Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:20 PM

  Whether it's a "good thing" for people to consider the possibility of a gay gene is irrelevent.

  The question first and formost must be: is this true or false? In fact, there is a lot of strong evidence suggesting that homosexuality is genetic: the number of gays and lesbians in a single family, the frequency with which twins share the same sexual orientation, the frequency with which gays are born as the youngest children within a family, and a fascinating study on the greater number of gays who come from families with highly reproductive females (I think it's often the brothers of women who have a lot of children: this is related specifically to gay men, not lesbians, obviously). And let's not forget the instances of gay activity among animals, who clearly are not experiencing the same pychological pressures, or family structures, that are supposed to lead to homosexuality in human beings.

  I think anyone interested in the issue of genetics will tell you the answer the question "Is it nurture or nature?" with a "yes." It's both, it's a complex interweaving of many factors. But that that should rule out genetic predispositions is ridiculous. And that such talk should be silenced because it's theoretically "bad" for gay people makes no sense.

  Personally, as a gay man I have no problem with the idea that my genetic make up might influence my sexuality. I see that as no more proof of a "genetic disability" than I would other elements of my personality that are likely to be genetically influenced: such as my appreciation for the arts, my intellectual strengths and my innate curiosity.

  —Christopher1988 Read Christopher1988's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel