In this article I will summarise the current academic view, now held by the American Psychological Association, that homosexuality is more akin to a social attitude than a disease. I also suggest that
the emphasis on genetics in the discussion of homosexuality over the
past 30 years reflects the "disease model" of homosexuality
that was prevalent in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
There appears to be no evidence of a significant genetic component to homosexual behaviour in humans:
The studies displayed in the graph above were well controlled and the study by Bailey et al (2000) involved 25000 twins! Homosexuality may be slightly genetic, like any other behaviour, but it is not predominantly genetic.
It is interesting that homosexuality is a rare behaviour in the USA, male homosexuality having a prevalence of only about 1% up to the 1990s:
The American Psychological Association has been deeply involved in
misleading the public on the possibility of choice in homosexual
behaviour. They have produced guides for legislators and individuals
that have been far from the truth. In their original guide the APA said
that:
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
In fact there was very little evidence for this viewpoint and in 1998 they changed their guide to read:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
However, their original input to the legislative process worldwide was highly effective, portraying homosexuality as an inevitable result of genetics and chemistry. This approach by the APA meant that homophobes were hoist on their own petard - if homosexuality were genetic, what homophobes might call a genetic disease, then it simply had to be accepted. The APA are doing the same trick of misleading the people with Gay marriage. The APA's original, false, statement on the inevitable, biological basis of homosexuality is still believed widely and is the stuff of a thousand TV dramas and literary works.
If it is clear that homosexuality is not predominantly genetic, that the glands of homosexuals are not making them slaves to their behaviour, then why does it happen? The history and geographical variation in homosexual behaviour should have alerted everyone to the probability that homosexuality was not genetic or even biological in the sense of chemically determined. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an interesting section on the history of homosexuality. The section starts with the statement:
"As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’."
St Augustine is credited with the analysis that led to the repression of homosexuality:
The viewpoint "... that procreative sex within marriage is allowed, while every other expression of sexuality is sinful, can be found, for example, in St. Augustine. This understanding leads to a concern with the gender of one's partner that is not found in previous Greek or Roman views, and it clearly forbids homosexual acts. Soon this attitude, especially towards homosexual sex, came to be reflected in Roman Law. In Justinian's Code, promulgated in 529, persons who engaged in homosexual sex were to be executed, although those who were repentant could be spared. Historians agree that the late Roman Empire saw a rise in intolerance towards sexuality, although there were again important regional variations."
The repression of homosexual behaviour seems to have been directed at creating a particular sort of society in the sixth century AD. The whole of the European and Near Eastern world was in social, religious and economic flux at this time and the Roman Established Church was pivotal in implementing the new social order.
We are now living in a postmodern era where this previous social order is being replaced by one that is invented by the media and educators in response to economic and political pressures. Homosexuality has advantages in this new society, homosexuals can work late and they have more spending power than heterosexuals. The practice of homosexuality is more sociable than that of heterosexuality so preferment is enhanced, especially in the media. Homosexuals also form clubs so can agitate as pressure groups for their own interests. As a rational choice in an increasingly lonely society which lacks any belief structure and rewards the availability of personnel, homosexuality makes a great deal of sense.
In the past it is is probable that early family dynamics and childhood peer dynamics played a pivotal role in producing homosexual traits but I would expect to see homosexuality occurring increasingly as a conscious choice in the future.
This expected increase in homosexual behaviour is confirmed in a survey of the prevalence of homosexuality in men in the USA:
This increase in homosexual behaviour has occurred long after the legalization of homosexuality so presumably reflects choice. It is also the case that about half of homosexuals have been heterosexual and half have changed from homosexual to heterosexual, suggesting a high turnover of sexual preference (Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith (1981), Rosario et al. (1996), Laumann et al. (1994), Cameron et al (1985)). Needless to say, the turnover implies that homosexuality is not a fixed characteristic but more in the nature of a preference for the same sex or a distaste for the opposite sex.
Now that it is "OK to be Bisexual" it has been possible to demonstrate that homosexuals can rate themselves according to a percentage attraction for women (for instance 20% attracted to women) and that these ratings can change. Work in this area has been effectively banned by gay pressure groups in the Social Sciences, a ban that is equivalent to discriminating against bisexuality. A 2002 survey in the United States by the National Center for Health Statistics found that 1.8 percent of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 2.3 percent homosexual, and 3.9 percent as "something else". The same study found that 2.8 percent of women ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 1.3 percent homosexual, and 3.8 percent as "something else". Anecdotal evidence (Kinsey and others) suggests that bisexuality is much more frequent in early adolescence. It is likely that many young people go through a bisexual period before settling on the social group that gives them the greatest sense of fulfilment and belonging.
