Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way'

Twin studies Twin studies can estimate what percent of a trait is genetic through concordance. If one twin has a trait, and the other twin shares this trait, they are considered concordant [1]. If one twin is gay, and the other twin is gay 50% of the time, the concordance rate is 50%, so the trait is estimated to be around 50% genetic. If a trait is 100% genetic, there is a 100% concordance rate. Twin studies for homosexuality find extremely small genetic influences. Using a massive Australian register with 33,000 participants—or 16,500 twin pairs—finds extremely low concordance rates of 11% for men and 14% for women. So genes likely contribute a low 11-14% portion of homosexuality [2]. 11-14% genetic rates in this field of research are considered weak. To say something is about 10% genetic is not significant at all. To put it into perspective, puberty has been shown to be 90% genetic [3]. To say something is 10% genetic is basically saying genes have almost no effect, and the trait is likely environmentally driven. Many twin studies have been undertaken in order to find what effect the environment has on homosexuality. They tend to find shared environment—the environment both of the twins experience—has 0 effect. But non-shared environment—such as a different perception to an event, being harmed in other ways (many reasons)—contributed to about 54-84% of homosexuality [4]. the *vast majority* of homosexual orientation is dictated by one’s environment, not biological predisposition. There is reason to believe those studies overestimate the genetic effects and underestimate the environmental effects. Shared environmental factors—such as having a gay parent—are often considered ‘nonshared’ factors, and are often dubbed down by the authors. When this is accounted for the genetic contribution is about 10% [5]. Gay parents If being gay was biologically determined, children of gay parents would not have higher rates of homosexuality. However, children raised by gay parents tend to have much higher rates of homosexuality—indicating environments play a large role in determining homosexual orientation. A massive review recently published amassed a gargantuan amount of literature in order to test whether or not children raised by homosexuals tend to be homosexual. The author concluded—citing 150 studies written by authors who claim there is no difference—finds that there is a difference. Children raised by gay parents tend to be more likely to have nonheterosexual orientations. The study even cites works by authors who have eviscerated the no difference hypothesis. The study argues “children of nonheterosexual parents have been more likely to grow up to engage in same-sex sexual behaviors, or to identify as nonheterosexual, than children raised by heterosexual parents” [6]. A study published in 1996 which uses a random sample gives us some pretty interesting results. The study found children of homosexuals were much less likely to report exclusive heterosexuality. 47% of children raised by homosexuals said they were not exclusive heterosexuals (in contrast, about 97% of the overall population is exclusively heterosexual), and were more likely to say their first sexual experience was homosexual [7].A similar study by the same authors—this time using data from different books claiming there were ‘no differences’ between children raised by homosexuals when compared to heterosexuals—obtained similar results. 27% of children raised by homosexuals identified as homosexual, and 20% of sons reported exclusive homosexuality. This is much higher rate than children raised by heterosexuals [8]. A separate scholar—sociologist Walter Schumm—set out to see whether or not these results could be replicated. Schumm added upon the data set: not only were more anecdotal (book) respondents added, but research from other studies and an anthropological dataset were also added. The results—that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay—“was confirmed” [9]. Reorientation therapy Arguably the strongest argument against homosexuality being inborn is the fact homosexual orientation often changes. Traits which change are not genetic, but generally are environmentally determined. Although many homosexuals have actually changed without any therapy at all (it happens over time) [10], I will focus upon therapy. Research from as early as 1974 had found reorientation therapy was successful in 40% of cases in reducing unwanted homosexual attraction. A meta-analysis done in 2000 surveyed 30 studies in regards to how often people’s sexual orientation would change if they underwent therapy. A total of 327 subjects were present in the study. Of the sample, 33% reported significant changes in sexuality. A second analysis in 2002 reviewed even more literature than the previous studies. They found 79% who underwent treatment were more heterosexual than those in the control groups who did nothing [11]. Arguably these other studies all suffered from many methodological flaws. In this field of research, a lot of the research is forced to rely upon small sample sizes as not many people wish to undergo therapy. But in 2001, a large study by Robert Spitzer—a phycologist who was instrumental in getting homosexuality removed from the diagnostic list of mental disorders—seemed to have revered his previous position that homosexuality was immutable. The study had one of the largest sample in this field of research with “200 respondents of both genders (143 males, 57 females)”, and found that many individuals “reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation lasting 5 years or more” [12]. What is interesting is that a large amount of those surveyed—41 percent—had been openly gay prior to conversion therapy. Many charge that those who ‘changed’ didn’t really change, just that they were repressing their feelings. But the fact 41% were comfortable with homosexuality—at least to be open about it—became bisexual or heterosexual really indicates that real change does occur, and that the therapy is often very effective. An exact number of those who became heterosexual is around 64% for men and 44% for women (obtained ‘good heterosexual functioning’). A similar study published one year later involved a survey of 822 individuals who had obtained reorientation therapy. A law review citing the article noted how the study “Before counseling, 68% of the participants in the survey perceived themselves as exclusively homosexual, and another 22% stated that they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After their treatment or therapy, only 13% perceived themselves as exclusively homosexual, while 34% described themselves as exclusively heterosexual.”[13] So what environmental factors cause homosexuality? If my opponent can demonstrate a strong biological cause, this becomes refuted. However, I think it is important to clarify *what* type of factors have the potential to cause homosexuality. Some of the factors are discussed above. Social setting seems to be an important factor in the development of homosexuality. Being raised by a gay parent seems to be a risk, as well as being sexually assaulted in a homosexual manner [7][8]. Some societies seem to *promote* homosexuality which leads to increased homosexual orientation [6]. For men, some factors are “urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father”, and for women it is “an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.” A US study found “degree of urbanization … growing up in a more pro-homosexual region … a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual … environments that sanction and/or promote homosexuality induce more individuals to engage in homosexual behavior.”[14] Wait, college makes you gay?! Sounds odd, but it isn’t what you think. The reason those who are homosexual are more educated is because many universities actually promote homosexuality. This theory has been supported by an abundance of evidence. Urbanization and a ‘pro’ gay society are strong factors in homosexuality development. Amongst western countries, the percentage of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals amongst a population varies greatly—indicating social factors help promote homosexuality. Indeed, a genetic trait—like height—has very little variation amongst the western world. Homosexuality, however, varies significantly [15]. The following graphs demonstrate this (height vs male homosexuality): Evidence which supports the idea that society causes homosexuality is that overtime homosexual experimentation has increased. In the UK it has increased from 1% to 2.8% [16]. Animals? There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. There are no known animals who have *long term* homosexual relationships. What occurs in animals is not directly applicable to what occurs in humans. Ram homosexuality supports the idea environmental factors cause homosexuality. Indeed, many argue the hormone differences between gay rams and straight rams prove homosexuality is innate amongst animals, however ram hormone levels change in response to environmental experiences. The environment (e.g. sex deprivation) seems to drive ram homosexuality [17]. 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. Ibid. 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. Ibid. 6. Walter Schumm. “Intergenerational of Parental Sexual Orientation and Other Myths,” International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family 4 (2013): 267-433. 7. Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron. “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 124 (1996): 757-776. 8. Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron. “Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties,” Psychological Reports 90 (2002): 71-82. 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com... 15. http://tinyurl.com... 16. Ibid. 17. http://tinyurl.com...