Homosexuality
in a Changing World: Are We Being Misinformed?
|
By
Dr. Nadia El-Awady
IslamOnline’s
Health & Science Editor
|
17/02/2003
|
Introduction
Discussing
the issue of homosexuality has been taboo in most societies for
ages. Being considered an act of sin by most cultures and religions,
there had not seemed to be much that required discussion. In recent
years, however, gay lobbies have cropped up in the West, and talk of
“coming out of the closet” has become common place. The pressure
formed by these lobbies on political and legal institutions, the
media, and society in general has resulted in a different definition
and concept of homosexuality in the mindset of the common Westerner.
Not only this, but the approach to homosexuality by scientists and
psychiatrists has completely changed.
In
November 2001, human rights groups severely criticized the Egyptian
government for arresting a group of suspected homosexuals, which
resulted in raising the issue of Islam’s stance on homosexuality.
Groups of gay Muslims have also become more vocal and have been
organizing in an effort to convince themselves and others that there
is no contradiction between being a Muslim and being a proclaimed
homosexual.
Ignoring
the issue and not properly discussing it only makes the issue more
confusing for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Below is an
attempt to commence such a discussion and to further understand this
issue in an Islamic and a scientific light.
Islamic
Stance on Homosexuality
In
contrast to the indecision of the scientific community in finding a
common definition and understanding of homosexuality, Islam is more
than clear on the matter.
In
an interview with Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the highly esteemed Islamic
scholar, he explained homosexuality to be a deviation from the
original rule.
The
rule goes that opposites attract and that Allah the Almighty
created man and woman to propagate the human species. For one to
be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex is a deviation
from this rule. This is why Allah says in the Holy Qur’an in
reference to the People of Lut (Lot), who were indulging in
homosexual acts at the time, “ Of all the creatures in
the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah
has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people
transgressing (all limits)!” (26: 165-166). Allah thus
considers such doings to be a transgression.
Elsewhere
in the Qur’an, Allah describes homosexuality as ignorance: “Would
ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye
are a people (grossly) ignorant!” (27: 55).
Yet
elsewhere we read, “For ye practise your lusts on men in
preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing
beyond bounds.” (7:81). “And we rained down on
them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those
who indulged in sin and crime!” (7: 84). “He
said: "O my Lord! help Thou me against people who do
mischief!"” (29: 30).
The
People of Lut in the Qur’an are thus depicted with all kinds
of corruption and sin: transgression, ignorance, sin and crime,
and mischief. Again, describing the People of Lut, Allah says, “Verily,
by thy life (O Prophet), in their wild intoxication, they wander
in distraction, to and fro.” (15: 72). Their actions
are described as a wild intoxication, which can be, by no means,
an explanation of something one is naturally born with.
As
for the claims of some that homosexuality is a normal disposition in
some people, Dr. Qaradawi explains:
This
sin was not described before the People of Lut. The Qur’an
says, “And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people:
"Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation
(ever) committed before you.” (29: 28).
The
testimony of Allah cites that the People of Lut were the first
people to contrive this vice. The world had been free of such a
grave sin since the beginning of time. Their prophet (Lut) was
sent to warn them of the consequences of their sinful behavior,
and the result was severe punishment to purify the world from
them, “When Our Decree issued, We turned (the cities)
upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked
clay, spread, layer on layer,- Marked as from thy Lord: Nor are
they ever far from those who do wrong!” (11: 82, 83).
Dr.
Qaradawi continues:
All
divine messages spoke of the People of Lut and denounced their
ill-doings. The West, however, wishes to turn homosexuality into
something acceptable by society. Not only that, but laws and
regulations are being construed to legalize this sin and many of
the issues surrounding it.
Personally,
I consider a homosexual to be as a drug abuser, one who requires
treatment. Does anyone in their right mind consider drug abuse
something one is born with? This is not a genetic anomaly, it is
something one acquires. It is a disease that needs a cure.
“And
to Lut, too, We gave Judgment and Knowledge, and We saved him from
the town which practised abominations: truly they were a people
given to Evil, a rebellious people.”
(21: 74)
Vocalization
of Sexual Preferences
Regarding
sexual acts in general, there are several important issues that must
be raised and addressed to vocal Muslim gay associations in
particular.
As
a general rule in Islam, sexual acts are a private matter not to be
disclosed to anyone outside the bedroom. What a husband and wife do
together should be kept between them and not told to anyone.
Abu
Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, is quoted to have said:
“Allah's Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, led us in
prayer, and when he had finished he turned toward us and said:
“Remain seated. Is there among you one who comes to his wife,
closes the door, and draws the curtain, and then goes out and speaks
about it, saying, "I did this and I did that with my
wife?" They remained silent. Then he turned toward the women
and asked, 'Is there among you one who tells about such things?' A
girl raised herself on her knees so that the Messenger of Allah
could see her and listen to what she said. She said, 'Yes, by Allah,
the men talk about it and the women do too.' Then the Prophet, peace
and blessings be upon him, said, 'Do you know the similitude of
those who do that? They are like a male and female devils who meet
each other in the road and satisfy their desire with the people
gazing at them.” (See IslamOnline’s fatwa on “Divulging
Bedroom Secrets”).
Thus
the matter of vocalizing one’s sexual preference even in the case
of normal marital relations is prohibited in Islam, let alone
forming groups based on sexual preferences.
Another
point related to the same issue of vocalization of sexual acts is
related to Islam’s stance on announcing one’s sinful acts. In
Islam, we are instructed to keep our sins secret and to seek
repentance for them. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him,
is reported to have said, “Anyone who commits a punishable sin
should cover himself up as long as he’s being shielded by Allah
(i.e. he should not expose himself) because if he divulges his
punishable sin, the prescribed punishment becomes due.” (i.e.
it should be carried out as he has confessed). (See IslamOnline’s
fatwa on Zina and Repentance).
This totally goes against the notion of “coming out of the
closet” preached by homosexuals today. (See IslamOnline’s fatwa
on “’Islams Stand on Forming
Homosexual Organizations”).
Another
important point is that Islam does not allow any form of
extra-marital sexual relationships. This is to ensure a pure society
in which the rights of the various parties involved are protected.
Anal
Sex
It
must also be noted that in a normal husband-wife relationship, anal
sex is prohibited in Islam. It would thus seem a matter of logic
what Islam’s stance on anal sex might be for extra-marital
relationships or relationships between members of the same sex (See
IslamOnline’s fatwa on “Islamic Ruling
on Anal Sex”).
This
is not to mention the concept of `Awrah in Islam, where
certain parts of the body are not to be seen or touched by anyone
except one’s spouse. This would clash with any kind of homosexual
relationship.
Sexual
Experimentation
The
Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) also ordered us to separate
between children in their beds. And if there is no escape but to let
children sleep in the same bed, that they must be covered by
separate covers.
This
is to prevent any kind of foul play at a delicate age and to ensure
that a child grows up with the proper safe-guards against sinful
actions. This would mean that the concept of sexual experimentation
in Islam is not allowed, irrespective of one’s age, and that
children should be protected from that idea as far as possible to
preserve their fitrah (human nature that one is born with).
A
Whole-Hearted Acceptance
Islam
is a way of life. It is a system of beliefs based on divine
revelation. As other systems rely for their laws and regulations on
the human element, Muslims refer to Allah, the Creator, for their
laws and regulations. Our very understanding of our existence, life,
and the after-life is dependent on this One source.
As
Muslims, we also believe that one must search for the truth, the
ultimate truth that is the basis of one’s basic beliefs. The
search must be thorough and uncompromising. If one comes to the
conclusion after that search that the truth lies in Islam, the
system MUST be accepted as a whole. As a Muslim, one cannot choose
to follow parts of Islam and disregard others. The whole-hearted
acceptance of Islam as a religion entails a similar whole-hearted
acceptance of its ideology and doctrine, which are thus practiced to
the extent of one’s power. “Then is it only a part of the
Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the
reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this
life? And on the day of judgement they shall be consigned to the
most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.”
(2:85). This does not imply that sin becomes obsolete. But it does
mean that if one sins, one realizes it and acknowledges his actions
as such.
For
further reading on Islam’s stance on homosexuality please read:
Islams
Stand on Homosexuality
Homosexuality-Related
Research
Much
research has been done over the years to discover the scientific
origins of homosexuality. Mostly it has been to disprove the fact
that homosexuality is a matter of choice. None of the research done
up to this date, however, is conclusive. Only varying theories exist
according to the results of such research.
Research
available on the topic of homosexuality can be divided into three
categories:
1.
Anatomical
differences
2.
Genetic
investigations
3.
Biological
causes
1.
Anatomical differences
Simon
LeVay, a self-proclaimed homosexual, presented research in 1991 that
was much publicized by the media. His report found neuroanatomic
differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. Much of the
field’s current visibility is due to the wide publicity
surrounding this study of INAH3, the third interstitial nucleus of
the anterior hypothalamus, which is normally three times larger in
men than in women. LeVay examined hypothalamic tissue from 19
homosexual men, all of whom died of AIDS; 16 heterosexual men, six
of whom had died of AIDS; and six women of unknown sexual
orientation. He found that INAH3 was two to three times larger in
heterosexual men than in homosexual men.
This
study was the first ever to imply that there were neuroanatomic
differences between homo and heterosexual men; thus, naturally, it
was the subject of much controversy relating to both its scientific
and its social implications. Many homosexual activists argued that
the study bolstered their contentions that some people are born gay
and that becoming gay was not a matter of choice. They thus arrived
at the conclusion that homosexuals should be granted protection
against discrimination. Many scientists, however, assailed LeVay’s
methodology and the conclusions of his work. These counter-arguments
did not receive the same amount of media attention.
Another
neuroanatomical difference between homo and heterosexual men was
reported in 1992 by University of California at Los Angelos
investigators Laura S. Allen, a research scientist, and Roger
Gorski, a professor of neurobiology (L.S. Allen, R. Gorski, Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 89:7199-202).
The
anterior commissure, a relatively small bundle of axons connecting
the two brain hemispheres, which is larger in women than in men, was
found to be also larger in gay men than it is in heterosexual men.
In a related study, Dick F. Swaab and coworkers at the Netherlands
Institute for Brain Research reported that a hypothalamic structure,
known as the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria
terminalis, is larger in men than in women, and also larger in men
than in male-to-female trans-sexuals. (J.N. Zhou et al., Nature,
378:68-70, 1995).
This
anatomical work came under heavy criticism by William Byne, director
of the Neuroanatomy Laboratory of Neuropsychiatric Disease at New
York’s Mount Sinai Medical Center. “A general problem with this
work is that there have been dozens and dozens of reports of sex
differences in the human brain since the middle of the last century.
But not a single one of these has been corroborated, except for the
one that men tend to have slightly larger brains than women. The
reason for that is that it’s tremendously difficult to do
morphometric studies in the human brain. I would be surprised if
there weren’t sex differences in the human brain, since there are
sex differences in just about every organ system in humans. But to
date, we can’t say with any confidence where the sex differences
are.”
Byne
also thinks that even if the sex differences are real, LeVay’s
findings could have been confounded by the fact that all his
original gay subjects died of AIDS. LeVay maintains that he
controlled this by examining the brains of heterosexual men who died
of AIDS, as well as one gay man who died of other causes. Dr.
William Byne argued that, “[LeVay’s] inclusion of a few brains
from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact
that at the time of death virtually all men with AIDS have decreased
testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side
effects of particular treatments. Thus it is possible that the
effects on the size of the INAH3 (hypothalamus) that he attributed
to sexual orientation were actually caused by the hormonal
abnormalities associated with AIDS.” (E. Byne, "The
Biological Evidence Challenged," Scientific
American (May 1994):
50-5)
Byne
gives as an example the fact that many people with AIDS suffer
testicular atrophy before death, and since gonadal hormones are
known to regulate the size of several hypothalamic nuclei in
animals, disease effects can not be excluded.
Another
weakness of LeVay’s study is that even in his sample there were
exceptions. In other words, there were some homosexuals who had
larger hypothalamic structures than some of the heterosexuals
examined. Even LeVay admits that these exceptions “hint at the
possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable,
may not be the sole determinant of INAH3 (hypothalamus) size.”
Since
the release of LeVay’s study, other researchers have found that
brain structures can change as a result of life experiences. In
1997, University of California at Berkeley psychologist Marc
Breedlove released a study that showed that sexual activities of
rats actually structurally changed aspects of the brain at the base
of the spinal chord. “These findings give us proof for what we
theoretically know to be the case - that sexual experience can alter
the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it,” Breedlove
commented. “You can’t assume that because you find a structural
difference in the brain, that it was caused by genes. You don’t
know how it got there.” He also states that, “It is possible
that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused
by) differences in the brain.” (Pat McBroom, "Sexual
Experience May Affect Brain Structure,"
Berkeleyan
campus newspaper [University of California at Berkeley], 19 November
1997).
Indeed
LeVay himself offered the following criticisms of his own research:
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove
that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being
gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common
mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay
center in the brain. INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus
of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and
women’s sexual behavior…Since I looked at adult brains, we
don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if
they appeared later.” LeVay also made an interesting observation
about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted,
“…people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are
also more likely to support gay rights.” (The Innate-Immutable
Argument Finds No Basis in Science. In Their Own Words: Gay
Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy. A. Dean
Byrd, Ph.D.; Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D.; Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., Salt
Lake City Tribune: May 27th, 2001).
2.
Genetic Investigations
Twin
Studies
In
studies on male and female homosexuals who are twins, Northwestern
University’s J.M. Bailey and his associates claimed that they
found clear evidence for genetic transmission. In a study of gay
men, 52% of their identical twins, 22% of their fraternal twins of
the same sex, and only 11% of their adopted brothers were also gay
(J.M. Bailey, R.C. Pillard, Archives of General Psychiatry,
48:1089-1096, 1991).
Among
lesbian women, 48% of their identical twins, 16% of their fraternal
twins of the same sex, and only 6% of their adopted sisters were
also lesbian (J.M. Bailey et al., Archives of General Psychiatry,
50:217-223, 1993). Aside from these twin studies, there have been
few, if any, firm results showing neuroanatomical or genetic
correlates for female homosexuality.
The
findings of the male twin study appear to support the argument for
biology, since identical twins share the same genes. However, the
rate of non-twin conformity should mirror that of fraternal twins.
In the Bailey and Pillard study, the rate was only 9.2%. And the
rate in adopted - which, if the biological hypothesis were true,
should have been even lower than non-twin brothers - was actually
higher (11%). (J.M. Bailey, R.C. Pillard, "A Genetic Study of
Male Sexual Orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry
48 [1991]: 1089-96).
In
his analysis of the medical evidence supporting a biological cause
of homosexuality, Dr. William Byne noted other twin studies. He
wrote, “Without knowing what developmental experiences contribute
to sexual orientation, the effects of common genes and common
environments are difficult to disentangle. Resolving this issue
requires studies of twins raised apart.” Other physicians have
also criticized the study for overvaluing the genetic influence.
Byne
also criticizes Bailey’s study noting that subjects were recruited
by ads placed in gay publications. “Some people have suggested
that identical twins who are concordant on a variety of measures are
more likely to respond to these ads than ones who are different,
which would lead to an increased estimate of heritability.”
Bailey
conducted another study, published in the March 2000 issue of the Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, that revealed that the
genetic influence on homosexuality he supposedly found earlier may
actually be less. He sent a questionnaire to the entire Australian
Twin Registry. Only three pairs of identical male twins were both
homosexuals out of a total of 27 male identical twin pairs in which
at least one was homosexual. Of the 16 fraternal male twins, in none
of the pairs were both homosexuals. Bailey found similar results for
lesbians.
