Diana Perez Senior Seminar Prof. Stan Grove November 30, 2006
IV. Homosexuality and Religion
V. Conclusion
VI. Bibliography
Sexual orientation has been considered one of the most crucial characteristics of an individual’s personality and lifestyle. However, a suitable definition for a person’s sexual orientation is still ambiguous. One of the challenges for researchers has been identifying the exact components that make up an individual’s sexuality. Sexual behavior is so difficult to define because it varies greatly from individual to individual and from culture to culture. According to Edward Stein (1999) a person’s sexual orientation involves not only a person’s sex-gender but also the sex-gender of the other individual in relation to that person, along with the types of sexual acts the person has performed.
Uncertainty about the true cause of an individuals sexual orientation has brought about many wide-ranging opinions among society. This has certainly created intense controversies, debates and conflicts for the general public.
Advances in scientific research have also demonstrated that the formation of a person’s sexual identity is greatly influenced by the interplay of genetics, family history, society, personal experiences and religious beliefs. Nonetheless, a person’s sexual desires and ways of expressing sexuality are unique to each human being.
There is ample evidence that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. One civilization that clearly showed same-sex practices were the Greeks. Male homosexuality was illustrated through poetry, art, myths, speeches and music. Greek lyric poets often sang of male love. In addition, the Greek’s passion for athletics often expressed male nudity, and their cult of male beauty (Crompton, 2003). During those times, homosexual behavior was accepted as part of the socialization and nurturing of young males. For example, cross-dressing on ritual or festivities was often acceptable. Hercules and Achilles, archetypal male heroes, were both supposed to have worn women’s dresses and practiced homosexual behaviors. A famous proof of homosexuality in literature was Plato’s Symposium. Plato stated that “love will usually mean love between men, generally love of an older for a younger male (Crompton, 2003)”. On the other hand, in ancient Palestine a new form of legislation was incorporated into the Hebrew Scriptures. One of the aspects this new code commanded, was that men and women should love their neighbors as themselves (Crompton, 2003). But a man who engaged in same-sex relations was not a “neighbor”; he was instead viewed as a deadly danger to the civilization. As a result, part of the Levitical Code ordered the extermination of male homosexuals. Thereafter, many of the laws from Leviticus were retained and became models for subsequent civilizations in the Western world.
By the middle Ages and Renaissance periods, there were harsh legal restrictions against homosexuality due to teachings from the Hebrew Scripture (Crompton, 2003). Christianity (which came from Judaism) greatly shaped the formation of new laws in other Western civilizations until today’s society.
Part of society has learned to tolerate homosexuals but others have become highly critical and judgmental of their behavior. A study done by the Gallup Organization on public attitudes showed that today’s public is much more tolerant toward homosexuals than twenty years ago (Republicans Unified, Democrats Split on Gay Marriage, 2003). Yet, it is still evident that almost forty-two percent of all Americans believe homosexuality is purely a choice (Republicans Unified, Democrats Split on Gay Marriage, 2003). This type of opinion has been noticeable in conservative political and religious groups, the elderly and people who have not pursued a college education (Republicans Unified, Democrats Split on Gay Marriage, 2003). Conversely, it has been clearly evident that homosexuality is not a life style that every homosexual simply “chooses” to live by.
Sexual orientation is such a complex behavior that there is no single factor such as choice or genetics that would predispose an individual to become attracted to the one sex. Even though there is still no single explanation about how an individual’s sexual orientation is established, scientists have been able to find convincing results that explain how biology affects a person’s sexual development.
For many years, experts from various fields (especially psychology and biology) have been interested in how people develop their own sexual identity. Contrary to elderly and to conservative’s views on homosexuality, current research has confirmed that sexual orientation is closely associated with an individual’s genetic composition (Stein, 1999).
The strongest piece of evidence that human sexual orientation has a biological foundation has come from genetic studies of families and especially twins. Similar DNA patterns, inherited X gene, brain and hormonal development, scents, handedness and even birth order are just some examples of features which psychologists and biologists have determined to be influential in sexual orientation.
Most of the studies done on sexual orientation have involved analyzing male homosexuals. This is due to the fact that various studies have shown the high correlation of sexual orientation to alleles found in the X gene. For example, researchers found a significant linkage in the region Xq28 of the X chromosome (Bailey et al, 1998). They examined several pairs of gay brothers and detected the similarity of alleles in this Xq28 region. Their alleles were close together. The closer the distance between alleles, the more often they will be shared. The farther away the alleles are, the less they are shared. Subsequently, Bailey et al, (1998) also compared the allele markers of heterosexual brothers and found out that their alleles were farther apart thus less shared.
