• CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.

New York Times - "Many Genes Influence Same-Sex Sexuality, Not a Single ‘Gay Gene’"

mikeyank

Long time forumite
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Posts
24,606
Reaction score
3,453
Location
Brooklyn New York
New York Times - "Many Genes Influence Same-Sex Sexuality, Not a Single ‘Gay Gene’"

From today's New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/science/gay-gene-sex.html

Many Genes Influence Same-Sex Sexuality, Not a Single ‘Gay Gene’

The largest study of same-sex sexual behavior finds the genetics are complicated, and social and environmental factors are also key.

By Pam Belluck
Published Aug. 29, 2019
Updated Aug. 30, 2019, 2:11 a.m. ET


How do genes influence our sexuality? The question has long been fraught with controversy.

An ambitious new study — the largest ever to analyze the genetics of same-sex sexual behavior — found that genetics does play a role, responsible for perhaps a third of the influence on whether someone has same-sex sex. The influence comes not from one gene but many, each with a tiny effect — and the rest of the explanation includes social or environmental factors — making it impossible to use genes to predict someone’s sexuality.

“I hope that the science can be used to educate people a little bit more about how natural and normal same-sex behavior is,” said Benjamin Neale, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard and one of the lead researchers on the international team. “It’s written into our genes and it’s part of our environment. This is part of our species and it’s part of who we are.”

The study of nearly half a million people, funded by the National Institutes of Health and other agencies, found differences in the genetic details of same-sex behavior in men and women. The research also suggests the genetics of same-sex sexual behavior shares some correlation with genes involved in some mental health issues and personality traits — although the authors said that overlap could simply reflect the stress of enduring societal prejudice.

Even before its publication Thursday in the journal Science, the study has generated debate and concern, including within the renowned Broad Institute itself. Several scientists who are part of the L.G.B.T.Q. community there said they were worried the findings could give ammunition to people who seek to use science to bolster biases and discrimination against gay people.


One concern is that evidence that genes influence same-sex behavior could cause anti-gay activists to call for gene editing or embryo selection, even if that would be technically impossible. Another fear is that evidence that genes play only a partial role could embolden people who insist being gay is a choice and who advocate tactics like conversion therapy.

“I deeply disagree about publishing this,” said Steven Reilly, a geneticist and postdoctoral researcher who is on the steering committee of the institute’s L.G.B.T.Q. affinity group, Out@Broad. “It seems like something that could easily be misconstrued,” he said, adding, “In a world without any discrimination, understanding human behavior is a noble goal, but we don’t live in that world.”


Discussions between Dr. Neale’s team and colleagues who questioned the research continued for months. Dr. Neale said the team, which included psychologists and sociologists, used suggestions from those colleagues and outside L.G.B.T.Q. groups to clarify wording and highlight caveats.

“I definitely heard from people who were kind of ‘why do this at all,’ and so there was some resistance there,” said Dr. Neale, who is gay. “Personally, I’m still concerned that it’s going to be deliberately misused to advance agendas of hate, but I do believe that the sort of proactive way we’ve approached this and a lot of the community engagement aspects that we’ve tried were important.”

The moment the study was published online Thursday afternoon, the Broad Institute took the unusual step of posting essays by Dr. Reilly and others who raised questions about the ethics, science and social implications of the project.

“As a queer person and a geneticist, I struggle to understand the motivations behind a genome-wide association study for non-heterosexual behavior,” wrote Joe Vitti, a postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute, in one essay. “I have yet to see a compelling argument that the potential benefits of this study outweigh its potential harms.”

In a way, the range of opinions by scientists who also identify as L.G.B.T.Q. underscores a central finding of the study: Sexuality is complicated.

The study analyzed the genetic data of 408,000 men and women from a large British database, the U.K. Biobank, who answered extensive health and behavior questions between 2006 and 2010, when they were between the ages of 40 and 69. The researchers also used data from nearly 70,000 customers of the genetic testing service 23andMe, who were 51 years old on average, mostly American, and had answered survey questions about sexual orientation. All were of white European descent, one of several factors that the authors note limit their study’s generalizability. Trans people were not included.

