Genetic Basis of Homosexuality

[broncofan]

Although this could easily go in the main forum, I decided to try to put it in this one because our views on this issue often dictates how we feel about political issues affecting the gay community.

First question. Do you believe sexual orientation is hardwired? The reason I say hardwired and not genetic is because there is evidence that prenatal hormone levels may influence a child's sexual orientation during a sensitive period where their brain has the greatest plasticity. So, while there may be a genetic influence there are other avenues to explain the immutability of sexual orientation if you think it's not a choice. Second, if you believe it's a choice, is it a choice that has any bearing on morality? For this I suppose we go back to Leviticus, and specifically the proscription on men lying with men.

Finally, if you are one who believes that gays should not be allowed to be married, or who believes that Colorado for instance was within their rights to change their state Constitution to prevent homosexuals from getting protection in hate crime legislation: Would your opinion change if you had a family member who was gay? And if not, then give us a short written sample of how you would explain this to your family member.

This is not to call anyone out in particular. However, if you have gone on record saying you are against gay marriage, your answers would particularly interest me.

[broncofan]

Oh and just to close a loophole. If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, or that it's acceptable for others to believe that, is the basis of your belief religious? And if so, how do you square this with our secular constitution and specifically the establishment clause of the first amendment?

Sorry for so many questions. Consider this your gay marriage/gay rights questionnaire.

I'll go first. I believe that homosexuality has a genetic basis and that those who are gay cannot be talked out of it or programmed to find members of the opposite sex attractive. While there may be one or two documented cases in history of people changing their sexual orientation, it is not something subject to much if any environmental influence. I think it has nothing at all to do with morality, as I believe sex is moral as long as the two (or more) parties consent and have the capacity to consent (this excludes sheep and children).

Finally, I do think that laws explicitly banning gay marriage are an end run around the establishment clause. When the first amendment says that the government shall not establish a national religion, I believe this also includes enacting policies that only have a religious basis. For instance, I would like someone to challenge this and make an argument for the immorality of homosexuality sans religion.

[trish]

I’ll eventually try to get around to most of your questions as they apply to me, but first and most importantly I want to emphasize that the nature/nurture question should be irrelevant to one’s moral and legal judgments of sexual and gender orientation. I don’t give a shit whether it’s a lifestyle that one chooses to take up or a biological imperative, gays lesbians and transgender persons are first and foremost persons and deserving the full measure of rights and protection afforded by the Constitution or any other legal and/or moral code pretending to codify what is just and unjust.

However the nature/nurture question is decided the answer will certainly be irrelevant to homophobes and bigots. If homosexuality is hardwired, bigots will regard it as a malady. You don’t let people with severe autism bang their heads against the wall and you don’t let homosexuals fuck each others asses. Michelle Bachmann’s husband thinks homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured. If homosexuality is all personal preference and choice, then bigots will of course says it’s an immoral choice. As far as social politics goes, I think the nature/nurture question is a lose/lose focus point.

Is sexuality hardwired? IMO yes. I’m not convinced it’s entirely hardwired in the genes. A great many traits are acquired in fetal development. Moreover, just as it’s important for heterosexual children in passing through puberty and through early sexual maturity to be exposed to a healthy balance of adult guidance and peer socialization in order to develop healthy sexual attitudes (affirming their personal and sexual identification) and acceptable social skills, the same is true of children with different orientations and identifications; i.e. even though orientation and identification might be determined by nature, they can be modified and directed by nurture (I don't think shoe fetishes are genetic for example).

As far as the moral implications of the first testament go: It says in Leviticus that a man should not lay down with a man as he would with a woman. That merely means that if you’re bisexual and you use the missionary position with women, then use the doggy or some other position with men. If you’re a guy and you only screw men, there’s no problem, you can use any and all positions. Besides, if you’re a Biblical literalist these are injunctions that God placed on the Levites. We aren’t Levites.

