Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#131

Post by zer00eyz »

natecavanaugh wrote: post #90
zer00eyz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.

Your other comments make me think you're someone who appreciates an honest discussion, so thanks for that. I do have an honest question of the reverse. Those most in favor of homosexuality are also those okay with abortion. But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Other comments have rightly commented it could be inverse (selecting for homosexuality…

> Other comments have rightly commented it could be inverse (selecting for homosexuality)

I brought it up elsewhere, but this is an idea suggested in the book "The Forever War" as a way to control the population expansion.

I don't have a problem with (the concept) people selecting OUT homosexual children because I believe that there are people who will remain who will select them IN.

On a deeper level, I suspect that homosexuality is more complex than a few genetic markers - that there are epigenetic pressures there as well, and that there is a social/biological reason for their existence.

Homosexuality isn't a recent development, it isn't some "modern" issue. The Native Americans had a very different take on homosexuals than we do currently. Our outlook has shifted several times in the last few hundred years as well (the interwar period in Europe as an example). There are even some stunning modern examples that are rather counter intuitive to those who are ill informed (Iran and its views on trans genders).

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#132

Post by epistasis »

tremendulo wrote: post #84
epistasis wrote: post #29

Before anybody jumps to conclusions, these are not definitive findings. They are extremely important findings for those performing active research on the topic, but are not of general interest to those who are not performing research. The next steps will be to see if this holds in other cohorts, and in other populations, etc.

Indeed. At the present time many or most scientific studies are not reproducible.

I object tremendously to that characterization, because "reproducible" is a fuzzy word that never gets defined properly.

These results are almost certainly "reproducible" in that you could take the same people, regenerate all the measurements again, and get the same results by running the methods described in the paper.

These results may not be "reproducible" in the sense that when they do this with a set of 2000 new individuals, they will probably not find the same SNPs at the same significance.

Public discussion that conflates these two only serves to discredit science, without improving it or its process. Worse, saying that only only the second sense of "reproducible" is worthy of "science", would severely impede the process of discovery.

As long as "reproducible" in the first sense holds, scientists can learn from each other. Scientists also need to be able to communicate with each other before announcing to the world "we've solved it all!"

I find that most people (and I'm not including you with this statement, I don't know what you think!) who are bemoaning the lack of "reproducibility" are only interested in that second sense of reproducibility, because they want to open a journal to a random page make broad statements that are widely applicable. Scientists need to be able to talk about things in narrow terms, and specifics, or they will never be able to get to the broad rules that are generally useful.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#133

Post by Balgair »

zer00eyz wrote: post #26
peatmoss wrote: post #5

Wow, the bioethical implications of potentially identifying the mechanism of sexual orientation are staggering. I wonder if / how long it will be before parents have the technical means—if not the legal right—to alter their child to be gay or straight through gene therapy. Or even simply selectively bring to term one orientation or the other.

In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.

Maybe.

Many people still think homosexuality is a choice, not an inherent trait. The genetic argument may just be ignored entirely.

People somehow believe stranger things about the flatness of the Earth.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#134

Post by yipopov »

mfukar wrote: post #114
bobthechef wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Celibacy means sexual abstinence, not not having children. The latter is implied by the former, of course.

Not really, we're past requiring intercourse for reproduction.

Yes, but in the context of upholding traditional Christian moral standards that's not an option that's on the table, and neither is using contraception. Celibacy, or to be more precise, abstinence, is the only option.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#135

Post by yipopov »

r00fus wrote: post #125
yipopov wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose cognitive dissonance?

Those that hold two mutually incompatible ideas. "Taxes are evil" - "Don't take away my medicare". My point is that the choice will be easy for some to ignore their dictates that "abortion is abhorrent" and might choose to abort a "gay baby" because they fear homosexuality more than keeping their ideals.

That's hypocrisy, not cognitive dissonance. Though I suppose a lot of hypocrites also experience cognitive dissonance.

But if you're going to accuse someone of hypocrisy I think you should be a bit more specific about exactly who you are accusing.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#136

Post by thisrod »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #117
thisrod wrote: post #98

So why is this a surprise? The experiments on identical and fraternal twins were done decades ago, and there just isn't any doubt that genes influence sexual orientation. Nor is there any possibility that they determine it: many gay men and lesbians have straight identical twins.

It's not a surprise, it's just scientific research.

Sure, but the importance of research is strongly correlated with how surprising it is. That's entropy and information 101.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#137

Post by mfukar »

yipopov wrote: post #134
mfukar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, we're past requiring intercourse for reproduction.

Yes, but in the context of upholding traditional Christian moral standards that's not an option that's on the table, and neither is using contraception. Celibacy, or to be more precise, abstinence, is the only option.

You're talking about a very specific "Christian" society, which, you should bear in mind, has very few things in common with other Christian societies, like the orthodox for instance.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#138

Post by BrandoElFollito »

natecavanaugh wrote: post #90
zer00eyz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.

Your other comments make me think you're someone who appreciates an honest discussion, so thanks for that. I do have an honest question of the reverse. Those most in favor of homosexuality are also those okay with abortion. But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Other comments have rightly commented it could be inverse (selecting for homosexuality…

> Those most in favor of homosexuality are also those okay with abortion.

I am not sure this is the case. In the GP comment, he took a population for whom both elements (homosexuality and abortion) are forbidden. You are not allowed to support either of them.

If you are not in that population, you can have an opinion on either element, independently.

This said, a liberal perspective for one element may (or is more likely) to also be true for the other one.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#139

Post by tremendulo »

epistasis wrote: post #132
tremendulo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. At the present time many or most scientific studies are not reproducible.

I object tremendously to that characterization, because "reproducible" is a fuzzy word that never gets defined properly. These results are almost certainly "reproducible" in that you could take the same people, regenerate all the measurements again, and get the same results by running the methods described in the paper. These results may not be "reproducible" in the sense that when they do this with a set of 2000 new…

>they will never be able to get to the broad rules that are generally useful.

Well at least we agree that discovering universal laws is desirable. Because we want to explain the world, right?

Some more info about reproducibility:

http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-...

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#140

Post by 8bitsrule »

dwaltrip wrote: post #86
8bitsrule wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not according to Thomas Kuhn, we don't.

That's a misreading of Kuhn. He believed in scientific progress -- he says so explicitly.

I was responding to the statement that "We simply focus all of our effort on the things we do not yet understand."

Kuhn (short summary) pointed out that paradigms arise which, after a time, cause scientists that have 'bought in' to resist attempts to modify them. Many scientists get 'stuck' in the current paradigm and pooh-pooh attempts to modify them. The history of science demonstrates this over and over ... EG Wegener, EG Clovis.

Yep, Kuhn recognizes progress. His major point is that progress doesn't come from the orthodox establishment.

Post reply on HN