The age-old debate surrounding the factors that impact an individual’s sexual orientation has always intrigued us. Is it possible for social influences and environment to influence one’s attraction towards the same sex? Alternatively, could a person’s genetic composition predispose them to being naturally attracted to members of the same gender? These inquiries lead us to contemplate the ancient dispute between nature and nurture. Some scientists argue that individuals act based on their genetic inclinations or even primal instincts, referring to this as the “nature” theory of human behavior.
The “nurture” theory of human behavior suggests that external influences shape human thoughts and actions. It is debated whether homosexuality is influenced by upbringing or is an inherent trait. Proponents of the nurture theory propose hypotheses such as the impact of adopted lifestyle, child abuse, and distant father figures. However, these theories lack empirical evidence to support their claims and are speculative. While nurture may have a small effect, it does not solely determine homosexuality.
Various studies have shown that Nature serves as the primary factor behind homosexuality, providing compelling biological evidence. However, recent advancements in human genome research suggest that both Nature and Nurture contribute significantly to this phenomenon. Nature bestows upon us inherent abilities and traits, while Nurture influences and molds these genetic predispositions throughout our development and education (Longino, pg154). Nonetheless, the ongoing debate regarding “nature vs. nurture” persists as scientists dispute the degree to which our genes and surroundings shape our identity.
Scientists who support nature theories have long been aware that certain genes encoded in each human cell determine traits like eye color and hair color. The Nature Theory extends this concept to suggest that more abstract traits such as personality, intelligence, aggression, and sexual orientation are also encoded in an individual’s DNA (Lewontin and Rose and Kamin, 137). In contemporary biological research, there is significant scientific evidence documenting the various biological functions that our genes are responsible for.
According to Shmidt (pg. 56), recent findings have shown that homosexuality may be influenced by genetics and biology. Animal studies have shed light on the nature of homosexuality, proposing theories such as a “gay gene” directly causing homosexuality, as well as the potential impact of hormones during fetal gestation on brain development and sexual orientation (Moalem, 166). Throughout history, people have turned to animal observations and behaviors in order to comprehend what is deemed natural or unnatural.
Supporters of the idea that homosexuality is natural argue that since animals consume food for energy and mate to ensure species growth, it would be natural for humans to engage in these activities too. They cite numerous cases of homosexuality among both wild and captive animals as evidence. One striking example occurred at Manhattan’s Central Park Zoo in 2004, where two male penguins formed a successful couple for over six years.
This penguin couple, consisting of two males, successfully incubated an egg that was given to them by the zoo’s chief keeper. The result of their incubation was the birth of a live chick (Smith, Online). Homosexual behavior has been observed in various other animals, including giraffes, birds, rams, bottle-nosed dolphins, and more (Bagemihl, 47). While this provides compelling evidence for the naturalness of homosexuality, using animals as a gauge for determining what is natural can be risky (Bagemihl, 339).
For instance, certain animals, like the hamster, are known to exhibit infanticidal behavior during times of stress, where they kill and consume their offspring (Camuti). Such behavior cannot be considered natural for humans, as it is not inherent to our biological constitution (Schmidt, pg 134). Additional research supports the notion that there is a link between homosexuality and nature. Dr. Dean Hamer, for example, successfully identified a gene marker known as Xq28 on the X chromosomes. In his study of 114 families with homosexual members, he found a higher occurrence of homosexuality on the maternal side of the families.
According to Hamer, the biological basis of male homosexuality lies in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome, as males inherit their Y chromosome from their fathers and their X chromosome from their mothers (Shultz, 139; Hammer, Online). To provide additional evidence for biology as the primary cause of homosexuality, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine conducted a study on homosexuality in twins. The results of their study indicated that sexual orientation is innate and present from birth.
Pillard and Bailey conducted a survey among homosexual men to gather information about their brothers. The findings of the survey revealed unexpected statistics. Out of the participants who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent reported that their twin brother was also homosexual. Among those with fraternal twins, 22 percent mentioned that their twin was gay. Conversely, only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings claimed that their adopted brothers were also homosexual. Bailey and Pillard proposed that these variations in percentages were due to the variance in the amount of genetic material shared.
Identical twins, due to their same genetic code, are more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. Fraternal twins also have more genetic similarities compared to their adopted siblings. Research conducted by J. Michael Bailey, Richard C. Pillard, D’Augelli, and Patterson supports this idea. Additionally, scientists have discovered that there may be other contributing factors to the cause of homosexuality. These factors become significant during the fetus period.
Research has shown that twins who come from separate fertilized eggs have higher rates of similarity compared to their other siblings. This indicates that the hormone levels in the fetus during pregnancy may affect brain development. Additionally, studies on male rats have revealed that removing their sexual organs before they reach maturity can lead to more feminine behaviors and characteristics. This is due to the influence of testosterone produced in the male sexual organs on brain masculinization.