Bailey
says that his data in men lead to an estimate that the overall
heritability of sexual orientation ranges from 25-75%, depending on
a number of assumptions.
Bailey’s
team also asked non-concordant identical twins (one was homosexual,
one not) about their early family environment, and found that the
same family environment was experienced or perceived by the twins in
quite different ways. These differences led later to homosexuality
in one twin, but not in the other. (N. E. Whitehead,
Ph.D;http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html).
N.E.
Whitehead, Ph.D. of the National Association for Research and
Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
ponders over the results of concordant identical twins, whether
their genes could have “made them do it”. He contends that they
didn’t. According to him:
Genes
could be a strong influence for a few, but even for those few,
it is never overwhelming. The record strengths for genetic
influence on behaviors are 79% in a group of highly addicted
women cocaine addicts and about the same or somewhat higher, for
ADHD. Because those figures are not 100%, even among addicts or
those strongly pushed towards some other behavior, there is room
for outside intervention and change. Hence even if homosexuality
is as addictive as cocaine for a few individuals, their genes
didn’t ‘make them do it.’
For
perspective, it is valuable to compare genetic contributions to
homosexuality with the question - is a girl genetically
compelled to become pregnant at 15? Her genes might give her
physical characteristics that make her attractive to boys - but
whether she gets pregnant will depend greatly on whether her
community is Amish or urban, conservative or liberal, whether
they use contraceptives, and whether the parents are away for
the evening.
So
the influence of the genes is very indirect. We can see this by
thinking further - if she was in solitary confinement all her
life, would her genes make her become pregnant? Of course not!
Some influence from the environment (in this case a boy) is
essential! The effects of genes on behaviors are very indirect
because genes make proteins, not preferences.
So
the results of identical-twin studies are critical in
understanding the biological influences on homosexuality. Only
for physical traits like skin color are identical twins 100%
concordant; otherwise they don’t necessarily follow either
their parents’ genes…or their parents’ admonitions! In
this, homosexuality proves to be no different from such
unrelated behaviors as violence, being extroverted, or getting
divorced. All may be influenced by genes, but not overwhelmingly
determined by them.
The
scientific truth is - our genes don’t force us into anything.
But we can support or suppress our genetic tendencies. We can
foster them or foil them. If we reinforce our genetic tendencies
thousands of times (even if only through homoerotic fantasy), is
it surprising that it is hard to change? Similarly, we have a
genetic tendency to eat, but it is possible to foster this
tendency and overeat for the pleasure it brings. If we repeat
that often enough, we will not only reinforce a genetic tendency
to become overweight, but find that “starving” the habit
takes a long time! (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html)
Another,
quite obvious, example of what Dr. Whitehead is saying is that of
alcoholism. It has been demonstrated that there may be a genetic
predisposition towards the condition. If a person does not drink
alcohol, however, he will not possibly become an alcoholic.
Thus
it is the behavior one assumes during one’s life that determines
the acquisition of a certain genetic predisposition, not the gene
itself.
The
“gay” gene
Dean
H. Hamer, chief of the Gene Structure and Regulation Section of the
National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Biochemistry, and his
coworkers, conducted a study of the pedigrees of gay men who also
had gay brothers. Hamer found that such people had an excess of gay
relatives on the mother’s, but not the father’s side of the
family. Reasoning that this might indicate that sexual orientation
might be linked to the X chromosome, Hamer conducted a linkage
analysis to determine if any DNA markers on the X chromosome would
be inherited along with the putative gene for sexual orientation. In
33 of 40 pairs of gay brothers, he found such a marker near the tip
of the long arm of the X chromosome, in a location called Xq28, an
area that contains several hundred genes (D.H. Hamer et al., Science,
261:321-7, 1993). Hamer later replicated this finding in a new
set of families (S. Hu et al., Nature genetics, 11:248,
1995).
Hamer’s
results are often misunderstood. Many believe that the study found
an identical sequence (Xq28) on the X chromosome of all homosexual
brothers. In reality, what it found was matching sequences in each
set of brothers who were both homosexuals. Dr. William Byne argues
that in order to prove anything by this study, Hamer would have had
to examine the Xq28 sequence of gay men’s heterosexual brothers.
Hamer insisted that such an inclusion would have confounded his
study. Byne responded, “In other words, inclusion of heterosexual
brothers might have revealed that something other than genes is
responsible for sexual orientation.”
In
1999, on the other hand, Drs. George Rice, Neil Risch and George
Ebers published their findings in Science after attempting to
replicate Hamer’s Xq28 study. Their conclusion: “We were not
able to confirm evidence for an Xq28-linked locus underlying male
homosexuality.” Moreover, they added that when another group of
researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate Hamer’s study,
they, too, failed to find the genetic connection to homosexuality.
Ebers
explains:
We’ve
been collecting families that have more than one gay person for
five years, and we’ve gone through something like 400
pedigrees. In those [families] there is really no support for
the idea that male homosexuality is X-linked. The DNA tests that
were done didn’t even support Dean’s idea a bit. There
wasn’t even a trend toward increased sharing of haplotypes
down there at Xq28.
Ebers
speculates that there may be a simple explanation for Hamer’s
finding of maternal transmission:
There
may be an excess of all kinds of things on the maternal side
because mothers know more about their family history than
fathers. Something of a personal nature like this is perhaps
even more likely to be something that you would [learn] from the
maternal side.