Brian Mustanski (2005), a biologist, from University of Illinois in Chicago found segments of DNA that seemed to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes. Identical stretches of DNA were found in chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 in sixty percent of gay brothers in his study (Mustanski, 2005). Moreover, nephews of maternal aunts had a higher chance of being homosexual than expected for the general population (Richard & Hawley, 2005). Yet, no such thing was seen for nephews of paternal aunts. This observation suggested that there is an X-linked determinant for sexual orientation because of the high concordance which was seen among relatives who shared an X chromosome. Studies have shown that there were more homosexual individuals on the maternal side than on the paternal (Mustanski, 2005). Therefore, there is the possibility that male sexual orientation is influenced by an X-linked gene that is inherited from the mother (Richard & Hawley, 2005).
Another study done by Richard Pillard and his colleagues found that if a family possessed one son who was homosexual, 18 to 25 percent of his brothers would also describe themselves as homosexual. On the other hand, if an individual was heterosexual, the chance of other brothers being homosexual was only about 4 percent (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995).
Again, after studying their respective families, Hamer observed that a brother of a gay man had a fourteen percent chance of being gay as compared with a one to five percent chance for males in the general population (Richard & Hawley, 2005). Hamer not only found that homosexuality might run in families; he observed that sexual orientation was affected more by the maternal lineage than the paternal. Hamer and colleagues found almost no homosexuals in paternal lines and when compared with randomly chosen families, rates of homosexuality in maternal uncles increased from 7 to 10 percent and in maternal cousins from 8 to 13 percent (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995).
Even though not too many studies have been done concerning female homosexuality; it was evident that same sex attraction appeared more common among sisters of gay males compared with the population’s prevalence (Bailey et al, 1998). Further research is needed in order to find significant data.
Differences in various structures of the nervous system have also been apparent in homosexuals. The suprachiasmatic nucleus which is located in the hypothalamus is much larger and has almost twice as many cells in homosexual males than in heterosexual males (Stein, 1999). More recent reports have also shown that the isthmus of the corpus callosum showed to be about thirteen percent larger in homosexual men than straight men (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995). The total size of the corpus callosum is relatively larger in females than in males (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995). Therefore, this structural difference could serve as an explanation of why homosexual men tend to have an attraction for men just like women do. In addition, the medial preoptic area which is very close to the suprachiasmatic nucleus in the hypothalamus seemed to be smaller in homosexuals and women than in male heterosexuals (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995).
Clearly, all of these differences in the brain seem to bring about changes in the brain’s function. In 1993, a study done by Camilla Benbow and David Lubinski revealed that males are better at mathematical and spatial tasks (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995). Math ability is associated with enhanced right hemisphere brain functioning apparent in males and not females (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995). A perceptual test study, demonstrated that heterosexual men were considerable better at tasks of spatial ability than were homosexual men or women. It was concluded by researchers that homosexual men lateralization of the brain resembled that of heterosexual women exceedingly more than heterosexual men regarding mechanical and visual tasks (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995). Unfortunately, there have not been any valid results to demonstrate the differences between lesbian and heterosexual women.
Along with genes and DNA, the effect of the endocrine system during prenatal stages has also been found to play a significant role on sexual orientation. There is no doubt that hormones may influence and determine the development of certain sexual characteristics (Myers, 2004). Hormones certainly predispose an individual toward male and/or female behaviors. For example, high amounts of testosterone are responsible for men’s masculine appearance. On the other hand, high levels of estrogen will be responsible for women’s physically feminine appearance. Many of these hormones are regulated by the hypothalamus, a particular region in the brain which is said to be the central region when it comes to emotions and sexual drives (Myers, 2004).
During prenatal stages, mutations in the genes of the embryo could cause negative effects in the cells that are forming. For instance, there are times when cells of a male embryo are unable to detect the levels of testosterone present in the body. This causes the embryo’s body to respond only to the low amounts of estrogen that would be present in any “normal” male body (Richard & Hawley, 2005). Because a male embryo has XY chromosomes, he will have underdeveloped male genitalia. However, the brain will respond differently by reacting to the levels of estrogen present. Therefore, this testosterone insensitivity causes the hypothalamus to respond as one belonging to a female brain (Richard & Hawley, 2005). This condition often results in an individual with male genitalia but one who becomes sexually aroused to men because the brain (hypothalamus) will have female thinking patterns (Stein, 1999). As a result, the individual may possibly become attracted to the signals of men and not women.
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) is another example of how hormones might create confusion in the brain. This condition can be described as an “intersex” state for females but not males (Richard & Hawley, 2005). An individual with CAH is born with very high levels of both testosterone and estrogen (Richard & Hawley, 2005). This could result in a mixture of bodily processes and confusion for the female when it comes do identifying her identity. She might have trouble determining her self as male or female. Due to this biological and social confusion, the female could either consider herself as heterosexual or homosexual.
