Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth
Jeffrey Satinover

Part 1. Gay Science

In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. — Abraham Lincoln

1. Neither Scientific nor Democratic

Our society is dominated by experts, few more influential than psychiatrists. This influence does not derive, however, from our superior ethics or goodness nor from any widespread consensus that we are especially admirable. Indeed, the extent to which we are castigated represents the all-too-accurate skewering of our fundamental professional claim: the pretense that because we know something about what makes people tick, we are therefore uniquely qualified to tell them how to lead their lives. Nonetheless, because Americans have become a nation dependent on experts, the same psychiatrist is at once lampooned and consulted for direction. For better or for worse, mental health professionals exert influence that greatly exceeds the actual wisdom we demonstrate.

In the early years of “gay liberation,” this reality was used for the fledgling gay activists’ advantage. They anticipated that if the influential American Psychiatric Association (APA) could be convinced to redefine homosexuality, the other guilds would follow shortly thereafter and then so would the rest of society. Their plan was implemented with swift and near-total success.

Consider the rapid change. In 1963 the New York Academy of Medicine charged its Committee on Public Health to report on the subject of homosexuality, prompted by concern that homosexual behavior seemed to be increasing. The Committee reported that:

homosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations.[9]

It also noted that:

some homosexuals have gone beyond the plane of defensiveness and now argue that deviancy is a “desirable, noble, preferable way of life.”[10]

Just ten years later — with no significant new scientific evidence — the homosexual activists’ argument became the new standard within psychiatry. For in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association voted to strike homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses. How did this occur? Normally a scientific consensus is reached over the course of many years, resulting from the accumulated weight of many properly designed studies. But in the case of homosexuality, scientific research has only now just begun, years after the question was decided.

A Change of Status

The APA vote to normalize homosexuality was driven by politics, not science. Even sympathizers acknowledged this. Ronald Bayer was then a Fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York. He reported how in 1970 the leadership of a homosexual faction within the APA planned a “systematic effort to disrupt the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association.”[11] They defended this method of “influence” on the grounds that the APA represented “psychiatry as a social institution” rather than a scientific body or professional guild.

At the 1970 meetings, Irving Bieber, an eminent psychoanalyst and psychiatrist, was presenting a paper on “homosexuality and transsexualism.” He was abruptly challenged:

[Bieber’s] efforts to explain his position … were met with derisive laughter…. [One] protester to call him a ______. “I’ve read your book, Dr. Bieber, and if that book talked about black people the way it talks about homosexuals, you’d be drawn and quartered and you’d deserve it.”[12]

The tactics worked. Acceding to pressure, the organizers of the following APA conference in 1971 agreed to sponsor a special panel — not on homosexuality, but by homosexuals. If the panel was not approved, the program chairman had been warned, “They’re [the homosexual activists] not going to break up just one section.”[13]

But the panel was not enough. Bayer continues:

Despite the agreement to allow homosexuals to conduct their own panel discussion at the 1971 convention, gay activists in Washington felt that they had to provide yet another jolt to the psychiatric profession…. Too smooth a transition … would have deprived the movement of its most important weapon — the threat of disorder…. [They] turned to a Gay Liberation Front collective in Washington to plan the May 1971 demonstration. Together with the collective [they] developed a detailed strategy for disruption, paying attention to the most intricate logistical details.[14]

On May 3, 1971, the protesting psychiatrists broke into a meeting of distinguished members of the profession. They grabbed the microphone and turned it over to an outside activist, who declared:

Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you…. We’re rejecting you all as our owners.[15]

No one raised an objection. The activists then secured an appearance before the APA’s Committee on Nomenclature. Its chairman allowed that perhaps homosexual behavior was not a sign of psychiatric disorder, and that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) should probably therefore reflect this new understanding.

When the committee met formally to consider the issue in 1973 the outcome had already been arranged behind closed doors. No new data was introduced, and objectors were given only fifteen minutes to present a rebuttal that summarized seventy years of psychiatric and psychoanalytic opinion. When the committee voted as planned, a few voices formally appealed to the membership at large, which can overrule committee decisions even on “scientific” matters.

The activists responded swiftly and effectively. They drafted a letter and sent it to the over thirty thousand members of the APA, urging them “to vote to retain the nomenclature change.”[16] How could the activists afford such a mailing? They purchased the APA membership mailing list after the National Gay Task Force (NGTF) sent out a fund-raising appeal to their membership.

Bayer comments:

Though the NGTF played a central role in this effort, a decision was made not to indicate on the letter that it was written, at least in part, by the Gay Task Force, nor to reveal that its distribution was funded by contributions the Task Force had raised. Indeed, the letter gave every indication of having been conceived and mailed by those [psychiatrists] who [originally] signed it…. Though each signer publicly denied any role in the dissimulation, at least one signer had warned privately that to acknowledge the organizational role of the gay community would have been the “kiss of death.”

There is no question however about the extent to which the officers of the APA were aware of both the letter’s origins and the mechanics of its distribution. They, as well as the National Gay Task Force, understood the letter as performing a vital role in the effort to turn back the challenge.[17]

Because a majority of the APA members who responded voted to support the change in the classification of homosexuality, the decision of the Board of Trustees was allowed to stand. But in fact only one-third of the membership did respond. (Four years later the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality reported on a survey it conducted. The survey showed that 69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder.) Bayer remarks:

The result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.[18]

Two years later the American Psychological Association — the professional psychology guild that is three times larger than the APA — voted to follow suit.

How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer’s apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man — suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth.

Twenty Years Later

The scientific process continues to be affected by political pressure today. In 1994 the Board of Trustees of the APA decided to consider altering the code of ethics. The proposed change (presented by a man who is a prominent and vocal gay-activist psychiatrist and chairman of the APA’s Committee on the Abuse and Misuse of Psychiatry) would make it a violation of professional conduct for a psychiatrist to help a homosexual patient become heterosexual even at the patient’s request. This is in spite of the fact that one of the association’s own professional standards holds that psychiatrists need to accept a patient’s own goals in treatment so as to “foster maximum self-determination on the part of clients.” The final version read, “The APA does not endorse any psychiatric treatment which is based either upon a psychiatrist’s assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder or a psychiatrist’s intent to change a person’s sexual orientation.” The Board approved the statement and sent it to the APA Assembly — its legislative body — for final approval.

A swift and fierce battle ensued. Enough Assembly members spoke against the resolution, because of its chilling effect on practice, to defeat it prior to a vote. According to APA members closely involved, even the threat of a first-amendment controversy would not deter the activists. But the turning point came when therapists who help homosexuals change — and a large number of ex-homosexuals — made it clear that if the resolution passed, they would file a lawsuit against the APA and reopen the original basis on which homosexuality was excluded from the list of diagnoses. With that the activists retreated. Had the change been approved, it would have opened the door to malpractice suits and ethics charges against psychiatrists who help homosexuals change — in accord with their patient’s own wishes. Indeed, the chairman of the APA Gay and Lesbian Task Force made it clear that the activists had in their sights not only psychiatrists who undertook reparative therapy, but eventually psychologists, social workers, and even pastoral counselors and ministers.

The APA is not the only guild affected by political pressure. The National Association of Social Workers, which accredits the largest body of mental health practitioners in the country, also continues to be influenced by gay activists. The NASW Committee on Lesbian and Gay Issues has lobbied the NASW to declare that the use of reparative therapies is a violation of the NASW Code of Ethics. The committee issued a paper in 1992 stating that:

Efforts to “convert” people through irresponsible therapies … can be more accurately called brainwashing, shaming or coercion…. The assumptions and directions of reparative therapies are theoretically and morally wrong.[19]

Of the three major mental health guilds, the NASW is farthest along in the attempt to politicize clinical questions regarding homosexuality.

All of these changes in the definition and classification of homosexuality have occurred in a scientific vacuum. Nonetheless, the small amount of hard-science research that has been conducted has complex yet predictable implications, which are consistent with findings from other areas of behavioral genetics. These studies suggest that a composite of mutually interacting factors influence almost all aspects of human behavior, thoroughly confounding the notion that someone could simply answer the questions “Whence arises homosexuality?” and “What is it?” with the responses “nature” or “nurture,” “normal” or “abnormal.” And these studies neither explain nor even address the role of choice in human behavior. Indeed, they do not because, as we will discuss in greater detail, they cannot.

The Public’s Perception

Recent articles in the media create the mistaken impression that scientific closure on the subject of homosexuality has been or soon will be reached. Such actions as the APA’s 1973 decision and its recent deliberations further reinforce unjustified conclusions in the public mind. Few understand the complexities of good biological research; most would be amazed at the extent that politics has corrupted the scientific process. They depend on the accuracy of the accounts in the popular press.

But the purported scientific consensus that the press touts is a fiction. A good example is Chandler Burr’s article in the March 1993 issue of the Atlantic Monthly.[20] He states baldly: “Five decades of psychiatric evidence demonstrates that homosexuality is immutable, and non-pathological, and a growing body of more recent evidence implicates biology in the development of sexual orientation.” In a later New York Times opinion piece he states even more flatly that science has long since proven that homosexuality is biological and unchangeable, and that there is simply no disagreement on this among scientists.

But these claims are absolutely not true, except for the meaningless statement that “biology is implicated in the development of homosexuality.” Biology is, of course, “implicated” in everything human. In conducting his research for the Atlantic Monthly, Burr interviewed a number of scientists and clinicians who expressed the view that homosexuality is neither genetic nor immutable. He simply did not cite them.

We will see later the falsity of activists’ repeated assertions that homosexuality is immutable. They seek to create the impression that science has settled these questions, but it most certainly has not. Instead, the changes that have occurred in both public and professional opinion have resulted from politics, pressure, and public relations.

For in response to the explicit efforts of the activists, a mass change of opinion in accepting homosexuality as normal has occurred. But it remains unsupported by the very sources the activists manipulate for their own ends. Such “disinformation” seems to arise partly from a deliberate campaign, especially given the willingness of some to use “any means necessary” to convert public opinion. “Any means necessary” is no exaggeration. Eric Pollard formerly belonged to the prominent homosexual organization ACT-UP and founded its Washington, D.C., chapter. In an interview with The Washington Blade, a major homosexual newspaper, he stated that he and other group members learned to apply “subversive tactics, drawn largely from the voluminous Mein Kampf, which some of us studied as a working model.”[21]

In contrast to the widely promoted claims, many eminent scientists disagree with the media’s conclusions about the “biology of homosexuality.”[22] A scientist who leads one of the nation’s largest behavioral genetics laboratories commented that the latest genetics research only means that some tentative, indirect, partial genetic relationship might exist, so perhaps it is worth looking into.[23] Scientific American’s cover read “The dubious link between genes and behavior.” But what is remembered by the general public is the catchy, inaccurate headline in a major newsweekly: “The Gay Gene.”

An Uncontrolled Factor

The sociological — not medical or scientific — transformation of the opinion of mental health professionals regarding homosexuality has greatly influenced the current research. Unfortunately, many of those now researching homosexuality explicitly aim at a particular outcome. For instance, Simon LeVay, the San Francisco neuroanatomist who published a widely cited study on the brains of homosexual men, left his position as a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute in San Diego to found the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Education. Richard Pillard, coauthor of two major twin studies on homosexuality, admits in the very text of one these papers that his research was designed “to counter the prevalent belief that sexual orientation is largely the product of family interactions and the social environment.”[24]

A series of critical studies started in the 1960s demonstrates that researcher bias in favor of a specific outcome is one of the most important and most commonly uncontrolled factors that distorts any scientific study.[25]

Charles Socarides, a psychoanalyst and expert in the field of homosexual treatment, notes that the 1973 APA decision

remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost — a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession and to the behavioral sciences.[26]

Still in its infancy, psychiatry remains a far from coherent composite of medicine, art, hard science, amateur philosophy, and secularized spiritual direction. This lack of scientific rigor — not surprising given the subtlety and complexity of its object of study — may have opened psychiatry to be the first among the professions to political manipulation. But now, over two decades since the APA decision in 1973, numerous “scholarly” treatises seek to “prove” that all of science is a racist, sexist, age-ist, Eurocentric, class-based, homophobic endeavor whose primary purpose is to maintain class dominance. The effect of politics continues.

