The Science of Homosexuality
Homosexuality is an issue that has sparked tumultuous debate in the United States, and has been brought to the forefront in the last fifty to sixty years. While the legal and social implications has captured the attention of the media, the lingering question of biology remains at the core of the debate. Is it possible that one is born with the characteristic of being homosexual, or is it solely a learned behavior embedded in cultural norms? Researchers since the nineteen-fifties have studied homosexuality in a variety of ways, through genetics, animal behavior, and even birth order. While few have come to a conclusive answer, important progress has been made since the time homosexuality was merely considered a mental disorder that could be cured.
In the March 2004, Health and Medicine Week, research findings from the study of homosexuality in rams was published. Scientists at Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine had looked at the biological foundations of a male sheep's homosexuality. They used the animals since they had been consistently and thoroughly studied in the past, and provided for a controllable experiment. They studied the oSDN, "an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain." The hypothalamus is an important part of the brain that regulates body temperature, blood pressure, as well as sexual behavior. Researchers found that the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus (oSDN) was larger and contained more neurons in male- oriented rams (1). This information is important in several different ways. While it is solely a study on ram behavior, it is believed that homosexuality can be found in many different species, not limited to humans. This is also important because it is the first study to show a relationship between variations in sexual partner preference and brain structure in an animal, which could provide insight into how humans are studied and what should be looked for in humans to unlock the clues of biological causes of homosexuality.
While the rams are an interesting case study, there are also research findings directly relating to humans. The prenatal hormone theory is a provocative explanation of the link between biology and homosexual tendencies. It is based on the idea that hormones can affect a fetus in the womb and can influence brain development. Studies on the neuroendocrine function in homosexuality has shown that while levels of testosterone and estrogen do not typically vary along the lines of homo and heterosexuality, it is one's response mechanisms to these hormones that can play a role in sexual orientation. It is far too basic to attribute homosexuality with a lack of testosterone in males and a lack of estrogen in women, and many studies have negated this idea. However, the central nervous system, which mediates behavior and physiological responses, can be heavily affected by the level of hormones present (2).
It is also believed that birth order has a direct relation to whether or not one is gay. It is possible that a woman's fetus builds up certain antibodies in her first pregnancy, if it is with a male, to male antibodies, and these affect the development of male fetuses in subsequent pregnancies (4). For each older brother, humans are believed to be approximately 33% more likely to be homosexual. In other studies, it has been found that homosexuals are 39% more likely to be left- handed than heterosexuals (3).
Biological study of sexual orientation is not without its flaw. It has been criticized in the scientific world for reducing the subject to simplistic sides of homo and hetero sexual behavior. Simon LeVay is a scientist who has published extensive research on the difference in biology between homo and heterosexuals. In Science magazine in1991, Thomas A. Schoenfeld writes about his work and the faults he finds with LeVays work. Schoenfeld states that biology cannot always be viewed as something that runs against social environment and upbringing, "It is all too common to see early experience, social learning, or choice pitted against biology, but these are false dichotomies" (5). Rather it is the genetic and biological traits that lead to predisposition towards certain behavior characteristics. This approach allows for the biological factors in homosexuality, without limiting the subject to exclusively culture or biology.
All of the research that has surfaced in the past century reflects an interesting pattern of social acceptability of homosexuality. What was once thought of as a negative and controllable defect, is now recognized and embraced by many. While society is far from fully accepting homosexuality as a cultural norm, it has entered the public sphere as a subject worthy of discourse, rather than feared and ignored. It is in this sense that scientists are able to invest more of their time and money into researching homosexuality. In addition, the study of homosexuality itself both in its cultural causes and social effects, such as AIDS, depression, gender roles, marriage laws, has gained world wide attention. The research presented is far from conclusive, and generally generates more questions than it answers. It is uncertain whether or not humans will truly understand the relationship between nature and nurture and the intricate balance of biological or genetic effects and learned cultural behavior. After seeing some of the evidence about biological theories of homosexuality, I am not completely convinced of researchers conclusions. However, I do believe that it presents the interesting point that one cannot consider homosexuality to be a purely psychological or behavioral characteristic, completely disregarding any evidence of biological or genetic influence. After all, in our society, where in some places homosexuals are treated with little respect, and often times, are met with hostility, why would one choose to be gay?