[hippifried]

I see all this in a spherical context, but that's an entirely different conversation. If you look at it linear, you can put hetero & homo sexuality extremes at the ends & bi-sexuality in the center. That leaves an infinite number of degrees off in one direction or the other. I doubt if any 2 people are exactly in the same place on the line. This is mostly hardwired. I say mostly, as a caveat, because I'm sure there are hedonists, especially around the the bi-sexual area of the line, who are just there for the activity & not because of any chemical attraction. That would be a choice, but the hedonists wouldn't give a flying fuck who likes the idea or not. They're not going to run off to NARTH or some other bullshit yokels who say they can fix you if they don't consider themselves broken. Sometimes, it's just about having fun.

For the hardwire: In-utero chemical changes make more sense to me as the driving force of orientation. There is research in this direction with evidence to show. There's been a lot of people looking for a gene, but no success. There very well could be a genetic factor that drives some of the in-utero chemical changes, but I don't see that as necessary for it to happen. The general bent & chemical attraction is definitely hardwired.

The politics of all this is insane. Being blissfully divorced for 40 years, I'm not really all that keen on the institution of marriage in the first place. No skin in the game means that all my bullshit is academic, but here goes anyway:

I think everybody's looking at this wrong. This bullshit at the State levels isn't really attacking the establishment clause as much as it's an attack on the the "full faith & credit" clause of Article IV, the "equal protection" clause in section 1 of Amendment XIV, & the Civil Rights Act. This is sexual discrimination. These bans are merely telling someone that they can't enjoy the same legal privileges as someone else because they're the wrong sex. This isn't about religion because this is America. The proponants of "prop 8" couldn't argue their case in Federal court because they couldn't argue that the State of CA had the power to ban an activity on religious grounds. Religion has no standing in the legal argument. Religion has no standing in defining morality either. Morality is universal. It's about how we treat each other. Not what somebody who's hearing voices, seeing halucinations, or reading about somebody else's ideas has to say. The only real moral authority is our conscience.

John Calhoun was full of shit. There's no such thing as "State's rights". Political entities only have powers, & those powers can be limited or even taken away. This idea that States can override recognized human rights, codified federal law, or the Constitution itself is just a crock of shit. A State referendum claiming the power to discriminate, despite all federal regulation to the contrary, has no standing whatsoever. DOMA was a blatant attempt to negate "full faith & credit", based on sexual discrimination at the State level. The latest boot it got from the federal court isn't being apealed because the law can't be defended. With that gone, States like NC would have to recognize a marriage licence from another State, regardless of who the licencees are. & BTW: There's no such thing as "gay rights" either. All human rights are innate & apply to all humans. Any human being who wants to marry another human being, & it's all concentual, has human rights, dstablished law, & Constitutional protections on their side. There should be no need to establish gay people as a new minority class.

[BluegrassCat]

While there may be one or two documented cases in history of people changing their sexual orientation, it is not something subject to much if any environmental influence.

I agree with you on the larger question of the causes of sexual orientation but the instances of changing sexual orientation among women is not that rare. Female sexuality appears to be more much fluid than men's.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7883867/Late-blooming-lesbians-women-can-switch-sexualities-as-they-mature.html

[hippifried]

I agree with you on the larger question of the causes of sexual orientation but the instances of changing sexual orientation among women is not that rare. Female sexuality appears to be more much fluid than men's.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7883867/Late-blooming-lesbians-women-can-switch-sexualities-as-they-mature.html
Isn't physical attraction mostly chemical? It would seem to me that in order to change "orientation", one would have to change their chemical receptors. That'd be a good trick. Having children changes all kinds of stuff in a woman's body, including hormonal makeup. Other than that, we're probably just dealing with degrees in the position on the line. The article seems to promote the idea that you're either one way or the other to start with. Not necessarily true.

[broncofan]

As far as the moral implications of the first testament go: It says in Leviticus that a man should not lay down with a man as he would with a woman. That merely means that if you’re bisexual and you use the missionary position with women, then use the doggy or some other position with men. If you’re a guy and you only screw men, there’s no problem, you can use any and all positions. Besides, if you’re a Biblical literalist these are injunctions that God placed on the Levites. We aren’t Levites.
Brilliant! This is a point to bring up with the fundamentalists. I agree with you that it shouldn't matter at all whether sexual orientation is hard-wired as if it's a choice it is still a choice that causes no harm whatsoever. When I was reading some equal protection cases though, there was some discussion that all of the protected classes had in common the immutability of the class defining characteristic. But of course one can make the argument that there are individuals with predispositions to perform actual evil acts, and the question of immutability is not wholly relevant to whether such acts are acceptable. Likewise, the entire point is that gay sex or whatever other hedonistic (meaning mostly not strictly reproductive) practices do not harm anyone whether one is making a choice or is entirely predisposed biologically.