Endogenous hormones are also said to be involved with the process of selecting a partner. These hormones also known as pheromones, have been correlated with sexual arousal and sexual attraction (Neff, 2005). EST, an estrogen-like compound, and AND, a testosterone-like compound, are said to be different pheromones produced by women and men, respectively (Neff, 2005). In 2001, Swedish scientists isolated these two chemicals to study how these affected women’s and men’s brains. Researchers concluded that women who sniffed AND, resulted in “lit up” hypothalamuses (Neff, 2005). In men, the results were exactly the opposite; their hypothalamuses showed no activity. Men’s hypothalamuses only showed activity when smelling women’s pheromones. Moreover, an experiment done by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm announced that gay men and straight women respond similarly to hormonal sex scents and differently than straight men do ( Neff, 2005). With MRI and other sophisticated brain imaging techniques, scientists noticed that the hypothalamus of women and gay men became readily stimulated when subjects smelled men’s sweat. They found that gay men preferred the sweat of other gay men but their sweat was least preferred by heterosexual men, heterosexual women and lesbians (Neff, 2005).
The information gathered from hormone and pheromones studies have illustrated that sexual preference might be encoded in the brain since early embryonic development (Stein, 1999). The myth held by many that gays and lesbians “choose” to become sexually attracted to other people of the same sex because they “want” and “decide” to is inaccurate. It is impossible for homosexuals to “choose” what hormones will develop and how their body will respond to them. At the same time, it is important to take into account that it is both the role of hormones and the experiences (environment) of an individual that affect a person’s sexual orientation.
Researches have also done other studies investigating the influence of early biological processes (such as handedness) on sexual orientation. Various theories have been developed to show whether testosterone slows the growth of the left brain hemisphere or whether it promotes the development of the right hemisphere. It has been considered that because the developing male brain is exposed to higher concentrations of testosterone than is the female brain, increased right-handedness in men is expected (Richard & Hawley, 2005). Handedness is one aspect that is present in very early development.
Individuals who have been affected by the genetic condition Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia have also shown increased left-hand preference (Bennett, 2000). Again, this could be due to the fact that the hypothalamus only detects certain hormones being signaled by the brain. If the hypothalamus is insensitive to testosterone, it will cause the brain to respond to other hormones (e.g. estrogen) that are present in the body despite being present in very small amounts (Bennett, 2000). This could be an explanation why people with CAH show left handedness more than right handedness.
A later report concluded that, overall, homosexual adults were thirty nine percent more likely than heterosexual men to use their left hand for more activities (Lalumiere, et al, 2000). From the collected data, a significant relationship between handedness and sexual orientation showed to be stronger in women. The rate was even higher among lesbians, who were nearly twice as likely as heterosexuals to be left- or mixed-handed (Bennett, 2000). This study also showed that lesbians had, on average, a longer ring finger than index finger, a pattern more often found in men and influenced by prenatal androgen exposure (Bennett, 2000). It has been evident that females who were exposed to androgens prior birth showed signs of defeminization and signs of physical and behavioral masculinization (Lalumiere, et al, 2000). Those women had a significantly higher-than-anticipated incidence of lesbianism (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995).
One last biological aspect that may play a role in the formation of a person’s sexuality is birth order where psychologists as well as biologists have intensely analyzed family pedigrees along with their history. Several studies have shown that homosexual men tend to be born later than their siblings. According to Martin Lalumiere et al (2000), homosexual men tend to have a higher number of older brothers than do heterosexual men. Other studies have also pointed out that the odds of homosexuality in an individual are increased about thirty three percent to forty eight percent for each brother he has (Lalumiere, et al, 2000).
Another theory by Sulloway (1996) also stated that later-born children have a greater chance of being more open to new experiences which would also incline them to participate in unconventional sex, or sex with same-sex partners. Therefore, the “blame” was put on environment more than biology. Inevitably, environment and the individual’s family, greatly influence the establishment of one’s sexuality (Stein, 1999). Various studies have been done examining the role of parents in an individual’s household and how it impacts a person’s sexual orientation. The basic finding from various studies was that no common parameter of family or upbringing could be linked to sexual orientation, nor could any link be found between any aspect of an individual’s childhood or adolescent experiences (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995). Therefore, this eliminated a second myth stating that children brought up by homosexuals parents develop as homosexual. In fact, it has been observed that most homosexuals are raised as heterosexuals by heterosexual parents in relatively “functional” households (Stein, 1999).
A third myth that many people tend to believe is that society’s acceptance of homosexuality can often incline an individual to practice same sex behaviors. Even though an individual’s culture can affect one’s behaviors, society does not have a substantial impact in the development of one’s sexual identity (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995). There are societies in which homosexuality is illegal and completely unaccepted. In others, same-sex practices are tolerated or considered of no great concern to the general public. Ironically, a study showed that in cultures where homosexuality is not tolerated and sometimes punished, the rates of homosexuality were high. In “tolerant” societies, researchers found the lowest rates of same-sex activity (Diamant & McAnulty, 1995). This suggests that sexual orientation is not entirely a cultural or social stimulus. Otherwise, the number of homosexuals would be much higher in “intolerant” societies than in those that have learned to tolerate them.
