Spring Break
Homosexuality not genetic
Jeffrey Padgett
Issue date: 10/9/06 Section: Opinion
Robert Spitzer wrote in a 2003 review titled "200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation," "Although initially skeptical, in the course of the study the author became convinced of the possibility of change in some gay men and lesbians."
This was the same psychiatrist who took homosexuality off the list of psychiatric mental disorders - he is hardly anti-gay. According to Spitzer, they just need the will and help to change. Spitzer said there was no emotional harm to those who sought reparative therapy, and that they actually changed their sexual attractions - not just their overt behavior.
If a man likes a man, they may have sex, but they won't have a baby. Homosexuality serves no evolutionary or reproductive purpose. Not all homosexual men are great parents (the only possible evolutionary benefit), and some feminine heterosexual men are much better at parenting. It doesn't make sense for it to be genetic because natural selection would have eliminated the mutation by now.
There is not a single study that can prove there is a gay gene or set of genes that determines a person's orientation. Gay activists take the correlations found and present them as causes to further their political agenda. They tell homosexuals who don't want to be gay that it is impossible to change, when it is scientifically documented as possible.
I'm not saying whether I think being gay is right or wrong, and it isn't as if gays just woke up one morning and said, "Hmmm … being gay sounds fun, I think I'll try that." Homosexuality is a choice, conscious or unconscious, that people need to admit to.
This was the same psychiatrist who took homosexuality off the list of psychiatric mental disorders - he is hardly anti-gay. According to Spitzer, they just need the will and help to change. Spitzer said there was no emotional harm to those who sought reparative therapy, and that they actually changed their sexual attractions - not just their overt behavior.
If a man likes a man, they may have sex, but they won't have a baby. Homosexuality serves no evolutionary or reproductive purpose. Not all homosexual men are great parents (the only possible evolutionary benefit), and some feminine heterosexual men are much better at parenting. It doesn't make sense for it to be genetic because natural selection would have eliminated the mutation by now.
There is not a single study that can prove there is a gay gene or set of genes that determines a person's orientation. Gay activists take the correlations found and present them as causes to further their political agenda. They tell homosexuals who don't want to be gay that it is impossible to change, when it is scientifically documented as possible.
I'm not saying whether I think being gay is right or wrong, and it isn't as if gays just woke up one morning and said, "Hmmm … being gay sounds fun, I think I'll try that." Homosexuality is a choice, conscious or unconscious, that people need to admit to.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 25
John
posted 10/09/06 @ 12:46 PM CST
What was the control group for the identical twins study? Does the study not confirm that homosexuality is at least partially dependent on genes?
As for natural selection weeding out a gay gene by now, aren't there gay animals? Did they choose to be gay?
You also refer to "homosexuals who don't want to be gay," but the major reason why any homosexual person would not want to be gay in the first place is because of the hatred and bigotry that is spewed at them. (Continued…)
Boadi Rigaud
posted 10/10/06 @ 10:05 AM CST
The whole 'homosexuality: nature vs nurture' thing seems like a false start to me. For both sides of the debate.
English is not genetic, but try as you might, you will never be able to unlearn it. (Continued…)
Chad Shiver
posted 10/11/06 @ 9:44 AM CST
That is the most factually inaccurate account that I have read in ages. My personal favorite is the bit about college girls "changing" their sexuality. (Continued…)
Chad
posted 10/12/06 @ 6:22 AM CST
Patrick,
Perhaps people will respect the views of Christians when a) they stop expecting everyone to live according to their values(which they somehow equate to being our country's values, even though we supposedly have a seperation of church and state)
and
b) when so-called Christians stop being so hypocritical in their observations of others. (Continued…)
Marcus
posted 10/27/06 @ 1:15 PM CST
You are certainly implying that HOMOSEXUALITY is a FLAW. Or do you misunderstand what you just wrote? You say that Homosexuality is not of nature. Are you ignorant of (or just ignoring) the fact that many animals exhibit homosexual behaviors, sometimes transatory, sometimes long-term. (Continued…)
akipta
Allison '82
posted 10/30/06 @ 9:31 PM CST
Mr. Padgett relies on statistics from a study by Bailey to support his argument that homosexuality is not genetic. I assume Mr. Padgett doesn't know that J. (Continued…)
Jon
posted 10/30/06 @ 11:05 PM CST
Can someone help me become gay? If I were gay I'd get tons of action. Perhaps Jeffrey Padgett knows where I can start the process?
gigolobunny
Random /b/tard
posted 8/10/07 @ 11:51 AM CST
Technically, being lesbian or gay is a preference. Simply because a lesbian obviously prefers women over men and a gay man prefers men over women. I'm not going to rule out being gay is genetic, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility that it is a preference either. (Continued…)
Forhim922
Patrick
posted 8/10/07 @ 1:04 PM CST
If we simply are who we are then what causes us to be that way? Chance?
I did not choose to be straight because it is how we are created to be. Being gay or lesbian means to make a choice that is against how God created us to be. (Continued…)
jamie
posted 9/14/07 @ 7:44 PM CST
I think that hormones have A LOT to do with it.. has anyone studied the bloodwork of a gay vs a non gay of the same family (twin study).. etc. I was growing up str8 and never had any intention of "becoming" a lesbian. (Continued…)
Post a Comment