Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

SerendipUpdate's picture
Biology 103
Web Reports 1997
From Serendip

THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Dara Newman
In trying to decide on a topic for this WWW project, it seemed logical to try and focus on a current subject. Homosexuality and homosexual behavior has existed for thousands and thousands of years, probably even before the times of homo-sapiens. However, up until a few years ago, the issue was discussed mostly by people in the social sciences. Psychologists, such as Freud, studied homosexuals extensively in hopes of coming up with an explanation for their "abnormal" behavior. All of the explanations that these people created linked homosexuality to experiences that homosexuals have while growing up. Generally speaking, people in the world of psychology believed that homosexuality could be explained by a person's environment. However, in the past four or five years, the subject of homosexuality has been creeping into the world of biology. Studies have been done recently that attempt to look at homosexuality in a scientific light in hopes of coming up with a genetic explanation for sexual preference.

One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did (5).

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified (7). Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful (7). The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth. Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality (8). As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.

Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a Ò52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men (8). These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and PillardÕs by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a personÕs sexual orientation (8).

Looking at the results of many of the other studies I have discussed, it seems a little strange to me that the student of homosexual siblings who were both male and female came up with similar result as the studies that looked exclusively at male homosexuality. Hamer's study, along with others, have tried to located a gene that influences female homosexuality, but they have been unsuccessful. More importantly, the region of the X chromosome that very possibly could influence male homosexuality does not influence females in the same way. Female heterosexuals merely pass the gene sequence on to their sons. Knowing this, it seems odd to me that there would be such a high percentage of male and female homosexual siblings. Perhaps this suggests that if genetics are responsible for homosexuality, we have a long way to go before we completely understand the gene loci that determine sexuality.

Aside from the scientists who are researching the topic of homosexuality and genetics, there are many other people who have concerns and vested interests in the topic. The information that is being discovered has been used by people in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, there are members of the gay community who are very excited to find that the life-style they live is not entirely a choice that they made, as homophobic people often like to believe. Some homosexuals feel that if the world realizes that homosexuality is something people are born with, just like the color of your skin or your eyes, then people will begin to be more accepting of the homosexual life-style (5). However, on the other hand, there is also a group a people who believe that if homosexuality is in fact genetically linked, then there should be a way to genetically alter homosexuals in order to make them "normal" (3).

Before I started researching this topic on the world-wide-web, I did not realize what a new and controversial issue the genetics of homosexuality was. From tid-bits of news that I had picked up along the way, I thought that scientists had located, without a doubt, a gene that plays a role in influencing sexual orientation. From the research that I have discussed above, that is obviously not the case. I am eager to follow this subject more in the future and see what biology will discover next.

References

1) Genetics and Homosexuality, from the Gene Letter

2) Homosexuality: Genetics and the Bible, by Tom Terry, Cutting Edge Magazine

3) Statement on NIH Genetic Study on Homosexuality, from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

4) New study says genetics influences homosexuality, from St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1995

5) Homosexuality and Genetics, one person's views

6) A commentary on "Research on Sex Orientation Doesn't Fit the Mold"

7) Genetics Press Cuttings, from The Knitting Circle, South Bank University, London

8) The Hypothetical Genetics of Sexual Orientation, by Keith Bell, a Boston University undergraduate

9) Is there a genetic basis for sexual orientation?, from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

10) Lesbianism/homosexuality - a human surival trait, a commentary on the Queer Resources Directory

11) Homosexuality: Its in Your Genes, an article posted on QRD

12) Genetics and sexuality, a news report

 

 

Comments made prior to 2007

I am iranian gay in a gay family, my dad was gay and my brothers and the sons of my brothers all are gay, o know something about the homosexuality factors that is can be proven, i have some ideas so i ll be glade if i receive a comment from a scientist working in this area, by the was i am also aducated person and can help more in this matter ... Kamyar, 28 December 2007

Comments

Bobby 's picture

Off topic info

Ok so nice argument but just to throw it out there. You being left handed and your parents being right handed has nothing to do with genes. It all depends on what hand you choose to use or in my case your parents choose for you to use. Ita kinda funny because when I lived with my mother she wanted me to use my right hand so that's what I practiced with. My father on the other hand (no pun intended) whanted me and my brother to use the left so we can have an atvantage in sports. That went back and forth my entire childhood and I am gladly able to use both hands equaly.

David Mesirow's picture

Sexuality and Handedness

Just because your parents taught you separately to use each of your hands doesn't mean you weren't genetically predisposed to be able ambidextrous. With traits that manifest as behaviors, such as handedness and sexuality (as opposed to something non-behavioral like eye color), there are both genetic components and environmental components.

People have genetic material that predisposes them toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. However, if the environment is strongly anti-gay, it may keep a person in the closet, and their homosexual genes may not manifest as such. They may therefore behave as heterosexual even though they are truly homosexual.

It's the same with handedness. You may be genetically influenced to be either right-handed, left-handed, or ambidextrous. According to you, however, your environment influenced you to become effectively ambidextrous. But genetically, one of your hands may be wired to work better than the other.

The environment's tendency to influence genetic factors is of course very common. But it doesn't change the fact that the genetic factors are there. An heterosexist or anti-gay society may create the allusion that people "choose" their sexuality. But deep down, sexuality is still influenced by genetic factors. Just like your handedness.

Anonymous's picture

Genetics of Homosexuality

When you say almost everyone is born to straight parents, what percentage of the population is that? The argument is pointless if you have nothing of value, or factual to add to it. I am assuming you are straight, and if so, no one made you feel the way you feel about the opposite sex. You just know that you are attracted, and not conflicted by your feelings. Why would anyone chose to be conflicted? If it is true for most gay people who admit to having an attraction for the same sex since they were small children, then it would only make sense that genetics may play a role in this. Perhaps you should take a course in Biology if you haven't already, and it may at least make more sense from a scientific perspective, and then you can tell the world what percentage of children are born to straight parents. This information will not be totally accurate because there will still be parents who pretend to be straight, and have children just to appease everyone around them.

Anonymous's picture

No one is saying it's

No one is saying it's HEREDITARY, as in, passed on between generations, necessarily. We are simply arguing that it is BIOLOGICAL, as in genetically inherent.

Anonymous's picture

The idea that homosexuality

The idea that homosexuality is purely genetic is not without its flaws. Although there is very compelling evidence to show that homosexuality is indeed genetic, there are other factors such as, prenatal hormonal environment, which will also have an influence on sexual preference.

Make an attempt to understand the subject matter before you dismiss it as pointless.

Amused but Annoyed's picture

questions

In fact, I'll keep it non-threatening by asking questions to make my point.

Point 1.
Do left-handed parents only and always have left-handed kids?

Point 2.
If I play the role of Brutus in a high school play which leads to drama courses in college, playing Brutus which then leads to a local theater production where I play Brutus again. Does that mean that I am indeed Brutus? Am I murderer?

Anonymous's picture

Are you stoned???

What exactly is your point? None of this makes sense? Jake Gyllanhaal played in Brokeback Mountain, but he's not gay- again what is your point????

Nadia's picture

Homosexuality was the "norm" in the past

I think for me, the question is not whether there is a specific homosexual gene (though i would like to know if there was one) but the fact that in the past, specifically during the times of the greeks, homosexuality was the norm. It wasn't seen the way it was today. In fact sexual orientation was not even a concern for men at that time. In fact, sex with boys was even seen as the purest form of love. That said, my main concern with homosexuality today is how did it evolve from something that was so tangibly prevalent to something so deviant and taboo?

Stagirite's picture

Homosexual gene

" my main concern with homosexuality today is how did it evolve from something that was so tangibly prevalent to something so deviant and taboo?"

In short, today's Bible is responsible for homosexuality being considered deviant behavior.

The Bible's history is availabe at http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/history-of-the-bible.htm where it says ..."In 397 AD, in an effort to protect the scriptures from various heresies and offshoot religious movements, the current 27 books of the New Testament were formally and finally confirmed and "canonized" in the Synod of Carthage."