2. Who Says? And Why?

Ironically, it is doubtful that homosexuality really is an “illness” — according to any scientifically rigorous meaning of the word. It is as doubtful as psychiatry’s characterization of many other conditions as “illnesses.”

A number of serious mental conditions arise from physical diseases of the brain. Some are acquired before birth, some after; some are inherited, some acquired; most result from a variety of causes. Many of these conditions are partially reversible by treatments that target the chemistry and physiology of the brain. Likewise, many conditions once thought to be purely psychological are now understood to have significant genetic components (for example, many cases of depression or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). But most of what has been termed “neurosis” can be considered “illness” only if “illness” is used poetically, as in T. S. Eliot’s felicitous phrase, “our only health is the disease….”[27]

Homosexuality thus was considered an “illness” in the same way that early psychoanalysis defined all forms of human suffering associated with unconscious internal conflict as “illness.” Thus the man who both hates and loves his mother and does not “know” it enacts his hidden ambivalence in his relations with women and so is “neurotic.” We consider him “ill,” however, in a sense altogether different from when he contracts cancer. Likewise the man who “can’t” love women.

In all such cases of “neurosis,” nothing is wrong with the brain and its nerves. It is rather that the healthy brain is being used in a way that we deem to be socially, morally, or practically wrong or merely inefficient. And so like all conditions characterized solely by mental and behavioral traits, it took little for “science” to “prove” that homosexuality was not an illness.

The Politics of Definition

What, then, is illness? Is it “abnormality?” Only one essential but obvious point needs to be underlined here: By definition illnesses are undesirable conditions or states of the organism. Many biological states — say, unusual strength — may be “abnormal” but are not illnesses because they are not undesirable. In fact, in this example of strength, the condition is not just neutral but positively desirable and is therefore likely to be considered a gift.[28]

Now bring into the discussion the distinction between psychological and biological conditions. We can say that all undesirable physical conditions are categorized as illnesses, even if the boundary between illness and health is difficult to define. But when we consider psychological or behavioral traits, the definition of illness becomes more difficult. This is especially true of those traits associated with no identifiable underlying physical factors. In fact, if we were to consider such conditions — say, nastiness — as illnesses at all, then the definition of illness is reduced to mere desirability. Such a definition expands the meaning of illness to the point of meaninglessness.

But this is precisely the error into which psychology has been trapped for nearly a century now. A large number — if not the majority — of conditions that the mental health professionals treat as “illnesses” or “disorders” are simply undesirable character traits. When the APA excluded homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders, it did nothing more than shift it from the column headed “undesirable” to the column headed “not undesirable.” This shift exposes the key questions: “Not undesirable to whom?” “Not undesirable by what criteria?”

Although psychiatrists and other mental health professionals may know how a given trait comes about or how it may be altered, they have no expertise in determining whether a trait is desirable. Individual professionals and the organized professional guilds are no more capable of deciding whether any trait — including homosexuality — is consensually desirable or undesirable to society than are any other citizens or groups. If people agree to consider homosexuality to be undesirable, then it is consensually undesirable. This does not necessarily make it an illness, for to be an illness it would also need to be associated with identifiable abnormalities. But neither does its not being an illness inevitably make it desirable.

Going Round in Circles

This question of homosexuality’s desirability or undesirability is a hotly debated, central issue in the controversy. On one side gay activists claim that homosexuality is in no way undesirable. On the other side many people do not wish to be homosexual, in spite of behaving or feeling compelled to behave in that way. For them homosexuality is undesirable.

Gay activists explain this contradiction through their concept of “internalized homophobia,” which is inherently circular. Homosexuals who wish to change, they claim, have swallowed (“internalized”) the “homophobic” argument that being gay is undesirable; therefore they have adopted a position of hatred toward themselves that is based on an illusion. Their own genuine feeling — of which they are themselves unaware — is that being gay is fine and acceptable. We, and they, cannot therefore accept their own perceived position that homosexuality is undesirable, even for themselves.

The circularity of this concept is striking. The evidence for “internalized homophobia” is the fact that such people do not wish to be homosexual; and the reason they do not wish to be homosexual is “internalized homophobia.”

This sort of circular thinking is now common in “politically correct” literature:

… membership of [sic] a stigmatized minority sexuality may exacerbate causes of sexual dysfunction. The effects of discordant lifestyle and identity, homosexual identity formation, dysphoria and internalized homophobia on sexual functioning are three examples of these factors of specific relevance to being homosexual in this culture. The effects of AIDS, difficulties arising from the mechanics of safer sex and the psychosexual effects of oppression on healthy sexual functioning all indicate how factors important to (but not caused by) minority sexual status may influence sexuality functioning.[29]

The self-serving explanation for homosexual distress, however, is undermined by the terrible effects of childhood trauma on the emotional well-being of adults. Many studies demonstrate a sadly disproportionate amount of sexual abuse in the childhoods of homosexual men, suggesting that both homosexual unhappiness and homosexuality itself derive from common causes, and therefore that unhappiness is an inherent accompaniment of homosexuality:

1,001 adult homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics were interviewed regarding potentially abusive sexual contacts during childhood and adolescence. Thirty-seven percent of participants reported they had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner; 94 percent occurred with men. Median age of the participant at first contact was 10; median age difference between partners was 11 years. Fifty-one percent involved use of force; 33 percent involved anal sex.[30]

In spite of its superficial plausibility and the activists’ repeated claims, no studies support the hypothesis that the social disapproval of homosexuality causes any of the high levels of internal distress in homosexuals — even long before AIDS. Such studies as the one cited above suggest that both the high levels of emotional distress as well as homosexuality itself have at least one common root in painful childhood experiences. The distortions that have crept into psychiatric diagnosis is nicely put into perspective in a recent issue of Science by one scientist’s assessment of the latest edition of the DSM:

… the fourth edition in this constantly evolving series … [reflects] the latest accumulation of knowledge, plus a fair dose of habit and prejudice. The potential for disrupting research is “obvious.”[31]

Psychoanalysts and Homosexuality

When psychiatrists used to characterize homosexuality as an illness, they were perhaps mistaken on scientific grounds. But because illnesses are morally neutral, they could discuss homosexuality without stigmatizing it as though it were a simple choice. And they could discuss the suffering specific to homosexual behavior without condemnation while identifying this suffering as arising largely from within the individual. Psychiatrists could thereby suggest to those suffering that, through their own actions, they might one day be free from their affliction.

But not only was the definition of homosexuality as a medical illness flawed, the earliest methods that medical psychiatry offered to “cure” this illness often failed, effective only in the hands of a small number of gifted specialists. As a whole the psychoanalytic profession — the branch of mental health that focuses on unconscious emotional conflict as a source of “neurosis” — more or less turned away from homosexuality as too difficult a problem to deal with consistently. A parallel phenomenon occurred with respect to problems of so-called “narcissists” — a related condition, in fact — about which it was commonly quipped that “the most difficult patient to treat was a successful narcissist.”

Perhaps because there are so many heterosexual narcissists (and so few homosexuals), over time many psychoanalytic resources were allocated to its treatment. After forty years of consistent effort, effective methods for the treatment of narcissism were developed.[32] But the treatment of homosexuality remained a quiet, “minority” pursuit. Therefore the continued labeling of it as an illness began to seem cruel, and was increasingly protested by activists as being cruel, in light of the subjectivity involved in all psychological “illnesses.”

As with the change in status of homosexuality within organized psychiatry, this emerging change within organized psychoanalysis has nothing to do with hard, new scientific evidence or even new clinical data. Rather, the activists claim, the previous rejection of homosexuality by classical Freudian psychoanalysis was entirely due to a bias caused by flawed reasoning.

Indeed it was caused by flawed reasoning. Psychoanalysis has no firm category for morality, so behaviors that were considered undesirable had to be reconceptualized as illnesses. In critical circumstances — as in the case of the admittance of avowed homosexuals into the profession — these behaviors were evaluated just as though they were moral defects. But in time the “illness” model came to be viewed as mere metaphor. And by then the moral evaluation had faded away entirely anyway.

The first of these quasi-moral categories to fall was “narcissism.”[33] Narcissists were once deemed untreatable and unsuitable as analysts; now entire institutes of narcissists treat and train other narcissists. The next major exclusionary “diagnosis” to fall, unsurprisingly, was homosexuality.

The Jungian psychoanalytic institutes have followed a somewhat similar path even though C. G. Jung’s theory of homosexual development differed considerably from Freud’s. Jung and his followers generally saw male homosexuals as having an unusually strong identification with the feminine part of the psyche (the “anima”), female homosexuals with the masculine part (the “animus”). This identification could skew sexual relations, but did not necessarily have to do so. And they saw it bringing certain positive values as well.

A Jungian analysis of homosexuality therefore aimed to remove the negative, opposite-sex identification from the realm of sexuality while preserving its positive value in creative, relational, and even “spiritual” domains. The Jungians met with some success using this rather more compassionate approach. But those who were not in this way “cured” of their homosexuality faced a difficult battle gaining acceptance as Jungian analysts, although not as tough as among the Freudians. In fact many were rejected.

In theory both schools shared the basic belief that homosexuals who could not work through their homosexual behavior were unsuitable for the clinical practice of analysis — as would be any candidates whose training had not succeeded in curing them of their major arena of “acting out.” Both schools shared the idea of the “wounded healer,” especially in their early years. And both adhered to the Galenic dictum, “physician, heal thyself,” believing that the best physician was one who had done so. The Jungians were not more tolerant than the Freudians, simply more optimistic.

But recently a sea change has occurred among the Jungians that parallels the change among the Freudians. An actively homosexual way of life now no longer bars one from becoming an analyst. In fact, a few recently published articles by Jungian theorists have even “supernormalized” homosexuality as an especially creative, enlightened, and individuated variant of normal development.[34]

Both schools now also share, if somewhat reluctantly, the activists’ insistence that homosexuals suffer mainly because of the discrimination, rejection, and hostility they face from a “homophobic” culture. Many analysts increasingly adopt this posture in public. But in private most analysts I know — of whatever school — maintain a fairly skeptical stance about the now commonly accepted normality and benefits of homosexuality.

In sum, conventional psychiatry’s and psychoanalysis’ frequent failures to treat homosexuality successfully lend credence to the claim that homosexuality is not an illness and that nothing is wrong with it. The sufferings associated with homosexuality must therefore be rooted in the social rejection it stimulates among the unenlightened. In other words, if we can’t fix it, it must not be a problem.

A better way to determine the desirability or undesirability of homosexuality is to leave behind the circular thinking and the self-serving rhetoric and instead examine the medical facts. As we will see in the next chapter, much detailed and sophisticated research shows that homosexuality is unequivocally associated with a large number of severe medical problems — even apart from AIDS.

3. Is Homosexuality Desirable? Brute Facts

What would you think if a relative, friend, or colleague had a condition that is routinely, even if not always, associated with the following problems:

• A significantly decreased likelihood of establishing or preserving a successful marriage
• A five-to-ten-year decrease in life expectancy
• Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease — hepatitis
• Inevitably fatal esophageal cancer
• Pneumonia
• Internal bleeding
• Serious mental disabilities, many of which are irreversible
• A much higher than usual incidence of suicide
• A very low likelihood that its adverse effects can be eliminated unless the condition itself is eliminated
• An only 30 percent likelihood of being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and very time-consuming treatment in an otherwise unselected population of sufferers (although a very high success rate among highly motivated, carefully selected sufferers)

We can add four qualifications to this unnamed condition. First, even though its origins are influenced by genetics, the condition is, strictly speaking, rooted in behavior. Second, individuals who have this condition continue the behavior in spite of the destructive consequences of doing so. Third, although some people with this condition perceive it as a problem and wish they could rid themselves of it, many others deny they have any problem at all and violently resist all attempts to “help” them. And fourth, these people who resist help tend to socialize with one another, sometimes exclusively, and form a kind of “subculture.”

No doubt you would care deeply for someone close to you who had such a condition. And whether or not society considered it undesirable or even an illness, you would want to help. Undoubtedly, you would also consider it worth “treating,” that is, you would seek to help your relative, friend, or colleague by eliminating the condition entirely.

The condition we are speaking of is alcoholism. Alcoholism is clearly undesirable precisely because of all the adverse conditions directly associated with it, although not every alcoholic develops all the problems associated with it.