Hippifried, you make a good point. The establishment clause has never been used as a challenge to the ban of gay marriage or for that matter gay sexual practices. The reason I bring it up is that in equal protection cases, when they evaluate the state laws in order to determine whether the law in question is tailored to a legitimate state interest, that interest is often described in quasi-religious terms. The state interest that Justice Scalia has used to justify support for many in my view homophobic decisions are general morals laws. In general, when a state justifies a law based on its compelling need, the state is said to be exercising its "police power", to protect the health, welfare, and safety of their residents. But these morals laws have really been used as an excuse in my opinion to inject religious values into the equation. If the state interest can only be described in terms of the religious views of the residents then I think there is the potential that religious tenets are annexed to the legislative mechanism.

And I agree, sexuality needs to be looked at more fluidly. In fact, the entire history of 14th amendment due process and equal protection cases have tended to work with categories; in the case of due process with the "fundamental rights" and with equal protection with whoever is claiming to be treated differently by the legislative act. This has tended to be a weakness in due process cases as the fundamental right the Court found there is the right to privacy. I agree that it is a fundamental right, but imo not the only one at stake in abortion cases, and certainly not one I at first understood perfectly.

[broncofan]

I agree with you on the larger question of the causes of sexual orientation but the instances of changing sexual orientation among women is not that rare. Female sexuality appears to be more much fluid than men's.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7883867/Late-blooming-lesbians-women-can-switch-sexualities-as-they-mature.html
Interesting. I definitely did not know that. One of the interesting things I read, admittedly on wikipedia about homosexuality was related to evolutionary theory.

As we know, heterosexuals beget homosexuals. Sometimes gay men reproduce and sometimes gay women reproduce but one would have to think that in evolutionary terms, where everything is dealt with in terms of reproductive rates, preferring same sex partners is a disadvantage. And while there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the subject, there does not appear to be a significant diminution in the number of homosexuals in the population over time.

One explanation for this is that recessive alleles carried by heterosexuals provide an adaptive advantage. When they are double recessive this may encode for homosexuality which carries a reproductive disadvantage. However, whatever advantage the recessive alleles carry with them when there is only one copy, is enough to offset the disadvantage when one is homozygous recessive for this gene. Anyhow, the theory is based on the gene known to encode for sickle cell anemia. Two recessive alleles and the person has sickle cell anemia. One recessive allele and the person has increased resistance to malaria. You can see how this would only be an advantage in areas where there is greater exposure to malaria.

Anyhow, the downside of this theory is that it was formulated based on an analogy to a devastating illness, sickle cell anemia!

[BluegrassCat]

Isn't physical attraction mostly chemical? It would seem to me that in order to change "orientation", one would have to change their chemical receptors. That'd be a good trick. Having children changes all kinds of stuff in a woman's body, including hormonal makeup. Other than that, we're probably just dealing with degrees in the position on the line. The article seems to promote the idea that you're either one way or the other to start with. Not necessarily true.


That article is poor summary of the research, just the quickest result from google. It's well documented that some women (a minority obviously) who consider themselves 100% lesbian later find themselves attracted to men and vice versa. And since every human behavior and thought can be reduced to chemical reactions, that something is chemically based says nothing of its permanence. You can use the continuum metaphor but going from straight to gay is moving a lot of degrees. I think all this says we need to have different models of male and female sexuality, just like bathrooms. ;)

[BluegrassCat]

Interesting. I definitely did not know that. One of the interesting things I read, admittedly on wikipedia about homosexuality was related to evolutionary theory.

As we know, heterosexuals beget homosexuals. Sometimes gay men reproduce and sometimes gay women reproduce but one would have to think that in evolutionary terms, where everything is dealt with in terms of reproductive rates, preferring same sex partners is a disadvantage. And while there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the subject, there does not appear to be a significant diminution in the number of homosexuals in the population over time.

