Ferguson 1
Paige Ferguson
Mr. Davis
English 121
10/19/2014
Homosexuality: Is It Really A Choice?
“God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse
for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were
consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men” (Romans
1:26-27). This is a quote from the Roman Catholic Bible, in the book of the Romans. Even
thousands of years ago there were documented claims of homosexuality making itself prevalent
in society. There has never really been a time in history where homosexuality was not present.
Like with all controversial issues, there has always been a debate over how and why this is the
way it is. Why are people gay? How did they become that way? The biggest, most prevalent
question that has arisen in the past few decades would be is homosexuality the result of nature or
nurture? Are people born with predetermined sexual orientation, or do they become that way
because of environmental factors. This is a very wide spread and heavily debated topic, and there
are an equal amount of people that support either the nature side or the nurture side of the
argument.
Until recently, it was easier to say that sexual orientation, specifically homosexuality, is
the result of environmental factors such as a poor home life, abuse, or a broken family. There
have been many proven cases of people becoming gay or bisexual because of a traumatizing past
experience that had nothing to do with their biological makeup. But others report that their
sexual preference had absolutely nothing to do with a bad experience, or a poor childhood. Some
Ferguson 2
people have shared that they have always felt gay; always had a preference for the same sex.
This leads to the important question, could there be a “gay gene”? Could some part of the human
brain, while being created in the womb, be wired to cause a man to prefer another man?
The social argument, or nurture aspect, for homosexuality can be traced back to the
ancient Greeks. The Greek beliefs about homosexuality have been carried on throughout the
generations and have helped mold the way we think about homosexuality today. “Aristophanes,
in his Symposium investigates homosexuality, although not termed as such, as a desire by men to
share a long-term fulfillment of the soul. He believed that two souls are longing to be together,
and the sexual desire alone is not strong enough to create homosexuality, but that the cultural
environment allows or forbids the relationship to occur” (Johnson 1). What Johnson is explaining
in this passage is that the environment, and the community are the factors that decide whether or
not the homosexuality will surface and thrive. Ryan D. Johnson writes in his article
Homosexuality: nature or nurture that was published in the AIIPsych Journal that in some tribes
in New Guinea, young boys no older than 15 are inseminated daily by the young male warriors
of the tribe. Although this is not a free or natural expression, the homosexuality is accepted in
this culture. Many of those boys may grow up to discover that they do in fact prefer men to
women, while others may still prefer women to men. No matter the outcome, whether the boys
become hetero or homosexual, I believe the accepting homosexual environment they grew up in
will at least cause the young men to think more openly toward homosexual lifestyles.
Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics,
not the society as a whole. Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification
differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon the children, such as the
feminine and masculine stereotypes. “While it is agreed that an element of gender ID is based on
Ferguson 3
the decision made by parents on how to raise the child, the other element is formed with the
development of language skills, naming of sexual behaviors and the naming process related to
these behaviors” (Johnson 1). If for example a young boy is raised in a household where his
mother is the dominant figure, the one who works a full time job and takes on the roles of a man
in the family, and his father is the weak and submissive figure, the caregiver who greets his wife
every night with a home cooked meal, the boy might grow up believing that men are supposed to
identify with the traditional female roles of the household. The boy might then proceed to want
to live a homosexual lifestyle so to be able to follow in his father’s footsteps and take on the
submissive caregiver role of the family. Although, things could work in an opposite effect and
cause the boy to hate his father for the role his father preformed in the family unit. This could
lead to the boy being an extremely dominant male figure in his own household later in
life. Either way, the boy was influenced by his parents’ decision to impose certain roles in the
household, and to teach him their version of the masculine and feminine stereotypes.
We do have to consider that gender ID is learned over time; there must be a continual
expression of certain roles to influence a child’s sexual orientation. There are also other
contributions including the frequency of parental interactions, tolerance of aggression levels, and
the vigor of play during childhood that can result in a certain sexual preference. In this, the
Parental Manipulation Theory is acknowledged. This theory states that “[…]one or both parents
are able to neuter and control offspring to promote their (the parent's) evolutionary fitness,
ensuring the passage of genes into the next generation” (Johnson 1). By selecting only
heterosexual practices as acceptable, the parents are attempting to promote their passage of
genes; heterosexual genes. The purpose of putting this theory into practice would be to ensure
Ferguson 4
that the children in the family remain heterosexual, and then ultimately use the same method to
pass the beliefs, and genes on to yet another generation.