Alcoholism is a form of compulsive or addictive behavior that has volitional, family, psychological, social, and genetic “causes.” Whether it can be considered an “illness” in the strict sense makes for an interesting philosophical discussion but a useless practical one — as is true for all addictions. Nonetheless, and in spite of the relatively modest “cure” rate, it is still well worth treating, and treating as though it were an illness (as does organized psychiatry, which lists it as a disorder), because of the enormously serious personal and social consequences of not doing so.

Putting Two and Two Together

And now imagine another friend or colleague who had a condition associated with a similar list of problems:

• A significantly decreased likelihood of establishing or preserving a successful marriage
• A twenty-five to thirty-year decrease in life expectancy
• Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease — infectious hepatitis, which increases the risk of liver cancer
• Inevitably fatal immune disease including associated cancers
• Frequently fatal rectal cancer
• Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases
• A much higher than usual incidence of suicide
• A very low likelihood that its adverse effects can be eliminated unless the condition itself is
• An at least 50 percent likelihood of being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and very time-consuming treatment in an otherwise unselected group of sufferers (although a very high success rate, in some instances nearing 100 percent, for groups of highly motivated, carefully selected individuals)

As with alcoholism: First, even though its origins may be influenced by genetics, the condition is, strictly speaking, a pattern of behavior; second, individuals who have this condition continue in the behavior in spite of the destructive consequences of doing so; third, although some people with this condition perceive it as a problem and wish they could rid themselves of it, many others deny they have any problem at all and violently resist all attempts to “help” them; and fourth, some of the people with this condition — especially those who deny it is a problem — tend to socialize almost exclusively with one another and form a “subculture.”

This condition is homosexuality. Yet despite the parallels between the two conditions, what is striking today are the sharply different responses to them. We will address some of the above points in detail in other sections of this book. But for now, we will turn to the brute facts about the adverse consequences of homosexuality.

In doing so, we will look at a number of recent studies that discuss the problems typically found among male homosexuals. These studies generally examine the medical problems that are attendant to typical homosexual behavior, an important point to emphasize because homosexual desire is no more intrinsically problematic than any other desire. We should underscore that these studies focus on male homosexuals for two main reasons: Lesbian sexual practices are less risky than gay male practices; and lesbians are not nearly so promiscuous as gay men.

Most of these studies are aimed — as are all medical studies, ultimately — at alleviating distress and suffering. But they leave unexamined whether homosexual behavior itself is the source of the problem. In any event, they presume that homosexual behavior is unchangeable. Therefore they concentrate on changing the “high risk” behaviors found among homosexuals so as to lower the risk. In other words: Because changing homosexuality to heterosexuality is both taboo and impossible, they claim, one should alter the behaviors associated with homosexuality so as to make it safe, or at least safer.

Different Lifestyles, Different Life Spans

Gay activists deliberately paint a picture of homosexual life, especially among men, that is the counterpart of heterosexual life. Their purpose is to avoid alienating support from sympathetic heterosexuals who constitute the vast majority of people. For example, one activist handbook advises: “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims…. Persons featured in the media campaign should be … indistinguishable from the straights we’d like to reach.”[35] Another cautions: “The masses must not be repulsed by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.”[36]

In spite of clear evidence that homosexual standards are strikingly different from the heterosexual norm, the general public impression has been created that gays are little different from straights. The above quotations show the keen awareness of some gay activists for the need for deceptive cover. But in many cases it seems as though many gays have bought this artificially constructed picture in all hopefulness.

The following comparison between heterosexuals and homosexuals is presented to show why homosexuals are at risk for the conditions that will be discussed in the next section. Once again, I must emphasize that a so-called “homosexual orientation” or “homosexual identity” does not itself cause medical problems; only typically homosexual behaviors can. Similarly, the desire for alcohol is not itself harmful; only real drinking is.

In the chart that follows, the data on heterosexual practices are drawn from two sources. One source is The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, the most scientifically rigorous survey to date on the sexual habits of Americans. (Sex in America condenses the same research for a more general audience.) The other source is composite data on homosexual practices from a series of studies in homosexual behavior and behavior change, mostly aimed at studying gay-related medical conditions and at reducing the risk of AIDS.

It would be preferable if the data on both homosexuals and heterosexuals were drawn exclusively from the same sample set and study. But as the authors of Sex in America point out, because of sampling techniques ensuring that the study would be an accurate cross section of the American populace, “there were few homosexuals in our survey”[37] — too few to study independently.

More specifically, the authors found a nationwide incidence of male homosexuality of only 2.8 percent and of female homosexuality of only 1.4 percent. Of the 3,432 respondents only 192 of the men and 96 of the women were homosexual, so there was not a large enough sample from which to draw meaningful conclusions for some of the most important questions.

The following table clearly shows that the typical homosexual lifestyle — especially among males — differs dramatically from American averages. This difference means little by itself, but the fact that these same differences are all critical risk factors for multiple medical illnesses is highly significant. And because, as the authors of Sex in America note, people tend to have sex predominantly with people who share their lifestyles and preferences, the risks associated with homosexuality tend to be shared with other homosexuals. This is an obvious point, but it has important consequences when we consider disease.

Table 1. Key Parameters of Homosexual versus Heterosexual Behavior

Parameter	Homosexual	Heterosexual	Ratio: Homosexual to Heterosexual
Total percent of population, males	2.8 percent	97.2 percent	1:35
Total percent of population, females	1.4 percent	98.6 percent	1:70
Average number of lifetime partners	50	4	12:1
Monogamous*	<2 percent	83 percent	41:1
Average number of partners last 12 months	8	1.2	7:1
Anal intercourse during last 12 months	65 percent (men)	9.5 percent (women)	13:1

*Defined here as 100 percent faithful to one’s spouse or partner. Twenty-six percent of heterosexuals have only one lifetime partner (recall that approximately 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce, and someone who is remarried would not be included in this 26 percent, but would be in the 83 percent).

Therefore the risk of any single factor — say, anal intercourse — is amplified by the fact that it tends to be associated with other risk factors; the entire cluster of factors remaining typical of one group of people but not another. For this reason the authors of Sex in America also concluded that, although AIDS can be transmitted to anyone, in America it will likely remain a predominantly homosexual, IV-drug-abusing, and transfusion-related syndrome — with the female partners and their unborn children at risk as well. Heterosexuals who do not abuse drugs remain at relatively low risk because on average they are far less promiscuous and in general tend to have sex with people who are also far less promiscuous.

Risky Business

Two major risk factors listed in the table contribute to the disproportionately greater incidence of non-AIDS illnesses among (male) homosexuals: anal intercourse and the number of different partners. In other words, the sexual profile of the typical gay male is precisely the most dangerous one. The typical homosexual (needless to say there are exceptions) is a man who has frequent episodes of anal intercourse with other men, often with many different men. These episodes are 13 times more frequent than heterosexuals’ acts of anal intercourse, with 12 times as many different partners as heterosexuals.

These statistics, it should be added, are quite conservative. The most rigorous single study — the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study — recruited nearly five thousand homosexual men and found that:

A significant majority of these men … (69–83 percent) reported having 50 or more lifetime sexual partners, and over 80 percent had engaged in receptive anal intercourse with at least some of their partners in the previous two years.[38]

One of the most carefully researched studies of the most stable homosexual pairs, The Male Couple, was researched and written by two authors who are themselves a homosexual couple — a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Its investigators found that of the 156 couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. The authors noted that “The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals.”[39]

A 1981 study revealed that only 2 percent of homosexuals were monogamous or semi-monogamous — generously defined as ten or fewer lifetime partners.[40] And a 1978 study found that 43 percent of male homosexuals estimated having sex with five hundred or more different partners and 28 percent with a thousand or more different partners. Seventy-nine percent said that more than half of these partners were strangers and 70 percent said that more than half were men with whom they had sex only once.[41]

By contrast, the authors of Sex in America found that 90 percent of heterosexual women and more than 75 percent of heterosexual men have never engaged in extramarital sex.

With respect to AIDS, however, as well as to other semen-related conditions, we must introduce another factor that affects the amount of risk, namely condom use.

Table 2. Condom Use

Parameter	Homosexual — Anal Intercourse	Heterosexual — All Types of Intercourse
Used a condom in past year	60 percent	35 percent

Not surprisingly, heterosexuals generally use condoms less frequently than do homosexuals. But among heterosexuals the risk of AIDS associated with the lack of condom use, while not entirely negligible, is so much lower than among homosexuals that the risk of not using a condom in heterosexual sex is vastly smaller than in homosexual sex. (Please note that this comment pertains only to AIDS, not to other sexually transmitted diseases.) This difference reflects the other factors discussed above: Most heterosexuals are in relatively monogamous relationships and engage in anal intercourse infrequently; many homosexuals are in relatively polygamous relationships and engage in anal intercourse frequently.

A most important further consideration is that, in spite of both the extraordinary risks of not using a condom and the decade-long education programs, approximately 40 percent of male homosexuals still never use condoms during anal intercourse. Many of the public pronouncements concerning these education programs trumpet their “success” in increasing the rate of condom use from near zero to 60 percent. But when dealing with an epidemic illness that is 100 percent fatal, anything shy of a near 100 percent success rate is a terrible failure from the perspective of public-health policy. The resistance to change of high-risk behavior is so great that a major study recently published in Science cautions that even a vaccine against AIDS is unlikely to eliminate the AIDS virus; indeed, it might actually increase its prevalence.[42]

Even apart from the risk of AIDS, failure to use a condom during male homosexual sex opens one to a marked suppression of the immune system by a cause unrelated to AIDS, probably related to sperm antibodies[43] or possibly to other, general “lifestyle” factors.[44]

And with respect to AIDS alone, yet another factor is pertinent — knowledge of one’s own and one’s partner’s HIV status (infected or not infected) and how one acts in response. The best current estimates hold that about one out of a thousand adult Americans is now infected with HIV.[45] This is 0.1 percent of the adult population. Because roughly half the population is male and 2.8 percent of all males are homosexual, 1.4 percent of the adult population consists of homosexual males, which account for about 30 percent of all AIDS cases. Thus the likelihood of a randomly selected heterosexual man or woman being infected with AIDS is roughly 7 in 10,000 (0.07 percent).

But shockingly and frighteningly, yet consistent with the concentration of AIDS cases among high-risk populations, epidemiologists estimate that 30 percent of all twenty-year-old homosexual males will be HIV-positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are thirty.[46] This means that the incidence of AIDS among twenty- to thirty-year-old homosexual men is roughly 430 times greater than among the heterosexual population at large.[47]

It is also estimated that a single act of unprotected intercourse (not taking into account whether it is homosexual or heterosexual, anal or vaginal) with a known-to-be-infected male carries with it a transmission risk of roughly 1 in 500.[48] If we multiply this rough measure of the transmissibility of the AIDS virus by the average risk of encountering an HIV-positive heterosexual, this means that in the absence of any information about one’s partner’s HIV status, age, demographic group, and so on, a single act of heterosexual intercourse of any type carries with it an average risk of roughly 1 in 715,000 (calculated by 7 in 10,000 × 1 in 500 = 7 in 5,000,000). In fact it must be less, as acts of heterosexual intercourse are by far mostly vaginal, and the 1 in 500 transmissibility figure includes acts of anal intercourse as well. Of course, if the partner is a known IV-drug-abuser or prostitute, for example, the risk is much greater. But a single act of unprotected intercourse with a twenty- to thirty-year-old male homosexual carries with it a transmission risk of roughly 1 in 165.[49]

It is important under all circumstances to know or estimate the likelihood of one’s partner being infected in a heterosexual encounter. But in homosexual encounters, this knowledge — and the willingness to act on it — is of life saving statistical importance. The sequence of life saving steps would include the following, for both partners:

1. Being tested for HIV
2. Knowing the test results
3. Communicating the test results to one’s partner(s)
4. If infected, refraining from knowingly engaging in sex with an uninfected partner
5. If not infected, refraining from knowingly engaging in sex with an infected partner

But here, too, as with the degree of successful risk-reduction through avoiding unprotected anal intercourse, the insufficient regularity with which homosexuals take these steps is startling and grim.[50] Indeed, a body of opinion has recently arisen in the scientific literature arguing that the benefit (pleasure) of high-risk sex outweighs its risk (death).[51]

A Favored Activity

The correlation between male homosexuality and disease has been recognized for at least two thousand years. Thus the Apostle Paul, writing during the heyday of the Roman Empire when licentiousness was rampant, observed that “Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves [sometimes translated ‘in their bodies’] the due penalty for their perversion.”