The researchers mainly focused on answers to one question: whether someone ever had sex with a same-sex partner, even once.

A much higher proportion of the 23andMe sample — about 19 percent compared to about 3 percent of the Biobank sample — reported a same-sex sexual experience, a difference possibly related to cultural factors or because the specific 23andMe sexual orientation survey might attract more L.G.B.T.Q. participants.

Despite its limitations, the research was much larger and more varied than previous studies, which generally focused on gay men, often those who were twins or were otherwise related.

“Just the fact that they look at women is hooray,” said Melinda Mills, a professor of sociology at the University of Oxford, who wrote a commentary that Science published alongside the study.There might be thousands of genes influencing same-sex sexual behavior, each playing a small role, scientists believe. The new study found that all genetic effects likely account for about 32 percent of whether someone will have same-sex sex.

Using a big-data technique called genome-wide association, the researchers estimated that common genetic variants — single-letter differences in DNA sequences — account for between 8 percent and 25 percent of same-sex sexual behavior. The rest of the 32 percent might involve genetic effects they could not measure, they said.

Researchers specifically identified five genetic variants present in people’s full genomes that appear to be involved. Those five comprise less than 1 percent of the genetic influences, they said.

And when the scientists tried to use genetic markers to predict how people in unrelated data sets reported their sexual behavior, it turned out to be too little genetic information to allow such prediction.

“Because we expect the sum of the effects that we observe will vary as a function of society and over time, it will be basically impossible to predict one’s sexual activity or orientation just from genetics,” said Andrea Ganna, the study’s first author, whose affiliations include the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Finland.

While many genetic variants tend to have the same effect in both men and women, Dr. Mills said, two of the five variants the team found were discovered only in males and one was discovered only in females. One of the male variants might be related to sense of smell, which is involved in sexual attraction, the researchers report. The other male variant is associated with male pattern balding and sits near genes involved in male sex determination.

29GENES2b-superJumbo.jpg



Steven Reilly, a geneticist on the steering committee of the Broad Institute’s L.G.B.T.Q. affinity group, objected to the publication of the study. “It seems like something that could easily be misconstrued.”CreditKayana Szymczak for The New York Times
In a finding that could be especially sensitive, the researchers found that whether someone ever engaged in same-sex sexual behavior showed genetic correlations with mental health issues, like major depressive disorder or schizophrenia, and with traits like risk-taking, cannabis use, openness to experience and loneliness.

They emphasized that the study does not suggest that same-sex sexual behavior causes or is caused by these conditions or characteristics, and that depression or bipolar disorder could be fueled by prejudicial social experiences.

“We are particularly worried that people will misrepresent our findings about mental health,” Dr. Neale said.

“That right there is the big issue with looking for the genetics of sexual orientation — social context could be a big part of the expression of the trait,” said Jeremy Yoder, an assistant professor of biology at California State University, Northridge, who is gay and follows genetic research in the field.

Dr. Neale said younger study participants were much more likely than older ones to report same-sex sexual experiences, possibly reflecting increased social acceptance. He and others noted that older participants came of age when homosexual behavior was criminalized in Britain and that for much of their life homosexuality was classified as a psychiatric disorder.

Dr. Reilly and others said such stark differences between older and younger participants show the trickiness of trying to draw representative biological information from a study population so strongly influenced by society’s changing attitudes. People steeped in a culture that demonized same-sex intimacy might only have the gumption to reveal it in a study if they were risk-takers to begin with.

Later, the researchers compared the genetic underpinnings of whether people ever had same-sex sex with their answers to what proportion of same-sex partners they had. They found there was little genetic correlation between answers to the “ever-never” question and whether someone ended up having a bisexual mix of partners, said Dr. Neale, who sees those results as a genetic reflection of the variety of sexual orientations within the expanding alphabet of the L.G.B.T.Q. community.

The researchers also looked at answers to other questions in the 23andMe survey, including people’s sexual identity and what gender they fantasized about. There, they found considerable genetic overlap between those results and whether people ever engaged in same-sex sex, suggesting that these aspects of sexual orientation share common genetics, they said.

Dean Hamer, a former National Institutes of Health scientist who led the first high-profile study identifying a genetic link to being gay in 1993, said he was happy to see such a large research effort.

