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>.
Comments
You haven't proved much against Chris
To Matthew I feel you are mistaken. You shot down religious arguments without given any valid reasons to eradicate them. If you looked carefully "Anti-Gay" ppl you speak of usually have very clear religious reasons as to relating homosexuality to murder because they are both sins punishable by death in the eyes of those who use the bible as support. For people who have any interest in the bible and still in favor of homosexuality, though homosexuals are not put to death nowadays and ppl argue that was a thing of the past, this STILL lets u know of God's hatred for homosexuality to give homosexuals the same punishment as someone who has committed murder. And homosexuals DO indirectly affect the public. Yes people say it’s none of anyone else's business however maybe if the public didn't have to deal with the politics involved as well as the STD's then it wouldn't be thrown in everyone's face. Think about it: how can someone tell the public to stay out of the same thing that they want the public to support.. such as Gay Marriages for example. EVERYONE is somehow affected by homosexuality otherwise we wouldn't even HAVE blogs and debates and scientist who have to study if there is a "gay gene" *anonymous commenter stated earlier that few decades ago homosexuality wasn’t even a topic*.. which by the way where is your proof that homosexuality is supported biologically? People are quick to repeat what they hear but never take the time to investigate. There are three significant experimental findings by LeVay, Bailey, and later Hamar that all presented evidence towards genetic homosexuality and all three experiments presented fallacies with NO clear proof of biological homosexuality. This site provides good links as well.
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