Some claim, however, that the above problem is not with homosexuality, but with anal intercourse, and that to confound anal intercourse with (male) homosexuality is a deliberate ploy to tar homosexuals with something that is fundamentally different and irrelevant. Clearly, in some abstract sense, this is so. One could envision homosexual relationships in which anal intercourse plays no role. Perhaps there are a fair number of such relationships. One could also envision a widespread educational and cultural process reducing the significance of anal intercourse in gay male life to the same relatively minor level of importance that it plays in heterosexual life.

But is it realistic to claim that anal intercourse is not an essential part of gay male life — even if not for all gays? It has been throughout history, so this would be a very radical change indeed. And is it realistic to think that this specific behavior can be reduced in frequency to its level of incidence among heterosexuals? The research cited above, reflecting ten years of intense preventive measures, strongly suggests otherwise. Considering the risks involved, the continued practice of anal intercourse by some 80 percent of the male homosexual population[52] strongly suggests that this hypothetical approach is futile. Rather the research supports the tacit admission embedded in such centuries-old language as “sodomy” — that anal intercourse is a defining feature of male homosexuality.

Thus the authors of a major long-term study of 508 homosexual men in San Francisco report that even after extensive prevention programs, “non-monogamous individuals who in 1984 reported that unprotected anal intercourse was their favorite sexual activity were more likely to practice that behavior in 1988.”[53]

The author of a Norwegian study examining this phenomenon notes:

Safer sex is often experienced as emotionally colder, as expressions [sic] of distrust, and as a reminder of death. To receive the semen is traditionally valued as a commitment to the partner. Sexual acts compose a language of love and affection, and the protective measures destroy this language.[54]

The incidence and intractability of anal intercourse in a gay population, even in the face of illness or death, suggests its central, compulsive role in the lifestyle. The following research points more incisively to the central role of anal intercourse in male homosexuality:

The core sample was a group of 106 men who had sex with other men before 1980…. The data … suggest that … the correct genitoerotic role distinction is not insertive vs. receptive behaviors, or even insertive vs. receptive anal intercourse, but receptive anal intercourse vs. all other behaviors.[55]

Dr. Charles Silverstein, author of the popular The New Joy of Gay Sex, presents a less scholarly and shockingly graphic description of this well-known dimension of gay male life. (Reader discretion is advised. The entire passage is provided in the notes.)

As you become more sexually experienced, you will soon discover your preferred sexual activities and positions. You may find that you prefer getting f____ed no matter the time, place, partner or position…. When this happens, you have become a bottom, or bottom man. The name, of course, derives from the placement of the person being f____ed — i.e., on the bottom…. But we would be in error if we seemed to suggest that being a bottom is merely a matter of who f____s whom. It is, more importantly, a state of mind, a feeling one has about oneself in relationship to other men.[56]

Though not in every instance, in general male homosexuality and anal intercourse are inexorably intertwined.

Where Does the Road End?

Besides anal intercourse, another defining feature of homosexuality is the broad range of sexual appetites and behaviors that appear when people do not conform themselves to a code of behavior. Indeed, once people begin to “walk on the wild side,” they have effectually broken one of society’s strongest taboos. Other taboos then fall away easily and rapidly. For homosexual apologists, this feature of the gay lifestyle is not so much a mark of enslavement to sexuality as a sign of homosexuals’ greater freedom from arbitrary and stifling social inhibitions, sexual and otherwise.

Keen observers of the gay scene — many gay themselves — have cogently argued that the gay lifestyle is not so much “homosexual” as “pansexual.” And indeed, this observation suggests an important point: that there really may be no such thing as “homosexuality.” There is rather mere “human sexuality,” which in the “state of nature” is enormously diverse and polymorphous. Psychoanalysts have long argued the natural bisexuality of human beings, but it would perhaps be more accurate to speak of natural polysexuality. This protean potential of human sexuality may be constrained or it may be unconstrained.

What we call the “gay lifestyle” is in large measure a way of life constructed around unconstrained sexuality. Thus it is more readily oriented toward sexual pleasure in all its many possible forms than is the “straight” lifestyle. Of course there are many heterosexuals who are oriented toward unconstrained sexual expression, but less commonly than among homosexuals. Instead of mirroring the boundaries and hedges of heterosexual marriage, the gay life comes much closer to displaying the innately multifaceted nature of human sexuality in its unconstrained state.

As Dennis Prager puts it:

Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and with young boys; with a single partner and with and in large groups; with immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes and other pieces of clothing; through urinating and defecating on each other … ; by dressing in women’s garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman’s disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and of course by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm.[57]

Thus in San Francisco a popular magazine is called, Anything That Moves.

“Intergenerational Intimacy”

Any discussion of pansexuality will lead quickly into a discussion of those forms of sexual expression that stand outside of even today’s expansive boundaries of tolerance. Sadomasochists discuss the intricate variations of their sexual preferences on talk radio and on television; one may easily find partners for this and many other unconventional forms of sexuality in the personal advertisements of innumerable newspapers and magazines across the country. But the singular form of sexual expression for which we as a society continue to have little tolerance is adults having sex with children: pedophilia.

As sensitive as it may be to introduce the subject of pedophilia into a discussion of homosexuality, a full exploration of the pansexual nature of “the gay lifestyle” requires that we do, because when the constraints are loosened, they are likely to be loosened in this domain as well. It is important to preface this discussion, however, with a caveat. It is true (as we will document) that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals than among heterosexuals — and vastly more common among males, heterosexual or homosexual, than among females. But it is also true that the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

Pedophilia is pertinent for two reasons: first, because it is statistically more closely associated with homosexuality than with heterosexuality; second — and more importantly — the dramatic shift of values that normalizes homosexuality must inevitably come to normalize all forms of sexuality. This is not a merely hypothetical argument. As the material that follows demonstrates, both here and abroad the normalization of homosexuality has been followed by a move to normalize all forms of sexuality, pedophilia explicitly included, and to lower the age of consent laws so as to make it legal as well.

My purpose here is not to warn against homosexuality on the grounds that homosexuals prey sexually on children — because the vast majority would not dream of such a thing (even if a vocal minority, as also their heterosexual counterparts, would). My purpose instead is to warn against the general lifting of sexual constraint, which the philosophy that undergirds gay activism necessarily promotes.

Recently The Journal of Homosexuality, a premier, broad-based, scientific[58] journal that addresses from an advocacy position all cultural, social-scientific, and historical issues pertaining to homosexuality, devoted a special issue almost exclusively to “the pedophilia debate.” The editor of the journal, John DeCecco, also sits on the editorial board of Paedika: The Journal of Paedophilia, a Dutch publication that sponsors research on pedophilia, also for advocacy purposes.

This special issue reflects the substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality. Indeed, the San Francisco Sentinel, a Bay Area gay-activist newspaper, published a piece arguing that pedophilia is central to the male homosexual life. Thus an advocacy group exists, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which actively promotes homosexual pedophilia as an acceptable alternative form of sex. Their contentions as to the naturalness, normalcy, unchangeability, and ubiquity of pedophilia mirror precisely the arguments used to support the naturalness, normalcy, and so on of homosexuality, as does their claim that the social condemnation of pedophilia is arbitrary and prejudicial.

Thus one author argues:

Pedophilia is always considered by mainstream society as one form of sexual abuse of children. However, analysis of the personal accounts provided by pedophiles suggests that these experiences could be understood differently.[59]

Another states that:

Contemporary concern over paedophilia and child sexual abuse usually rests upon uncritical and under-theorized conceptions of childhood sexualities. This article … outlines the “social-constructionist” alternative.[60]

And another author decries the constricted American view of pedophilia:

In recent years the general trend has been to label … intergenerational intimacy [as] “child sexual abuse….” [This] has fostered a one-sided, simplistic picture…. Further research … would help us to understand the … possible benefits of intergenerational intimacy.[61]

Farther along than America in this process of radicalization, Holland has programs of psychotherapy that do not treat pedophilia itself as a problem, but rather the social difficulties that pedophilia is associated with. Like homosexual therapies in the United States, these facilitate adjustment to, not treatment of, pedophilia:

Male pedophiles are trained to talk effectively about common problems surrounding man-boy relationships. Counseling is based on the notion that the emotional, erotic and sexual attraction to boys per se does not need to be legitimized or modified.[62]

Sample results include:

Sixteen males were treated for sexual identity conflicts. For eight of them this ended in a positive self-labeling as pedophile…. Twenty males were … counseled how to handle their relationships with boys. Several modalities of interpersonal interaction in man-boy relationships are proposed….[63]

Activists are aware of the adverse effects on the gay-rights movement that could result if people perceived any degree of routine association between homosexuality and pedophilia — as well as other forms of sexual expression that continued to be thought of as “deviant.” They have denied this association by focusing instead on the (true) fact that — in absolute numbers — heterosexuals commit more child molestation than homosexuals.

But careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals. The greater absolute number of heterosexual cases reflects the fact that heterosexual males outnumber homosexual males by approximately thirty-six to one. Heterosexual child molestation cases outnumber homosexual cases by only eleven to one, implying that pedophilia is more than three times more common among homosexuals.[64]

In spite of the potential political fallout, another author in the special issue argues that:

The issue of man/boy love has intersected the gay movement since the late nineteenth century, with the rise of the first gay rights movement in Germany. In the United States, as the gay movement has retreated from its vision of sexual freedom for all in favor of integration into existing social and political structures, it has sought to marginalize cross-generational love as a “non-gay” issue. The two movements continue to overlap, amid signs of mutual support as well as tension — a state of affairs that also characterizes their interrelationship in other countries.[65]

As discussed above, the American Psychiatric Association normalized homosexuality in two steps: At first it only removed from its list of disorders homosexuality that was “ego-syntonic,” comfortable and acceptable to the individual, leaving only “ego-dystonic” — unwanted — homosexuality as a disorder; later, it removed “ego-dystonic” homosexuality as well.

In a step strikingly reminiscent of what occurred in the seventies with respect to homosexuality, the 1994 edition of the DSM (DSM-IV) has quietly altered its long-standing definitions of all the “paraphilias” (sexual perversions). Now, in order for an individual to be considered to have a paraphilia — these include sado-masochism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, and among others, pedophilia — the DSM requires that in addition to having or even acting on his impulses, his “fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors” must “cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.”[66] In other words, a man who routinely and compulsively has sex with children, and does so without the pangs of conscience and without impairing his functioning otherwise is not necessarily a pedophile and in need of treatment. Only the man who suffers because of his impulses is a pedophile requiring treatment.

The committee responsible for this change claims that their intent was not to “normalize” the paraphilias, but to give diagnosticians greater latitude in making the diagnosis. Nonetheless, that will certainly be its effect, as it was with respect to homosexuality. Race Bannon, coordinator of the “DSM Project” for a major sadomasochistic organization, notes that “For the first time, the leather S&M fetish community’s style of sexuality is no longer considered necessarily pathological…. The new DSM-IV language means that we will no longer be considered sick unless our erotic play causes ‘clinically significant distress or impairment.’” Bannon praised “kinky-friendly psychotherapeutic professionals” who lobbied for the changed criteria.[67] Gay activism has long made known its objections to the “pathologizing” of any form of sexual freedom.

Does it seem absurd to think that the taboo against pedophilia, too, will soon come under broad social attack? It is beginning already. The May 8, 1995, issue of the widely respected magazine The New Republic published a review of the movie “Chickenhawk.” The movie’s title is slang for pedophiles who hunt for children to have sex with. The author downplays the seriousness of NAMBLA (whose publications document locales in the Third World where children may be molested free of legal consequence); denies that the idea of mutual consent between boys as young as twelve and older men is necessarily unreasonable; and considers the pedophile perspective on age-of-consent laws to be “plausibly on the continuum of, say, a defense of children’s legal autonomy.” She notes: “There is some bravery in NAMBLA members keeping all their activities above board…. After all, it is still heresy to consider the possibility of the legitimacy of their feelings.”[68]

Breaking Down the Wrong Barriers

We now turn to an examination of the reasons why male homosexual behavior is so dangerous as to produce the medical syndromes alluded to previously.