“Having said that, I’d like to emphasize that it’s not a gay gene study — it’s a study of what makes people have a single same-sex experience or more,” said Dr. Hamer, now an author and filmmaker. The gene he identified was on the X chromosome, one of the sex chromosomes, a location the new study did not flag as being significant for same-sex sexual behavior.

“Of course they didn’t find a gay gene — they weren’t looking for one,” Dr. Hamer said.

Experts widely agree that the research was conducted by first-rate scientists.

“I kind of held my breath when I first saw the study — I thought, oh no,” said Dr. Mills of Oxford. “But it’s the top geneticists and some of the top social scientists in the field working on this, so if somebody was going to do it, I’m glad they did it.”

Indeed, Dr. Neale, who also consults for several pharmaceutical companies, said one reason his team did the study was to ensure less careful researchers would not tackle it first, “given how sensitive and hot-button this topic really is and how personal it is.”

Robbee Wedow, a member of the research team who also belongs to Out@Broad, served as a kind of bridge, organizing meetings between the researchers and their Broad Institute critics.

“I grew up in a highly religious evangelical family,” said Dr. Wedow, a research fellow with the Broad Institute and Harvard’s sociology department. “Being confused about not being attracted to women and being attracted to men, being convinced it was a sin and that I would go to hell.”

For a long time, “I definitely tried to pray it away, tried to like girls, tried to have girlfriends,” he said. “This wasn’t something I, of all people, would have chosen. There must be some sort of biological background.”

He concluded: “Saying ‘sorry, you can’t study this’ reinforces it as something that should be stigmatized.”

Outside L.G.B.T.Q. groups that were consulted did not seem as strongly concerned as some of the Out@Broad members, he said. Zeke Stokes, chief programs officer at GLAAD, who was shown the findings several months ago, said, “Anyone who’s L.G.B.T.Q. knows that their identity is complicated and to have science sort of bear that out is a positive thing.”

Over all, Dr. Neale said he believes the study shows that “diversity is a natural part of our experience and it’s a natural part of what we see in the genetics. I find that to actually just be beautiful.”
 
I find this study fascinating and of course related to the whole theme of "Broke Straight Boys" and who is gay and who is not. The article and the study say that there is no one factor that makes a person gay, but genetics has a lot to do with our sexuality.

One paragraph from the article that I find especially interesting in regard to our discussions here is as follow.

"Dr. Neale said younger study participants were much more likely than older ones to report same-sex sexual experiences, possibly reflecting increased social acceptance. He and others noted that older participants came of age when homosexual behavior was criminalized in Britain and that for much of their life homosexuality was classified as a psychiatric disorder.

Dr. Reilly and others said such stark differences between older and younger participants show the trickiness of trying to draw representative biological information from a study population so strongly influenced by society’s changing attitudes. People steeped in a culture that demonized same-sex intimacy might only have the gumption to reveal it in a study if they were risk-takers to begin with.

Later, the researchers compared the genetic underpinnings of whether people ever had same-sex sex with their answers to what proportion of same-sex partners they had. They found there was little genetic correlation between answers to the “ever-never” question and whether someone ended up having a bisexual mix of partners, said Dr. Neale, who sees those results as a genetic reflection of the variety of sexual orientations within the expanding alphabet of the L.G.B.T.Q. community."

I think that this research is all very interesting in explaining why more young men today are willing to explore their gay side than in previous generations. Sexual identity is in my opinion what the whole concept of Broke Straight Boys is based on. If all people were totally fluid in their sexuality this site would never have been relevant.
 
Last edited:
I find this study fascinating and of course related to the whole theme of "Broke Straight Boys" and who is gay and who is not. The article and the study say that there is no one factor that makes a person gay, but genetics has a lot to do with our sexuality.

One paragraph from the article that I find especially interesting in regard to our discussions here is as follow.

"Dr. Neale said younger study participants were much more likely than older ones to report same-sex sexual experiences, possibly reflecting increased social acceptance. He and others noted that older participants came of age when homosexual behavior was criminalized in Britain and that for much of their life homosexuality was classified as a psychiatric disorder.

