Are People Born Gay?

Recommend (5) Comments (25)

The conservative opposition writes off any study that speaks to a gay bio-genetic root as mere propaganda. However, there have been a slew of studies over the years that give credence to nature.

But you know what? I'm not going to detail them all here. Richard Lippa, Qazi Rahman, Hamer and Levay -- you can Google the various works. Some are better than others. But what I want to look at is the way homosexuality's strong opponents tend to refute these studies.

One issue: They put out counter research from groups that are solely designed to embolden their agenda. They constantly encourage LGBT activists of having an agenda, yet the large majority of their born gay counter research comes from groups that exist to keep gays stigmatized (usually with faith as the fuel). One such group is The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), who holds one of the most exhaustive database of "born gay"-challenging research.  Only problem, at least for those who value objectivity? That NARTH's goal is to prove their desired outcome (that gays can change), not learn from the science presented to them.

Another issue: It's common for counter researchers to present an inability to locate concrete proof as "proof" that none exists. Meaning, that because researchers have not been able to conclusively pin down  genes that lead to homosexuality, "born gay" opponents often act as if this lends credence to their cause. All of a sudden genetics, an obviously complex area, becomes a simple puzzle whose lack of definitive solution somehow contains definitives. It's intellectually weak.

A third issue: The burden of proof is more fully and unfairly placed upon the "born gay" side. Despite the physiological evidence, the anecdotal claims, the easily discernible shared traits, the popular opinions among countless gay people, etc., those who refuse to believe nature's role in homosexuality act as if gay people are the ones who have to find the holy grail of "born gay" proof. I would argue that the burden is much more on them to prove that heterosexual beings are simply born into their sexualities, but that gay people's love for gay sex is a learned thing.

Fourth: While those who trend towards the "born gay" side of things tend to be open to learning more about the subject at hand, the other side tends to be in the business of seeking converts. Even though there is absolutely no credible science to support the idea that gays are cultivated and can therefore change, all of their findings are presented as if the case is closed. There is an aggression in their pushes that simply does not exist on the other side.

Now, these are of course generalized ideas that focus on the two sides of the so-called "culture war," and between these two polars there is gradation. But I would argue that it is the "pro-family" social conservatives who provide the greatest clues as to what this "nature vs. nurture" contest is all about. And I would argue that the staunchly "nurture" side is out to fulfill what they see to be a godly call much more than they are out to dig up empirical data.