does any have solid scientific proof of a human gay gene?

Question

i have searched and searched. i remeber when i was in high school they were just starting to look for one. i've found articles on animals and insects having a gay gene, but nothing with solid proof of a human gay gene.

am i not looking in the right places or doing the right searches? i would love to have a reference for solid proof for people who use similar questions as a form of gay bashing, but as of yet the best i can find is fruit flies.

and i want it to be indisputable, so something in a scientific journal or the likes. no conservatist, religious, or gay publications unless the cite a reputable scientific sorce. i'm not trying to be nasty, i'm trying to make it indusputable.

it does make sense that it would be a gene - just like the P53 gene and it's correlation to cancer. those of you who disagree that there is a gene - give me solid scientific proof that there isn't, same stipulations on the source.

so are we saying there is no solid proof either way? i too am looking at the CBS site (that has 60 mins and can't find anything concrete either way)

fruit fly link : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/origin/flies.html

but if you think about it, they are saying it is a leap from fruit flies to humans, but it is giving evidence of a gene.

sorry, wrong page! dumb me!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html

Answer 1

The argument that a gay gene cannot exist because the gene would die out since gays do not reproduce is flawed. Many genetic "disorders" are passed along parallel lines, not directly. (I am *not* saying being gay is a disorder, merely using the term for illustrative purpose.)

I read about the same study that Zara did; it was in Time magazine as part of a lengthy article about sibling relationships. They looked at gay men, and found that the more older male *biological* siblings a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. This occurs whether or not he is raised with those older male siblings, and whether or not he is raised with non-biological siblings of either sex. The researchers theorize that the mother's uterine environment becomes more hostile to each subsequent male fetus. Invertebrate fetuses start out female anyway; it is more difficult to grow a male baby. (Some psychologists believe this to be the reason that boys have slightly higher incidences of certain birth defects and learning disabilities as well -- their construction process, if you will, is more complicated, therefor there are more opportunities for the genetic blueprint to be compromised.)

You could look in the Time archives. I had a copy of the article here that my spouse brought home from work, but after much searching I cannot find it for you.

I would advise you to contact the genetics department at large university to get the most up to date information.

Answer 2

I've recently taken and am taking several biology and genetics related and anthropology college courses. According to the professors I've had for all of them, there is no concrete evidence for (or against) a gay gene at the moment.

However, when it was brought up in my genetics class, the professor mentioned that they were also looking into another cause--the environment during incubation (the womb). He said that there was a theory that a change in hormone levels in the womb from what is normal for girls and boys respectively might be the/a cause, and that the genes of the mother or the child could be causing, for boys, a higher level of estrogen either in the womb, or in the child's brain as it is forming and growing, or for girls, a higher level of testosterone.

I don't think there's solid proof for this either, and I've only heard brief mentions of it the few times I have seen/heard about it other than what our professor told us, so I have no idea how accurate this is--just something to think about, I suppose. (I'd love to know where you found information on insect/animal gay genes though. I've never heard of that before.)

Answer 3

the scientist have been looking at many different aspects that it could be
they are going though the genetics
and that has been poven wrong
they have discovered some thing that is to do with a mother and the mother rejecting the Y cromosones and this has not been ruled but but has been disproved
this same study said the more sons a mother had the more chancing the younger one will be gay

the other is the envioment the child grows up in this has been proven wrong as well

this was all on a sixty minutes show here in Australia that was from the American sixty minutes i don't know how to get the article
but you might be able to find it good luck

Answer 4

It wouldn't make scientific sense for a "gay gene" to exist since if that was what causes homosexuality it would be dependent on reproduction to continue on the gay race. They would become extinct because they don't naturally reproduce. Therefore, it is nonsense to suggest that there is a so-called "gay gene".

Answer 5

try to get a article that sixty minutes had on a bout sex weeks ago
it had several theory's
but none could be proved or disproved
at every study had evidence to prove it and evidence to disprove it
sothere is no solid prove yet but they are working on it

Answer 6

no proof that i know of yet...

as far as Glad2BeCatholic's comment, homosexuals and bisexuals can and do reproduce so your theory does not hold water.

Answer 7

Homosexuality is a choice, not a gene...