Dr. Reilly and others said such stark differences between older and younger participants show the trickiness of trying to draw representative biological information from a study population so strongly influenced by society’s changing attitudes. People steeped in a culture that demonized same-sex intimacy might only have the gumption to reveal it in a study if they were risk-takers to begin with.

Later, the researchers compared the genetic underpinnings of whether people ever had same-sex sex with their answers to what proportion of same-sex partners they had. They found there was little genetic correlation between answers to the “ever-never” question and whether someone ended up having a bisexual mix of partners, said Dr. Neale, who sees those results as a genetic reflection of the variety of sexual orientations within the expanding alphabet of the L.G.B.T.Q. community."

I think that this research is all very interesting in explaining why more young men today are willing to explore their gay side than in previous generations. Sexual identity is in my opinion what the whole concept of Broke Straight Boys is based on. If all people were totally fluid in their sexuality this site would never have been relevant.
Well I figured we’d get a throwback scene from 10 years ago to demonstrate to all of us “dumbasses” what a true Broke Straight Boys is and what this site used to be. Instead we get an article that has absolutely nothing to do with why a person chooses to do G4P porn. All I did in the last thread was point out that sometimes your words can be just as rude when you place labels on people. But you refuse to take criticism and instead hijack the forum to get your point across with this ridiculous article. I’m not going to bother going on any further with you, because I will always lose in the end. Why? Because all of your friends that you have developed here over the past decade will run to your defense, EVERY FUCKING TIME. You are MAYOR MIKE, the mayor of the Broke Straight Boys forum. Every opinion is welcomed, but god damnit, Mikey is the last word. So have the last word...congratulations. You win.
I try to take up for people and in the end you’re the one who gets an apology.
Everyone has their breaking point and this was mine. I am officially done with this forum. I can’t take another lesson from you on what Broke Straight Boys 1 was and why you originally joined the site and what you consider a “true straight boy”. I didn’t join Broke Straight Boys 1. There’s nothing wrong with you expressing that opinion once or even twice, but we get it from you several times a week, and it’s exhausting.
Please don’t try to explain or comment anything back to me, I’m really not interested in anything further at this point. Besides, all of your friends will run to your defense and slaughter me with their comments, and i’ll be the bad guy in the end.
 
Well I figured we’d get a throwback scene from 10 years ago to demonstrate to all of us “dumbasses” what a true Broke Straight Boys is and what this site used to be. Instead we get an article that has absolutely nothing to do with why a person chooses to do G4P porn. All I did in the last thread was point out that sometimes your words can be just as rude when you place labels on people. But you refuse to take criticism and instead hijack the forum to get your point across with this ridiculous article. I’m not going to bother going on any further with you, because I will always lose in the end. Why? Because all of your friends that you have developed here over the past decade will run to your defense, EVERY FUCKING TIME. You are MAYOR MIKE, the mayor of the Broke Straight Boys forum. Every opinion is welcomed, but god damnit, Mikey is the last word. So have the last word...congratulations. You win.
I try to take up for people and in the end you’re the one who gets an apology.
Everyone has their breaking point and this was mine. I am officially done with this forum. I can’t take another lesson from you on what Broke Straight Boys 1 was and why you originally joined the site and what you consider a “true straight boy”. I didn’t join Broke Straight Boys 1. There’s nothing wrong with you expressing that opinion once or even twice, but we get it from you several times a week, and it’s exhausting.
Please don’t try to explain or comment anything back to me, I’m really not interested in anything further at this point. Besides, all of your friends will run to your defense and slaughter me with their comments, and i’ll be the bad guy in the end.

Amen

No one could have said it better.

The self appointed Mayor. You say anything and he and his friends will make 20 posts over your point. God its tiring.

Johnny was the same way, but at least he doesn't post anymore.
 
I hate to see you leave the forum, Jay. I've always enjoyed your viewpoint on scenes and insight on the models through social media. If you take a break for awhile I understand but I hope you don't make it permanent.
 
Um, I'm scratching my head on this one because this is the biggest "nothing burger" of an article. I mean, c'mon ... of course, many genes, not just one, impact human sexuality. And yes, we are born this way. And of course, cultural norms change, allowing younger generations more freedoms, resulting in wider acceptance ... and blah, blah, blah. Nothin' to see here folks, keep it movin!
 