There is undoubtedly a spectrum in humanity from those who find their own sex highly attractive and the opposite sex disgusting through those who find both OK to those who find the opposite sex highly attractive and their own sex disgusting. The gay pressure groups of the late 1960s used Marxist dialectical methods to polarize opinion and promulgated the idea that you are either entirely gay or not gay at all, that gays could never change and even to consider this possibility was homophobic (see Liberation movements and liberation politics in the Cold War). This technique has been highly successful for achieving their agenda. However, becoming a member of a gay grouping based on this politics is akin to joining a cult.
It is high time that the media stopped mythologising homosexuality.
Now, I happen to think that what people do in the bedroom is their own concern but I do believe that the APA has acted extremely badly. I have written elsewhere about how the Social Sciences establishment is behaving in a political manner, having been captured by activists (see When will governments react to discrimination in Sociology and Social Science Departments?). Something should be done about this, governments should not be financing such outrageous behaviour by social "scientists".
If you found this article interesting link to it, tweet it (TinyURL http://tinyurl.com/b7sr99x ), and tell your friends! The American Psychological Association are suggesting that choice is possible but the myth is different.
See also:
Same sex marriage
Gay marriage, civil partnerships and freedom of speech
1. Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and behavior. Malden, MD: Blackwell.
2. Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M., & Martin, N. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524–536.
3. Bearman, P., & Bruckner, H. (2002). Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1179–1205.
4. Mann et al. (2009). Candidate Endophenotypes for Genetic Studies of Suicidal Behavior Biol Psychiatry. 2009 April 1; 65(7): 556–563.
5. Neil and Briar Whitehead. (1999) My genes made me do it, a scientific look at sexual orientation.
6. Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, K. and Forde, N. (1985) Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical Journal 70 292-299.
7. Rosario, M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F.L., Hunter, J. and Exner, T.M. (1996) The psychosexual development of urban, gay and bisexual youths. Journal of Sex Research 33 113-126.
8. Laumann, E.O., Gagnon,,J.H., Michael, R.T., Michaels, S., The Social Organization of Sexuality (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994).
9. Byrd, A.D. APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports a Client's Right to Self-Determination
There appears to be no evidence of a significant genetic component to homosexual behaviour in humans:
 |
| Homosexuality is not genetic |
It is interesting that homosexuality is a rare behaviour in the USA, male homosexuality having a prevalence of only about 1% up to the 1990s:
 |
| From 5. My genes made me do it, a scientific look at sexual orientation |
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
In fact there was very little evidence for this viewpoint and in 1998 they changed their guide to read:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
However, their original input to the legislative process worldwide was highly effective, portraying homosexuality as an inevitable result of genetics and chemistry. This approach by the APA meant that homophobes were hoist on their own petard - if homosexuality were genetic, what homophobes might call a genetic disease, then it simply had to be accepted. The APA are doing the same trick of misleading the people with Gay marriage. The APA's original, false, statement on the inevitable, biological basis of homosexuality is still believed widely and is the stuff of a thousand TV dramas and literary works.
If it is clear that homosexuality is not predominantly genetic, that the glands of homosexuals are not making them slaves to their behaviour, then why does it happen? The history and geographical variation in homosexual behaviour should have alerted everyone to the probability that homosexuality was not genetic or even biological in the sense of chemically determined. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an interesting section on the history of homosexuality. The section starts with the statement:
"As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’."
St Augustine is credited with the analysis that led to the repression of homosexuality:
The viewpoint "... that procreative sex within marriage is allowed, while every other expression of sexuality is sinful, can be found, for example, in St. Augustine. This understanding leads to a concern with the gender of one's partner that is not found in previous Greek or Roman views, and it clearly forbids homosexual acts. Soon this attitude, especially towards homosexual sex, came to be reflected in Roman Law. In Justinian's Code, promulgated in 529, persons who engaged in homosexual sex were to be executed, although those who were repentant could be spared. Historians agree that the late Roman Empire saw a rise in intolerance towards sexuality, although there were again important regional variations."
