Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Why is so much effort put into locating a gay gene and not a paedophile gene? At least I don't remember fancying the midwife. Hamer acknowledges his skeptical view of religion because of the "competition between science and organized religion. However, there are those — medics, social constructionists, radical feminists, postmodernists and, incongruously, rightwing anti-gay bigots — who believe that sexuality is nurture not nature.
But the latest work by the National Institute of Health researcher might be even more incendi ary.
Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality
They found that if one identical twin was gay, 52 percent of the time the other was also; the figure was 22 percent for fraternal twins, and only 5 percent for nonrelated adopted brothers. Because there is overwhelming evidence that points the other way too. He says his scientific colleagues have been leery of it. Click here for PDF version of this article. I have no doubt orientation is genetic — how it is expressed, lived is nurture. What I found disturbing about the interview though was his assertion that he is a hard-core atheist.
Why is so much effort put into locating a gay gene and not a paedophile gene? Sex became defined as the physical characteristics defined by biology, and gender was determined to be a cultural construct. How does it explain bisexuality? Especially the part about the comparison with bestiality and pedophilia; it logically makes sense. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. He says that VMAT2 is but one of what may well be hundreds of genes that play a role in spirituality. If we say that genetic or natural traits absolve us of responsibility for actions, it puts us in an untenable position.