I didn't choose my own sexual orientation, but apparently some Inquire readers did. I learned this from the responses I received following Monday's column, which had the term "gay gene" in the headline but was not really about gay genes.
It was about a meeting that dealt with newer research on the biology of sexual orientation. Most of the column was devoted to a theory that male sexual orientation can be influenced during development by the actions of the mother's immune system.
This reader seems to have missed this point:
Faye Flam's article on the gay gene is a classic example of people using science to attempt to justify what they are already determined to believe. The "evidence" provided includes the well-known Hamer study, which, as the article acknowledged, has never been successfully replicated, and a twin study that showed that, when one member of a pair of identical twins was gay, the other also was gay 50% of the time. If homosexuality is genetic, wouldn't that number have been 100%? Wouldn't environmental factors provide a more logical explanation for that finding? The remainder of the article consists of a series of speculations about what "might" have allowed homosexuality to survive the pitiless weeding-out process known as natural selection. These are tenuous foundations indeed on which to attempt to convince people that homosexual behavior is justifiable because it is not a matter of personal choice, but clearly anything that contradicts the orthodoxy of the moment, whether scientific or biblical, must be twisted or rejected.
I guess he didn't grasp the point made by Toronto psychiatrist Ray Blanchard about the influence of the environment – in particular the prenatal environment – in influencing sexual orientation. Sexual orientation does seem to be shaped by a combination of genetic and biological factors.
I was not aware there were any scientific theories explaining the roots of sexual orientation in the Bible.