This article originally appeared in the February/March 2006 issue.
Want more Scientific American?
©2006 Scientific American
This gave no usable information. Nothing but the same argument. I think you are gay or you are not. But choice has nothing to do with it.
Welcome to the group Dakota; welcome to my life Summer, thanks for making it so much better. Support our Troops.
This is, at least partially, a refutation of the simplistic argument that the sexuality of individuals can be so easily categorized and divided into gay or straight. The case is made that sexual orientation rather than being an either or situation breaks down on a continuum. While there are some people who fit that; there are many more whose sexual orientation doesn't dovetail so clearly into one camp or another. As someone who has had friends of varied sexuality, bisexual girlfriends and most recently a daughter whose orientation has historically been somewhat eclectic I see things more along the lines of this article. Like most of the Scientific American articles an excellent listen.
This article presents two opposing views in their most benign fashions, theorizing that there could be genetic causation for sexual orientation, but that some people can choose because they are in the middle of the sexual orientation spectrum.
Presumably the author succeeded - in his own mind- at marrying two unlikely bed fellows, pro-gay and anti-gay advocates. The amicable author concludes with the suggestion that being gay and trying to be straight is like a right handed person eating soup with their left hand. It's possible, just challenging.
Lacking any valuable or sustained scientific research beyond cursory references to Kinsey, a few general studies, and unexamined anecdotal evidence, the article discredits the periodical in which it is published. While it has all the hallmarks of the professional writing of a respectable contributor, it seems to reflect that at this time, 2006, Scientific American, was publishing a few too many shallow articles for broader readership, but with little original or substantive thought.
Report Inappropriate Content