Position 1: Homosexuality is a chosen "lifestyle," like vegetarianism.
Position 2: Homosexuality is a disease, like schizophrenia.
Position 3: Homosexuality is a biological orientation, like left-handedness, and is neither chosen nor pathological.
Pat Robertson often claims that "obviously" there could not be a gay gene because nature only selects for genes that "increase reproduction." Robertson knows nothing about the subject. Any first-year college genetics student could point out that anti-reproductive traits are selected for all the time. How? Through something called "pleiotropy," the fact that genes have side effects, as do drugs. Nature not only could easily select for a gay gene, but it can, and does, regularly select for genes that *kill us. One example: the gene that nature selects to protect us from malaria. This gene has a devastating pleiotropic side effect-it's called sickle-cell anemia. If it turns out that the "gay gene" is simply another example of pleiotropy, this would suggest that homosexuality is, like sickle-cell disease, nothing more than a biochemical fluke. Why, then, should conservatives cower before the idea of a gay gene? Huntington's disease is caused by a gene, and that makes Huntington's neither "good" nor "acceptable."
A pretty good discussion in the link.
Feel free to be the first
Please review the linked page for context.
If you can think of something better than this,
please add it to the database