Genetic studies offer very strong evidence that genes play an essential role in influencing sexual orientation, at least in men. Nevertheless, it is just as important to remember that they also demonstrate that genes are not the entire story.
Concerns about future exploitation of scientific technology certainly bring about an ethical dilemma. There have been many attempts in the past where researchers have tried to “cure” homosexuality by finding its solitary cause. When AIDS first became a problem for society, some people believed that it was caused by being homosexual (Grenz, 1997). That is why it was rapidly termed as “the gay disease”. However, later on medical science was able to clear the wrong assumption about AIDS by explaining how the disease is and is not transmitted. With the help of scientific findings, now people are beginning to see that although certain types of homosexuality activity place one at greater risk, AIDS itself is not a gay disease (Grenz, 1997). This example clearly demonstrated how people belonging to a scientific community can certainly assist those who have the many incorrect assumptions and attitudes toward homosexuals. Having precise scientific knowledge can serve as a tool for people to learn how to tolerate an individual’s sexual preference. For instance, health care providers can play a role in protecting homosexuals by providing education to those who still believe that homosexuality is purely a choice. Just like Dean Hamer, a scientist, stated, “...being ethical is not only a matter of beliefs but of taking personal action and responsibility (Grenz, 1997).
Homosexuality definitely creates a conflict for the ethics of Christianity as well as other religions. Unfortunately, the relationship between church and homosexual communities has seldom involved mutual openness to dialogue. Discussing a person’s sexual orientation has become a topic about which people feel very more and more uneasy talking.
Christians are expected to accept and recognize all types of individuals regardless of their lifestyle. As a church community, Christians should try to reach out to those people by offering an environment where homosexuals feel accepted and feel that they can receive the necessary support when trying to cope with the different problems associated with their sexual orientation. Instead of rejecting and insulting homosexual persons, those who fear homosexuality can make an effort to look beyond sexual orientation and see that homosexuals are persons who are in need of God’s grace.
Again, scientists, Christians and the rest of society should be open to the fact that human sexual orientation cannot be explained from a single hypotheses or process, but rather it seems to have numerous origins.
Without a doubt, biological and psychological approaches to the cause of individual differences in human sexual orientation have received significant experimental support during the last few years. All of these studies reveal the idea that sexual orientation has early neurobiological roots as well as environmental features. Once again, it is not entirely up to the individual to choose whether he or she might “want” to become gay. Even though biological data has verified its influence in sexual orientation, it is important to take into account that when it is said that genes play a role in determining homosexuality, there is no such thing as a “gay gene”. As previously stated, sexual orientation is very complex and it definitely takes more than one gene to determine a human being’s sexual preference. That is why trying to comprehend the etiology of homosexuality from just one single perspective can greatly limit our progress in understanding the aspects of sexual orientation. It is important for society to take knowledge from all points of view and recognize that it is the interaction of mind with body along with social and environmental factors which determines an individual’s sexual orientation.
Bailey, Michael; Pillard, Richard; Dawood, Khytam; Miller, Michael B; Farrer, Lindsay; Trivedi, Shruti; Murphy, Robert. (1998). A Family History Study of Male Sexual Orientation using Three Independent Samples. Behavior Genetics. Vol. 29. Retrieved October 28, 2006, from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy. goshen.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11304807&site=ehost-live
Bennett, Ruth. (2000). Sexual orientation linked to handedness. Science News; Vol. 1. Issue 4. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://search.ebscohost.com.zproxy.goshen.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3408837&site=ehost-live
Crompton, Louis. (2003). Homosexuality & Civilization. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Diamant, Lois; McAnulty, Richard. (1995). The Psychology of Sexual Orientation, Behavior, and Identity: A Handbook. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT.
Grenz, Stanley J. (1997). Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective. Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, KY.
Mustanski, Brian. (2005). Genetic Regions Influencing Male Sexual Orientation Identified. Ascribe. Newswire. Health Source. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.goshen.edu/login.aspx?direct= true&db=hxh&LAN=15861972&site=ehost-live
Myers, D.G (2004). Psychology. 7th Ed. Worth Publishers: Holland, Michigan.
“Republicans Unified, Democrats Split on Gay Marriage: Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality. (2003). The PewResearchCenter for the People & the Press. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from http://pewforum.org/publications.surveys/religion-homosexuality.pdf
Richard, Julia and Hawley, Scott. (2005). The Human Genome. 2nd Ed. Elsevier Academic Press: San Diego, CA.
Stein, Edward. (1999). The Mismeasure of Desire. The Science, Theory and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.