Causes of homosexuality

What the facts are It is a common myth, one that my opponent is arguing, that people are “born gay”. But the fact is there is no reason to believe this claim. Byne and Parsons attempted to look into the results of if homosexuals are actually “born gay”. Their findings are actually very predictable: no one is born gay. They argued: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. […] In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explana­tory power of extant psychosocial models.”[1] In other words, other non-genetic factors (i.e. environmental factors) are likely the main cause for homosexuality. Now one important type of study needed to conclude whether or not something is genetic is a twin study. This accurately measures inheritability amongst groups, and if the numbers are high enough (50% usually) then one can conclude it is heritable, and likely genetic. For something to be entirely genetic a twin study would have to get numbers near 100%. Therefore for my opponent to win this debate, if he chooses to use twin studies, must get number over 50% to prove genes are the main cause. The famous twin study that concluded homosexually was genetic actually conceded environment likely played a large role when they stated, “Buhrich et al reported a twin study of sexual orientation and related behaviors…They found a strong familial resemblance, but had insufficient power to determine whether that correlation was due to genetic or environmental factors or both.”[2] In other words, they concede that their correlation may be due to environmental factors, not genetic ones. I would also like to note that study’s conclusions where not replicated, when Byne and Parsons attempted to replicate their conclusions only found a 9.2% connection (both brothers are gay) rate, but un-related brothers have an 11% connection [1]. This means unrelated brothers are more likely to be gay then related ones. This right here actually proves some other factors, likely environmental ones, dictate sexuality. So what causes homosexuality if they are not “born that way”? There are many theories on what causes homosexuality, all of them more likely then a born that way theory. Many, such as Byne and Parsons, believe environmental factors are the main cause and much of these occurrences happen before the age of 4. They note, “it seems reasonable to suggest that the stage for future sexual orientation may be set by experiences during early development, perhaps the first 4 years of life.”[1] This theory is backed by many studies, credible ones, unlike the “born that way” theory, which is highly flawed. And the rebuttals will make me prove that later. Now other studies polled multiple homosexual males, and heterosexual males for a control variable, and they concluded, “[…]male homosexuals are much more likely to come from a family constellation involving an over intense mother and unsatisfactory father relationship.”[3] Although the parental theory is very likely, it is lacking modern research and rigorous studies. The reason this theory stopped getting attention (and therefore halted research) happened in 1973 when the APA deleted homosexuality from the Psychiatric manual. But before that date, the studies all showed a linkage to this theory [4]. Another theory is the social learning theory, which commonly means the child in question was sexually abused. The actual theory is not in question; rather it’s controversial when you apply it to homosexuality. For example, it is a fact that children will adopt behaviors from other adults and not even notice it throughout their lives. For example, I have many of the same gestures as my father and grandfather. So the actual learning theory is not controversial. But the application to homosexuality can cause a stir. The theory is not just sexual abuse, though. As children masturbating with friends or the media has been seen to cause homosexuality in adult life [4]. But there is also a link between homosexuality and sexual abuse. Many studies have found that homosexual boys that where abused are seven times more likely to become homosexual then their non-abused peers. Other studies find nearly half of gay men (46%) where abused as children, and almost a quarter of lesbians (22%) where abused as children [4]. Scientists believe this theory is a logical alternative to the biologic theories, as the existence of the theory is not in question. Whether it is valid is in little question as well. But only the application is. This theory covers the most factors of development, bullying (being bullied is linked to homosexuality [4]), interactions with peers, parental connections/actions, abuse, etc. This theory is pretty much an overall theory well supported by science. Another theory is “exotic becomes erotic”. One study notes, “Bem’s theory suggests that a child’s experience of being “different” from peers of the same gender leads to a reaction of physical arousal, which then later in life becomes translated into sexual arousal—a process he calls ‘sexual imprinting.’ ”[5] It is well known that foreign things are more exiting or luring, but to others more scary. The theory argues that the small percentage of people it draws in (the percentage needn’t be large, only 3% of the population is gay) causes people to become bisexual and homosexual. The theory is actually supported by many studies and physiatrists like Byne and Parsons. This theory is actually almost identical to the one above, as the different experience and different/exotic feeling extend to homosexuality. Therefore this theory is the exact same as above, but in a different name and different studies proving both. Conclusion: When examining the theories and evidence, it is apparent no one is “born gay”, and based on current evidence other theories are more likely. I will again bring up a quote I used in the beginning of the debate, as it fits in perfectly with my conclusion: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. […] In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explana­tory power of extant psychosocial models.”[1] Vote CON. Sources: [1] William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reap­praised” _Archives of General Psychiatry, (March 1993). [2] Bailey and Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, (1991) [3] Daniel G. Brown, “Homosexuality and Family Dynamics,” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 27 (Sept. 1963) [4] Dean Byrd “Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable? What the science can and cannot say” Liberty University Law review, Vol. 4, (Spring 2010) [5] Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey “Getting it straight” Washington: Family Research Council, 2004