Works Cited
1) "Biology is Behind Homosexuality in Sheep, Study Confirms." Health and Medicine Week (2004): 422. ProQuest. Bryn Mawr College Canaday Library. 25 Sept. 2006 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=588863761&Fm t=3&clientId= 42764&RQT=309&VName=PQD>.
2) Diamant, Louis. Male and Femal Homosexuality: Psychological Approaches. Cambridge: Hemisphere Corporation, 1987. 129-153.
3) Kristof, Nicholas D. "Gay At Birth?" New York Times (2003): a19. ProQuest. Bryn Mawr College Canaday Library. 24 Sept. 2006 <http://proquest. umi.com /pqdweb ?did=430686171&Fmt=2&clientId=42764&RQT=309&V Name=PQD
4) Levay, Simon. "The Biology of Sexual Orientation." Homepage of Simon LeVay. Feb. 2006. 25 Sept.2006 <http://members.aol.com/slevay /page22.html#_Brain _stud ies%97function>.
5) Schoenfeld, Thomas A. "Biology and Homosexuality." Science 254 (1991): 630. JStor. Bryn Mawr College Canaday Library. 25 Sept. 2006 <http://links.js tor.org/sici?sici= 0036-8075%2819911101%2 93%3A254%3A503 2%3C630%3ABAH %3E2.0.CO%3B2-9>.
Genetic Sexual Diversity
TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN GENETIC SEXUAL DIVERSITY
There are two types of sexual human beings: heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are defined as the set of XX-XY progeny-producing pairs; non-heterosexuals include everybody else. You are one or the other, but you cannot be both. You are at some point on a continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other. The source of such a non-uniformly distributed range of phenotypic expression lies in the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule (DNA), a plastic molecule capable of spontaneous mutation and responsible for all living things as you know them.
Living organisms (including humans) of whatever complexity arise from an evolutionary-derived genetic substrate. This genetic, mutational substrate is capable of producing an infinite number of human phenotypic expressions. Human phenotypes are finished products of the human DNA blueprint, one of which is sexual expression.
Non-heterosexual rights is clearly a civil rights issue! There is no natural right to heterosexual supremacy. We are dealing with genetically-induced phenomena. Should we reinvent the wheel and begin again with a Supreme Court declaration of separate but equal status? I think not.
If I may continue to ramble.
Nature has no purpose; only consequences. Thrusting a planet into Newtonian space will cause that planet to follow a straight course…unless acted upon by another force. Consequently, Earth revolves around the sun because the sun’s gravitational field pulls it. Throw a ball into the air and, consequently, it returns toward Earth because another force, Earth’s gravity, draws upon it.
The consequence of a scaled range of human reproductive success (ranging from heterosexual to non-heterosexual phenotypes) is the convergence of the gene pool. This occurs because if you subtract a clinically significant percentage of genetic diversity from independent assortment mechanisms, the genetic pool will have less variability with each generation of newborns.
As a consequence, genetic material is removed from recombination opportunities. The genetic pool is restricted in potential variations because gene combinations and permutations are lacking. Subsequently, combinations and variations of genetic expressions are unavailable. Speciation (species is defined as an interbreeding population) to novel life forms fails to occur. The consequence of a converged gene pool is obstruction to human speciation as the universe unfolds in space and time.
So, it must follow that a portion of humanity is repository of non-recombining DNA segments that are culled away from mechanisms of independent assortment. These fragmented human DNA islands are deprived of participation in genetic exchange processes. Consequently, they are isolated from contributory global genetic patrimony. Non-participating genes cause humans to arrive at the cusp of species differentiation but never quite cross the threshold of speciation to newer life forms. We do have races of mankind, but not
a different species of man. Non-lethal mutations of DNA are retained in human progeny and become inbred in the human population.
The net effect of a converged gene pool is that humans are the end of an evolutionary line. There are many races, but only one species. And that will remain so. No other new human species will arise because the genetic pool is unable to expand due to genetic mechanisms inherent in human DNA and the phenotypic expressions arising from them.