Amen

No one could have said it better.

The self appointed Mayor. You say anything and he and his friends will make 20 posts over your point. God its tiring.

Johnny was the same way, but at least he doesn't post anymore.

Studddandy, speaking I’ll of Johnny, who you know passed away is pretty low and uncalled for. I realize it’s a back handed way of striking out at Mikeyank but that’s no excuse. I spoke to Johnny the day he died. We were very close and he was a good friend to many members on this forum and I don’t know of a sweeter more gentle guy. I don’t usually make comments about your rude and tasteless musings about the models but I’m not going to let this tasteless assault on a dead forumite go without a response.
 
From today's New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/science/gay-gene-sex.html

Many Genes Influence Same-Sex Sexuality, Not a Single ‘Gay Gene’

The largest study of same-sex sexual behavior finds the genetics are complicated, and social and environmental factors are also key.

By Pam Belluck
Published Aug. 29, 2019
Updated Aug. 30, 2019, 2:11 a.m. ET


How do genes influence our sexuality? The question has long been fraught with controversy.

An ambitious new study — the largest ever to analyze the genetics of same-sex sexual behavior — found that genetics does play a role, responsible for perhaps a third of the influence on whether someone has same-sex sex. The influence comes not from one gene but many, each with a tiny effect — and the rest of the explanation includes social or environmental factors — making it impossible to use genes to predict someone’s sexuality.

“I hope that the science can be used to educate people a little bit more about how natural and normal same-sex behavior is,” said Benjamin Neale, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard and one of the lead researchers on the international team. “It’s written into our genes and it’s part of our environment. This is part of our species and it’s part of who we are.”

The study of nearly half a million people, funded by the National Institutes of Health and other agencies, found differences in the genetic details of same-sex behavior in men and women. The research also suggests the genetics of same-sex sexual behavior shares some correlation with genes involved in some mental health issues and personality traits — although the authors said that overlap could simply reflect the stress of enduring societal prejudice.

Even before its publication Thursday in the journal Science, the study has generated debate and concern, including within the renowned Broad Institute itself. Several scientists who are part of the L.G.B.T.Q. community there said they were worried the findings could give ammunition to people who seek to use science to bolster biases and discrimination against gay people.


One concern is that evidence that genes influence same-sex behavior could cause anti-gay activists to call for gene editing or embryo selection, even if that would be technically impossible. Another fear is that evidence that genes play only a partial role could embolden people who insist being gay is a choice and who advocate tactics like conversion therapy.

“I deeply disagree about publishing this,” said Steven Reilly, a geneticist and postdoctoral researcher who is on the steering committee of the institute’s L.G.B.T.Q. affinity group, Out@Broad. “It seems like something that could easily be misconstrued,” he said, adding, “In a world without any discrimination, understanding human behavior is a noble goal, but we don’t live in that world.”


Discussions between Dr. Neale’s team and colleagues who questioned the research continued for months. Dr. Neale said the team, which included psychologists and sociologists, used suggestions from those colleagues and outside L.G.B.T.Q. groups to clarify wording and highlight caveats.

“I definitely heard from people who were kind of ‘why do this at all,’ and so there was some resistance there,” said Dr. Neale, who is gay. “Personally, I’m still concerned that it’s going to be deliberately misused to advance agendas of hate, but I do believe that the sort of proactive way we’ve approached this and a lot of the community engagement aspects that we’ve tried were important.”

The moment the study was published online Thursday afternoon, the Broad Institute took the unusual step of posting essays by Dr. Reilly and others who raised questions about the ethics, science and social implications of the project.

“As a queer person and a geneticist, I struggle to understand the motivations behind a genome-wide association study for non-heterosexual behavior,” wrote Joe Vitti, a postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute, in one essay. “I have yet to see a compelling argument that the potential benefits of this study outweigh its potential harms.”

In a way, the range of opinions by scientists who also identify as L.G.B.T.Q. underscores a central finding of the study: Sexuality is complicated.

