'Gay gene' survives as female relatives have more children [Article]

ixoy

From today's Irish Independent:

FEMALE relatives of gay men have bigger families than average, says a contentious study into the biological basis of homosexuality.

However, the study also found that this was only the case when the women were related to the man through his mother.

The findings are important because they explain an apparent contradiction of the "gay gene" theory, which implies that if homosexuality is genetic then such genes would quickly die out as gay men tend to have fewer children than heterosexual men.

However, the problem is resolved if the same genetic factors that lead to a predisposition to homosexuality and a corresponding lower fecundity in men, cause a higher fecundity in the gay man's female relatives.

It means that the genetic factors that predispose boys to becoming homosexual will never die out from a population because their sisters, mothers and maternal aunts will continue to spread the genes by having more than the average number of children.

The findings have emerged from a study of the extended families of 98 homosexual men and 100 heterosexual men to see if there are any significant differences in fertility that could be linked with have a gay family member.

Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padova in Italy and his colleagues said that by analysing family histories and the number of children in each family it was possible to study the so-called "Darwinian paradox" of homosexuality.

"The paradox is this. If male homosexuality has a genetic component, and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population?" Dr Camperio-Ciani said.

"Our data resolves this paradox by showing that there might be hitherto unsuspected reproductive advantages associated with male homosexuality".

The study does not assume that homosexual men never have children, only that they are on average less likely to have as many children as heterosexual men.

Dr Camperio-Ciani said any suggestion that male homosexuality could have a genetic component has to deal with the Darwinian paradox and this is what the study has done.

Interesting fuel for the whole nature vs nurture debate, particularly when the whole genetic argument is often centred around the "evolution" theory. One thing I'd have liked to have seen is more concrete figures - the average number of children for homo- and hetrosexual men, for example and the average number for their female relatives. Also take into account how the kids were conceived (e.g. was it IVF for the gay men, etc).

dictatorcat

Similar article on BBC news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm

The research really isn't all that conclusive and the authors suggest that culture and society account for 80% of us. I suppose if you count your cousins on your mothers side you can decide for yourself!

Capt'n Midnight

The sample size was quite small so the result is not definitive yet.

If true it would not be the first gene which lowers the chances of males reproducing to be passed on the female line. Haemophelia does not improve your life expectancy - far from it, but some types are passed on by female "carriers" to thier offspring.

A little historical research in to family size before widely available contraception might show if such a link existed in the past.

As a radio caller pointed out, if there is a genetic component to someones sexuality then the church would have to take it into consideration. At least ciatogs aren't forced to change anymore.

the_syco

as gay men tend to have fewer children than heterosexual men.

I'm sorry if I seem rude, but I laughed at this, as to me, gay man = man who doesn't go with woman. True, you can have artificail insertimation [spelling?], but still, it made me laugh. Of course they'll have less children, I thought; they're gay. They make love with men, not women.

So you can say its a gene carried by the females. Well, duh! If there's a gene that makes a man like other men. I don't is there such a gene, but some nuts like to think there is, so that they can find a way to get rid of you; if there's no gene, and its totally random, they can't get rid of you. Anyhoo's, as I was saying, the gene that makes man like man, and be less emotionally repressed, it would proberly be from a woman, who likes men, and is less emotionally repressed. Oh. A final thing. Men are coming less emotionally repressed, so soon the only thing that will be different will be who we f*ck, as men who act "macho" will die out (less women seem to like this), and more "girly".*

*most of this is proberly untrue, but it makes sense, in a weird sort of way to me

MarcusGarvey

I tried to be nice and civil when replying to this but you really have pushed all my attack buttons. I'm sure others here can reply in a more civil manner. I won't though. Bring on the karma !

the_syco wrote:

I'm sorry if I seem rude, but I laughed at this,

I wouldn't say rude, I think it'd be better put by saying you are an ignorant son of a bitch.

as to me, gay man = man who doesn't go with woman. True, you can have artificail insertimation [spelling?], but still, it made me laugh. Of course they'll have less children, I thought; they're gay. They make love with men, not women.

Ignorance being bliss you must smile and giggle a lot like the halfwit you keep on appearing to be. You come to this forum and just spam it. Do us a fcking favour yeah ? Think before you post. Actually just think in between breathing in and out. Save your breath too if you want to be my friend. People who claim to be all hip and cool with "the gays" or claim to be open minded about life does not entitle them to then post without any kind of higher thinking about LGB issues. Go post drivel in After Hours.

I have a few gay friends who have kids. A guy I know came out when he was in his late 30s. He has 3 kids. There are plenty of examples dotted through history where gay men have had kids. One of Ireland's most famous literary greats (Oscar Wilde) had kids for example. Being gay does not mean you are not allowed to procreate. There's lots of people who have families who have kids, there are plenty of married men with wives who are gay. They're probably in that situation in part to the smallmindedness of society which is promoted by the stupidity of people like you.

Sexuality isn't black and white. There are no absolutes, the ruleset for life in general is not strictly defined, why should sexuality be ?

Anyhoo's, as I was saying, the gene that makes man like man, and be less emotionally repressed, it would proberly be from a woman, who likes men, and is less emotionally repressed.

Holy ****, tell us about how evolution be broke too there cletus. Because a man likes a man doesn't make him less emotionally repressed for gods sake. They do not go hand in hand.

Oh. A final thing. Men are coming less emotionally repressed

Using your own logic from the previous sentence, you must believe that they have that gay gene as gay men are the less emotionally repressed of the males.

but it makes sense, in a weird sort of way to me

I honestly worry for the genetic purity of civilisation.