Despite many isolating factors such as (1) the prehistoric migration of the human species throughout the world, (2) prolonged remote isolation of the human races (geographical barriers, cataclysmic phenomena, natural disasters, etc.), (3) deoxyribonucleic acid mutations, and (4) substantially elapsed periods of time (all the ingredients of speciation), no other human species has evolved, nor will. Non-heterosexual humans are the gatekeepers of speciation, and the gate is genetically locked. There is no key! Therefore, humans can no more speciate than can religions suspend the laws of nature. This phenomenon of species containment and genetic non-differentiation is intimately connected to heterosexual and non-heterosexual biologically-predetermined behavior.
If the evolution of humans has halted, then strategies to evoke desirable human qualities may be proposed. Only selective breeding and assortative mating can cluster desirable (or undesirable) genetic characteristics. Homogenization of the human races, as is the current trend, may produce a genetically more robust human species.
Selecting out superior genetic characteristics from the convergent gene pool may succeed to produce a healthier human species. Superior human qualities may be promoted via public policies that are socially desirable and acceptable.
One conceivable socially approved method is global competition among all individuals in the economic and educational arenas. This will select out desirable traits from those who are healthy, wealthy, and wise. But manipulated selection that arises from a system of universal competition will not benefit everyone equally!
E A Mortarelli
what has to do religion with it?
If someone wants to be homosexual, religious say they are wrong, if someone wants to stop being homosexual, religious say all they can do it's turn "holly"... I think the only real solution to give happiness it has to do with science, religion it's just some kind of opression who wants us to believe there is no way out except for god.
I'm just asking...
If there is a God; does he really cares about who we love?
Homosexuality and Science
It is interesting to discuss about homosexuality. When we were children in 1950, we did not hear much about it. Now in these twenty years we are hearing much about it, and there is a controversy about it in science and in religion. Homosexuality is something peculiar: is it normal, natural, genetic, or abnormal, deviant, disorder, unnatural (and unusual)? Sexual orientation can be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and pedophile. What is normal, what is abnormal? Since homosexuality is considered by the society at large as abnormal, can it be changed? if it is changed, is it harmful? These are the questions that come into picture in any discussion about homosexuality in the light of science and of ethics(Christianity, or any other religion). There is homosexuality behaviour among the animals. Does it mean that homosexual behaviour among humans is politically correct, socially acceptable, ethically good?
Science does not come through scientific evidence to the conclusion that homosexuality is genetically determined. On the other hand, we would not say that humans choose to be homosexuals (in orientation). Can homosexuality be corrected and changed? Or should we say that homosexuality should not be changed, because it would harm the homosexual patients? What should we say about the pedophiles? How should we comment about the biblical statements? What is the relationship betwenn nature and nurture? I would end my reflections rather with questions than with all definite answers. But I would have in mind some direction while answering all our questions. This is a delicate issue. We do respect our homosexual brethren and lesbian sisters. But let us search the truth in all these issues. Let the truth prevail. We can always continue our research...
Matthew is right!
Matthew has said practically all I was going to say!
Homosexuality is natural
Maybe homosexuality is natural for the human race in order to keep human beings from overpopulating. Have there been any studies done in this area?
observation
I came to this site out of curiosity. I am an older, heterosexual male who works as a DJ three nights a week at a local sports bar where several lesbian girls hang out occasionally. I have an observation from a "straight" viewpoint.
The lesbians and gay men I have encountered in my life are people. They laugh, cry, love, argue, make mistakes, do amazing things, have productive lives, fall down, get back up...and unfortunately some fall down and stay down. They are people, plain and simple. Some are likable, and some are difficult to like. Some are beautiful and some are ordinary...just like everyone else.
In my view, anyone who finds love and companionship that lasts and is healthy for them, regardless of gender, is blessed. Each and every person knows in their own heart whether they love someone, or are just out for a good time. That's not for me or anyone else to judge.
By the way...the girls who come to my DJ dance floor are fun to watch. *smile*
PR
Well said. That's what I've
Well said. That's what I've been thinking too.