Anonymous's picture

the bible

I'm afraid you are wrong when it comes to homosexuality and the bible because it was spoken of in the old testament in Genesis and Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

And I laugh when I hear of Homosexuals talking about christians coming against them with scriptures,but if you look at the verses used it includes people who are liars and thiefs and drunkards etc...

It is in the old and well as the new testament.

Anonymous's picture

homosexual gene

As a response to your comment I have the following. Most people today look at the Bible just as a book, they question its integrity and suggest it is fallible. But they do not answer the very compelling question in that the Bible talks about, and gives us a picture of "God". That is were the rub is . First, if God exists, and he is the god of the Bible, then He has all the authority, power and right to say to us "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?..." as found in Job 38:2 The context here is Job complaining over the teatment he believes God has given him. ( please read the background on your own). Secondly,the God of the Bible states in Genesis 1:18-25 wherein He creates man, then woman as a "helpmeet" for him because "it is not good for him to be alone". Thirdly, this idllyic relationship was destroyed when Adam and Eve "sinned" or disobeyed God's one command (Genesis 3:1-7). Were there weeds and hard work before that? NO! Was there pain and suffering before that? NO! Was there various forms of negative and destructive relationships before that? NO!Only after that event has the world seen itself struggle, with wars, famine, social injustice, strained and broken relationships, and human pride and selfishness.
Has homosexuality existed in all societies throughout history? Yes. But, the answer we need to ask ourselves is why? And does this make it right? Of course the answer will depend on your belief/value system and your own pride.
Now the final thought: if God does exist as described in the Bible and we refuse His redemption process as exemplified in the person of Jesus Christ ("beleive in the LORD JESUS CHRIST and thought shall be saved!" because ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God!") then we have either accept Him and His son Jesus Christ and the only means by "which we are saved" or we can reject it...stating it is not right and God does not really exist. But if He does exist and the Bible is correct we must REPENT and turn form our ways and worship HIM and HIM only!. Not ourselves, not our own desires, not our own wants because they are and have been perverted since the fall of man I mentioned above. The choice is yours! Does this answer your question?

Anonymous's picture

First, what is this

First, what is this compelling question you speak of? I read your passage and i could not find what you are talking about anywhere. And how do you know that there wasn't any pain and suffering? Were you there, or are you basing this off of a book you read? Do you believe everything you read?

that is a BIG IF....and what if god does exist but not in the form that the bible says, that is a big hole in your argument.

If homosexuality has existed in all societies, and masculinity and femininity existed as well, and lets say masculinity and femininity are natural, then homosexuality as well is natural. Also, homosexuality is not only seen in humans, but in other animals as well, so we can call it natural. It is not just a human trait.

and to your argument that just because it existed does it make it right, Well, just because your bible exists, does it make the bible right?

Anonymous's picture

A Thought

Okay, one major thing to point out: monozygotic twins have completely identical DNA, correct? If so, and if homosexuality is indeed genetic, shouldn't there be a 100% rate of matching sexual orientation? And since there is only a 58% match according to this article, doesn't that immediately disprove the idea? Just a thought.

Silas Forster's picture

I do see were you are coming

I do see were you are coming from, it is a good thought, but monozigous twins are not completely identical many factors such as fingerprints, rates of metabolism,and sexuality are not fully developed untill later on in the womb.

Anonymous's picture

"Okay, one major thing to

"Okay, one major thing to point out: monozygotic twins have completely identical DNA, correct?" incorrect
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical

Anonymous's picture

ummm.. that's where the part

ummm.. that's where the part about genes being 50% of the reason for homosexuality comes in. Genes are just a factor that influence it as this article states. It then makes 1 0 0 % perfect sense that 58% of monozygotic twins show a match in sexual orientation. Genes are only half of it, but they are definitely a part of it.

Bobby 's picture

F genes are only half of it

F genes are only half of it what is the other half...a choice. Just because you are influenced by something dosent mean you have to go with that influence. I see this whole thing as an excuse to be gay to make being gay seem as natural as being straight. I know many homosexuals that have steped to the plate and said "you know what yeah I'm gay and I chose it". Saying there is a gay gene that makes you gay only sends us back in time and makes us backtrack. Soon there will be a rapist gene and a thief gene and justice as we know it now will have gone back 200 years when people thought if your father is a thief then it's in your blood. BS.

