|
|
Born Gay?
by
Joe Dallas
How politics have skewed the debate over the biological
causes of homosexuality.
Recent findings by scientists suggest that homosexuality
is an inborn trait. Simon Le-Vay, a neuroscientist with
the Salk Institute of LaJolla, California, found the
area of the hypothalamus that allegedly governs sexual
activity to be smaller in homosexual men than in heterosexual
ones. (The brains of 41 cadavers were studied by LeVay,
19 of which had belonged to homosexuals.)
On the heels of LeVay's work came the findings of psychologist
Michael Bailey, a gay-rights advocate, and psychiatrist
Richard Pillard, who, like LeVay, identifies himself
as homosexual. Published in December 1991, Bailey and
Pillard's research with identical twins (who have identical
genetic codes) and fraternal twins (whose genetic codes
differ) showed that if one identical twin is homosexual,
the other's chances of being homosexual are three times
higher than among fraternal twins. This, they say, suggests
a link between homosexuality and genetics.
Predictably, this has been grist for the media mill.
Although the researchers themselves show some restraint
in their claims (LeVay admits his findings do not establish
"cause and effect"), the a step further, not
only telling us homosexuality is probably inborn, but
also that our views on the subject should be modified.
The argument goes something like this: Homosexuals are
born that way, which means homosexuality is a normal
condition. What is normal cannot be immoral. Therefore,
prohibitions against homosexuality make no sense.
Many Christians, especially those of us involved in
ministry to homosexuals, react strongly to such a message.
Scientific inquiry should, of course, be welcomed instead
of shunned; but when such inquiry is used to challenge
traditional biblical teaching, then a clear, balanced
response from the church is called for. To give it,
we need to ask and answer four essential questions:
(1) Were the studies conducted in an unbiased and fair
way? (2) What are the true implications of the results?
(3) Are they accepted almost universally by the scientific
and medical communities? (4) Are they compatible with
biblical truth?
Agendas and outcomes
Having an agenda is no crime. So when prohomo-sexual
doctors are motivated to promote gay rights through
research, that is no reason to ignore the research itself.
At the same time, it does give us sufficient reason
to explore how their bias may have shaped their conclusions.
To their credit, these men have been open about their
agendas. LeVay, for example, told Newsweek that his
lover's death from AIDS prompted him to find an inborn
cause for homosexuality, a quest so important that he
would give up his scientific career altogether if he
did not find it. He hopes to "educate" society,
affecting legal and religious attitudes about homosexuality.
Pillard is just as direct about his goals: "A genetic
component in sexual orientation says, 'This is not a
fault, and this is not your fault.'" Both he and
Bailey consider their findings to be good news because
they will "disprove homophobic claims"; or
as gay journalist Randy Shilts puts it, they will "reduce
being gay to something like being left-handed, which
is all it is."
To simplify homosexuality by equating it with left-handedness
is tempting if you are homosexual or a gay-rights activist
or a parent feeling guilt over your child's homosexual
orientation.
But to those who cannot view homosexuality as a normal
condition, even if it is inborn, the researchers' assumptions
sound questionable.
Are we to think that because something might be genetic
in origin, it is therefore "natural"? What,
then, do we say about genetic deformities or birth defects?
Are they, too, "normal" because a significant
number of people were born with them?
This raises a larger and more vital question: Should
the standard for normality be determined by what is
inborn?
Before addressing that question, though, let's consider
whether these
studies have indeed proven homosexuality to be inborn.
Facts and implications
As we examine LeVay's and Pillard and Bailey's findings,
we have to distinguish between what the facts really
are, and what they imply.
The facts are simple enough. One bundle of neurons in
the hypothalamus (which regulates heart rate, sleep,
hunger, and sex drive) was found to be nearly three
times as large in the brains of the 16 heterosexual
men studied by LeVay as it was in the brains of the
19 homosexual men. At first glance, that looks conclusive:
an open-and-shut case for the genetic argument.
But it is not that simple. It is questionable whether
the portion of the hypothalamus Levay studied (theINAH
3) can be accurately measured. It is smaller than a
snowflake, and scientists are not in agreement as to
how its size should be determined. According to Newsweek,
"Measuring brain structures is notoriously difficult
and controversial-neuroscientists cannot agree on whether
the most meaningful gauge is the volume of the region
[LeVay's method] or its number of neurons."
Further complicating matters is the sensitive nature
of the hypothalamus itself. Does its size determine
homosexuality, or does homosexuality determine its size?
No one is sure. "You could postulate," says
neurophysiolo-gist Kenneth Klivington of the Salk Institute,
"that brain change occurs throughout life, as a
consequence of experience." Klivington refers to
a "feedback loop" in which the brain influences
behavior, behavior shapes experience, experience "affects
the organization of the brain." Which raises the
question: Are homosexuals born with a smaller portion
of the hypothalamus or does the size decrease later
in life?
We do not know. Nor do we know for certain what the
sexual histories of Le-Vay's subjects really were, as
LeVay himself admits. Those he identified as homosexual
are assumed to have been so by information gleaned from
their files, but can we be sure the other subjects were
heterosexual? By what criteria was their sexuality determined?
These and other questions have no doubt led LeVay to
be conservative in his conclusions: "What I reported
was a difference in the brain structure of the hypothalamus.
We can't say on the basis of that what makes people
gay or straight." So what appears to be "proof
positive" turns out to be, by LeVay's admission,
"perhaps and maybe."
Pillard and Bailey's twin studies are similarly vague.
Like LeVay's work, they look conclusive to the casual
observer: 52 percent of the identical twins of homosexual
men were also found to be homosexual. If a homosexual
man has an identical twin, these statistics suggest
his twin brother will more likely than not be homosexual
as well. Therefore, something in the genes causes homosexuality.
Not so, says Anne Fausto Sterling, a biologist at Brown
University in Rhode Island. Declaring Pillard and Bailey's
conclusions to be "badly interpreted genetics,"
Sterling insists that "in order for such a study
to be meaningful, you'd have to look at twins raised
apart." Common sense would lead us to agree-identical
twins raised in the same family environment will have
any number of similarities, many of which are linked
to their shared upbringing rather than genetics.
Like LeVay; Pillard shows restraint in his conclusions:
"There must be something in the environment,"
he concedes when confronted with the fact that many
identical twins have different sexual preferences. In
fact, environmental influences seem to be a predominant
factor in the development of homosexuality according
to another twin study, similar to Pillard and Bailey's
but different in its conclusions.
|