One explanation for this is that recessive alleles carried by heterosexuals provide an adaptive advantage. When they are double recessive this may encode for homosexuality which carries a reproductive disadvantage. However, whatever advantage the recessive alleles carry with them when there is only one copy, is enough to offset the disadvantage when one is homozygous recessive for this gene. Anyhow, the theory is based on the gene known to encode for sickle cell anemia. Two recessive alleles and the person has sickle cell anemia. One recessive allele and the person has increased resistance to malaria. You can see how this would only be an advantage in areas where there is greater exposure to malaria.

Anyhow, the downside of this theory is that it was formulated based on an analogy to a devastating illness, sickle cell anemia!


I've heard this theory too. It seems to be the best we have at the moment. Btw, thanks for the interesting topic, Bronco. I hope Peyton comes back strong.

[robertlouis]

Finally, I do think that laws explicitly banning gay marriage are an end run around the establishment clause. When the first amendment says that the government shall not establish a national religion, I believe this also includes enacting policies that only have a religious basis. For instance, I would like someone to challenge this and make an argument for the immorality of homosexuality sans religion.

You raise many interesting questions in this thread, but for me, the one above is the absolute crux. In a country which has a strict division between church and state such as the US, it often appears to me as an interested outsider that those opposing LGBT rights, who may well be sincere in their beliefs (in the very same way as those who supported slavery often used spurious biblical justification for doing so, just in passing) are essentially constitutionally in the wrong to force their views forward if the premise is based on religious and not other belief.

Does the US constitution override states' rights on the religious nature of such questions? Are there any states who have in the past had, or would want to reintroduce, a connection between Christian faith and that state's constitution?

[broncofan]

You raise many interesting questions in this thread, but for me, the one above is the absolute crux. In a country which has a strict division between church and state such as the US, it often appears to me as an interested outsider that those opposing LGBT rights, who may well be sincere in their beliefs (in the very same way as those who supported slavery often used spurious biblical justification for doing so, just in passing) are essentially constitutionally in the wrong to force their views forward if the premise is based on religious and not other belief.

Does the US constitution override states' rights on the religious nature of such questions? Are there any states who have in the past had, or would want to reintroduce, a connection between Christian faith and that state's constitution?
Hi Robert,
I have taken one Constitutional Law course and I learned quite a bit but given the gaps in my knowledge I'll answer with what I know. Before discussing the Constitutional issues I'll just sort of lay out the framework of our government. The federal government is only allowed to legislate in areas where they are expressly given authority to do so in the Constitution. Where they are given authority to legislate, federal law trumps state law. Where they are not given power to legislate, that power is said to reside in the states.

When the bill of rights, which are the first ten amendments of our federal Constitution were enacted the understanding was that they were to constrain government action. However, it was not clear whether that was only to require the federal government to comply with its strictures. The 14th amendment passed shortly after our civil war and subsequent jurisprudence made it clear that states in passing their laws have the same requirements as the federal government but with a sort of caveat. The states can pass a law that infringes on a fundamental right if it is narrowly tailored to a compelling state need. For instance, they might be able to place a limit on someone's right to avoid self-incrimination, but only if they have a legitimate state objective and the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that objective (meaning it infringes on it as little as possible).

So what are "fundamental rights"? Well, the Court has said that any of the items in the bill of rights might be fundamental rights, but they have also expanded this to include the right to privacy. A state would not be able to have compulsory religion which would be prohibited by the establishment clause, which is in our first amendment. Now, I have not read enough cases myself to know exactly what the courts consider the establishment of a religion. For instance, if something has no secular justification, that would to me seem to be enough. So when states argue that they have a legitimate state interest in regulating the morals within their borders, some courts have been receptive to this. But again, I think the issue is where the morality comes from. If the morality is based on notions of "tradition", then it is going to naturally be very religious based. One of our most conservative Justices (Rehnquist), now dead, had a saying that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." To me, this is an incredibly stupid statement, particularly if it's a means of maintaining the status quo regardless of whether there is any internal logic to it.

So, I suppose at the end of the day, the separation of church and state is difficult to maintain strictly. The politicians who legislate answer to the people who often have strong religious justifications for their views; and so it is up to the courts to interpret such justifications as unconstitutional if they come close to violating the First Amendment. While there is a prohibition against establishing a state religion I do not believe it's interpreted to include those values that seem to linger but which have no independent, secular justification.