(http://www.neurolinguistic.com/proxima/articoli/art-41.htm)
Rice
concluded in the Rice et al study:
It
is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s
original study. Because our study was larger than that of
Hamer’s et al, we certainly had adequate power to
detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study.
Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of
large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28. (http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html)
Byne
offers another possible confounding factor in Hamer’s work:
The
hallmark of X-linked transmission is the absence of
father-to-son transmission…It’s possible that just the
relative absence of father-to-son transmission - because gay men
tend not to have children - could have given Dean the impression
of X-linked transmission in his first pedigree study. (http://www.neurolinguistic.com/proxima/articoli/art-41.htm)
Hamer
himself offered some conclusions regarding genetics and
homosexuality:
We
knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the
environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does
in most, if not all behaviors…. Homosexuality is not purely
genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a
single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we
will ever be able to predict who will be gay. (http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html)
Citing
the failure of his research, Hamer further writes:
The
pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find:
simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single
family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious
pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants. (http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html)
Hamer’s
research has been cast into doubt not only by arguments over his
interpretation of the data, but also by allegations of scientific
misconduct. According to a front-page article by John Crewdson in
the Chicago Tribune (June 25, 1995), an anonymous former
member of Hamer’s lab had alleged that Hamer engaged in selective
presentation of data in his 1993 Science paper. Crewdson
reported that an investigation had been launched by the Office of
Research Integrity (ORI) of the United States Department of Health
and Human Services.
An
article on genes and behavior in Science magazine said:
The
interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated
than the simple “violence genes” and intelligence genes”
touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of
environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the
increased belief in genetics’ effects on behavior. The same
data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous
influence of non-genetic factors. (C. Mann, “Genes and
behavior,” Science 264; 1687 (1994), pp. 1686-1689)
Among
Jeffrey Satinover’s conclusions on the “gay gene” are:
-
There
is a genetic component to homosexuality, but “component” is
just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages.
“Linkage” and “association” do not mean “causation.”
-
There
is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic-and
none of the research itself claims there is. Only the
press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to
the public.
3.
Biological Causes
In
addition to the neuroanatomical and genetic work, several other
studies argue for a biological basis for sexual orientation. In one,
Lee Ellis indicated that “if the mother experiences a lot of
stress - and it’s got to be severe - during the second trimester
[of pregnancy], there will be a significantly higher chance that her
male offspring would be homosexual when they became sexually
mature” (L. Ellis et al., Journal of Sex Research, 25[1]:
152-7, 1988). Another study published in Behavioral Neuroscience suggests
that, compared with heterosexual men, gay men show a leftward
asymmetry in the number of fingerprint ridges on their thumbs and
little fingers (J.A.Y. Hall, D. Kimura, Behavioral Neuroscience,
108[6]: 1203-6, 1994).
Bailey
reports that a common behavioral finding about male homosexuals
provides additional support for a biological hypothesis. “The most
consistent finding about male homosexuality is that as children, gay
men were feminine boys,” as judged by such factors as lack of
interest in sports or rough play, reputation as a “sissy,” or a
desire to be a girl.
Perhaps
75% of feminine boys grow up to be gay men, which is a huge
increase over expected rates. That’s generally consistent with
a biological hypothesis because you have these boys playing
atypically at a very early age - three to five - in a way they
haven’t been socialized to behave. In fact, they’re often
punished for behaving that way (J.M. Bailey, K.J. Zucker, Developmental
Psychology, 31[1]: 43-55, 1995).
In
1998, researchers Dennis McFadden and Edward G. Pasanen published a
study that evaluated the auditory systems of heterosexuals and
homosexuals. Specifically, the study considered differences in
echo-like waveforms emitted from an inner ear structure of people
with normal hearing. These waves are higher in women than in men,
often attributed to the person’s exposure to androgen in his or
her early development as a fetus.
The
McFadden study found the level of these waveforms in the ears of
self-acknowledged lesbian women ranged between those of men and
those of heterosexual women. The researchers concluded that this
evidence suggests that female homosexuality could be a result of
increased exposure to the male hormone androgen in the womb
(homosexual men did not show the same variation).
The
researchers themselves, however, are not too quick to draw
definitive conclusions. They caution that the results are only
tentative. In the published study, they point out that exposure to
“intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations” can
lower the level of these auditory waveforms. “Thus, it may be that
something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads
them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the
(waveforms), either temporarily or permanently.” Moreover, even if
the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to
androgen in the womb, scientists would still be a far cry away from
proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality -especially
since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample.
In
March 2000, yet another study on a biological link to homosexuality
surfaced. Scientists reported that finger length indicated how much
exposure a person had had to androgen while in the womb (Williams,
T.J., Pepitone, M.E., Christensen, S.E., Cooke, B.M., Huberman,
A.D., Breedlove, N.J., Breedlove, T. J., Jordan, C.L. &
Breedlove, S.M. (2000): Nature 404, 455-456).
Typically,
people’s index finger is slightly shorter than the ring finger - a
difference that is seen more clearly on the right hand due to
exposure to higher levels of androgen while the human is developing
in the womb. In females, the ring finger and index finger are almost
the same size, but in men the ring finger is generally shorter.
