Thursday, March 5, 2009

Ask the Experts

The authorities are rather divided on this issue, as is the community as a whole. While many take the opinion that homosexual behavior is clearly a product of one's genetic make-up, others are strongly of the belief that homosexuality is a learned and chosen practice. There are fewer who subscribe to the idea of genetic predisposition, with a reliance on environment for bringing out the homosexual tendencies that one is predisposed to.
Some experts who support my argument, if not directly, are:

Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlbuug, a Columbia University professor of clinical psychology remarks "I don't think homosexuality can easily be conceptualized as just one thing--a phenomenon that is due to one particular developmental pathway...Like most behavior, homosexuality has multiple pathways."

Howard Moltz, professor of psychology at the University of Chicago, remarks that much research he has seen "suggest[s] that it [homosexuality] might be hard-wired."

Dr. Fred Berlin, psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, adds "The important point [of recent studies] in terms of the cause of homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter, is that it isn't due to choice."

Simon LeVay, a genetic researcher for the Salk Institute, says there is "an increasing body of data suggesting that sexual orientation has a biological basis." Also, "homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior."

Dr. William Gilmer, a Houston neurologist and former president of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association presses that "gay and straight brains are wired differently. Sexual orientation is no[t] a choice."

Jean Foulcault, a predominant social theorist remarks "homosexuality became because we made it so."

Francis Collins, head of the international Human Genome Project, supports the idea that "whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations," the bottom line of my thesis as a whole.

All of these professional opinions are very helpful in presenting my position, and they will help me form a strong and coherent argument.

2 comments:

  1. The "Nature"/"Nurture" dichotomy is a false and misleading one and simply clouds what is going on in the development/emergence of such phenotypes. Genes can do nothing without the rest of the developmental system and there are probably a thousand different ways homosexuality can arise, some of them being more strongly constrained/canalized by genes and others more strongly so by experience/rearing. Saying that homosexuality is a "choice" is equally absurd as saying that heterosexuality is a choice. Both are enormously complicated phenotypes, with much gray area between them. Just as a brown-headed cowbird reared with canaries during its first year does not "choose" to be attracted to and court canaries in its first Spring (this is just one example out of hundreds of studies on misimprinting), homosexuals and heterosexuals do not choose who they find themselves attracted to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CHarsaw, I just have to say "Thank you." That is one of the most rational and well-articulated opinions I have heard on this matter. I must admit that, before I started my research, I was in the 'strictly nature' camp, but as I researched, I discovered that, as you said, the matter of sexual preference is way too complicated to be explained away by pointing to one simple factor, such as one's genes or upbringing. And thanks, too, for the cowbird/canary example; that's a new one to me, and a rather useful comparison as well.

    ReplyDelete