Even if condoms are used, anal intercourse is harmful primarily to the “receptive” partner. Because the rectal sphincter is designed to stretch only minimally, penile-anal thrusting can damage it severely. The introduction of larger items, as in the relatively common practice of “fisting,” causes even worse damage. Thus gay males have a disproportionate incidence of acute rectal trauma as well as of rectal incontinence (the inability to control the passing of feces)[69] and anal cancer.[70]

Furthermore, anal intercourse, penile or otherwise, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. These tissues are meant to accommodate the relatively soft fecal mass as it is prepared for expulsion by the slow contractions of the bowel and are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissue. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream. Although relatively monogamous gay couples are at lower risk for AIDS, they tend to engage in unprotected anal intercourse more frequently than do highly polygamous single homosexuals.[71] As a result, they are at higher risk for non-AIDS conditions — if all other factors are equal, which is usually not the case because of the clustering of risk factors.

Because receptive anal intercourse is so much more frequent among homosexual men than among women, the dangers of this kind of sex are amplified among homosexuals. Furthermore, comparable tears in the vagina are not only less frequent because of the relative toughness of the vaginal lining, but the environment of the vagina is vastly cleaner than that of the rectum. Indeed, we are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel. Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom.

As a result, homosexual men are disproportionately vulnerable to a host of serious and sometimes fatal infections caused by the entry of feces into the bloodstream. These include hepatitis B and the cluster of otherwise rare conditions, such as shigellosis and Giardia lamblia infection, which together have been known as the “Gay Bowel Syndrome.” A major review article summarizes:

Because of their larger numbers of sexual partners and sexual practices such as anilingus and anal intercourse, homosexual men are at particularly high risk of acquiring hepatitis B, giardiasis, amebiasis, shigellosis, campylobacteriosis, and anorectal infections with Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, Treponema pallidum, herpes simplex virus, and human papilloma viruses.[72]

Another review article classifies the conditions homosexually active men encounter into four general groups:

Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).[73]

How Great a Risk?

Gay activists have long sought to obscure the powerful statistical connection between AIDS and homosexuality by emphasizing the truth that the virus itself does not “seek” homosexuals, can infect anyone, and has already infected many other people. In such places as sub-Saharan Africa, where promiscuity is the cultural norm across much of the populations with a high intersection of homosexual and nonhomosexual circles, the virus has spread uniformly. In fact, the majority of people in the United States with AIDS are not homosexual — reflecting the fact that male homosexuals consist of such a small fraction of the population. Nonetheless, when most people think of homosexuality as risky, they think of AIDS because the statistical association is so self-evident.

Most people also have a fairly accurate impression about the effect of AIDS on the life span of individuals who suffer from it — they know that people with AIDS die disproportionately and terrifyingly young. But what about non-AIDS illnesses associated with homosexual practices? What effect do these have on life span? Here the average person is apt to presume that, apart from AIDS, the effect is minor. Certainly this is the message implied by the media, by publicly funded condom-distribution programs, and by sex education courses that emphasize “safer” sex with condoms. Even arguments that condemn an overemphasis on condoms because of their failure rate — breakage, slippage, improper use, the unwillingness of people to use them — tend to reinforce the notion that the major problem with homosexual practice could be solved with more perfect “protection” of a technical sort. But as we have seen, AIDS is far from the only risk associated with homosexual practices, and many of the other risks are inherent to anal intercourse itself, regardless of condom use. What are these risks, and how do they compare with the risk of AIDS?

In April 1993 three researchers presented a paper to the Eastern Psychological Association in which they analyzed the age of death for nearly seven thousand homosexuals and heterosexuals by obituary notices in a large number of gay and a smaller number of large non-gay newspapers.[74] They found that the gay male life span, even apart from AIDS and with a long-term partner, is significantly shorter than that of married men in general by more than three decades. AIDS further shortens the life span of homosexual men by more than 7 percent.

Because of the researcher’s rough and ready methodology, these findings have to be considered preliminary. Their data for heterosexuals and for gay men with AIDS, however, are very close to similar data from other, more reliable and replicated sources, as are the differences found between the life spans of married and unmarried men and women. These findings should serve as a warning about the potential seriousness of the problems associated with homosexuality and the extent of the risk that people may be taking in entering into this way of life.

In the current political atmosphere the whole notion that homosexuality is dangerous must appear inflammatory. But consider for a moment: If these findings are true (and while the life span research has only limited value, the more rigorous medical findings are incontrovertible), how could anyone with a heart for the sufferings of others stand by in silence? Given the risks, the only ethical approach to assisting men and women who consider themselves homosexual — and especially youngsters still wrestling with their emerging sexual feelings — must at the least include a willingness to help them change not only the “high-risk behaviors” but the homosexual “orientation” itself. There is considerable evidence, presented in a later chapter, that homosexuality is actually no more difficult to change than the high-risk behaviors themselves.

4. Finding a Needle in the Ocean

As you will recall, there are three disputed propositions at the heart of the debate over homosexuality today:

1. Homosexuality is normal
2. Homosexuality is innate, or inherited
3. Homosexuality is irreversible

In this chapter and the three that follow we will address the second point: “Is homosexuality innate and inherited?” As we will see, the very way the question has been framed — by gay activism and its media promoters — contributes seriously to our confusion.

Defining Our Terms

Let us start by defining our terms. When we analyze and discuss the causes of a given behavioral trait, we find that each cause belongs to one or more of the following categories:

Genetic

Genetic traits are those (like eye color, for example) that are coded for us by genes. We can think of each human gene as a book that provides a complex set of instructions for the synthesis of a single protein. These proteins are then responsible for forming and operating everything else in the body.

The entire collection of genes that provides codes for a human is vast. Therefore it is divided into twenty-three pairs of matched, physically distinct structures called chromosomes. We can think of them as matching libraries that contain and catalogue two copies of every required “book” (gene) in a specific order that does not vary from person to person. Chromosome libraries exist in pairs because each person actually has two instructional genes for every protein, receiving one of every gene from his mother and another from his father. The unvarying order in which the genes are catalogued allows each one of the millions and millions of genes to be matched to its proper companion during reproduction.

Any genetic trait inherited from our parents may be:

1. Expressed, as when the gene that codes for it is dominant and we have inherited the gene from at least one parent (brown eyes; brown is dominant); or as when the gene that codes for it is recessive and we have inherited the same gene from both parents (blue eyes; blue is recessive).
2. Not expressed, as when the gene that codes for it is recessive and we have inherited that gene from only one parent (brown eyes; blue is recessive and therefore not expressed).
3. Partially expressed, as when — whether the gene that codes for it is dominant or recessive — one or more other genes or other factors influences its expression. We may or may not have some or all of these other genes, or we may be only partially exposed to these other factors (green eyes).

Genetic traits are truly and directly inherited. All traits with which we are born tend to be put into this category, sometimes incorrectly, such as those that are innate but not genetic.

Understanding behavioral traits influenced by genetics becomes more complex. Unlike simple traits, such as eye color, that are close to being programmed by a single gene, most behavioral traits with a genetic background are programmed by multiple genes. Because these genes are rarely inherited together, their possible forms of expression fall into a complex spectrum. Behavioral traits that are influenced by genetics are therefore never either/or conditions.

Innate

Some traits may be merely innate, meaning the individual is born with them. But innate traits may be:

1. Genetic, as outlined above; or
2. Not genetic, but caused by intrauterine influences. These are traits (such as the degree to which a fetus develops masculine or feminine sexual characteristics) that are influenced by various aspects of the environment in the womb. Hormones, infections, exercise, general health, the ingestion of licit or illicit drugs, and many other variables influence this environment. Thus one may be born with a trait that is innate, but not genetic.

Familial

Other causes of traits may be familial, meaning that they tend to be shared by members of the same family. Familial traits may be:

1. Genetic. Because they have the same parents, brothers and sisters are more likely to share a high percentage of similar genes than would unrelated individuals.
2. Innate, but not genetic. Sharing the same mother, certain typical factors may remain constant or similar for all children born to her. Examples include the effect of her dietary habits on her unborn children, the fact that she smokes, or her general health.
3. Not innate, but environmental. To an extent greater than between individuals from different families, individuals raised in the same family share a similar environment. These include the physical, emotional, and moral influences. Thus family members may share some traits that are neither genetic nor innate but that are nonetheless transmitted from one generation to the next by influence.

Biological

Another term that may be used to describe a trait is biological. A biological trait is rooted in an organism’s physiology, rather than its psychology. With respect to behavioral traits, this distinction suggests a dichotomy comparable to the difference between “hardware” and “software” in the domain of computer science. Biological traits may be:

1. Genetic.
2. Innate but not genetic.
3. Environmental and familial but not innate (for example, the effect of a virus that has taken root among the members of a household).
4. Environmental and not familial and possibly innate but maybe not (for example, the effect of a toxin in the environment at large, depending on whether its baleful influence is felt pre- or postnatally).

Environmental

Additionally, the cause of a trait may be purely environmental but not biological — at least insofar as we do not attend to the biological dimension. Examples include the influence on behavior of the values, standards, habits, economic status, and so on, of a family or society.

Direct versus Indirect

Finally, any of these causes may be direct or indirect. That is, the cause may:

1. Lead directly to the trait. Whether we are speaking of genetic or nongenetic, innate or noninnate, biological or nonbiological influences, the cause may directly produce the trait itself, as when genes cause blue eyes or when smoke causes a cough.
2. Lead indirectly to the trait. Because of what the influence causes directly, the individual finds it desirable to choose a particular trait. This is seen, for example, when tall athletic individuals become basketball players or when short athletic people become jockeys.

Furthermore, all of these causes may combine and influence one another in highly interdependent ways, mutually influencing each other throughout a lifetime. Behavioral traits, as opposed to simple, single-gene physiologic traits such as eye color, always interact in this way.

In summary, the question concerning all behavioral traits, such as homosexuality, cannot be “Is such and such genetic?” Rather we must ask, “To what extent, respectively, is such and such genetic and nongenetic, innate and noninnate, familial and nonfamilial, environmentally determined and not, direct and indirect? In the course of development, when do which influences dominate and how do their interactions affect one another?” We need to keep this sobering caution in mind as we clarify what medical science has and has not learned about the subject of homosexuality.

Unanswered Questions

Most mental states, normal or not, have long been presumed to be of psychological origin because we have not been able to understand the biology. We simply did not have the information or skills to intervene in a purported disease of the brain whose primary manifestations were psychological. But neuroscience research techniques have proliferated. We now can dissect out at least some of the specific mechanisms — down to the level of molecules — that play a role in many conditions previously thought to be purely psychological. Although this research has already produced many dramatic benefits, we are far from having a precise blueprint of the various causes of any psychiatric condition.

Demonstrating that any behavioral state — let alone one so complex, diverse in its manifestations, and nuanced as homosexuality — is not only biological but genetic is well beyond our present research capacity. One psychiatric researcher, who was tired of the overblown claims of people trying to label everything as “genetic,” calculated what would be required to confirm a behavioral trait as genetic. He:

projected that if the trait was 50 percent heritable and each family in the [initial] study had ten members (4 grandparents, 2 parents and 4 children), detecting one of the genes would require studying … 2000 people. Replicating that finding would require studying … another 8000 people. To find and confirm each additional gene (for a polygenic trait), researchers would need to go through the whole business again. “Suddenly you’re talking about tens of thousands of people and years of work and millions of dollars.”[75]

No study of homosexuality has come even remotely close to these requirements.

In the case of schizophrenia, for instance, such research efforts have only now begun to yield somewhat reliable results — after over forty years of effort. But even after so much research, the major questions — What causes schizophrenia? How does this illness affect the nervous system? What environmental cofactors are critical to its appearance? What interventions might be curative? — remain almost entirely unanswered.

Different studies claim to show anywhere from 40 to 90 percent heritability for schizophrenia. Researchers have made numerous claims to have found a meaningful “genetic linkage” to a particular chromosome, only being forced to retract them in every case.[76] The vastly more complex problem of finding the genes themselves or the specific DNA base-pairs among the millions on the chromosome has been compared to finding a needle, not in a haystack, but in the ocean.

What We Can Say

In the case of homosexuality, only a handful of barely adequate studies on a small number of people have been conducted in the past few years. We will explore these more fully in the chapters that follow. But first it is important to lay out three important limitations that are already beginning to emerge from this research. All are quite consistent with what we already know about the biological and genetic bases of other conditions.