Knowing one's sexual orientation, whether straight or gay, is often something that
children and teenagers recognize with little doubt from a very young age. It is like an immediate
awareness. Some homosexual teens say they experienced same-sex crushes during their
childhood, just as their heterosexual peers experienced opposite-sex crushes. Usually by middle
school, many homosexual teens already recognize their sexual orientation, whether or not they
have revealed it to anyone else. “Those who didn't realize they were gay at first often say that
they always felt different from their peers, but didn't exactly know why” (D'Augelli et al. 1).
There have been many interviews, and experimental studies done with homosexual individuals,
and their families trying to shed light on the causes of the homosexuality, and the impact it has
made on the family. In most stable homes with neutral or supportive families, the homosexual
individual has revealed that they have always felt gay, ever since they discovered what being gay
meant. There were no clear social factors that led the individual to become gay, it seems their
sexual orientation was just predetermined; it was not a choice they made for themselves.
Although there are plenty of environmental factors that have been theorized to contribute
to the homosexual orientation of a person, there are many instances where the child in question is
raised in the same environment as another child, but one child becomes homosexual and the
other heterosexual. This is where biological factors come into play. In the past, many studies
have been done trying to determine if there is a biological factor that predetermines someone’s
sexual orientation before they are even born. In the book Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology by A.
Bao and D.F. Swabb, the genes and genetic factors responsible for prenatal development
concerning sexual orientation and preference are explained. It is said that the reproductive organs
Ferguson 5
develop based upon the presence or absence of androgens, the hormone testosterone, and of
course genes. “Once the differentiation of these sexual organs is settled, sexual differentiation of
the brain happens, by permanent organizing effects of sex hormones on the developing brain.
During puberty, the brain circuits that have been organized in the womb will be activated by sex
hormones”. This is saying that there is a direct correlation between testosterone and the sexual
orientation of a fetal child; the more testosterone present, the more likely it is that the baby will
be a male. But in some cases, the child will “[…]develop the male reproductive organs, but will
not receive enough testosterone to later identify as a male” (Bao, 2011). Ultimately, that child
will end up identifying as either a heterosexual female, or a homosexual male. In this case,
testosterone is partially responsible for the homosexual outcome. But what other factor plays a
role in determining sexual preference?
It should be noted that although sex hormones are very important for gender identity and
sexual orientation, sexual differentiation of the brain is not caused by hormones alone. Genes,
too, play a key role in determining sexual orientation and preferences. In 1993, a study
published in the journal Science showed that families with two homosexual brothers were very
likely to have certain genetic markers on a region of the X chromosome known as Xq28. This led
to media headlines about the possibility of the existence of a “gay gene” (Malory 1). This Xq28
was later observed again in several different studies, and it was concluded that the Xq28 gene
was indeed the major biological factor that predetermined a human’s sexual preference. This
gene can be held accountable for why people, including younger children, have always felt as if
they were gay.
Although this concept of predetermined sexual orientation does not coincide with the
Parental Manipulation theory, there is another theory called the Kin-Selection Theory that
Ferguson 6
contrasts with parental manipulation. This theory states that “[…]it doesn't matter how the genes
are passed to the next generation, so long as they are passed along” (Thompson and Devine
1). For example, regardless of a homosexual outcome, the very similar genetic makeup of
siblings will still allow for the passage of the family genetics along to the next generation. In a
way, I believe this theory disproves the Parental Manipulation Theory, because the genes will be
passed on to the next generation with no alteration in the DNA sequence, regardless of the sexual
orientation of the children.