Niel
Whitehead, Ph.D. of NARTH comments on this study by saying:
Williams
et al. reported that the mean finger-length ratio for lesbians
was significantly less than that for heterosexual women, and did
this by comparing the two ratios by a statistical test. They
used a large number of interviewees. In such circumstances,
although the mean finger lengths may be statistically different,
they are often so close that it is not practically useful to say
they are different. That is what has happened in the present
case.
The
original normal distributions can be reconstructed from the
researchers' data, and the results are shown in the figure
below. (With its two large overlapping curves, this figure
assumes that we are comparing an equal number of heterosexual
women and lesbians).
There
is obviously a very large overlap in the two populations
(heterosexual women and lesbians), and although the two means
may be statistically different, the difference is only 1% -
which is a small effect, and not diagnostically useful in any
sense.
Within
the figure is also given the expected distribution of finger
lengths for lesbians, assuming a United States nation-wide
prevalence of 1.7% (which includes bisexual lesbians). For any
finger-length ratio chosen, the lesbians in the population at
large are outnumbered by their heterosexual counterparts by
approximately 60:1.
The
figure shows that there are large numbers of heterosexual women
who have much more "masculine" finger-length ratios
than most lesbians, but this is not considered by the
researchers to be related to their sexual orientation.
Williams
et al. invoke the idea of very high prenatal androgen levels
(for which there is very scant evidence) to explain the
difference in mean finger lengths which they find. But if this
is indeed an explanation, it must rarely affect sexual
orientation. An explanation which involved considerably less
biological extrapolation would be preferable. For example, does
a slightly more masculine pattern for a hand influence the
self-image of a developing girl?
This
study is rather similar to many other reported links between
homosexuality and some biologically based phenomena. Although
statistical connections may be shown, only a small percentage of
subjects with that biological feature actually end up
homosexual. (http://www.narth.com/docs/newstudy2.html)
Prominent
research teams Byne and Parsons, and also Friedman and Downey, each
concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory,
but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an
alternative model where “temperamental and personality traits
interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual’s
sexuality emerges.” (W. Byne and B. Parsons, “Human Sexual
Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised.” Archives of
General Psychiatry 50, no. 3.)
Are
homosexual attractions innate? There is no support in the scientific
research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically
determined (A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html).
Sociologist
Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states:
Virtually
all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative
physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who
believes that such a determinative factor exists…such
factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role…I know
of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be
explained without reference to environmental factors.
He
further says, “Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family
configuration.” It has merely “asserted away the considerable
evidence” for the existence of family factors. Studies which
attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in
homosexuality are “convincing only to those with a need to
believe.” (S. Goldberg, When Wish Replaces Thought; Why So Much
of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus
Books, 1994)
Simon
LeVay writes:
At
this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of
homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role. In
1988, PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) member
Tinkle Hake surveyed a number of well-known figures in the field
about their views on homosexuality. She asked: “Many observers
believe that a person’s sexual orientation is determined by
one of more of the following factors: genetic, hormonal,
psychological, or social. Based on today’s
state-of-the-art-science, what is your opinion?” The answers
included the following: “all of the above in concert” (Alan
Bell), “all of these variables” (Richard Green), “multiple
factors” (Gilbert Herdt), “a combination of all the factors
named” (Evelyn Hooker), “all of these factors” (Judd
Marmor), “a combination of causes” (Richard Pillard),
“possibly genetic and hormonal, but juvenile sexual rehearsal
play is particularly important” (John Money), and “genetic
and hormonal factors, and perhaps also some early childhood
experiences” (James Weinrich). (Simon LeVay, Queer Science,
MIT Press, p. 273).
The
role of the media in making information available on such research
as mentioned above is of major importance. The media have been noted
to put the spotlight on “pro-homosexual” research without even
mentioning the fact that there are any arguments related to that
research. It has become taboo in the West to be labeled a homophobe.
Does Western media go to great lengths to prove themselves worthy of
the very active and quite strong gay and lesbian movements? Do they
selectively choose what reaches the reader and what does not, to
that end?
Development
Of Sexual Orientation
Joseph
Nicolosi, Ph.D. states:
Recent
political pressure has resulted in a denial of the importance of
the factor most strongly implicated by decades of previous
clinical research: developmental factors, particularly the
influence of parents. A review of the literature on male
homosexuality reveals extensive reference to the prehomosexual
boy’s relational problems with both parents (West 1959,
Socarides 1978, Evans 1969); among some researchers, the
father-son relationship has been particularly implicated (Bieber
et al 1962, Moberly 1983). (http://www.narth.com/docs/fathers.html).
One
psychoanalytic hypothesis for the connection between poor early
father-son relationship and homosexuality is that during the
critical gender-identity phase of development, the boy perceives
the father as rejecting. As a result, he grows up failing to
fully identify with his father and the masculinity he
represents.
Non-masculine
or feminine behavior in boyhood has been repeatedly shown to be
correlated with later homosexuality (Green, 1987, Zuger, 1988);
taken together with related factors, particularly the
often-reported alienation from same-sex peers and a poor
relationship with the father, this suggests a failure to fully
gender-identify. In its more extreme form, this same syndrome
(usually resulting in homosexuality) is diagnosed as Childhood
Gender-Identity Deficit (Zucker and Bradley, 1996).