Chris is incorrect
How on earth could you compare homosexuality to murder? One is a crime and the other isn't (even if its "unnatural" it is not harming anyone)
I find all those who are anti-gay tend to use religious arguments in their favour. RUBBISH, nothing but emotion and wasteless human error in such things as the Bible.
Fact update: Psychologists have concluded that pedophiles have no adult sexual orientation (they are neither hetero, homo or bi) They only focus on children (age) soley regardless of sex in some matters. This means PEDOPHILIA and homosexuality are two different things. Even further expand this, Pedophiles have not advanced past a healthy adult mentality concluding to the choice in pedophilia.
Man is doing nothing wrong in homosexuality, animals are great to observe when it comes to natural instinct, so you can well and truly keep your incompetent theories to yourself because it seems that in all departments (science, biology, psychology) there is a clear logic towards NATURAL HOMOSEXUALITY.
In all the world there are
In all the world there are more creatures than just man that make lifetime matings. Among them, some of the noblest -- wolves, swans, gees, the graet raptors -- all creatures man could do worse then emulate, in many, many ways. And with all of them, all, there are those pairings, from time to time, within the same gender. Not often, but not unheard of either. I tell you to think on this: homosexual pairing occurs in nature. How then, 'unnatural'? Usual, no; and not desirable for the species, else it would die out for lack of offspring. But not unnatural. The beasts in the fields are innocent as man can never be, who has the knowledge of good and evil and the choice between, and the beasts in the field do not cast out their gay brotheren. This I think I have learned: where their is love the form does not matter, and the gods are pleased. This I have observed: what occurs in nature, comes by the had of nature, and if the gods did not approve, it would not be there.
Magic's Pawn
book one of The Last Herald Mage
chapter 9 page 278 – 279
Comparison between Animals and Humans
I understand your point. I believe differently because of a few key things. First off, I want to comment on the last thing that was originally posted on this blog/site. "After all, in our society, where in some places homosexuals are treated with little respect, and often times, are met with hostility, why would one choose to be gay?"
Doesn't that beg the question: After all, in our society, where is all places murderers are treated with little respect, and often times, are met with hostility, why would one chose to murder someone else?
By saying that you don't think someone would do something because society looks down upon it as a minority or even a majority doesn't make any more sense than saying people would never chose to murder someone because society looks down upon it. And there is no one person in the whole earth who will argue that every murder is caused by an emotional disturbance, or a psychological disorder.
Now, to comment on your view point that if it's found in nature, then the gods must approve or it wouldn't be there. Do the "gods" approve of tornadoes and earthquakes that cause so many people to lose their homes and die as a result? Do you think that tsunamis are approved by the "gods", even the one that wiped out over 100,000 people in asia just earlier this year?
Everyone has their own personal beliefs, but here's my idea. There are pedophiles who like to have sex with children also, and they exist in nature. If homosexuality has to be genetic, doesn't the preference for younger sex partners also have to be genetic? They are both sexual preferences right? Or are they choices? As the poster of the original article even stated, there is no conclusive evidence yet that concludes that sexual preference is caused by genetics.
In nature, both humans and animals have demonstrated many equal characteristics as far as their basic animal instincts; hunting, reproduction, and territorial domain are just a few examples right? Well, you said yourself that animals don't have the ability to determine between right and wrong. Why then if homosexuality was wrong would you believe that they could chose to "do the right thing". You have said that humans have the ability to determine between right and wrong, and because of that, there is controversy between homosexuality. Because some believe it to be wrong, and others right, there will always be controversy. The main issue here is that if a murderer is caught, they will try to make excuses for why they did it. You can go to court and see for yourself: emotional distress, psychological issues, greed, pre-emptive strikes (i thought they were going to kill me first). Many of these are excuses, not actual fact. Man by nature when they know they are doing the wrong thing tries to excuse it somehow, in every instance. I believe this is why this issue has come to the forefront. Not because it's reasonable, or even logical or true, but because people want an excuse to do the wrong thing.
And if there are "gods", where is their instruction? Where do these "gods", who if they were gods would have had to define right and wrong for us, give us their definition of what's right and wrong? Do they even talk about it? Do they even exist?
Post new comment