Nature vs. nurture is a very complex system no matter the argument. When it comes to
homosexuality, there are supportive factors covering both sides of the argument. Yes,
environmental factors such as gender roles within the family can be known to lead a young child
to later identify with the opposite sex. But according to a long term experimental study done by
Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker, Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their
children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families, published in the journal of
Developmental Psychology, “[…]the commonly held assumption that children brought up by
lesbian mothers will themselves grow up to be lesbian or gay is not supported by the findings of
the study; the majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified as heterosexual in
adulthood, and there was no statistically significant difference between young adults from
lesbian and heterosexual family backgrounds with respect to sexual orientation”. Golombok and
Tasker are saying that although the children raised in lesbian families are more open to the idea
of the lifestyle, the parental influence of their homosexual parents did nothing to affect their own
sexual preferences. Parental influence, and gender role association is not a proven factor that
could influence sexual orientation or identification. It is much more commonly known, with a
significant amount of evidence, that sexual orientation is usually predetermined while a child is
Ferguson 7
still in the fetus. Gene E. Robinson, PhD, Director of the Neuroscience Program at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote the following statement in The New York Times op-ed
article titled "The Behavior of Genes"; "[A]s much as people like to divide themselves into
nature or nurture camps, what genes actually do in the brain reflects the interaction between
hereditary and environmental information." Although, whether or not a person is born
homosexual or becomes that way it is not for us to decide or judge, as James 4:12 put it “There is
only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge
your neighbor?”.
Ferguson 8
References
Bao, A., Swaab, D.F. 2011. “Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender
identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders”. Frontiers in
Neuroendocrinology. 32(2): 214–226. Web. 26 October 2014.
D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., Starks, M. T., and Sinclair, K. O. 2010. “Factors associated
with parents’ knowledge of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ sexual orientation”.
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6 (2): 1-21.
Golombok, S., Tasker, F. 1996. “Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children?
Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families”. Developmental Psychology
32(1): 3-11. Web. 26 October 2014.
Johnson, R. D. “Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture.” AllPsych Journal. (2003): 1. Web.
Malory, M. 2012. Homosexuality & choice: are gay people ‘born this way?’. Huffington Post
1:1.
Robinson, G.E. “The behavior of genes”. The New York Times 13 Dec, 2004. Web.
The English Revised Standard Version Bible: Containing the Old and
New Testaments with Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Thompson, and Devine. 2003. “Homosexuality: Biologically or Environmentally
Constructed?”. Web. 26 October 2014
Ferguson 9
Annotated Bibliography
The English Revised Standard Version Bible: Containing the Old and
New Testaments with Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Romans 1:26-27: “God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural
intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with
women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men”
James 4:12: “There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But
who are you to judge your neighbor?”.
Johnson, R. D. “Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture.” AllPsych Journal. (2003): 1. Web.
Johnson’s article about the nature and nurture side of homosexuality provides useful
insight in explaining the biological and social factors of determining sexual orientation. The
biological argument was supported with information about the difference in the hypothalamus of
a gay versus straight man’s brain, and also about the experimental study done by J. Michael
Bailey and Richard Pillard that determined the existence of the “gay gene” also referred to as
Xq28. The “gay” gene was discovered and observed in homosexual twin males who volunteered
for the experiment. Johnson supported the social, or environmental argument with information
about the influence of parental dynamics and gender role association in young children. He also
discussed two theories, the Parental Manipulation theory and the Kin-Selection theory. Both
theories contrasted with each other, debating how genes would ultimately be passed along from
parents to children, to the next generation.
D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., Starks, M. T., and Sinclair, K. O. 2010. “Factors associated
with parents’ knowledge of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ sexual orientation”.
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6 (2): 1-21.
Ferguson 10
D’Augelli’s experimental study examined the associations between perceived parental
acceptance, and self-reported psychological symptoms among a sample of 234 lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgendered adolescents aged 14–21 who were recruited online. The experiment
was conducted in order to determine if negative parental reactions were psychologically
damaging homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individuals. Multiple regression analyses
indicated that higher perceived parental psychological control was associated with higher levels
of adolescent psychopathology. D’Augelli and his colleagues concluded that perceived maternal
control was more strongly correlated with adolescent psychopathology than perceived paternal
control, and perceived parental acceptance was not associated with psychological symptoms, nor
was there an interaction with perceived psychological control. Their findings suggested a
deleterious effect for perceived parental psychological control on homosexual adolescents.
Bao, A., Swaab, D.F. 2011. “Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender
identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders”. Frontiers in
Neuroendocrinology. 32(2): 214–226. Web. 26 October 2014.
