Social Argument: Is Homosexuality Genetic?

Ron
9:30 am

Sometime back I wrote a series of articles on homosexuality, the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Trans-sexual) issue and gay marriage, from a Christian worldview. I wrote these articles not to make homosexuality the worst of sins, as some accused, but to address the fact there has been a massive cultural shift in America and the world in recent days. I wrote these articles to present a biblical worldview, not to condemn gay people. I believe in grace and love extended to every person. Every individual is worth treating with dignity. However, that does not mean we re-define (to re-determine boundaries or define something again) scriptural truth according to a cultural shift. Homosexuality is clearly defined as aberrant behavior or sin (Rom. 1:16,17; 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Tim. 1:10).

The articles posted on our website received much praise. However, as it was reposted on other websites and Facebook a trickle of criticism came in. One criticism, particularly among Millennials, was that since homosexuality has been “proven” to be genetic, it is hypocritical and bigoted not to accept it as a legitimate lifestyle.

I understand some Christians are hesitant to accept the fact that homosexuality is immoral when some sources are saying it is genetic or a product of birth. I would like to address the issue from two points of view: (1) biblically and (2) analysis of research.

Biblically – 1 Cor. 6:9, 10 lists homosexuality in a list of acts that it says, “…will not inherit the kingdom of God.” How hypocritical and schizophrenic would it be for God to be involved in genetic conception of an individual and then prohibit kingdom inheritance?

Scientific research – Does scientific research contradict the Bible and prove homosexuality as genetic? There are 4 basic studies people use to validate this claim.

1. Simon LeVay – In 1991 LeVay studied the brains of 35 men, 19 of whom were believed to be homosexuals and 16 who were believed to be heterosexuals. LeVay found neurons in the hypothalamus (thought to be associated with the regulation of reproductive behavior) to be larger in heterosexual men than in homosexuals. For that reason he postulated homosexuality to be genetic. This study is often quoted to validate that homosexuality is inborn. However, there are a number of holes in his theory:

His findings were not uniformly consistent. In fact, some of his homosexual subjects had a larger set of neurons in the hypothalamus than the heterosexuals.¹ In fact, LeVay did not measure these neurons properly.²
It is also noteworthy to mention that Dr. Kenneth Klivingston of the Salk Institute pointed out that the neuron change is likely due to response in environment.³ It is more likely to say brain structure changes throughout life as a consequence of experience, rather than as a result of the brain structure of homosexual or heterosexual men.⁴
LeVay was not verifiably certain his subjects were homosexual or not.
It could hardly be said that LeVay’s findings were objective, since he was openly gay and after the death of his partner, he was determined to find a genetic cause for homosexuality.⁵
It is equally noteworthy to point out that LeVay himself concluded, “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.” Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, from Brown University, declared, “My freshmen biology students know enough to sink this study.⁶

2. Bailey & Pillard – In 1991, J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University (a gay rights activist) and psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University School of Medicine (who is openly gay), compared sets of identical twins (whose genetic ties are exact) and fraternal twins (whose genetic ties are less exact). Among identical twins, 52% were both gay and among fraternal twins 22% were both gay. They postulated that since there is higher incidence in shared homosexuality among identical twins that homosexuality is genetic in origin.

Biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling suggested for the study to be valid, you’d have to study twins who were raised apart, to discount environmental factors, relationship to peers and sexual abuse or molestation.⁷Thus, it is impossible to tell whether it was genetics or environmental factors that were the root to the twin’s homosexuality.
Furthermore, if it were genes and not environment that was the cause, you would expect 100% of the twins to be homosexual, instead of 52%.
Also, the study could not be replicated. In 1992 when the British Journal of Psychiatry tried to replicate the studies, their figures for identical twins being gay was 20%, not the 52% of Bailey & Pillard.⁸

3. Dean Hamer – Dr. Hamer of the National Cancer Institute studied 40 pairs of non-identical gay brothers and determined that 33 of the pairs inherited the same x-linked genetic markers, thus indicating a genetic cause for homosexuality.⁹

Again, this study has yet to be replicated. It should be noted if it is genetic why would the results not be 100%?
George Ebers of the University of Western Ontario, did a similar study and found no linkage to markers of the x chromosome.¹⁰He concluded that the genes do not make people homosexuals.

4. The American Psychiatric Association (APS)

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is an official list of mental disorders that all mental health officials refer to when diagnosing patients.
In 1952 homosexuality was listed in the DSM as a sociopathic disorder.
In 1968 it was updated to social deviancy.
Under pressure from gay activists homosexuality was removed from all lists.
Swarms of outrage and protests arose from psychologists within the APA in 1974.
Ronald Brown suggested that the debate was more the product of political controversy than hard data.
It was also discovered that Dr. John P. Spangel, the President of the APA, was a closet homosexual, with a particular agenda.¹¹

Conclusion

This article is likely more research than any casual reader is prepared to do. It is necessary however, to make sure that research is thorough, lest an opposing view refer to something not referred to in examining research. Perhaps some simple observations are in order:

There is no study on homosexuality that has been done where the researcher has claimed to have found a genetic cause, only postulations.
Research has not produced a 100% result of their findings.
Even when research is not conclusive and a postulation has been made that homosexuality is genetic, it has not been able to be replicated.
Much of the research done has not been done objectively, but done with the motives to find a particular agenda, sometimes from the gay community.

Again, this is not an attempt to bash or condemn gay people, but an honest attempt to find truth. It is incumbent on all people of faith to love people of all sexual orientation and help them find freedom.

It’s not enough to tell people what we’re against anymore. Those in the liberal, progressive camp that are driving the acceptance of homosexuals want to paint everyone who disagrees with them into the corner of bigotry. Those on the right cry out that people who don’t stand up are compromising and spineless. If you don’t hate, you support.¹²There is however, another choice. I can’t let you redefine sexuality and marriage, but I love you. Homosexuality is wrong, but I care about you and love you!

Footnotes

John Ankenberg, “The Myth that Homosexuality is due to Biological or Genetic Causes,” (Research Paper) P.O. Box 8977, Chattanooga, TN 24711
“Is This Child Gay?” Newsweek, Sept. 9, 1991, p. 52.
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
David Gelman, “Born or Bred?” Newsweek, Feb. 24, 1992, p. 46.
King & McDonald, “Homosexuals Who Are Twins,” The British Journal of Psychiatry, March 1992, Vol. 160, p. 409.
Dean Hamer, “A Linkage to DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science Marches On, July 16, 1993, p. 321-327.
Scientific American, p. 26.
Alex Spiegel, 81 Words, Radio Production for National Public Radio.
Jonathan Parwell, article “Homosexuality Is Not Like Other Sin,” Desiring God blog