First, like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is multifactorial. It is neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences (some innate to the mother and thus present in every pregnancy, and others incidental to a given pregnancy), postnatal environment (such as parental, sibling, and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases in development.

Second, male and female homosexuality are probably different conditions that arise from a different composite of influences. Nonetheless, they have some similarities.

Third, “homosexuality” is very poorly defined. Our use of this one term creates the false impression of a uniform “gay” or “lesbian” condition and culture. It obscures the reality that what we are studying is a complex set of variable mental, emotional, and behavioral states that are caused by differing proportions of numerous influences. Indeed, one of the chief characteristics of the gay lifestyle is its efflorescence of styles and types of sexuality. Thus many of the more careful researchers in the field — usually nonactivist — refer to “homosexualities.”

Do Brain Differences Make a Difference?

The belief that homosexuality is “genetic” tends to translate into a more positive attitude toward it. Gay activists know this and research studies confirm it:

To measure the relationship between beliefs about the determinants of homosexual orientation and attitudes toward homosexuals, we asked 745 respondents in four societies about their beliefs concerning the origins of homosexual orientation. Analysis indicated that subjects who believed that homosexuals are “born that way” held significantly more positive attitudes toward homosexuals than subjects who believed that homosexuals “choose to be that way” and/or “learn to be that way.”[77]

Similarly:

105 … subjects … were exposed to one of three treatment conditions. Subjects in the experimental group read a summary article of current research emphasizing a biological component of homosexual orientation. Subjects in one control group read a summary article of research focusing on the absence of hormonal differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. Subjects in another control group were not exposed to either article. All subjects completed the Index of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals. As predicted, subjects in the experimental group had significantly lower[78] scores than subjects in the control groups.[79]

This “public relations” effect has precipitated a recent media outpouring on the biology and genetics of homosexuality. Starting in 1991, media all across the country have trumpeted the discovery of a series of supposed brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Commentators claim that these findings will halt any remaining uncertainty that homosexuality is either a choice or a consequence of factors in upbringing. In this light, to continue supporting anything less than full acceptance of homosexual behavior would be proof positive of prejudicial hatred.

The outpouring began in August of 1991 when a San Francisco neuroanatomist, Simon LeVay, published an article in Science. It reported his finding that a localized cluster (a “nucleus”) of cells in the brains of “homosexual” men was twice as large by volume on autopsy as in “heterosexual” men.[80] (“Homosexual” and “heterosexual” are in quotations because in this study the definitions of each were extremely imprecise, nor was there any way of verifying sexual orientation as the subjects were dead.)

But this was not the first such discovery. One year before a group reported in Brain Research that they had found a similar difference — in both volume and number of cells — in a different brain nucleus.[81] The media, however, did not report this first study because Brain Research, unlike Science, is read only by neuroscientists. And in contrast to journalists, the neuroscientists understood the research — and its limitations — and refrained from grand pronouncements.

The specifics of these findings are not as important as realizing that unless group differences are dramatic, individual studies of such differences mean almost nothing. It would take hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such studies before meaningful trends emerge. Thus it is wrong for the media, or parties with vested interests, to argue the significance of something so complex as human nature on the basis of one or a handful of findings and then derive public policy implications.

Furthermore, even if such brain differences were convincingly demonstrated to be present, their significance would be on a par with the discovery that athletes have bigger muscles than nonathletes. For though a genetic tendency toward larger muscles may make it easier to become an athlete (and therefore such an individual will more likely be one), becoming an athlete will certainly give one bigger muscles. One researcher comments: “The brain’s neural networks reconfigure themselves in response to certain experiences. One fascinating NIH study found that in people reading Braille after becoming blind, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger grew larger.”[82]

Press accounts, in contrast, are often written so as to lead one to assume that brain differences must be innate and unchangeable — especially differences in the number of cells as contrasted with the simple volume occupied by a collection of cells. We tend to think of mind as “software” and brain as “hardware,” the former plastic and changeable, the latter fixed at birth. We have used this analogy already to good advantage.

But the analogy breaks down at a certain point. Various processes go on throughout life: the selective death of brain cells in response to training or trauma, the establishment of new connections between cells, dramatic increases or decreases in the “thickness” of connections between cells as a result of learning, the loss of interneuronal connections through “pruning.” Very unlike our modern computers, the brain’s software is its hardware.

We know from animal studies that early experience and especially traumatic experience — this especially applies to the childhood histories of many homosexuals — alters the brain and body in measurable ways. Thus infant monkeys who are repeatedly and traumatically separated from their mothers suffer dramatic alterations in both blood chemistry and brain function.[83]

One major theory about why some people become depressed and others do not holds that under conditions of early trauma, a genetically based susceptibility to stress creates a greater likelihood of intense stress-responses later in life.[84] This “vulnerability” is represented physiologically as actual alterations in the brain. And because what is experienced as “stressful” depends on one’s subjective interpretation of events, the brains in individuals with the same genetically determined biology may respond differently. One may demonstrate no brain changes; another may demonstrate very significant changes.[85]

Thus the editor of Nature commented on the LeVay research:

Plainly, the neural correlates of genetically determined gender are plastic at a sufficiently early stage…. Plastic structures in the hypothalamus [might] allow … the consequences of early sexual arousal to be made permanent.[86]

And of course all this presumes that the research itself was of high quality. But two prominent geneticists, Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, writing in Technology Review (published at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) write: LeVay “could not really be certain about his subject’s sexual preferences, since they were dead.”[87] His “research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects’ brains.”[88] LeVay’s very method of defining homosexuality was very likely to “create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups.”[89]

Because all human behavior is related in some way to genes, we can nonetheless guess that one day higher quality research will find genetic factors that correlate to homosexuality. But remember, one of the fundamental principles of research is that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. With respect to whatever genetic or biological factors are correlated to homosexuality we will need to be very careful to understand what they mean and, indeed, how limited the implications really are.

5. Two of a Kind

When we say that “we will find genetic factors that correlate to homosexuality,” can we make this more precise? We can by exploring a powerful avenue of research into the genetics of behavioral conditions, namely twin studies.

The basic strategy of this research is fourfold. First is to consider the differing proportions of identical genes between two nonrelatives (very little similarity); then between two biological siblings with the same parents (some similarity); between two fraternal — “dizygotic” twins (same degree of similarity as nontwin siblings); and between two identical — “monozygotic” — twins (one sperm, one egg: 100 percent similarity).

Second is to compare the degree of genetic similarity between members of a given pair to the degree of behavioral similarity between members of a given pair.

Third, if possible, is to control for similar environmental influences acting on both twins by examining only those twins who were both adopted away after birth into different families. But no meaningfully large studies of homosexuality in adopted-away twins have yet been performed. All studies to date of sufficient size have examined twins raised in the same household, thus confounding any potential genetic factors with uncontrolled environmental ones.

It is extraordinarily difficult to locate both members of a pair of identical twins where at least one has the substantiating trait, where the trait is relatively uncommon, where both have been adopted away, and where both are willing to participate in a study. And so when adoption studies are not possible the fourth strategy applies: to examine the differences between pairs of twins and pairs of nontwin biological siblings and pairs of adopted siblings, hoping to control for the influence of family environment.

The best of the twin studies to date have been of this latter sort. Unfortunately, such studies are extremely difficult to perform well — none to date have been. Even when they are performed well, there are so many “links” in the chain of causal reasoning that leads to a conclusion that the conclusions are rarely solid. Indeed, in such studies different scientists routinely arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions from the same data set. Sometimes the very same scientist who conducted the research is forced to present contradictory conclusions. That is just what has happened in the twin studies on homosexuality.

If “homosexuality is genetic,” as activists and their media supporters repeatedly claim, the concordance rate between identical twins — that is, the incidence of the two twins either both being homosexual or both being heterosexual — will be 100 percent. There would never be a discordant pair — a pair with one homosexual twin and one heterosexual twin. When we say that “eye color is genetically determined,” this is what we mean. That’s why identical twins always have the same eye color. If we were to find genuinely identical twins with different eye colors we would be forced to conclude that although genetics may exert an influence on eye color, it does not determine it. Eye color would be dependent upon some additional factor as well. An example of such a characteristic that is influenced but not determined by genetics is weight. And that is why identical twins are similar in weight, but not identical, especially after many years have gone by.

The Recent Few Studies

In the small number of recent identical twin studies that have been touted as proving “homosexuality is genetic,” concordance rates turn out to be considerably less than 100 percent — less than 50 percent, in fact — even though all the sizable studies to date have examined only twins that have not been adopted away after birth. (In fact, the only study of adopted-away twins, which had a very small sample size, showed a concordance rate of zero.) This means that some proportion of the rate of concordance — which is anyway smaller than anticipated — is itself caused not by genes but by something else.

Recall that twin studies on non-adopted-away twins are very difficult to do well and are fraught with uncertainty even under the best of circumstances. For important conclusions about human nature — indeed life-changing ones — to be drawn from such studies is perilous to be sure. One would want a great deal of consistent, confirming research to be in place before committing oneself to any proposition (such as “homosexuality is genetic”) that runs counter to both long-standing tradition and the accumulated clinical experience of the preceding eighty years. But in fact, there have only been three useful twin studies that examine the genetics of homosexuality. One study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry and two in the American Archives of General Psychiatry.[90] The latter two were performed at Northwestern University by researchers who, as cited above, acknowledge that they are motivated by social-policy considerations to demonstrate that homosexuality is predominantly genetic, and to counter claims that it is largely environmental.

The press has taken these Northwestern articles as further “proof” that “homosexuality is genetic.” But as we will see, the results of this research by activists with an acknowledged political agenda actually demonstrate no such thing. Indeed, the researchers themselves admit disappointedly — even apart from methodological problems that tend to weaken their findings altogether — that taken at face value their work demonstrated a far smaller genetic contribution to both male and female homosexuality than they sought.

Here, in brief, are the findings of the major twin studies.

Two by Bailey and Pillard

In one study by J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” the authors found a concordance rate for homosexuality of approximately 50 percent among identical twins who were raised together where one twin identified himself as homosexual.[91] That is, half of the pairs of twins were both homosexual and half were composed of one homosexual and one heterosexual. If accurate, this finding alone argues for the enormous importance of nongenetic factors influencing homosexuality, because, as noted above, in order for something to be genetically determined, as opposed to merely influenced, the genetic heritability would need to approach 100 percent.

The concordance rate for nonidentical (dizygotic) twins was only 22 percent. This finding — the difference in concordance rates between types of twins — is consistent with the hypothesis that heritable factors influence some component of homosexuality — but not only with that hypothesis. It may also be because identical twins reared together share more significant environmental influences than nonidentical twins reared together. Thus, Theodore Lidz, a prominent psychiatric researcher at Yale University (and longtime critic of methodological weaknesses in the various adoption studies of schizophrenia) noted about Bailey and Pillard’s findings: “Because the twins grow up with mirror images of themselves that can magnify their so-called narcissism, they are apt to be raised more similarly than DZ [dizygotic] twins.”[92] Of course, the results are also consistent with the possibility that both factors have some degree of influence.

The finding of a potential genetic contribution to homosexuality is further weakened by the following five considerations:

First, the extreme similarity of environment in which twins — especially identical twins — are raised confounds the authors’ claim that genetic factors were the determining influence in the finding that both twins were homosexual, when this was the case.

Second, the homosexual twin was recruited into the study by an advertisement in a homosexual magazine. A common problem in these kinds of studies is that concordant twins tend, in general, to respond to research advertisements more frequently than twins where one is a homosexual and the other a heterosexual. Furthermore, readers of homosexual magazines are in no way representative of homosexuals.

Third, sexual orientation of the nonrespondent twin or other sibling was mostly assessed by report of the respondent, which is an extraordinarily imprecise research approach. Here, too, many researchers have commented on the obvious potential for bias.

Fourth, when many genes are similar (in the case of identical twins all one hundred thousand genes and every single one of the many millions of DNA base pairs are absolutely identical), there is a so-called nonlinear or nonadditive dimension of genetic influence on a trait. In brief, this means that the sheer degree of similarity of twins can exaggerate the concordance rate, artificially inflating what appears to be the genetic contribution. This concept is discussed in somewhat greater detail below.

The results of the study of female homosexuality by the same authors, “Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientation in Women,” are quite similar to the previous study. Again, the monozygotic twin pairs showed concordance rates of less than 50 percent — 48 percent, counting bisexual twins as homosexual.