The rat now has a female brain due to the lack of testosterone. Conversely, if a castrated male rat has not yet reached this point, injecting it with testosterone would result in maintaining male characteristics. In humans, sex hormones begin to be produced by embryos during the sixth week of gestation (Lewontin and Rose and Kamin, 153; Longino, pg 122). Dr. Diamond conducted a study to explain how hormones could contribute to homosexuality. The study proposed four stages of sexual orientation development in the fetal brain that establish basic sexual patterns associated with different genders, determine desired sexual partners’ gender, establish sexual identity, and determine sexual anatomy. An excess or deficiency of testosterone at any stage of brain development can lead to undermasculinization or over-masculinization in the corresponding stage (Moir, 412). If a male fetus lacks sufficient testosterone during the stage determining sexual desire, its brain is likely to develop favoring attraction towards male partners.
If a male fetus is exposed to sufficient testosterone during the stage that determines sexual identity, his brain is likely to result in him identifying as male and, because of the absence of testosterone during the sexual desire stage, he would still have an attraction towards men as sexual partners. The levels of testosterone received at each stage can influence an individual’s own sexual desire and identity. This theory can explain various human characteristics observed in reality. There are certain men who, despite exhibiting feminine behavior, still identify as men and have a sexual attraction towards women. Therefore, they cannot be classified as homosexual solely based on their feminine behavior.
According to Longino (pg 153), Bushong (3), Moir, and Jassel (58), there are individuals who display masculine behavior but identify as men and are attracted to other men, classifying them as homosexual. The nurture theory proponents argue that genetic tendencies are insignificant, although no study has confirmed their claims. This suggests that our behavior is ultimately shaped by environmental factors.
Various theories have been presented to illustrate how environmental and social factors contribute to homosexuality. These theories propose that experiences like early sexual abuse or having an emotionally distant father can impact a person’s sexual orientation. Another theory suggests that some individuals adopt a homosexual lifestyle through observational learning. The initial theory proposes that those who experienced childhood sexual abuse may develop uncertainty and confusion about their own sexuality.
Amidst this state of uncertainty, individuals may come to recognize themselves as homosexuals. This state of confusion has been consistently observed in males who have experienced childhood sexual abuse (Cameron, and Cameron, Physiological Reports). However, there is insufficient evidence to support their assertion, as their theory fails to explain why not all abused individuals are homosexual and why not all homosexuals have experienced abuse. Furthermore, their theory does not acknowledge the contradictory responses expressed by other male survivors (Lasik).
According to a study by Gold, Dickstein, Marx, and Lexington published in an academic journal, instead of confusion leading to homosexuality, some sexual abuse survivors become openly angry and hostile towards other homosexuals. These survivors not only do not become homosexual themselves, but actually develop a fear and hatred towards homosexuality.
Another theory known as the “distant father” theory suggests that male homosexuality may be caused by the lack of fatherly affection and attention during a young boy’s childhood (Dickson).
When the father is not present, whether due to physical absence, incapability, or emotional unavailability, the son will fail to establish a necessary bond with his father. The absence of the Father or Father figure has a significant psychological impact on the developing male. In order to compensate for the lack of fatherly affection, the son will develop a strong yearning for intimacy with another man, which may evolve into homosexual feelings. Overall, evidence suggests that many homosexual men perceive their fathers as providing less attention or love compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Nicolosi, 43).
Although there is evidence suggesting a connection between distant fathers and homosexuality, this does not explain the cases of homosexuals who have had close relationships with their fathers and families, nor does it account for heterosexual individuals with weak relationships with their fathers (Dickson; Nicolosi, 37). Another theory originating from certain conservative Christian groups proposes that homosexuals develop their sexual orientation at a young age due to being exposed to homosexual behaviors of others.
In liberal society, when a young child displays homosexual interest that is not repressed but instead accepted, this interest will develop into homosexuality. The child experiences this homosexual behavior at such a young age that they believe they have always been homosexual. The homosexual lifestyle becomes deeply ingrained in the individual, making it impossible to explore their true sexual orientation successfully (Moore, 275; Schmidt, pg 144). However, a major flaw in this theory is the lack of evidence or studies documenting the observation of homosexual activities in young children who grow up to be adult homosexuals. Another challenge to this theory is explaining adult homosexuals who have never displayed any such behavior before discovering their own homosexuality. Throughout human history, the cause of homosexuality has been a highly controversial and debated topic in society. While nurture theories argue that factors such as child abuse, abandonment, and environment determine homosexuality as the ultimate explanation for this enduring debate.
While theories presented by Nurture lack the necessary studies to substantiate them beyond mere speculations, Nature has provided solid biological evidence, such as genetic, hormonal, and conclusive animal studies, to be the true cause behind the development of homosexuality. Psychologists have determined that, despite the potential traumatic impact of various situational differences in a child’s life, the influence of the upbringing environment does not overshadow the hereditary origins of behavior.
