No matter how many churches protest or conservative politicians foam at the mouth, scientists remain convinced: Homosexuality is at least somewhat genetic.
But, it shouldn't be.
The most controversial and, more importantly, paradoxical trait of homosexuality is the genetic inheritance of the gay gene. The human genome is made up of three billion base pairs, consisting of adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. These base pairs total a huge permutation of genes and traits throughout our whole body.
The probability of any change in DNA is one in every 100,000 gene replication. Considering the myriad pathways, regulatory proteins and other inhibitors in your cells during cell replication, the odds of any type of mutation is close to null.
Mutation, deletion or insertion of these base pairs could easily cause homosexuality. It's improbable, not impossible. And although there is no known gene encoding for homosexuality, we have no evidence proving a gay gene is non-existent.
Obviously, you inherit traits from both of your parents during reproduction. The egg and sperm cells come together and form a zygote. During this process, chromosomes, which carry all your genetic information, cross link and are safely placed inside your new nucleus.
Here lies the problem with homosexuality and genetics.
For procreation to occur, both an egg and sperm cell need to be available. Because it is biologically impossible to reproduce between members of the same gender, any traits, including homosexuality, would presumably never pass on.
If traits never advance, this gay gene would die out and homosexuality wouldn't exist.
I'm not here to argue social sciences. Many vehemently believe it is social influences that cause people to become homosexual. My knowledge of sociology is insignificant to provide any sound argument for or against homosexuality. So instead, I propose a different explanation. This theory follows the influence of homosexual uncles.
Let us assume the gay gene is somewhat recessive. This seems fair; if it were completely dominant, everyone would be gay, and if it were completely recessive, no one would be, as the dominant gene always takes precedence.
In this hypothetical, we have two brothers: One of whom is homosexual and the other not. The theory predicts that your homosexual uncle will be biologically predisposed to help his brother in any possible way, specifically with raising his brother's kids.
The gay uncle would supposedly have an extra willingness to provide for the children of his brother, with provisions like food, shelter, higher education, etc. If your brother has a higher survival rate of his offspring, the gay gene passes on indirectly. And although the recessive gene was not apparent in one brother, it might be expressed in the offspring of the children's descendents.
This theory provides a simple explanation to a paradoxical problem. Everyone who has a known gay relative could be receiving financial or emotional support from that individual. It is a Darwinist fight for the survival and preservation of the gay gene. This is not as direct as most self-conservation traits, but it would still prove effective.
And although there are some studies testing the theory coming with results supporting the theories, no studies are 100 percent conclusive. Even if one day genetics proves or disproves the uncle theory and more so the gay gene, homosexuality is alive today.
No science can disprove that.
Luis Delgadillo is a sophomore studying chemical engineering and columnist for The Post. Send him your favorite DNA base pairs at ld199907@ohiou.edu
4 Opinion
Luis Delgadillo