One
likely cause for “failure to identify” is a narcissistic
injury inflicted by the father onto the son (who is usually
temperamentally sensitive) during the preoedipal stage of the
boy’s development. This hurt appears to have been inflicted
during the critical gender-identity phase when the boy must
undertake the task of assuming a masculine identification. The
hurt manifests itself as a defensive detachment from masculinity
in the self, and in others. As an adult, the homosexual is often
characterized by this complex which takes the form of “the
hurt little boy” (Nicolosi, 1991). (http://www.narth.com/docs/fathers.html)
As
previously mentioned, the person’s own interpretations of his
childhood are a matter of importance in the development of his
sexual orientation.
Homosexuality
is almost certainly due to multiple factors and cannot be
reduced solely to a faulty father-son relationship. Fathers of
homosexual sons are usually also fathers of heterosexual sons-so
the personality of the father is clearly not the sole cause of
homosexuality….
Other
factors in the development of homosexuality include a hostile,
feared older brother; a mother who is a very warm and attractive
personality and proves more appealing to the boy than an
emotionally removed father; a mother who is actively disdainful
of masculinity; childhood seduction by another male; peer
labeling of the boy due to poor athletic ability or timidity; in
recent years, cultural factors encouraging a confused and
uncertain youngster into an embracing gay community; and in the
boy himself, a particularly sensitive, relatively fragile, often
passive disposition. (http://www.narth.com/docs/fathers.html)
A
recently completed doctoral dissertation by Gregory Dickson, Ph.D.
found statistically significant differences between the childhood
recollections of heterosexual and homosexual men. The dissertation
was entitled An Empirical
Study of the Mother-Son Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult
Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective.
A
total of 135 men were surveyed-57 egodystonic homosexuals, 34
egosyntonic homosexuals, and 44 heterosexuals from various parts of
the U.S. Utilizing the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire (PCR-II;
Siegelman & Roe, 1979), the study found that heterosexual males
recalled a much better relationship with their mothers. These men
reported a significantly more loving, less demanding, and less
rejecting mother than did homosexual males.
The
study further found that male homosexuals reported significantly
higher levels of current depression, as well as significantly higher
levels of childhood sexual abuse than their heterosexual peers.
Commenting
on the findings, Dr. Dickson stated:
A
cursory review of research to date suggests a lack of uniform
findings on the role of the mother-son relationship in the
development of male homosexuality. Some authors have found a close,
overly protective mother, while others have found the
opposite a less loving, more demanding, and more rejecting
mother. While these results are seemingly contradictory,
further investigation reveals an underlying consistency, in that
the homosexual male has repeatedly reported a significantly
different relationship with his mother than that reported by his
heterosexual peers. Whether he reported her as overly close or
distant, a negative relational pattern is apparent.
…It
is reasonable to assume that either type of relationship (overly
close or distant) may negatively impact the developing boy's
ability to complete the necessary steps leading toward the
accomplishment of the developmental tasks of individuation
and separation. The overly close and binding relationship
with the mother may prevent the young boy from
"abandoning" her in order to join his father and his
male peers. Likewise, the overly distant relationship may not
allow him to feel secure enough in the mother's love to leave it
in order to explore peer relationships with other boys.
Findings
of this study and of Dickson (1996) also support findings in the
literature, which suggest that the adult male homosexual has
experienced a greater dissimilarity of relationships between his
mother and father during his developmental years than did his
heterosexual peers. The current study drew upon previous literature
regarding the healthy early triangulation in which the boy is able
to develop both a sense of connectedness to, and distance from, both
parents. "A lack of this healthy triangulation," stated
Dr. Dickson, "may result in the developing boy finding himself
'stuck' between parents. He must choose one parent over the other.
It appears that this phenomenon is present and much more extreme in
homosexual development."
Furthermore,
the study sheds light on the potential relationship of a history of
sexual abuse and the development of adult male homosexuality. An
alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed, compared to less than 2% of
heterosexuals, reported sexual abuse.
Results
of this study underscore the importance of a need for increased
understanding of the effects of sexual abuse in the development of
adult male homosexuality. Dr. Dickson's findings are congruent with
those of Finkelhor (1984) which found that boys victimized by older
men were four times more likely to be currently involved in
homosexuality than were non-victims. All of the respondents in Dr.
Dickson's study reported their molestation as having occurred by a
male perpetrator; none reported female abusers. This finding,
perhaps one of the most significant of Dr. Dickson's study, suggests
that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating etiologic
factors contributing to the development of adult male homosexuality.
Dickson stated, "An experience of sexual abuse could possibly
contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection,
attention, and connection."
Commenting
on the abuse factor, Dr. Dickson stated:
It
is possible that the male child who experiences the negative
relational pattern with his mother along with the less present
and negatively perceived father becomes more susceptible to the
perpetrator's advances. Given the relational deficits
experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the
molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally,
simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their
first form of adult male affection, as well as something
relational that is not shared in common with his mother. The
abuse could, theoretically, be perceived by the boy as a
facilitation of some form of separation-individuation between
himself and mother.
…It
is also reasonable to assume that the sense of shame, secrecy,
violation and anger which may result from childhood sexual abuse
contributes to the development of a distorted paradigm through
which the child views subsequent relationships with self and
others. The duty of the parent to protect the child from all
harm, as understood by the child, may be perceived as having
been forsaken. If the abuse is left unresolved, subsequent
parental behaviors may be experienced in a more negative way by
the child and later, the adult. Additionally, the established
negative relational pattern present in the family may impede the
child's ability to look to his parents for assistance in
resolving the pain resulting from the molestation.