The study analyzed the genetic data of 408,000 men and women from a large British database, the U.K. Biobank, who answered extensive health and behavior questions between 2006 and 2010, when they were between the ages of 40 and 69. The researchers also used data from nearly 70,000 customers of the genetic testing service 23andMe, who were 51 years old on average, mostly American, and had answered survey questions about sexual orientation. All were of white European descent, one of several factors that the authors note limit their study’s generalizability. Trans people were not included.

The researchers mainly focused on answers to one question: whether someone ever had sex with a same-sex partner, even once.

A much higher proportion of the 23andMe sample — about 19 percent compared to about 3 percent of the Biobank sample — reported a same-sex sexual experience, a difference possibly related to cultural factors or because the specific 23andMe sexual orientation survey might attract more L.G.B.T.Q. participants.

Despite its limitations, the research was much larger and more varied than previous studies, which generally focused on gay men, often those who were twins or were otherwise related.

“Just the fact that they look at women is hooray,” said Melinda Mills, a professor of sociology at the University of Oxford, who wrote a commentary that Science published alongside the study.There might be thousands of genes influencing same-sex sexual behavior, each playing a small role, scientists believe. The new study found that all genetic effects likely account for about 32 percent of whether someone will have same-sex sex.

Using a big-data technique called genome-wide association, the researchers estimated that common genetic variants — single-letter differences in DNA sequences — account for between 8 percent and 25 percent of same-sex sexual behavior. The rest of the 32 percent might involve genetic effects they could not measure, they said.

Researchers specifically identified five genetic variants present in people’s full genomes that appear to be involved. Those five comprise less than 1 percent of the genetic influences, they said.

And when the scientists tried to use genetic markers to predict how people in unrelated data sets reported their sexual behavior, it turned out to be too little genetic information to allow such prediction.

“Because we expect the sum of the effects that we observe will vary as a function of society and over time, it will be basically impossible to predict one’s sexual activity or orientation just from genetics,” said Andrea Ganna, the study’s first author, whose affiliations include the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Finland.

While many genetic variants tend to have the same effect in both men and women, Dr. Mills said, two of the five variants the team found were discovered only in males and one was discovered only in females. One of the male variants might be related to sense of smell, which is involved in sexual attraction, the researchers report. The other male variant is associated with male pattern balding and sits near genes involved in male sex determination.

29GENES2b-superJumbo.jpg



Steven Reilly, a geneticist on the steering committee of the Broad Institute’s L.G.B.T.Q. affinity group, objected to the publication of the study. “It seems like something that could easily be misconstrued.”CreditKayana Szymczak for The New York Times
In a finding that could be especially sensitive, the researchers found that whether someone ever engaged in same-sex sexual behavior showed genetic correlations with mental health issues, like major depressive disorder or schizophrenia, and with traits like risk-taking, cannabis use, openness to experience and loneliness.

They emphasized that the study does not suggest that same-sex sexual behavior causes or is caused by these conditions or characteristics, and that depression or bipolar disorder could be fueled by prejudicial social experiences.

“We are particularly worried that people will misrepresent our findings about mental health,” Dr. Neale said.

“That right there is the big issue with looking for the genetics of sexual orientation — social context could be a big part of the expression of the trait,” said Jeremy Yoder, an assistant professor of biology at California State University, Northridge, who is gay and follows genetic research in the field.

Dr. Neale said younger study participants were much more likely than older ones to report same-sex sexual experiences, possibly reflecting increased social acceptance. He and others noted that older participants came of age when homosexual behavior was criminalized in Britain and that for much of their life homosexuality was classified as a psychiatric disorder.

Dr. Reilly and others said such stark differences between older and younger participants show the trickiness of trying to draw representative biological information from a study population so strongly influenced by society’s changing attitudes. People steeped in a culture that demonized same-sex intimacy might only have the gumption to reveal it in a study if they were risk-takers to begin with.

Later, the researchers compared the genetic underpinnings of whether people ever had same-sex sex with their answers to what proportion of same-sex partners they had. They found there was little genetic correlation between answers to the “ever-never” question and whether someone ended up having a bisexual mix of partners, said Dr. Neale, who sees those results as a genetic reflection of the variety of sexual orientations within the expanding alphabet of the L.G.B.T.Q. community.

