[Chemistry4me]

Eewwww...! [xx(] [xx(] [xx(]
Please spare me the details!

[lyner]

The evidence suggests that homosexual behaviour is partly genetic. Studies of identical twins, for example, show that if one of a pair (regardless of sex) is homosexual, the other has a 50% chance of being so, too.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295

Don't know how reliable it is though... [] []

But, for most twins, the culture is the same, too. You could only be sure about the connection if you studied twins who had been separated at birth. According to many TV progs, there are many examples of parallel behaviour / life styles in separated twins.

[john ford (OP)]

Thank you all for your thought - although I'll pass on the kiss offer.

It appears that the answer to my question is - No - there is no such gene.  There may be, however, particular genes that could contribute to environmental factors that 'enhance' homosexuality.

[techmind]

These NewScientist articles might be relevant:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2803-gay-flies-turned-on-by-heat.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523611.900-turning-up-the-heat-makes=
-flies-fancy-the-same-sex.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol/dn13136-randy-=
flies-reveal-how-booze-affects-inhibitions.html

The first two describe an experiment where flies were bred with a special temperature-sensitive gene, and the researchers claim the resulting flies flipped between straight and gay behaviour with temperature. Without having seen the detail of the work, I would tend to interpret that this implies there is something chemical/physical going on, pointing away from a 'nuture'-type argument...

This research was done 6 years ago now, and I don't know whether it's been repeated and/or taken further (or even disproved) since then.

[Chemistry4me]

Flies can be gay? [:0][:0][:0][:0]

[yor_on]

The real question is not whether it is genetically 'steered' or not.
It is whether we really know ' what is best for you:)'

Different society's have defined it differently under history's developement.
Remember that it will always be someone 'not there' defining what and how you should be.
It is very much an aspect of 'power'.

The power to define how 'others' should be.
Do you accept that?

And if so, where would 'you' draw the line.
Concentration camps??

Killing of terminally sick, not caring for what they want themselves perhaps?
One need to be fully awake defining how 'others' should, or should not live.
And reading a little 'history' never harms.

-----
I think we need all genes we have.
Even though some of them don't seem to do anything under our present conditions.
They are all there for a purpose.

And they might be needed, although we don't know why.
That isn't the same as saying that babies should be allowed to be born with terminal diseases though.
If gene therapy will help we should try.

But as in the rest of nature, some are born as homosexuals, and it's mostly a matter of what society you live under if it's accepted or not.

So if you say that they are more 'unlucky' than you it is your definition, and maybe what your society have defined for you.

We all have a responsibility to use our minds for ourself, that's how society 'grow up'.