Furthermore, as noted above, in the only available study of monozygotic female twins raised apart the authors found a concordance rate for homosexuality of 0 percent.[93] That is, none of the co-twins were homosexual — but the sample size was so small that, if the genetic contribution to female homosexuality is actually as great as 50 percent, there would be one chance in eight that this finding was a fluke.

Fifth, Bailey and Pillard predicted that twin-pairs in which both were homosexual would report an early onset of “childhood gender nonconformity.” They reasoned that a genetic determination of homosexuality would lead to its early onset in some form because if the cause is genetic, it must be present from birth. This would explain why many homosexuals recall such an early onset of being or feeling “different.”

But just as the twin studies failed to demonstrate genetic causation, their twin pairs in which both were homosexual experienced “childhood gender nonconformity” no more frequently than did the single homosexual in a discordant pair. Although an early recollection of “being different” is thus common among homosexuals, the evidence suggests that this sense of difference is in fact not caused by something genetic. The authors report their unanticipated finding but do not draw the appropriate conclusion — namely that it weighs against their hypothesis of genetic causation.

One by King and McDonald

In Britain, Michael King and Elizabeth McDonald in “Homosexuals Who Are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands,” found concordance/discordance rates for homosexuality that were lower than those found by Bailey and Pillard, but with a similar difference between monozygotic and dizygotic pairs (25 percent versus 12 percent). But unlike Bailey and Pillard, they conclude that:

Discordance for sexual orientation in the monozygotic pairs confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation.

Similarly, William Byne and Bruce Parsons, Columbia University researchers whose summary review of the research on homosexuality will be discussed in chapter 7, comment:

… what is most intriguing about the studies of Bailey and Pillard and of King and McDonald is the large proportion of monozygotic twins who were discordant for homosexuality despite sharing not only their genes but also their prenatal and familial environments. The large proportion of discordant pairs underscores our ignorance of the factors that are involved, and the manner in which they interact, in the emergence of sexual orientation.[94]

Recognizing that the evidence pointed more strongly toward the importance of nongenetic than genetic factors, King and McDonald also sought to discover what such nongenetic factors might be. They unexpectedly found, “a relatively high likelihood of sexual relations occurring with same-sex co-twins at some time, particularly in monozygotic pairs.”[95] (One out of five same-sex twins had sex with one another.)

This finding hints at a principle that turns out to be quite important in understanding the development of any embedded pattern of behavior, namely the role of early experience and subsequent repetition. The fact that identical twins in particular tended to have sexual relations with each other also suggests that the experience of twinhood (a developmental peculiarity) itself can cause an increase in homosexuality as a factor in its own right, apart from the shared genes.

King and McDonald’s study incidentally supports what investigators had actually noted as long ago as 1981: the role of childhood incest in fostering later homosexuality. As in the case of the obviously related role of childhood trauma,[96] incest is currently being downplayed or ignored as a significant determinant of homosexuality because it is a clear-cut environmental, not genetic, factor.

Contested Conclusions

Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, cited in the previous chapter regarding LeVay, criticize the quality of much of this recent genetics research as well. In Technology Review, they write:

In the nineteenth century …“phrenologists” claimed they could predict aspects of an individual’s personality, such as sexuality, intelligence and criminal tendencies, merely by examining the skull’s structure…. A look at recent studies seeking a genetic basis for homosexuality suggests that many of the problems of the past have recurred. We may be in for a new molecular phrenology, rather than true scientific progress and insight into behavior.[97]

Billings and Beckwith are specifically concerned about the biased conclusion Bailey and Pillard draw from their research, even if the concordance rates they reported were accepted as representative. Thus they note:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.

More specifically:

On average, both non-identical twins and non-twin siblings share 50 percent of their genes. If homosexuality were a genetic trait, the pairs in these groups should be homosexual a similar percentage of the time. They certainly should [both] be homosexual [if one is] more often than adopted siblings. But Bailey and Pillard’s data do not fit those predictions.[98]

Here is what these geneticists are criticizing: In Bailey and Pillard’s first twin study on male homosexuality the authors found a concordance rate for nontwin brothers of 9.2 percent. That is, roughly only one out of ten male homosexuals had brothers who were also homosexual. All the other brothers were heterosexual.[99] The concordance rate for nonidentical twins (“dizygotic”) was two-and-a-half-times greater than this (22 percent or roughly one in five). But nonidentical twins have exactly the same degree of genetic similarity as nontwin brothers, because even though they develop at the same time in the womb, they start out from two different eggs fertilized from two different sperm, just as in the case of brothers who develop at different times. If we accept their data as meaningful — again, the very small sample size renders these findings quite weak — this finding points to the powerful influence of similar environmental factors found especially between twins, even nonidentical twins.

Table 3. Concordance Rates for Homosexuality in Brothers

Type of brother (pair)	Degree of genetic similarity (percent shared genes)	Concordance rate for homosexuality
Identical twins (from one egg and one sperm)	100 percent	52 percent
Nonidentical twins (from two eggs and two sperms)	50 percent	22 percent
Nontwins (also from two eggs and two sperms)	50 percent	9 percent

Table 4. No Difference in Comparative Concordance Rates

Categories being compared	Difference in degree of genetic similarity	Difference in concordance rates
Identical twins versus nonidentical twins	Twice the number of identical genes	2.36
Nonidentical twins versus nontwins	No difference in number of identical genes	2.39

Note that when we compare the first two categories — identical twins versus nonidentical twins (genetic similarity of 100 percent versus genetic similarity of 50 percent) the concordance rates differ by a factor of 2.36.[100] But when we compare the second two categories — nonidentical twins versus nontwin brothers (genetic similarity of 50 percent is the same for both), the concordance rates still differ, by about the same amount 2.39.[101] Therefore either the finding that monozygotic twins are more likely to be concordant for homosexuality is less significant than environmental factors or it is of little significance altogether because of the sample size.

The importance of environment is further suggested by the fact that the concordance rate for biologic brothers with 50 percent genetic similarity (9.2 percent) and nonbiologic adoptive brothers with no significant genetic similarity (11 percent) were essentially identical. In their first study, Bailey and Pillard dismissed these puzzling findings as mere sampling errors — a function of the small sample size. In their later study on female homosexuality, the authors admit that the comparative concordance “rates for DZ co-twins and adoptive sisters did not differ significantly.”[102]

When Two Plus Two Equals Ten

In the beginning of the chapter we alluded to yet another confounding factor in the twin study data that is neither precisely genetic nor environmental. None of these researchers has considered this factor — that because of their internal interaction with each other as well as with the environment, genetic influences do not simply add together. A high degree of genetic similarity can produce an outcome that mimics high heritability. It is as though under these conditions two plus two instead of making four, makes ten.

This nonadditivity is strongly suggested by the fact that the difference in concordance rates for homosexuality among identical twins is so much greater than for nonidentical twins, nontwin siblings, and nonrelatives. In the words of one behavioral researcher:

The standard assumption of behavioral genetics is that traits run in families and that pairs of relatives are similar in proportion to their genetic resemblance. Yet there is evidence of traits for which the monozygotic correlation is high, indicating a genetic basis, when the dizygotic correlation and other first degree relatives are insignificant.[103]

Politically Expedient Science

Byne and Parsons comment on the discrepancy between Bailey and Pillard’s data and their conclusions in the following manner:

The increased concordance for homosexuality among the identical twins could be entirely accounted for by the increased similarity of their developmental experiences. In my opinion, the major finding of that study is that 48 percent of identical [female] twins who were reared together [and where at least one was homosexual] were discordant for sexual orientation.[104]

Similarly, Charles Mann, author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science, points to:

the growing understanding that the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple “violence genes” and “intelligence genes” touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the increased belief in genetics’ effects on behavior. “Research into heritability is the best demonstration I know of the importance of the environment,” says Robert Plomin, director of the Center for Developmental and Health Genetics at Pennsylvania State University. The same data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors.[105]

There is a story behind Byne and Parsons’s comment, an all-too-typical illustration of the politicization and propagandizing that surrounds and distorts this subject. John Horgan, a senior writer for Scientific American, notes that two reviewers of the Byne and Parsons article accused Byne of having a “right-wing agenda.” But in fact Byne has refused to address conservative groups who support the ban on homosexuals in the military because he himself is opposed to such a ban, supports “gay rights,” believes that “homosexuality, whatever its cause, is not a ‘choice,’”[106] and when asked was preparing a major article for the activist publication Journal of Homosexuality.[107] As Byne told the Wall Street Journal, “I’m told my criticism is not politically correct…. What they’re saying therefore is that I should subjugate scientific rigor to political expediency.”[108]

After examining the very few studies conducted on twins to determine a genetic influence on homosexuality, we can clearly see the bias that has existed not only in the research and execution of the studies, but in the interpretation and reporting of the findings.

6. A Cluster of Influences

If homosexuality is not entirely genetic in origin, where does it come from? In exploring claims that homosexuality is genetic, the Columbia University researchers — Byne and Parsons — emphasize an extremely important point. In their own model, which they describe as “a complex mosaic of biologic, psychological and social/cultural factors,”

… genetic factors can be conceptualized as indirectly influencing the development of sexual orientation without supposing that they either directly influence or determine sexual orientation per se. Similarly, one could imagine that prenatal hormones influence particular personality dimensions or temperamental traits, which in turn influence the emergence of sexual orientation.[109]

This last point concerning personality dimensions and traits is not an obvious one. The popular accounts of the biology of homosexuality uniformly avoid it. It is much easier to ask the meaningless, but subtly bias-inducing, sound bite question, “Isn’t homosexuality genetic?” than to ask the much more realistic — but frustratingly complex — question, “To what degree is homosexuality (or any other behavioral trait) genetic and nongenetic, innate and acquired, familial and nonfamilial, intrauterine-influenced and extrauterine-influenced, affected by the environment and independent of the environment, responsive to social cues and unresponsive to these cues, and when and in what sequence do these various influences emerge to generate their effects and how do they interact with one another; and after we have put these all together, how much is left over to attribute to choice, repetition, and habit?”

One way to simplify and begin to approach at least part of this very complex question is to note that, as we will explore in this chapter, the genetic contribution to a given trait, behavioral or otherwise, need not be direct; actually, when the trait is behavioral, the genetic contribution is usually not direct. In other words genes often contribute to some other phenomenon that in turn predisposes an individual to a given behavioral response.

An obvious example of this principle is basketball. No genes exist that code for becoming a basketball player. But some genes code for height and the elements of athleticism, such as quick reflexes, favorable bone structure, height-to-weight ratio, muscle strength and refresh rate, metabolism and energy efficiency, and so on. Many such traits have racial distributions (which makes the genetic connection evident), resulting in more men of Bantu or Nordic stock (being taller) playing on professional basketball teams than men of Pygmy or Appenzeller Swiss stock (being shorter).

Someone born with a favorable (for basketball) combination of height and athleticism is in no way genetically programmed or forced to become a basketball player. These qualities, however, certainly facilitate that choice. As a consequence the choice to play basketball has a clear genetic component, most evident in the high heritability of height. Were scientists to undertake a study of basketball-playing comparable to the studies that have been done to date on the genetics of homosexuality, they would find a much higher degree of apparent genetic influence. In summary, the strong genetic correlation does not mean that people are forced to play basketball.

In an effort to counter much of the nonsense being promoted nowadays in the press, the editors of Science, one of the premier scientific research journals in the world, devoted a recent issue almost exclusively to “Genetics and Behavior.” In the opening editorial, Torsten Wiesel, president of Rockefeller University, one of the leading international centers for genetics research, comments:

The operations of the brain result from a balance between inputs from heredity and environment — nature and nurture — and this balance should also be reflected in research into the biological basis of behavior.[110]

Fight, Flight, or Drink

Before we examine these nongenetic influences on homosexuality we will look at the classic example of a similar phenomenon in the area of behavioral problems — alcoholism — and at some of the still tentative theories that are emerging to explain it.

It has long seemed that problem drinking has a genetic component.[111] Even after social and family influences have been taken into account, evidence remains that when a gene or set of genes are present in an individual or family there is a much higher risk for serious alcoholism. Furthermore, certain national and transnational gene pools (Irish, Scandinavian, Northern European in general) seem to be predisposed to alcoholism.