The researchers also looked at answers to other questions in the 23andMe survey, including people’s sexual identity and what gender they fantasized about. There, they found considerable genetic overlap between those results and whether people ever engaged in same-sex sex, suggesting that these aspects of sexual orientation share common genetics, they said.

Dean Hamer, a former National Institutes of Health scientist who led the first high-profile study identifying a genetic link to being gay in 1993, said he was happy to see such a large research effort.

“Having said that, I’d like to emphasize that it’s not a gay gene study — it’s a study of what makes people have a single same-sex experience or more,” said Dr. Hamer, now an author and filmmaker. The gene he identified was on the X chromosome, one of the sex chromosomes, a location the new study did not flag as being significant for same-sex sexual behavior.

“Of course they didn’t find a gay gene — they weren’t looking for one,” Dr. Hamer said.

Experts widely agree that the research was conducted by first-rate scientists.

“I kind of held my breath when I first saw the study — I thought, oh no,” said Dr. Mills of Oxford. “But it’s the top geneticists and some of the top social scientists in the field working on this, so if somebody was going to do it, I’m glad they did it.”

Indeed, Dr. Neale, who also consults for several pharmaceutical companies, said one reason his team did the study was to ensure less careful researchers would not tackle it first, “given how sensitive and hot-button this topic really is and how personal it is.”

Robbee Wedow, a member of the research team who also belongs to Out@Broad, served as a kind of bridge, organizing meetings between the researchers and their Broad Institute critics.

“I grew up in a highly religious evangelical family,” said Dr. Wedow, a research fellow with the Broad Institute and Harvard’s sociology department. “Being confused about not being attracted to women and being attracted to men, being convinced it was a sin and that I would go to hell.”

For a long time, “I definitely tried to pray it away, tried to like girls, tried to have girlfriends,” he said. “This wasn’t something I, of all people, would have chosen. There must be some sort of biological background.”

He concluded: “Saying ‘sorry, you can’t study this’ reinforces it as something that should be stigmatized.”

Outside L.G.B.T.Q. groups that were consulted did not seem as strongly concerned as some of the Out@Broad members, he said. Zeke Stokes, chief programs officer at GLAAD, who was shown the findings several months ago, said, “Anyone who’s L.G.B.T.Q. knows that their identity is complicated and to have science sort of bear that out is a positive thing.”

Over all, Dr. Neale said he believes the study shows that “diversity is a natural part of our experience and it’s a natural part of what we see in the genetics. I find that to actually just be beautiful.”

As a subscriber to NY Times daily delivery, I am frustrated that I did not receive my Times today. Perhaps tomorrow. One point you summarized from the article was sad but probably true is that to the extent genetic causation is found, anti-gay bigots will push for scientific research to prevent gays from being born, and, to the extent enviornmental causation is found, anti-gay bigots will push for mandatory gay conversion with electric shock if possible. An accepting society of tolerance and diversity is the only answer. Much progress has been made, but much more is needed.
 
I find this study fascinating and of course related to the whole theme of "Broke Straight Boys" and who is gay and who is not. The article and the study say that there is no one factor that makes a person gay, but genetics has a lot to do with our sexuality.

One paragraph from the article that I find especially interesting in regard to our discussions here is as follow.

"Dr. Neale said younger study participants were much more likely than older ones to report same-sex sexual experiences, possibly reflecting increased social acceptance. He and others noted that older participants came of age when homosexual behavior was criminalized in Britain and that for much of their life homosexuality was classified as a psychiatric disorder.

Dr. Reilly and others said such stark differences between older and younger participants show the trickiness of trying to draw representative biological information from a study population so strongly influenced by society’s changing attitudes. People steeped in a culture that demonized same-sex intimacy might only have the gumption to reveal it in a study if they were risk-takers to begin with.

Later, the researchers compared the genetic underpinnings of whether people ever had same-sex sex with their answers to what proportion of same-sex partners they had. They found there was little genetic correlation between answers to the “ever-never” question and whether someone ended up having a bisexual mix of partners, said Dr. Neale, who sees those results as a genetic reflection of the variety of sexual orientations within the expanding alphabet of the L.G.B.T.Q. community."

