. In the article titled, “Genetics or Not, Gay Won’t Go Away”, Frank acknowledges that, for decades, homosexuality has been widely ostracized, undergone moments of patchwork acceptance before experiencing a heady triumph in the recent times. He acknowledges that homosexuals have invoked homosexuality as a way of explaining why discrimination is senseless and homophobia unwarranted. The main theme in his article is that homosexuality is wound in an individual’s genetic make up rather than a matter of choice. Frank goes on to quote scholars like Clinton Anderson, who says that the dynamics via which an individual becomes gay are not yet known. He builds a thesis that substantial evidence indicates that there are connections between hormones, sexual identity, brains and genes. In addition, he borrows from the study which shows that 52% of identical twins are gay compared to only 22% of fraternal twins or 11% of adoptive brothers who turned out to be gay. This, he posits, shows that heredity and not the environment, called the shots as far as determining an individual’s sexual orientation.
In addition, more research has identified common chromosomal and anatomical traits among homosexuals in which case, homosexuality is a result of a set of genes. In this case, he likens sexual orientation with skin color and therefore, an unchallengeable biological matter.
While he may be having quite valid arguments and invoking the opinions of scholars on the issue, I find his opinions quite warped. Homosexuality is not a genetic issue but rather a matter of choice, which is mostly influenced by the environment in which one lives. In making up his thesis, Frank mainly focuses on the high number of identical twin brothers who have turned out to be homosexuals as compared to the fewer number of fraternal twins and adopted brothers who have gay sexual tendencies. While he may take this as an indication that genes play a pivotal role in determining an individual’s sexual orientation, it is ironical that adopted brothers would have gay tendencies having in mind that their genetic make-up is not similar. Is it not more logical to explain this percentage as having been influenced by their socialization (Paul, 1986)? Socialization refers to the process by which animals (or more aptly human beings) learn how to recognize other species, which it cohabits with. In learning the interaction process, the human beings would learn communication techniques and how to communicate but also how to recognize as well as respond to other people’s intentions (Kenneth, 1988). This is exactly the same thing that happens as far as homosexuality is concerned (Jeffrey et al., 2001). As research has shown, the number of people who ascribe to homosexuality has risen in the recent times. Is this truly an indication as to changing genetics or hereditary composition (Paul, 1986)? That is definitely not the case. Many people have come up in support of homosexuality thereby triggering curiosity amongst the young people, who have gone ahead and become inducted into homosexuality. This is definitely not a case where homosexuality genes were present but suppressed. It is a case of straight individuals socialized into a particular habit thanks to their curiosity. In essence, many people will acknowledge that technological advancement has contributed immensely to the rise in homosexuality. While internet has marked a giant technological leap, it has also created avenues where homosexuality can be nurtured. Pornographic sites have cropped up stirring and shaping these feelings, with many young people