This is in response to Ryan Welch’s article published in the April 16 edition of The Houstonian. First, I applaud you for finding “a harmony” between Christianity and science. Many people feel the two are mutually exclusive, even though they do not have to be.However, I must disagree with your basic grasp of scientific fact and your assumption that homosexuality is a mere behavior, when you attempt to suggest that homosexuality is not genetic. You claim that there is “no possible way for a ‘homosexual gene’ to be naturally selected through evolutionary processes.” Not only do you have no data to support such claim, but also you completely ignore the field of population genetics. First, simply because you do not see any “survival advantages and you feel that homosexuals have a low desire to procreate” does not mean a trait cannot occur from one generation to the next. Take Tay Sachs disease, for instance. Individuals with Tay Sachs disease, on average, die by the time they are six years old. Obviously, these 6-year-olds leave no offspring. Yet, Tay Sachs disease is present at a low, but constant, level in the human population. Why would that be? This trait should be a “genetic dead end,” to quote your article, and would be non-existent. It is not, however. The science of genetics explains that recurring genetic mutations balance out the selection against the gene. PKU (phenylkenonuria) is another example of such a “trait” that is not eliminated, despite being a “genetic dead end.” Secondly, many homosexuals do have children. Simply because a homosexual is not inclined to marry and have children with someone of the opposite sex does not mean that societal pressures do not compel him her to do so. You are mistaken in your thinking that every trait is controlled by one gene. As learned in any good introductory genetics class, there are traits called “quantitative traits.” These traits are influenced by several genes (not just one “magic” gene) in addition to environmental factors. Genetics and environment are not mutually exclusive. Even polygenic traits such as height, fingerprint ridge count and IQ are affected, to some degree, by environmental factors. You are also leaving out most of the necessary data in your claim. Among male fraternal (non-identical) twins, if one is gay, then the other has approximately a 22 percent chance of being gay. However, among identical (genetically identical) twins, if one is gay, the other has a 52 percent chance of being gay. The differences in percentages between fraternal twins and identical twins indicate a clear genetic role, even though environmental affects also have some part. Keep in mind that this survey could not take into account the number of homosexual individuals who are “in the closet” and, therefore, did not identify themselves as gay.Your question about homosexuality in general is a bit erroneous, as it assumes homosexuality is a behavior. The act of having sex with a person of the same sex, in and of itself, is not homosexuality. The same is true of the converse. A woman’s heterosexuality is not dependent on her having sex with a man. What would she be if she died a virgin? Would she be non-sexual? She would be heterosexual because she was attracted to men and was capable of developing romantic feelings for them. A homosexual woman does not simply lust after women and have sex with them as often as possible. The homosexual woman is homosexual because she is attracted to and capable of developing romantic feelings towards another woman. It is about the capacity for a deeper connection, not simply something as superficial as sex. Stereotypes based on societal conditioning do not make for accurate scientific data. In fact, in psychology, it is referred to as the fundamental attribution error.Finally, I need some information from one aspiring scientist to another concerning your biblical quotes from Mark, et al. I went to the source of your quotes and read them all, but the authors seem to have neglected to publish any of their data.