Bao and Swabb’s experimental study explained the effects certain factors such as
hormones and genes have on prenatal development, and the resulting sexual orientation of the
unborn child. They discuss the relationships between structural and functional sex differences of
various brain areas and the way they change along with any changes in the supply of sex
hormones on the one hand and sex differences in behavior in health and disease on the other. It
was stated that during the intrauterine period a testosterone surge masculinizes the fetal brain,
whereas the absence of such a surge results in a feminine brain. Bao and Swabb explained that as
sexual differentiation of the brain takes place at a much later stage in development than sexual
differentiation of the genitals, these two processes can be influenced independently of each other.
Ferguson 11
They talk about hos sex differences in cognition, gender identity, sexual orientation, and the risks
of developing neuropsychiatric disorders are programmed into our brain during early
development.
Malory, M. 2012. Homosexuality & choice: are gay people ‘born this way?’. Huffington
Post 1:1.
Malory’s article addresses the topic of whether or not people are born gay or they become
gay, and supports her arguments with biological and social/environmental information. She
explains her argument for social factors such as parental influence and acceptance being the
cause of an individual to eventually choose a homosexual lifestyle. Malory uses examples such
as differences in the amygdalae (the control center for emotions) of straight men and women vs.
gay men and women, gay women and gay men being more likely to write left-handed or
ambidextrous than straight women and straight men, differences in the corpus callosum, and in
the hypothalamus, and the “gay gene” Xq28 as valid information to support her biological side of
the argument.
Thompson, and Devine. 2003. “Homosexuality: Biologically or Environmentally
Constructed?”. Web. 26 October 2014
Thompson and Devine conducted an experimental survey based around the theory of kin
selection that observed many different homosexual and heterosexual individuals, and their
previous preferences of toys, games, and costumes as children. They found that the type of
costumes a child would dress in on Halloween reflected that child’s sexual orientation at the
time; the homosexual boys would dress up as princesses or divas. The toys that a child was given
also had a significant effect on their sexuality; Devine and Thompson discovered that the
homosexual children weren’t necessarily given toys meant for the opposite sex, but most were
Ferguson 12
given stuffed animals as a neutral toy. An extra discovery made was that a person’s first crush
was a marginally significant indicator of their sexuality today. None of the other factors
Thompson and Devine tested (parental bond, games, literature, or encouragement to play roughn-tumble games) had any significant effect on an individual’s sexuality.
Golombok, S., Tasker, F. 1996. “Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children?
Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families”. Developmental Psychology
32(1): 3-11. Web. 26 October 2014.
Golombok and Tasker conducted a longitudinal experimental study based the quality of
parent–child relationships and the psychological adjustment of children in female-headed
families with no father present from infancy. In their study, 27 families headed by single
heterosexual mothers (solo mothers) and 20 families headed by lesbian mothers were compared
with 36 two-parent heterosexual families as the child entered adulthood. The female-headed
families were found to be similar to the traditional families on a range of measures of quality of
parenting and young adults’ psychological adjustment. Tasker and Golombok identified
differences between family types; these pointed to more positive family relationships and greater
psychological wellbeing among young adults raised in female-headed homes. They found that
children raised by solo heterosexual mothers or lesbian mothers from infancy continue to
function equally as well as they enter adulthood, as children who were raised in a traditional
household do.
Robinson, G.E. “The behavior of genes”. The New York Times. 13 Dec, 2004. Web.
In this article Robinson writes about the struggle of nature versus nurture concerning
homosexuality. He provides insight into the matter that DNA is both inherited and
environmentally responsive for sexual orientation. The discoveries about biological factors that
Ferguson 13
affect sexual orientation emphasize what genes do (producing proteins that are the building
blocks of life), rather than simply who they are (their fixed DNA sequence). Robinson gives
examples that explain nature versus nurture: Like the voles and fruit flies, individuals may differ
in gene activity because of DNA variations they inherited. These differences evolve over very
long periods of time, from generation to generation. This is nature. Individuals may also differ in
gene activity because of variations in their environment, like the rats and honeybees. These
differences occur over shorter times, within individual lifetimes. This is nurture. “But as much as
people like to divide themselves into nature or nurture camps, what genes actually do in the brain
reflects the interaction between hereditary and environmental information”.