Does the Claim of the Genetic Origin of Homosexuality Stand Up to Science?

The debate over homosexuality hinges on whether it is a natural or unnatural phenomenon.

Some argue that homosexuality is innate, claiming that there is a genetic code in human DNA that determines sexual orientation and identity, while social and environmental factors have no influence on one’s sexuality.

However, these arguments are challenged by some scientific writers and media analysts, who accuse the West of being deceived by a campaign of gay propaganda.

They claim that homosexuality is not inherited but rather a choice that can be changed. Two of those scientists are Neil and Briar Whitehead, who argue that homosexuality is not a fixed trait but rather a fluid and complex phenomenon.

On the other hand, some LGBTQ+ community members support homosexuality as a natural and legitimate behavior that should not be condemned by religions.

They point to scientific research that claims to have discovered the gay gene, which supposedly proves that homosexuality is ingrained in human DNA. They also invoke evolutionary theories to explain homosexuality.

The issue of homosexuality has also become a political one, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide in 2015, joining other countries that allow same-sex unions.

The question remains: Is homosexuality a natural behavior resulting from a genetic inheritance that evolved over thousands of years, or is it an acquired behavior and a psychological disorder influenced by several social and environmental factors?

 

Media Propaganda

Many media outlets have claimed to report the discovery of the gay gene or the genetic origin of sexual orientation. But these headlines are often misleading and inaccurate.

For instance, in a notable case, Dean Hamer, an American geneticist and gay rights advocate, conducted a study that suggested a link between genetics and homosexuality.

The American press hailed his finding as the discovery of the gay gene, but Hamer himself rejected this interpretation. He said: “We have not found the gene — which we don’t think exists — for sexual orientation.”

Hamer also argued that looking for a single gene that determines homosexuality was a futile endeavor, and he was not alone in his skepticism.

In 2015, a group of researchers from the University of California claimed to identify some epigenetic markers that influenced male homosexuality. Epigenetic factors are chemical changes that do not alter the DNA structure.

The prestigious journal Nature welcomed their study with enthusiasm, and so did several scientific websites.

However, upon closer examination, the study turned out to be flawed and unreliable. Ed Yong, a British science writer, pointed out some of the errors, such as excluding some data sets, selecting others to fit the researchers’ assumptions, and relying on only 47 twins, which was too small a sample to draw any conclusions or replicate the results.

He concluded: “If you use this strategy, chances are you will find a positive result through random chance alone.”

John Greally, a professor of genetics, also criticized the study, which was eventually retracted by the lead researcher, who admitted its deficiencies.

Greally confirmed that the problem with epigenetic studies is not specific to this poor study but rather a systemic one. According to him, chemical factors cannot be mechanically linked to a particular behavior, as correlation does not imply causation.

 

Genetic Sexual Behavior

A 2014 study by Northwestern University researchers examined the DNA of 400 gay men and found no evidence of a single gene that determines sexual orientation.

The study, which was not widely publicized, contradicted some earlier claims that suggested a genetic basis for homosexuality.

“Genes are not the whole story, they are not,” said Alan Sanders, a genetics professor who led the study. He added that the genes they analyzed were “either insufficient or unnecessary” to make any of the men gay.

The study highlighted the challenges of linking genes to complex human behaviors, such as sexual preference, that are influenced by multiple environmental and psychological factors.

Douglas Abbott, a family studies professor at the University of Nebraska, said that many people mistakenly believe that genes cause behavior directly, when in fact they only code for proteins that have some effect on behavior through a long chain of biochemical processes.

“The leap fro m an identified gene to a specific behavior is very complex and convoluted,” Abbott said.

Evan Balaban, a biology professor who agreed with Abbott’s view, said that it was “infinitely difficult” to identify the genes responsible for behavioral disorders, such as alcohol addiction. He said that such behaviors could not be defined unequivocally and depended on various environmental factors.

 

10% Homosexuals?

Some groups, such as the One-n-Ten Foundation, claim that one in ten people is gay by nature.

But surveys in Western countries have found much lower rates of same-sex attraction and behavior, usually between 2 and 3 percent.

Moreover, these rates vary across time and place, suggesting that environmental influences are also at work.

A study by sociologist Amy Butler showed that the proportion of Americans who had a same-sex partner doubled fro m 

1988 to 2010, reflecting changes in media, social, and political attitudes.

If homosexuality were purely genetic, the rates would be stable. Another puzzling finding is that some Western churches have unusually high rates of homosexuality among their clergy and students.

An Episcopal priest, Malcolm Boyd, said he encountered more gay people in religious institutions than in Hollywood.

A report by The Times in 2000 revealed that AIDS deaths among American Christian clergy were 10 times higher than among the general population. And some sources reported that up to 30 percent of the community in American theology colleges were gay.

These numbers indicate that factors other than genes and human nature shape sexual orientation.

 

Social Factors

Scientists have long debated whether homosexuality is determined by genes or influenced by social factors. The answer may be both.

According to David Shank, an American science writer, genes are not fixed blueprints but rather flexible switches that interact with the environment to shape our traits.

In his book The Genius in All of Us, He argues that genes do not define who we are, but they still matter.

Some researchers have suggested that genes may account for 10% of homosexual attraction, but this effect is weak and indirect. For instance, having tall genes does not guarantee becoming a basketball player.

Other factors, such as family background, childhood experiences, and peer relationships, may play a bigger role in shaping sexual orientation.

Studies have found that homosexuals are more likely to have had absent or distant parents, fewer same-sex friends, and more gender non-conformity than heterosexuals.

These factors may increase the likelihood of homosexuality by 20% to 15%, respectively. Moreover, sexual abuse in childhood may also contribute to homosexuality in some cases.

Therefore, sexual orientation is not a simple matter of nature or nurture, but a complex result of both.