As for the actions of private persons, these are more difficult to regulate. In order to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which among other things, prohibited various types of discrimination by private parties, the federal government had to argue it was doing so pursuant to its power to regulate interstate commerce (the commerce clause). Remember I said that the federal government has supremacy over state laws in areas where its power has been enumerated in the constitution, but only in those areas. So, the Civil Rights Act was passed based on the federal government's legislative power to regulate commerce. This seems like such a thin reed to hang something so important as the Civil Rights Act. I know this last bit was beyond your question but I always found it interesting that this was the federal government's justification for legislating in that area. Nevertheless I am glad they did!

[broncofan]

But the short answer to your question Robert is that yes, the states are limited in what they can do by our Federal Constitution, but it is not absolute. Also, the devil's in the details I suppose with regards to what is considered trying to establish a religion. Perhaps someone who has read these cases would be able to say better than I what types of laws states have tried to pass that have been struck down on this basis. Mandatory public school prayer comes to mind?

[robertlouis]

But the short answer to your question Robert is that yes, the states are limited in what they can do by our Federal Constitution, but it is not absolute. Also, the devil's in the details I suppose with regards to what is considered trying to establish a religion. Perhaps someone who has read these cases would be able to say better than I what types of laws states have tried to pass that have been struck down on this basis. Mandatory public school prayer comes to mind?

Hmm, thanks, Broncofan (find yourself a better team, btw! :dancing: ). I suppose recent states laws enabling the teaching of creationism on a level field with evolution are evidence of that ambiguity.

Strangely enough, here in the UK we have an established church, in England only - the Anglican church, of which the world head is the Archbishop of Canterbury - but the monarch is the titular head of the church and its bishops by right sit in the (unelected) House of Lords. Yet Britain is closer to being a post-religious or secular society, while the US, despite its constitutional separation of the two institutions, always seems to feature a huge religious dimension in any debate about social change. Weird, isn't it?

[broncofan]

Hmm, thanks, Broncofan (find yourself a better team, btw! :dancing: ). I suppose recent states laws enabling the teaching of creationism on a level field with evolution are evidence of that ambiguity.

Strangely enough, here in the UK we have an established church, in England only - the Anglican church, of which the world head is the Archbishop of Canterbury - but the monarch is the titular head of the church and its bishops by right sit in the (unelected) House of Lords. Yet Britain is closer to being a post-religious or secular society, while the US, despite its constitutional separation of the two institutions, always seems to feature a huge religious dimension in any debate about social change. Weird, isn't it?
Yes it is and I agree with what you say. We have too much legislation at the local level imo. You'd think that a country with a very short history and whose Constitution was written by its best and brightest would have created a document both clear and logical. However, the document was so bare that most of the hard work has been done by the courts who had to figure out its meaning. As a result, everything sounds arbitrary and made up!

I hope I'm not overstepping by saying that a lot of the difference may be cultural. For instance, in Britain, would it not be seen as a little bit vulgar to trot our your deeply held religious views and judge others' actions by them? Would it be condemned if athletes credited their success with divine intervention? In the U.S, this is seen as a sign that someone comes from a good family and is down to Earth. The criticism of it is called elitism. A page of culture is worth a volume of Constitutional doctrine!

[robertlouis]

Yes it is and I agree with what you say. We have too much legislation at the local level imo. You'd think that a country with a very short history and whose Constitution was written by its best and brightest would have created a document both clear and logical. However, the document was so bare that most of the hard work has been done by the courts who had to figure out its meaning. As a result, everything sounds arbitrary and made up!

I hope I'm not overstepping by saying that a lot of the difference may be cultural. For instance, in Britain, would it not be seen as a little bit vulgar to trot our your deeply held religious views and judge others' actions by them? Would it be condemned if athletes credited their success with divine intervention? In the U.S, this is seen as a sign that someone comes from a good family and is down to Earth. The criticism of it is called elitism. A page of culture is worth a volume of Constitutional doctrine!

