Tuesday, February 18, 2014

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

In the last two decades, dozens of scientific papers have been published on the biological origins of homosexuality - another announcement was made last week. It's becoming scientific orthodoxy. But how does it fit with Darwin's theory of evolution? 

What do think? I have my own theories - It's perfectly clear to us hatt all (and I mean all) homosexual people are womb twin survivors. Their partner is their surrogate identical twin. Identical twinning is random and not an inherited trait, as far as research seems to suggest. Any thoughts?


  1. Yep, this explanation is not at all satisfactory. first, there are different kinds of homosexuality. In most cases it is not even a stable condition but a development. Statistics show that a high percentage of seventeen-year-olds who view themselves as homosexual are heterosexual at age twenty-two. So, for many it may be a stage of development, for different reasons. To say, they are ALL womb twin survivors is putting things into too simple a perspective. Also, there are many different influences beside prenatal twin loss that shape a persons's personality and sexuality. Other prebirth issues, delivery circumstances, family situation, possible medication, cultural influences, peer pressure, social environment - they all add to the picture. To say all homosexuals are womb twin survivors is like saying everybody who has a fever must have pneumonia.

  2. I agree absolutely that there are different kinds of homosexuality. There are also many kinds of womb twin survivor. The idea is that homosexuals are born, not made, and they are formed as a result of the environment in the womb, as created by the presence (and later absence of their womb twin. My theory, that all homosexuals are womb twin survivors, is explained - not very fully as yet, because its only a theory and not tested - in my book "Womb twin survivors."

  3. If homosexuality were a result of prenatal twin loss it would still be "made" because it would be a consequence of certain experiences. It could only be called "not made" if it were purely genetic. As yet there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is monocausal.