It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the trait of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response. Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives. One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual? A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago. A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.