Homosexuality today had turned in one of the theme of popular social and public debates, which are often used by politicians and public figures for personal promotion and political speculations. Ethical and moral aspects of homosexualism, on the hand with public opinion and public attitude towards homosexuals have divided society on two groups: those who tolerate people with different sexual orientation and those who stand on very conservative positions denying rights of sexual minorities.
One of the most serious ethical problems in today’s debates over homosexuality is a problem of allowing gay or lesbian families to have their own children, forming a so-called “alternative family”: “Homosexual lobbyists are effectively using the anti-discrimination angle of the civil rights movement for advancing the gay rights platform. Their current efforts to redefine marriage are now backed by activist judges in Massachusetts and local officials in San Francisco. In response to these most recent assaults on traditional American values and the fundamental institution of marriage, President Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage in the U.S., which has ignited a firestorm of public debate.” (from Hollowell, K. .Homosexuality: Evolution of the human race?)
The issue of childbirth in homosexual families provoked even debates in the circles of scientists, as some of them say that homosexuality represents a certain trend evolution of human species. Despite the fact that human gene of homosexuality has not been discovered, and it’s a big uncertainty about its existence in general. But there are lots of gay right activists who support idea of childbirth in homosexual families using gene technologies, which would be very similar to cloning. But it’s clear quite that nevertheless such foetus will be different from one born from a tradition pregnant woman.
To the opinion of a famous psychiatrist, Doctor Kelly Hollowell the idea of using gene technologies for homosexual families pregnancy is nothing but a vulgar mistake. He makes a clear point that it would be nothing, but simple cloning, not a natural biological process, as the future child would be mostly “modeled” by doctors, which contradicts with ideas of genetics and Darwinism. Such practices would only violate human genetic code and probably would have serious outcomes for humanity. As Doctor Hallowell writes:
“Ironically, the same people who promote gay marriage and anticipate discovery of a gay gene also believe evolution is an unassailable fact. In fact, if you believe evolution you cannot logically believe that homosexuality is a genetically driven advancement. It does not promote the propagation of our species or lead to any other. To the contrary, it would lead to the extinction of the human race. What’s more, homosexuality does not even represent social or cultural progression. Growing support that homosexuality is a result of poor family dynamics or criminal abuse is also inconsistent with advancing the human race.” (from Hollowell, K. .Homosexuality: Evolution of the human race?)
The author of this article Dr. Hollowell writes that it’s false to classify homosexulism as a trend in human evolution. Homosexualism existed always, the earliest records of it go all the way to Ancient world cultures, it was spread in Middle Age epoch but of course its existence was hidden by chronicles due to domination of dogmatic Catholicism and Inquisition. The main issue with debates over homosexualism is that in prior epochs it was mostly avoided, but now in times of civil society it was brought to the surface of discussions. Hollowell writes that until homosexuality gene is not discovered it’s impossible to make any objective conclusions. Hollowell also writes that today the only solution to this problem could be found in ethical compromise, which would solve this problem and leave both sides (homosexuals and conservatives) on the positions of tolerance.
Scientists today cannot answer the question: whether people are born homosexuals, or the main role is played by environment. Scientists an psychologists who research the nature of sexual relations and human sexuality have not found a consensus which would give single classification and definition to homosexuality.

None would argue that the problem of homosexual relations is viewed differently by orthodox religion, society and by medical professionals. Even physicians have different views and theories about this issue: to the opinion of some psychiatrists homosexuality is a form of psychic disorder, which can be successfully treated under a correct monitoring from the side of physicians and correct therapy on the hand with changes made to the lifestyle and way of behavior.
The nature of homosexuality is different as it’s very individualistic and private issue: some homosexuals are sure about their non-traditional sexual preferences since their child years, others decided to change sexual orientation after obtaining rich sexual experience and experimentation made during their teenage or even adult years, or as a result of serious shock which has direct relationship to their heterosexual life or experience. Again we should agree that it may depend upon certain psychological and personal factors. Robert Spitzer, a professor of psychiatry is convinced about individualistic nature of homosexuality phenomenon, so he thinks that in many cases of “obtained” homosexuality, person has a big possibility to save his heterosexuality:
“A study based on interviews with 200 men and women who claimed to have switched their homosexual preferences demonstrates some “gays” are capable of becoming “predominantly” heterosexual through psychotherapy. “In some of the subjects, the reports of change in sexual orientation were substantial, credible and believable…” (Spitzer, R.)
Psychologists who support ideas of Spitzer also suggest that homosexuality may be avoided if those persons subjected to sexual uncertainty will be more restrained in their sexual activity and will limit their erotic fantasies, especially if they’ll try to occupy most of their free time with some sorts of activities:
“According to the findings, all 143 men and 57 women claimed the therapy altered their view of the same sex to some extent. All reported maintaining the change for at least five years.
In this study, only six of 202 “gay” men and lesbians who had been through counseling reported changing their sexual preference to heterosexuality. These subjects were interviewed between 1995 and 2000 for an average of 90 minutes. According to the interviews, 178 failed to change their orientation and 18 reported becoming asexual or conflicted.” (Spitzer, R.)
The article ‘Cure’ for homosexuality serves as a good evidence to this issue: it’s impossible to view and analyze homosexuality only through the prism of medicine or tradition biological views considering it psychological pathology as the origins of human sexuality are very subjective and individualistic. Moreover, homosexuality cannot be viewed as psychic disorder or abnormality as it doesn’t have any issues with social behavior of a person. Homosexuals are equal members of society and the issue of their private life can be only discussed on the rights of privacy.


1.Hollowell, K. .Homosexuality: Evolution of the human race? Article Worldnetdaily available at web resource:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37336

2.Spitzer, R. ‘Cure’ for homosexuality? Study: Some ‘gays’ can become ‘predominantly’ heterosexual with psychotherapy Article, Workdnetdaily available at web resource:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34943

Our services