The repression of homosexual behaviour seems to have been directed at creating a particular sort of society in the sixth century AD. The whole of the European and Near Eastern world was in social, religious and economic flux at this time and the Roman Established Church was pivotal in implementing the new social order.
We are now living in a postmodern era where this previous social order is being replaced by one that is invented by the media and educators in response to economic and political pressures. Homosexuality has advantages in this new society, homosexuals can work late and they have more spending power than heterosexuals. The practice of homosexuality is more sociable than that of heterosexuality so preferment is enhanced, especially in the media. Homosexuals also form clubs so can agitate as pressure groups for their own interests. As a rational choice in an increasingly lonely society which lacks any belief structure and rewards the availability of personnel, homosexuality makes a great deal of sense.
In the past it is is probable that early family dynamics and childhood peer dynamics played a pivotal role in producing homosexual traits but I would expect to see homosexuality occurring increasingly as a conscious choice in the future.
This expected increase in homosexual behaviour is confirmed in a survey of the prevalence of homosexuality in men in the USA:
 |
| From 5. My genes made me do it, a scientific look at sexual orientation |
This increase in homosexual behaviour has occurred long after the legalization of homosexuality so presumably reflects choice. It is also the case that about half of homosexuals have been heterosexual and half have changed from homosexual to heterosexual, suggesting a high turnover of sexual preference (Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith (1981), Rosario et al. (1996), Laumann et al. (1994), Cameron et al (1985)). Needless to say, the turnover implies that homosexuality is not a fixed characteristic but more in the nature of a preference for the same sex or a distaste for the opposite sex.
Now that it is "OK to be Bisexual" it has been possible to demonstrate that homosexuals can rate themselves according to a percentage attraction for women (for instance 20% attracted to women) and that these ratings can change. Work in this area has been effectively banned by gay pressure groups in the Social Sciences, a ban that is equivalent to discriminating against bisexuality. A 2002 survey in the United States by the National Center for Health Statistics found that 1.8 percent of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 2.3 percent homosexual, and 3.9 percent as "something else". The same study found that 2.8 percent of women ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 1.3 percent homosexual, and 3.8 percent as "something else". Anecdotal evidence (Kinsey and others) suggests that bisexuality is much more frequent in early adolescence. It is likely that many young people go through a bisexual period before settling on the social group that gives them the greatest sense of fulfilment and belonging.
There is undoubtedly a spectrum in humanity from those who find their own sex highly attractive and the opposite sex disgusting through those who find both OK to those who find the opposite sex highly attractive and their own sex disgusting. The gay pressure groups of the late 1960s used Marxist dialectical methods to polarize opinion and promulgated the idea that you are either entirely gay or not gay at all, that gays could never change and even to consider this possibility was homophobic (see Liberation movements and liberation politics in the Cold War). This technique has been highly successful for achieving their agenda. However, becoming a member of a gay grouping based on this politics is akin to joining a cult.
It is high time that the media stopped mythologising homosexuality.
Now, I happen to think that what people do in the bedroom is their own concern but I do believe that the APA has acted extremely badly. I have written elsewhere about how the Social Sciences establishment is behaving in a political manner, having been captured by activists (see When will governments react to discrimination in Sociology and Social Science Departments?). Something should be done about this, governments should not be financing such outrageous behaviour by social "scientists".
If you found this article interesting link to it, tweet it (TinyURL http://tinyurl.com/b7sr99x ), and tell your friends! The American Psychological Association are suggesting that choice is possible but the myth is different.
See also:
Same sex marriage
Gay marriage, civil partnerships and freedom of speech
1. Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and behavior. Malden, MD: Blackwell.
2. Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M., & Martin, N. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524–536.
3. Bearman, P., & Bruckner, H. (2002). Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1179–1205.
4. Mann et al. (2009). Candidate Endophenotypes for Genetic Studies of Suicidal Behavior Biol Psychiatry. 2009 April 1; 65(7): 556–563.
5. Neil and Briar Whitehead. (1999) My genes made me do it, a scientific look at sexual orientation.
6. Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, K. and Forde, N. (1985) Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical Journal 70 292-299.
7. Rosario, M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F.L., Hunter, J. and Exner, T.M. (1996) The psychosexual development of urban, gay and bisexual youths. Journal of Sex Research 33 113-126.
8. Laumann, E.O., Gagnon,,J.H., Michael, R.T., Michaels, S., The Social Organization of Sexuality (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994).
9. Byrd, A.D. APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports a Client's Right to Self-Determination
Comments