The
multifaceted approach of Dr. Dickson's study helps to clarify some
of the previous literature's apparent contradictions about
potential contributing factors in the development of male
homosexuality. His study underscores the significance of the
influence of multiple environmental factors in the
development of adult male homosexuality. It further emphasizes the
complex, often subliminal, yet powerful forces of not only the
childhood mother-son and father-son relationships, but the childhood
experience of sexual abuse as all of these factors relate to the
development of the child's sense of self, including gender
identification and future relational choices.
Pop
culture and political rhetoric suggest that it is society's lack
of acceptance that is solely responsible for pathology
associated with homosexuality. Such a simplistic conclusion ignores
homosexuals' repeated reports in psychology literature of
conflicted parental relationships, as well as other important issues
such as sexual abuse.
Dr.
Dickson stated, "The current study, in concert with past
literature, suggests that the issues surrounding committed adult
homosexual identification may be more core structural and
relational, rather than sexual in nature."
He
concluded:
Recent
investigation of homosexuality has been hindered by the American
Psychological and Psychiatric Associations' philosophical shift,
which fails to consider the role of environmental factors in
the development of male homosexuality. The clearly complex
nature of the issue should not be oversimplified, nor should
scientific exploration be limited by politics. (http://www.narth.com/docs/mothersof.html)
Another
factor that may be involved in the development of a homosexual
personality might result from the ever-present argument in
homosexual-accepting cultures of “Be what you are, and don’t be
ashamed of it”. Many youths then start to experiment to
“discover” what they really are. This experimentation may lead
to an entrapment and cessation of normal sexual development. The
youth, who is at an age in which there exists a normal idealization
of same-sex peers, might develop an incapability to further progress
to a heterosexual relationship due to the fact that he has been
convinced that he is a homosexual. This indulging in homosexual
relationships, with time, will trap him in a sexual habit pattern.
Thus, the danger of sexual experimentation at a young age. Teenagers
must be made aware that homosexual
attractions do not necessarily make one a homosexual.
Psychiatrist
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D states:
Like
all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality
is…neither exclusively biological nor exclusively
psychological, but results from an
as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors,
intrauterine influences…postnatal environment (such as parent,
sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly
reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of
development. (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996)).
The
American Psychological Association says:
Various
theories have proposed differing sources for sexual
orientation.…However, many scientists share the view that
sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age
through complex interactions of biological, psychological and
social factors. (From the APA’s booklet, “Answers to Your
Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality”)
The
national organization PFLAG offers a booklet prepared with the
assistance of Dr. Clinton Anderson of the American Psychological
Association. Entitled, “Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on
Homosexuality and Biology,” the pamphlet says:
To
date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual
orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a
genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior,
has been connected to genetic markers to date.…Sexuality, like
every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both
biological and societal factors.
Homosexuality
in Psychiatry
Until
the early 1970s, the U.S psychiatric establishment classified
homosexuality as a mental illness. Homosexuality appeared before
this in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM), the official reference book for diagnosing mental
disorders in America and through much of the world, listed as a
sexual disorder. Under growing political pressure from homosexual
activists, a task force was set up to review the status of
homosexuality; but the members chosen included not a single
psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal
adaptation. Riots were organized at scientific meetings by gay
activists in order to increase the pressure on the Psychiatric
Association. Homosexuals wished to be seen as individuals exercising
different sexual preferences rather than as being aberrant
personalities. Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other
conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress
and social disability” criteria that were used to define a
disorder. These included voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and
masochism. Dr. Spitzer of the American Psychological Association
replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from
the DSM-II, and that if the sadists and fetishists were to
organize as did the gay activists, they too might find their
conditions normalized!
The
APA vote was taken with unconventional speed that circumvented
normal channels for consideration of related issues.
The
factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete
homosexuality from DSM-II were summarized as follows:
Gay
activists had a profound influence on psychiatric thinking.
A
sincere belief was held by liberal-minded and compassionate
psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder
supported and reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of
the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane,
progressive act.
There
was an acceptance of new criteria to define psychiatric
conditions. Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer
or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be
appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual.
As
a result, homosexuality was eliminated from the Diagnostic and
Statistic Manual as a sexual disorder in 1973. The DSM
did, however, retain a category called “ego-dystonic
homosexuality-the feeling of extreme distress over one’s
homosexual preference”. Since then, DSM-III has dropped
even this category, and the issue of homosexuality is no longer even
mentioned.
However,
it appears that in contrast to the results of the vote, the majority
of the APA membership continued to view homosexuality as a
pathology. A survey four years after the vote found that 69% of
psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as a “pathological
adaptation.” A much more recent survey suggests that the majority
of psychiatrists around the world continue to view same-sex behavior
as signaling mental illness. (http://www.narth.com/docs/mentaldisorder.html)
It
must be noted, however, that the removal of homosexuality from the
DSM does not answer the question of whether or not homosexuality is
“moral” or whether it is “healthy” for society.
In
fact, gay-activist researcher Dean Hamer makes a revealing statement
about science and morality. He states, “…biology is amoral; it
offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only
people, guided by their values and beliefs, can decide what is moral
and what is not.” (http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html)
What
Constitutes Normal?
NARTH
comments on the issue of normality in an
article that summarizes a paper written by Irving Bieber, M.D called “On
Arriving at the American Psychiatric
