Awhile back there was a “Dear Abby” article about a concerned mother and her homosexual daughter. Abby answers this by saying it has nothing to do with her parenting and that she should be accepting yada yada yada. Then she mentions, and I quote here, “[homosexuality] has nothing to do with parenting and everything to do with genetics.” I expected tons of readers to write in about this, but only today have I seen a reply. Here it is:
DEAR ABBY: In a recent column you advised the mother of a girl who had confided that she is gay and wants to come out that homosexuality has “nothing to do with parenting and everything to do with genetics.” You need to retract that statement. If you do not publicly admit your error, I will know you are a mouthpiece for the gay and lesbian crowd. – LEONARD IN LYNCHBURG
DEAR LEONARD: If I did not believe with all my heart that what I wrote is true, I wouldn’t have put my thoughts on paper. Homosexuality is simply a varient of sexual orientation. Those who claim it is “unnatural” should direct their attention to Dr. Joan Roughgarden, a biologist at Stanford University with a Ph.D. from Harvard, who states that more than 300 vertebrate species have been found to practice homosexuality. (A visit to any zoo might confirm it.) And while one gene may not be responsible for this variant, Italian researcher Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua notes that research findings point to there being more than one “gay gene,” and that the genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men are also linked to increased fertility in women. I stand by my reply.
END
I don’t know what 300 vertebrate species who have been found “practicing” homosexuality has to do with this. A dog will hump about anything, it must be gay and a fetishist as well! Anyhoo… I just don’t buy this. Next I’m going to be told there’s a gene that determines my cereal, movie, and music preferences as well. Hell, maybe I love porsches so much because of my porsche gene. Come on! I’m not saying I’m an expert on homosexuality, but I doubt it’s a result of genes. I’m not really saying it’s choice either, so don’t get me wrong here. If anything, I’d say environmental/societal factors probably have a lot to do with sexual preference, but as I mentioned before, I don’t have a clue what I’m talking about, just guesses.
I’m suspicious of the 300 vertibrate species as well. I’m sure there are plenty of instances of homosexual behavior, I doubt there 300 species that have been documented to have individuals which are exclusively homosexual.
But the fact is, no one knows what the root cause of homosexuality is. There has been no “gay gene” identified. Like most behaviors, it probably has its roots in genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. But no one knows for sure.
The explanation least likely to be correct is that it’s a behavioral choice. That just doesn’t pass the laugh test…
To answer the question “Do genes make you gay?” (which is what I think you’re trying to get at here) you’d have to go to the question of which factors control people’s sexual preference–straight or gay or bisexual or purple polka-dotted–at large.
Dammit, now I’ve got the Jordache jingle stuck in my head . . .
"You’ve got the look I want to know better,
you’ve got the look that’s metal and leather,
working, playing, day or night,
Homo has the fit that’s right!
That Homo loooook . . . "
Right. Which means it was wrong of her to say it’s entirely genetic (maybe it’s mostly biological), but if you’re getting your scientific advice from Dear Abby…
Worse, it’s actually Abbey’s daughter now. Not even the real thing… :eek:
I suspect that some doctors or scientists will write and chastize her, and she’ll be forced to do one of her columns where all these people write in and tell her she’s wrong. Not that I regularly read her column or anything…
I read her column because it’s on the back of the comics page and right above the crossword (which I do every day.) She usually gives obvious advice (drinking? AA! Abusive? Hotline number! etc.) but the real joy is reading the strangest letters (I swear they must have been made up and sent to her) or her horrible advice every once in a while, which she does have apology columns for sometimes.
I remember a letter from a person saying that her privacy was invaded at the grocery store when someone would stand too close to her as she’s writing a check. She said the problem is that the person would not speak English, so she didn’t know what to do. Abby’s advice? Speak slower and louder. Being half Korean myself, I can tell you that saying “PLEASE… MOVE… BACK… SIR…” to someone who doesn’t understand English doesn’t work too well.
I’d believe 1,000+ species where some (or even all) individuals engage in homosexual acts at times. I question how many species have individuals who, like many gay humans, are exclusively homosexual. Does your cite propse that?
I’m not sure that demanding exclusivity excludes a species from inclusion in these statistics. Are you proposing that if homosexuality in other species isn’t practiced exactly the way it is in humans, then that species doesn’t qualify? I think that is an overly strict standard, especially when rebutting LEONARD IN LYNCHBURG, who clearly won’t accept any normalization of homsexual behavior by any species.
All that diversity doesn’t sound very homo-gene-ous to me.
For what it’s worth, a news report just the other day gave the latest evidence that there may be physiological differences between gay and straight men.
This is, of course, unscientific, but if homosexuality is not genetic can anyone explain why any person would choose a lifestyle which cuts him/her off from most people, and often, and especially from his/her own family members? If a person has a choice it makes no sense that s/he would make that one.
I know there are male pairs of penguins who mate exclusively with each other, even when put into the same area as receptive females. Indeed, I’m given to understand that they can even become hostile to the female. One pair off the top of my head is at a zoo in New York City.
I’m not saying that no other species have individuals which form exclusive homosexual pair bonds. I’m just saying that the 300 species claim is a bit disingenuous, in that it includes species like bonobos who engage in what looks like homosexual acts, but which most likely have a non-sexual purpose (ie, maintaining social harmony).
* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
* 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
The issue with this dialogue is the amount of projection onto the animal kingdom by both sides. The “hooray for gay kangaroos” side will take any shred of evidence and try to spin it closer to their angle, while the “no happy homo animals” side will take every shred of evidence and try to provide another explanation. The truth is that there remains some observations that simply can’t be passed off as social behavior or issues of dominance, but probably not as much as certain people would have you believe.