Over here in most cases the reaction to the faith-driven ranges from broadly sympathetic to mildly condescending via the view that it's sort of weird. The difference is that it's commonplace if not actually expected in the US whereas in the UK it's very rare indeed. Certainly in US politics any nod towards atheism or even to not being a regular churchgoer would be electoral suicide. It's a form of indirect fascism to enforce that level of conformity.

I have US friends who used to live in an affluent suburb of Dallas - they now live near me in the UK - who were regarded as beyond the pale as they didn't attend church and, even worse, didn't possess a single gun between the parents and their three sons.

[Stavros]

'The genetic basis of homosexuality...the politics of sexual orientation'.

Maybe the subtitle should be 'the science of sexual orientation'. I am confused by it all; I know that there is scientific explanation for some people whose gender identity at birth is not clear because they have been born with both a penis and a vagina or a deformed version of both or one or the other, some of which can be corrected by surgery some of which cannot. I am aware of the chromosomal structure which gives a female bias to some men and a male bias to some women, but there is a point at which this science simply does not interest me; and there is a limit to what it can explain.

In particular, is it science that can explain why for some men the most exquisite sexual satisfaction is reached through flogging, whipping, strangulation and so on? Some would look for a psychological explanation, but then some would argue psychology is not science; Freud wrote novels, there is no such thing as the 'unconscious' etc etc.

As for the 'Politics of sexual orientation', I would prefer it if certain people in the US and the UK freely admitted that when it comes to 'the politics of sexuality', the Taliban have it just about right, because I can't tell the difference between some of the statements I have read from so-called 'Christians' and the most myopic Muslims. African Christians seem to me to be no different from the Saudis or the Taliban on this issue. And I am not even sure why it is an issue in elections anyway, when elections are won and lost on economic issues.

[broncofan]

Over here in most cases the reaction to the faith-driven ranges from broadly sympathetic to mildly condescending via the view that it's sort of weird. The difference is that it's commonplace if not actually expected in the US whereas in the UK it's very rare indeed. Certainly in US politics any nod towards atheism or even to not being a regular churchgoer would be electoral suicide. It's a form of indirect fascism to enforce that level of conformity.

I have US friends who used to live in an affluent suburb of Dallas - they now live near me in the UK - who were regarded as beyond the pale as they didn't attend church and, even worse, didn't possess a single gun between the parents and their three sons.
I was talking to a very nice person one day and told him I'm an atheist. He said, he didn't understand because I seem so nice. He just looked at me like I was a devil worshipper. I said, "It's not that I don't believe in treating others well I just don't believe in a supreme being."

So on another occasion I told a woman I am Jewish, and she said, "so you don't believe in Jesus?" I didn't want to get into the whole debate about believe in him how. So I think if I say I'm agnostic that might work out alright.

You say that the reaction is sort of condescending towards such displays of religious fervor. I tell you that's how I feel. I think to myself, there goes any chance of a good conversation so just be polite. A perfect example of the American/Euro divide on the issue would be Michael Chang's 1989 French Open speech where he said Jesus was out there on the court with him. If I remember correctly, the Paris crowd whistled like they had never heard anything so preposterous.

You're right Stavros that it doesn't win elections. In the U.S, a politician chooses his party line so as not to be too radical on the issue and lose their constituents. A Republican cannot say he supports gay marriage, that he thinks homosexuality is genetic, and usually sticks to saying marriage is between a man and a woman. A Democrat sort of tests out the water on the issue and as we see with Obama eventually moves towards supporting gay marriage but usually once they've been elected.

The paraphilias, those things people frequently call fetishes do seem in many cases to be learned. Freud's psychoanalytic method is philosophically intriguing but as you say unscientific since its hypotheses are untestable. But behavioral psychology, since it eschews the mental component underlying behavior and focuses on the observable, does seem to allow the testing of hypotheses (but then one could claim it misses the essence of the psychological). I wouldn't be surprised if many people's shoe fetishes, or desires to be flogged were not tied to some sort of associative learning process, or classical conditioning of a sort. The question is at what age they developed a connection to certain types of arousal and specifically how. But if B.F Skinner were alive, perhaps he could train rats to be aroused by inanimate objects or certain types of privation.

It could be that the gender of one's desired partner is just too fundamental a thing to mold, whereas other conditions of arousal can be trained, even inadvertently. Just ideas.