Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?
That's it. No fancy thesis, no viewpoint of my own (yet). All that lies here is a challenge to you the reader to prove the origins of homosexuality. Who here can make the more compelling case for their side?
If one merely wants an answer to the title question that speaks to causality, one is probably at something of a loss to say accurately whether homosexuality is genetically caused. The simple fact is that we don't yet know the cause(s) of sexual orientation -- straight, gay or otherwise. We do know is that homosexual coitus does not produce offspring and we know that heterosexual intercourse can.
There have been two studies that found correlations between homosexuality and biological observations (Bailey; Hamer). Other studies have uncovered anatomical correlates (LeVay; Swaab). All well and good, certainly interesting reading; however, even ignoring the criticisms of those studies, they have found only anatomical and genetic correlations, but a correlation is not expressly a cause; neither is it not an etiology.
So where does that leave one? Well, that depends on who's considering any given question pertaining to homosexual orientation and their own capacity for objectivity and their predilection for bias. A correlation shows that X and Y occur together at a statistically material frequency. In other words, the observed phenomenon is, with a very high degree of confidence, not random.
Objective and rationally valid thinkers -- no matter their personal take on the politics of sexual orientation, religion, or anything else -- thus will reason, correctly (Nizkor Project; Logically Fallacious), that while
a meaningful correlation doesn't identify a cause, it also doesn't occur without cause even when they don't know the etiology for the observed correlation. That degree of objectivity is consistent with Simon LeVay's remark, "Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not." (LeVay, 5, p. 122)
The thing is that neither LeVay nor anyone else has identified the etiology of sexual orientation. A fine summary of the key findings of the major studies of genetic correlates of sexual orientation is
here. It also provides summaries of the criticisms made of those studies . Read it as you see fit, but know that every one of the studies has at best only found correlation.
What about non-objective/irrational folks? What will they say about the as yet undiscovered etiology of sexual orientation? The simple answer is "just about anything other than what's noted above." Broadly speaking and with regard to genetic etiology, we know they'll argue that because we haven't found a genetic cause, there must not be one. To conclude so is clearly specious. If I look on the Moon for human life, I'll never find it because it's not there. If I'm looking for human life, however, I will realize there are literally trillions of places I need to look before I can conclude it exists in just one place, Earth. In other words, what one finds depends on where one looks.
So what does one, one like me who isn't going to conduct my own scientific study(s) of the the matter, do in the face of such uncertainty? Well, one keeps reading and looking for new information. If one is a scientist who cares to find the answer, one keeps looking a cause, or one decides it doesn't matter enough and stops looking for the cause. Either way, scientist or layman, what one who is objective does not do is conclude that the cause is genetic, environmental, parental nurturing practices, social cues, the consequence of foods eaten, due to alien programming, or anything else. On posits only that something or some things is/are the cause.
Now I'll come to my answer, and, quite frankly, it's substantively no different than that which another writer (Unknown) offered at the end of his own review of the various papers and books noted below, so I'll offer his succinct summary and state that I concur.
After reading and researching many more articles than I have had time to talk about here, I would have to say it seems to me that at this stage of scientific knowledge, we have to conclude that there is a biological basis for sexual orientation, but that this is only a small part of whatever constitutes the predisposition. It seems fairly certain that there is not just a single gene responsible for turning us on more to one or other sex, but that there must be several, if not many, genes and not necessarily acting alone. Whatever these genes are, they are probably responsible for the way our bodies produce chemical substances, such as serotonin and dopamine, which in turn affect sexual identity, orientation and drive, in similar ways our genes also help create our proclivity for characteristics such as anxiety, depression, risk taking, even aging and weight control, and perhaps — as our old friend Károly Mária Kertbeny might add — our responsiveness to the body odours of our fellow human beings.
For me, the simple truth is I really don't care whether sexual orientation is biological, psychological, a deliberate choice, or something else. I don't care about the gay man who has the hots for me and I don't have the hots for him. I can live with that being the desire or lack thereof which we both have. Unrequited desire is not a strange thing to me; I suspect it's hardly foreign to most folks. He'll get over the fact that I'm not willing to bed him. Similarly, I don't care about the ugly woman who has the hots for me. The dynamics are 100% the same. I have absolutely no different response. "It's just not happening," is all I have to say to either of them.
Since I have no different reaction to the advances of gay men than I do with unacceptable women, I don't see any point in my caring what be the etiology explaining either's sexual orientation or in making something of it. What do I gain from making something of it? Nothing! Not one damn thing. We might become friends at some point, but that relationship won't result from anything sexual. So when it comes to the cause(s) of sexual orientation, for now, the best I can muster for now is to consider the discovered correlations and possible causes as "interesting information to obtain for the sake of knowing." If at some point scientists determine the etiology of sexual orientation, and they also figure out how to control the workings of the etiology, it might be that we can control, at which point knowing may be useful for something.
If given my way, I would prefer the cause of sexual orientation to be something that is non-genetic, non-psychological, but that is a consequence of nature....maybe something like the number of times some certain fetal cells encounter neutrinos or some other uncontrollable event of nature. That way we can move past this issue and also not bother with trying to control or alter it. Sometimes, things just are what they are and the more stuff that is that way, in my mind, the better. It keeps life simple.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
-- Serenity Prayer
References:
Above I have referenced the following works. In my prose, I parenthetically note the first author's name followed by a digit if the author has multiple publications shown below. The digit corresponds to the number preceding the referenced work.
- Bailey JM, Pillard RC. "A genetic study of male sexual orientation"
- Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N, Pattatucci AML. "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation"
- LeVay S. "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men"
- LeVay S, Hamer DH. "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality"
- LeVay S. Sexual Brain
- Logically Fallacious. "Affirming the Consequent"
- The Nizkor Project. "Post Hoc"
- Swaab DF, Hofman MA. "An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men"
- Unknown author. "Born That Way The Biological Basis for Homosexuality"
- Abrams M. "Born Gay" -- I didn't refer to this article, but it's an interesting read.
