A Scientific Proposal Concerning Homosexual Reproduction

The future is my friend

It hurts, but it treats me well

Take hold and be its master

- Seal "I'm Alive" 1994

The most common and most biting argument thrown at homosexual marriage and consequently homosexuality itself is the fact that, as of now, two women or two men can not produce a child independently. Heterosexuality is prized for its role in the biological priority of the human race - to produce viable offspring. The reality remains that the homosexual exclusion from the evolutionary purpose of all species currently categorizes homosexuality as unnatural or at worst unworthy of existence.

In contrast with common opinion, homosexuals couples around the globe are also driven by the biological need to procreate or at very least an emotional concern for the future of mankind. This drive exists along with their innate attraction to the same sex. The homosexual is then placed in a peculiar dilemma. He or she is jack-knifed between two equally demanding drives. Of course there are modern alternative to heterosexual reproduction: adoption, surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. However, each of these alternatives are mere shadows of heterosexual conception, childbirth and child rearing, in the same way that the butch and femme subculture of lesbianism is a parody of the heterosexual husband and wife.

The mimicry of homosexual parenting does not lie in the usage of science and technology. All the previously mentioned alternatives can and have been used by heterosexuals. In fact, the assistance of technology in the health care industry has been beneficial to the birth of more healthy babies, increased fertility, and longer lives in general. Harnessing human mind power has manifested itself itself in machines and methods that have lifted mankind out of the primeval and insured our success as a species. Homosexuals should take advantage of today and tomorrow's technology to overcome the discrepancy that separates homosexual parenting alternatives from heterosexual reproduction.

The heterosexual advantage lies with conception. At the moment of conception genetic material from one partner unites with the genetic material of the other partner in one cell - the zygote. The entire process, known as fertilization, can occur in a woman's body or in a test tub. Sexual reproduction is a beneficial to a species because it provides the genetic diversity need for a species to adapt to a variety of stressors. Those in heterosexual unions enjoy the unique pride that the resulting offspring will be a mosaic of the two sets of DNA donated by the mother and the father. It is with this pride that heterosexual unions can exalt themselves above homosexual unions when it comes to the ultimate goal of reproduction.

Analysis of the modern-day alternatives for homosexuals reveals no such advantage. Adoption, although morally acceptable, does not promote propagation of one's own genes, the evolutionary purpose of reproduction and in a broader sense, life itself. From an evolutionary standpoint, the organism is simply a genome and adaptations such an exceptionally complex pre-frontal cortex allow nature to select an organism for survival and the passage of one's genome to the next generation. Outside of the humane principles of civilization, adoption is not applicable. In the wild, when a male lion seizes control of a pride, he usually kills or abandons the cubs sired by the previous alpha male. He needs the female lions free to take care of his own genetic inheritance.

The human race has not only evolved to incorporate civility into its moral code, but has also done such a good job of evolving, adapting, and reproducing that there are many people free to take care of other people's offspring. Yet, rearing another's child does not propagate one's own genes. Adoption is not considered reproduction. Homosexual couples who chose to adopt have no genetic input in the child they chose to raise; although whether they choose to care about this state of affairs is up to them.

What about artificial insemination? Women who desire to have a child without engaging in sexual intercourse with a man can choose to be impregnated with the sperm of an unknown donor. Hence, the woman, whether a heterosexual single or a lesbian, can contribute to half of her child's genetic identity. Yet, for a lesbian couple artificial insemination alienates the woman who chose not to give birth to the child. The other lesbian, although emotionally, morally, and in some cases, legally responsible for the child's welfare, is still not genetically responsible. The child will remain the combined genome of the mother and the anonymous gentleman. The other lesbian is at best a loving, adopted "father."

In this way even when the biological barrier of a necessary womb is breached for a homosexual couple, the child remains only a partial genetic investment on the part of the homosexual couple. Since "natural" heterosexual reproduction is a genetic investment on the part of both parents it remains superior to all current forms of homosexual parenthood, at least from the conservative, fundamentalist, and evolutionary standpoints.

How then can homosexual couples breach the barrier of dual genetic investment and gain acceptance from society and natural selection? The answer is quite simple and within the reach of modern-day science. It is a wonder that such a method has not been thought of or utilized before. Perhaps, the accepted, shared sense of "otherness" is so ingrained ingrained in the homosexual community, that measures taken to become more "normal" are not desired or encouraged. Or perhaps society's opposition to allowing homosexuals the tenets of "normal" life (i.e. marriage, acceptance in the US military) is so strong that homosexuals dare not make any further attempts at procreational equality.

Equality is possible through an in vitro conceptions that involves the union of only the genetic material from the two homosexuals involved. Haploid DNA would be removed from the two sperm cells or the two egg cells of the respective homosexual parents-to-be. The two sets of haploid DNA would combine to form the first diploid cell of the couple's fully biological child. The cell, a zygote, would undergo cleavage and develope into a blastula, a hollow ball of cells that would be implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother for a gay couple or the womb of the designated mother for a lesbian couple. When the child is born, the homosexual parents will be just as genetically responsible for their child as a heterosexual couple.

At first blush, many will think that such a procedure is too complicated or too expensive for a triviality such as genetic investment. However, this triviality goes a long way in legitimizing homosexual parenting, homosexual marriage, and homosexuality itself. Homosexuality is seen as illegitimate and unnatural primarily due to homosexuals inability to procreate within their relationships. Yet, genetic investment on the part of both homosexual parents counts as homosexual reproduction. If availability is a concern, homosexuals must demand access to the services necessary for dual genetic investment, as they have done for adoption services and artificial insemination. If this occurs, dual genetic investment will become as endemic to the homosexual community as it is to the heterosexual community.

Critics may still label homosexual reproduction as "unnatural" because of its heavy use of technology. However, advances in technology and scientific knowledge, from ultrasound to genetic screening, can not be separated from human reproduction at this point in mankind's history. A greater dependence on improved technologies (hydrogen-fueled cars, for example) is key to humanity's quality of life and the continuation of our species in the future. Homosexuals, too, should take advantage of new advances in technology.

The benefits of true homosexual reproduction in legal, emotional, and psychological areas will be enormous. No longer will the realization that one is a homosexual be linked with the realization that one will probably not have children of his or her own. Being able to have children who are related by blood will offer homosexual marriages some of the stability and legitimacy offered to procreating heterosexual couples. A small scientific gesture can translate into political and legal sanctions for the acceptance of homosexual couples, acceptance that is needed in a progressive, liberal society.

True reproduction with a homosexual couple at its center may provide a key goal for homosexual love, a goal, that for the longest while has been thought to belong to the realms of science fiction. If dual genetic investment is practiced, homosexual parenthood will become more integrated into society. As more homosexual couples have their own children, more homosexual youth will see such families as a model for their own and will be more likely to settle down. Such youth will be less likely to turn to promiscuity, the use of drugs and other deviant behaviors society currently associates with homosexuals. They will no longer have to develop psychological and behavioral disorders due to the prejudice of the families, their peers and society. Homosexuality will cease to be a "lifestyle" and will become a part of the mainstream. Homosexuals will be impelled further to remain honest to their sexuality while still leading productive lives. In this way, dual genetic investment within homosexual reproduction has much to offer to the homosexual community and society as a whole.

- Ryu