Submitted to The Cincinnati Enquirer
|
Editorial Page
|
Nov. 1, 1998 |
| Given the complexity of the field, it is hard to fault Martin Clock's simplistic argument ["Gays don't deserve special status protection," Oct. 17] that genetic predisposition toward homosexuality would have bred itself out long ago. A number of respondents have faulted his homophobia, but none have addressed the persistance of non-reproductive traits in a population.
Part of the problem stems from a misunderstanding of the role genes play generally. Genes can only produce proteins, nothing more. This is important because it provides an organizational framework for a subsequent cascade of increasingly complicated and interdependent biological events. This framework increases the probability that non-genetic biological events produce a homosexual. The same result can be produced by environmental factors during critical developmental periods when the brain is differentiating sexually under the influence of sex hormones. This is why the relationship between genes and sexual orientation is often referred to as a "predisposition". Nature is filled with examples of persistent non-reproductive traits. Animals that are closely related, ex. male lions, sacrifice their own prospects of reproduction to aid the reproduction of close relatives. This is because closely related members share many genes. If |
homosexual predisposition is passed through the female as believed, I pass my predisposition by having heterosexual sisters that reproduce.
Another possibility is that a genetic predisposition is maintained because it is linked to some other beneficial traits, or because it confers some direct benefit. The genes may in fact be eliminated by individuals, but are maintained in populations due to linkages. During much of human evolution, societal pressures forced men and women to procreate regardless of their sexual orientation. The genetic predisposition may have persisted because gay people have historically submitted to these pressures. Much is yet to be learned, but it is clear that homosexuality is biological and represents one of the natural variations of our, and other, species. I'm afraid that Martin Clock is going to have to work a little harder on his rationalization. Todd Brennan, Clifton
|
 |
 |