I think that this research is all very interesting in explaining why more young men today are willing to explore their gay side than in previous generations. Sexual identity is in my opinion what the whole concept of Broke Straight Boys is based on. If all people were totally fluid in their sexuality this site would never have been relevant.

I agree that the society one lives in impacts how you live your life. It is not surprising that older gays who grew up in a society where gay sex was criminalized had fewer same sex activity than younger gays growing up in a society were gay consensual sex was perfectly legal and much more socially accepted. For example, gay Englishman Alan Turner by cracking the Nazi codes arguably made possible the Allies winning World War II. But, because he was gay, he was denied all honors, arrested for gay sexual activity and driven to suicide. Only decades later long after his suicide was he given the honors he earned. Then there is the example of ancient Greece, where apparently it was socially acceptable and possibly encouraged for young men to have same sex activity in their teens and move on if they chose to hetero sex in their twenties and thereafter (young male wrestlers in the first Olympics wrestling in the nude with no female spectators allowed appears to be a good example). Freud's theory of male sexual development also has a homosexual stage for developing male teens. Perhaps a society with no preference between hetero and homo sexual activity would be majority bi sexual with minorities of heterosexuals and homosexuals on the sides. One can only speculate. Thanks for posting this thought provoking thread. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't, but I enjoy the mutually respectful dialogue and discussion.
 
I agree that the society one lives in impacts how you live your life. It is not surprising that older gays who grew up in a society where gay sex was criminalized had fewer same sex activity than younger gays growing up in a society were gay consensual sex was perfectly legal and much more socially accepted. For example, gay Englishman Alan Turner by cracking the Nazi codes arguably made possible the Allies winning World War II. But, because he was gay, he was denied all honors, arrested for gay sexual activity and driven to suicide. Only decades later long after his suicide was he given the honors he earned. Then there is the example of ancient Greece, where apparently it was socially acceptable and possibly encouraged for young men to have same sex activity in their teens and move on if they chose to hetero sex in their twenties and thereafter (young male wrestlers in the first Olympics wrestling in the nude with no female spectators allowed appears to be a good example). Freud's theory of male sexual development also has a homosexual stage for developing male teens. Perhaps a society with no preference between hetero and homo sexual activity would be majority bi sexual with minorities of heterosexuals and homosexuals on the sides. One can only speculate. Thanks for posting this thought provoking thread. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't, but I enjoy the mutually respectful dialogue and discussion.

This is exactly right. In the ancient world bisexuality or homosexuality was not something that was thought of as wrong in many cultures. There is a saying that Julius Caesar was every woman’s man and every mans woman. In Ancient Greece it was believed that true love could only exist between men. Women weren’t intellectually equal and their role was reserved for child bearing. There isn’t really hardly any prohibition in the Christian Bible about it. One of the theories is that homosexuality was so common that people didn’t really consider it wrong so it didn’t appear in all of those thou shalt nots. I also read a scholarly work by a Harvard professor on homosexuality in the early church and the Catholic Church actually married two men in the Middle Ages.

The whole celibacy thing in priest grew out of property rights. There became a problem with married priest who died loosing what was thought of as church property to the widows of the priest so they outlawed marriage in priest to keel the church property in the hands of the church. It had very little to do with the example of Christ who many people believe may have been Married to Mary Magdalen or in some theories he was involved with the apostle John who was said to Love him and who was often depicted as a more feminine man. We don’t really know and won’t ever know. But there are only a few tangential passages mostly attributed to Paul that are construed as prohibiting homosexuality. CHRIST was completely mute on the subject. Leading me to believe it was pretty accepted at that time. His ministry was to love not hate. A message largely forgotten by many Chritian’s today.
 
Thanks for posting this thought provoking thread. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't, but I enjoy the mutually respectful dialogue and discussion.
Thanks KG. I did find the article thought provoking as well, and relevant to the younger guys of today who come to work for this site. My belief is that there have always been the same percentages of people on earth since creation with the same degrees of propensity toward same sex relations. The difference is that today it is more acceptable to not only act on those desires but to be open about them.

And I equally agree with you that "mutually respectful dialogue and discussion" us what this forum should always be all about!
 
Top