David Mesirow's picture

Nothing Wrong with Homosexuality, Natural or Not

Okay Bobby, so you admit that homosexuality is at least somewhat genetic. You say "half." Exactly how much of sexual orientation is genetically influenced has actually not been scientifically determined and is still up for debate.

You say just because someone is influenced by something doesn't mean they have to go with that influence. But if someone is born with strong inclinations to be homosexual or bisexual, then not being influenced by that genetic component would be living a lie and would be unproductive in their lives.

Now you say you have met some people who have said that they are gay and that it was their choice. However, there are many other people who say they are gay and that it wasn't their choice. There are other gay people who say it was both - that they were born gay but they had to come out and choose to live their lives openly. Part of it is genetic, part of it is environment, part of it is choice.

You say that promoting the idea of a gay gene would set us back because then people could say there is a gene for raping and stealing. You prefer that people say it was a choice to be gay. But what if it actually isn't a choice? Shouldn't we be honest? And isn't it kind of ridiculous to suggest that people would propose a genetic component for raping and stealing just because we say there is a genetic component for homosexuality?

And why are you trying to compare being gay to raping and stealing anyway? Is being gay wrong? Of course not. It doesn't hurt anyone. It's how people decide to peacefully live their lives. It has just been turned into a sin by people - just like being Jewish has been a sin, just like being black has been a sin, just like women have been marginalized by society.

Anonymous's picture

Science

I have read about that study. These studies really don't make a difference in whether or not people should feel homosexuality is right or wrong. Even if the results had indicated that there was an 80% of genetics playing a role in homosexual traits, if something is right... every scientific fact would be pointing to it's correctness. If something is wrong (looking even from an unreligious standpoint) there's evidence to prove that it's a "crime against nature." No one needs to tell anyone what they REALLY need to feel. But unless your to deeply rutted into what you think if you dig deep down you should know it's wrong.

Anonymous's picture

What you REALLY need to feel.

You're right. No one needs to tell anyone what they REALLY need to feel. When I was about 12 or 13 years old, I realized I was attracted to the same sex. The church I attended and society in general (represented in large part by my classmates at school) told me that my feelings were wrong. I believed them, and for most of my teenage years I actively surpressed my feelings, dated women, and prayed fervently that I would become heterosexual. You know what? It made no difference. None of it made men any less attractive to me or women any more attractive to me. It only made me miserable. I was so miserable I nearly committed suicide. Why didn't I? Because of precisely what you said. When I dug deep down, I knew what was really wrong. What was really wrong was that I was denying my fundamental nature. I was trying to live my life according to someone else's definition of what is natural and attempting to ignore nature itself in the process. I was attempting to ignore what I REALLY felt. It was then that I realized that maybe all the people who were telling me homosexuality was wrong were, in fact, wrong themselves. Welcome to that group.

Anonymous's picture

Yeah I completely agree with

Yeah I completely agree with you. Denying your true self and suppressing yourself for others is what is wrong. If homosexuality was actually wrong then there would be no genetic differences, God created homosexuals and their genes. I believe that one day people will wake up and be shocked that this type of love was seen as wrong. It does not matter who you love a man or woman, its just like blacks and whites were not allowed to marry, someday people will realize how stupid it is to forbid two people in love to be committed to each other. I am straight and a Christian and I can even see this "wrong" homosexuals are committing is just other people insecurities that make them feel superior to others.

Funincluded's picture

You "should" know that it's

You "should" know that it's wrong? Wow, I've never witnessed such an oblivious case of trying to force your beliefs on other people.

Where are you coming up with such a strong moral claim, if not from the Bible?

It's tough to call something that is caused genetically immoral. Don't confuse this with a psychopath being predisposed to audacious crimes (murder, rape, theft). Homosexuality is a victimless crime.

Serendip Visitor's picture

Yes, the victim is the person

Yes, the victim is the person himself and is also partner. Only, in this crime, instead of pain, there is pleasure. Strangely, in advanced cases of leprosy also, people feel more pleasure than pain when cut of their affected toes and fingers. The seriousness of the disease.