn32
    drwtsn32

    You both make good points! Unfortunate...

  • sonnyboy
    sonnyboy

    I'm sure that most Christian sects, including the JWs, will say that it's still a sin to practice homosexual sex regardless of the research. You know, long-suffering and all.

    They'd rather have someone live with their head buried in the sand with a hot poker up their ass than go against the New World Translation.

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    Okay, I'm going to go into nitpick mode, please pardon me. Just a couple of nits:

    1. Establishing that sexual orientation can be altered genetically does not prove that sexual orientation is always genetic. The environment could conceivably alter or harden the genetic preference.

    2. This is an area where research on humans and on flies does have very significant differences. Human sexual desire is, to a great degree, psychologically mediated. Human fetishes and sexual preferences are undoubtedly affected by environment; I doubt that's the case for flies. So this research can't be used to rule out the effect of environment, when it wasn't even a factor in the study.

    That said, I think it's likely that sexual orientation is largely--or perhaps even exclusively--genetic. And I do think this is an interesting and groundbreaking study. But I think a lot more research is needed before we can make definitive statements.

  • outoftheorg
    outoftheorg

    I THINK YOU GOT IT RIGHT EUPH.

    Outoftheorg

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Any phenomenon can be approached from a number of angles: one successful analysis from one approach doesn't rule out another explanation from another angle.

    Whereas a genetic explanation might seem to offer a powerful defense against so-called "moral" attacks at first sight, I doubt that homosexual or bisexual people would be satisfied of being classified as "genetically different" in the long run. Such a classification could be used in a positive way in a democratic society, but also in an awfully negative way in a totalitarian one (think of nazism).

    The negative and repressive stance of traditional Christian culture on homosexuality has had terrible consequences; however a different cultural approach is definitely possible, as shown by many ancient societies and modern post-Christian countries. This I think is to be promoted regardless of genetic explanation (or the lack thereof) imho.

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    I also agree that homosexuality is due to a combination of genetic and environmental factors the first can predispose someone to the influences of the second.

    However much one may not agree with this lifestyle one shouldn't be critical of it because that's simply how they are.

  • drwtsn32
    drwtsn32

    bump

    And for the record, I intentionally worded the subject line of this thread a bit overconfidently to draw more readers. :)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit