Originally posted by TrashMan
I recall reading about some experiments preformed on mice. The researches damadged a gene on purpose (don't recall what that gene name was) in one group and they left the other group alone.
The mice with the damaged gene started avoiding the opposite sex and constatnly spent time with their own.. and exibited other..behaviour.
It appears that we humans have the same gene as do all (or most) mammals.
However, this research is still in early stages so we have to wait for the final results.
Be it as it may, it does provide a very logical explanation to homosexual behaviour...
Fistrly gay people normally say that it's not their choce but that they were born that way and tehy can't help it but being as they are.
Second, it allso explains why it isn't an inherant feature.
I'm not sure that's correct, because there is already a myriad of evidence indicating that sexual orientation is not dependent upon genetics. For example, the earlier study by Hamer citing X28 as a 'gay' gene has been examined in 3 further studies. 2 shown a much weaker correlation, the 3rd none atall. One studied twins - genetically identical - and found a 52% rate at which both were gay. Fraternal brothers (i.e. not genetically identical) had a 22% rate where both were gay. Whilst there is a significant gap between 52 and 22%, it's not large enough to indicate genetics are solely responsible.
I think there was also a severe statistical flaw in the original experiment in that Hamers experiment lacked a heterosexual control group (the subjects were 40 gay brothers - all male - some twins and some not); also that experiment had 7 pairs of the brothers not coinheriting the x28 gene (which at the very least indicates it would not be the sole genetic reason).
AFAIK the current general 'conclusion' (i.e. all that is known) is that a combination of genetic factors can influence the development of sexual identity and orientation, but that the effect of environment is cannot be ruled out as a significant factor in the latter.
Can you actually elaborate on said experiment with the mice (particularly what 'other behaviour' means? All I've found so far is an experiment to try and 'breed' behaviour into a set of 8 groups of mice, divided between environments. In that experiment, it was found that behaviour was determined by environment above genetics, so obviously isn't what you mean. Other risk is in interpreting results; whether or not the behavioural result of a genetic change is actual homosexuality is a matter of interpretation and guesswork.
Of course, the existence of a gay gene doesn't make it a defect or illness any more than having, say, genes for ginger hair does. Implying having different genes makes one sick or diseased is obviously complete rubbish, as we all have some degree of variance in genetics.
In fact, I'd argue that whether or not homosexuality has a genetic basis is irrelevant (my personal hope is that there is not a genetic basis simply because you'd have some warped nutters preaching eugenics). Classification as it as a defect or illness, however, is wrong regardless.