It turns out that the genetic makeup of Northern Europeans tends to stimulate an enhanced fight/flight response to a given stressor. The fight/flight response is an almost universal mechanism in animals; its nervous-system and chemical pathways are well-understood, and it is fundamentally a relatively simple process. Thus it is a good candidate for behavioral genetics research. Because their nervous systems are more “high strung,” Northern Europeans react (on average) with an intense nervous system arousal to a perceived threat.[112] This is experienced subjectively as anxiety; alcohol is the original anti-anxiety agent.[113] People with this predisposition to intense anxiety responses are therefore more likely to find their way into greater alcohol use[114] because for them alcohol gives a greater degree of emotional relief than it does to the more laid-back “Mediterranean” type.[115]

Why might northerners have this disposition in greater proportion than southerners? The answer may lie not so much in the distinction between “north” and “south” or even “warm” and “cold” as in “Polar” versus “Equatorial.” At issue is not the location itself but the differing cycles of light found close to and far from the equator. The harsher climate and reduced intensity of light found nearer the poles is not only associated with differences in body build and skin color but also with differences in the nervous system. The northern races have adapted to the harshness of their environment by developing more easily stimulated nervous systems than have the equatorial races.

In its pure form, this genetic type not only reacts subjectively, but also responds to stresses with intense physiologic responses such as increased heart rate and blood pressure, skin flushing, perspiring palms and soles, and so on. All these responses, subjective and physiologic, are mediated by the nervous system. Alcohol calms all of these by soothing the underlying nerves.[116]

Thus genetics strongly predisposes individuals toward alcoholism. And yet no genes specifically code for it. This seeming contradiction can be explained by the fact that some genes do code for the anxiety (fight/flight) response and under certain circumstances an especially intense response is adaptive. Those who carry such genes may be more likely to develop alcoholism than those who do not carry them. This does not mean, however, that alcoholism is itself directly genetic, natural, and a good thing (as activists claim of homosexuality) — nor that it is an illness in the strict sense of the word.

Of interest in comparing alcoholism to homosexuality is the fact that alcoholism is estimated to be between 50 percent and 60 percent heritable; homosexuality to be less than 50 percent even by activists, probably considerably less. This even greater risk for alcoholism does not lead to the conclusion, however, that alcoholics are not responsible for controlling, changing, or stopping the behavior. We should also note that early enthusiasm over alcoholism being linked to a gene that coded for the D₂ brain receptor proved to be as unfounded as all the other claims for behavioral genes.[117]

The analogy between, on the one side alcoholism and anxiety, and on the other homosexuality and some unknown intermediate trait, may be more than an analogy. For there is evidence that unusually intense anxiety responses are also associated with an increased tendency toward homosexuality. We will explore this possibility in greater detail in chapter 12 on treatment. For now, let us return to the recent research finding that homosexuality is mostly nongenetic.

What Is Normal?

The nongenetic factors that can influence the development of a behavioral pattern fall into five categories:

1. Intrauterine (prenatal) effects, such as the hormonal milieu (environment)
2. Extrauterine (postnatal) physical effects, such as trauma, viruses
3. Extrauterine “symbolic” effects, such as familial interactions, education
4. Extrauterine experience, such as the reinforcing effect of the repetition of behaviors
5. Choice

The lack of 100 percent similarity for sexual orientation of identical twins shows that the nongenetic factor(s) influencing homosexuality cannot be exclusively intrauterine. If they were, then the concordance rate for homosexuality would still be nearly 100 percent — because identical twins share the same prenatal environment. In fact, if there are any intrauterine effects, they would contribute to the 50 percent apparently genetic effect (concordance) that was described earlier.[118] Once these factors were identified and segregated out, the actual remaining genetic effect would be that much smaller.

But a vast body of research has emerged over the past decade that demonstrates how biological factors powerfully influence brain development. These factors therefore affect cognitive, emotional, and behavioral expression. Even small differences between individuals will result in statistically significant average differences between two large populations. But unexpectedly the most powerful effects on male versus female brain development do not occur directly from male versus female genetic differences, but indirectly by way of the maternal intrauterine hormonal milieu.

Put simply, the hormonal environment in which a baby develops is a balance of androgenic (male) and estrogenic (female) hormones. A genetically male baby signals the mother to generate a more heavily androgenic environment than does a female baby. The particular hormonal balance then determines whether the baby will develop typically male or typically female genitalia, bodily characteristics, and brain structures.

Because the maternal hormonal response varies, the masculinizing or feminizing influences are different for each developing baby. The resulting degree of masculinity or femininity is therefore a “bimodal” spectrum, having two somewhat overlapping bell-shaped curves with two separate average masculine and average feminine peaks. The curve does not show a strict dimorphism, that is, two perfectly distinct masculine or feminine spikes. This variable degree of masculine and feminine influences and results is especially so with respect to the brain. The secondary sexual characteristics (genitalia), however, take only two distinct forms, except in unusual circumstances.

Thus, in spite of the obvious general differences between men and women, a great many men have somewhat feminine physical features and a great many women have somewhat masculine features, all well within normal. Many women are actually more masculine than many men and many men are actually more feminine than many women; yet all these, too, are well within normal. Furthermore, some women are more masculine than the average man and some men are more feminine than the average woman, and these are also entirely normal. And yet it remains true that on average (which is to say, as a group), women are more feminine than men and men are more masculine than women. These differences should therefore show up in the average differences in behavior between the two groups.

To a less obvious but significant degree, these bimodal statistical differences (clustering about two somewhat separated points) extend to brain development as well. Thus the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral expressions of the male and female classes as a whole are affected to various degrees by masculine and feminine influences. Again there is much overlap. Therefore many normal men have rather more feminine behavioral characteristics and many normal women have rather more masculine behavioral characteristics. Little of this overlap, however, predicts homsexuality.

From time to time the chemical signals get crossed. The maternal hormonal milieu of, for example, a genetically male baby will then be very far to the feminine end of the spectrum. In these unfortunate cases, her genitalia, body type, brain, and behavior will develop physically as a normal-appearing female. She remains, however, genetically male and therefore infertile. We conventionally refer to such individuals according to their body type and not their genetic makeup, because they will live according to the former.

In other cases, the milieu is ambiguous. Regardless of the baby’s genetic structure, the baby will emerge a hermaphrodite — one with variable proportions of male and female features. The parents will be obliged to choose a sex for their child to be defined surgically, which may or may not correspond to the genetic background.

The dramatic influence of the intrauterine environment on behavior is demonstrated well by a recent article in Science on spotted hyenas. In this species, maternal androgens are so elevated during pregnancy — in a twist, especially so when the fetus is female — that adult females are heavier and more aggressive than males, have fused vaginal labia that form a “scrotum,” and have a clitoris that is fully erectile and as large as the male penis. As we might guess, the females in this species dominate the males. In this case genetics affects behavior not only directly on a species-wide basis, but also indirectly through hormonal mechanisms.

The typically masculine aggression that is “hardwired” into this animal (into both males and females, but especially females) is biologically determined and fierce. Unlike other carnivores, infant hyenas are born with fully erupted and efficient teeth, open eyes with fully functioning rapid tracking and focusing mechanisms, and the capability for perfectly coordinated adult-type motor action. Within an hour of birth a newborn pup can mount a full-fledged “bite-shake attack” in which she bites and grips the neck of her opponent, shaking it violently to death.

The unfortunate opponent in this case is usually the same-sex twin, especially when the twins are two females. In most cases, the first female twin to emerge will kill the second one just as she begins to emerge from the birth canal — before she can even leave the amniotic sac. Not surprisingly, the chief characteristic of members of this species is their extraordinary skill and efficiency as predatory killers.[119] They can even successfully chase off lions from a kill, failing only when the lion is an unusually experienced and dominant male. (Incidentally, however, female hyenas are not obligatorily “lesbian.”)

Clearly an important determinant of at least certain behavioral predispositions is the hormonal environment. Thus some proportion of what appears to be genetic in homosexual behavior may actually be a nongenetic intrauterine effect on the parts of the brain that influence sexual behavior. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that although uncommon, homosexuality is not terribly rare in the population, the best estimate being 2.8 percent for males and 1.4 percent for females. Lower reproductive rates among homosexuals should lead to its diminishment and eventual elimination from the population — unless some relatively constant nongenetic factor(s) continued to influence its reappearance.

But if homosexuality were simply caused by a greater than average, but still normal, degree of opposing-sex influence of the prenatal environment, we would expect male homosexuals, for example, to have “female” brain structures. Many of the studies to date on the biology of homosexuality have looked for such a feminization of homosexuals’ brains, but nothing convincing has been found. Indeed, LeVay and other researchers point out that a certain nucleus in the brain, the “Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus” (SDN), takes two distinct forms in men and women. This nucleus, however, is found in its typically masculine form in male homosexuals.

Nonetheless, two different sets of findings point to possible developmentally based hormonal influences on homosexuality. First is some evidence that male homosexuals perform more like average females than like average males on certain qualitative measures of mental functioning. This difference in performance may eventually be correlated to typical male-female brain differences. And yet it would still say nothing about cause, as changes in the brain could be caused by repetitively reinforced behavioral differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Second are studies on females that indicate a correlation between a “masculinizing” intrauterine environment and subsequent female bisexuality, homosexuality, or transsexualism. Transsexuals are individuals whose internal self-image is opposite to their sex: A male transsexual feels himself to be truly female, a “woman trapped in a man’s body”; a female transsexual to be a “man trapped in a woman’s body.” Transsexuals often seek and obtain surgical alteration of their sex. Because the subjective experience and objective marks of transsexualism are so different than of homosexuality, however, such studies that posit a common origin for both homosexuality and transsexualism raise more questions than they answer.

In 1991 Günter Dörner, one of the major researchers of the prenatal hormonal influences on sexuality, published a review of the studies on the subject to date. He concluded that a prenatal abnormality in hormones — perhaps caused by undue stress to the mother — will cause later homosexual behavior. In his words:

The higher the androgen levels during brain organization, caused by genetic and/or environmental factors, the higher is the biological predisposition to bi- and homosexuality or even transsexualism in females and the lower it is in males. Adrenal androgen excess, leading to heterotypical sexual orientation and/or gender role behavior in genetic females, can be caused by 21-hydroxylase deficiency, especially when associated with prenatal stress…. Testicular androgen deficiency in prenatal life, giving rise to heterotypical sexual orientation and/or gender role behavior in genetic males, may be induced by prenatal stress and/or maternal or fetal genetic alterations.[120]

But these conclusions have been vigorously disputed.[121] For one thing, as should now be clear, a “biological predisposition to bi-and homosexuality” is a dramatically different conclusion than to describe (within the same paragraph) “adrenal androgen excess [as] leading to heterotypical sexual orientation.” Furthermore, no hormonal difference has ever been discovered between homosexuals and heterosexuals (as is dramatically the case between males and females) no matter how exquisitely sensitive the test.[122] In the words of Byne and Parsons: “Data pertaining to possible neurochemical differences between homosexual and heterosexual individuals are lacking.”[123]

Other Prenatal Influences

At Harvard in 1974 the great behavioral neurologist Norman Geschwind and his colleague Ronald Galaburda first proposed the idea that homosexuality might be an intrauterine developmental abnormality that is not necessarily hormonal in nature. Geschwind and Galaburda had already hypothesized, and others have since confirmed, that at least one cause of left-handedness is an abnormal autoimmune effect during pregnancy. For reasons unknown, the baby’s or mother’s immune system responds to certain tissues in the developing brain as though they were foreign, attacking and destroying them. But Geschwind and Galaburda also noted, along with many other observers, that left-handedness appeared to be more common among male homosexuals than among heterosexuals. They therefore hypothesized that the same autoimmune problem might be responsible for both.[124]

In 1991 one research group concluded that although left-handedness seemed to be associated with autoimmune abnormalities, male homosexuality was not. The last part of their conclusion rested on their failure to find an increased incidence of left-handedness in the population of the homosexuals they studied.[125] But other researchers have confirmed this increased incidence in both men and women.[126] Thus the possibility that a homosexual disposition may at least partly be the consequence of a developmental autoimmune abnormality remains open.

Too Many People in the Room

If homosexuality were in fact directly genetic, and thus present in some form from birth (and before), it would likely be associated with an early onset of some form of “homosexual identity.” But this presents an implicit conundrum, for homosexuality is associated with far lower childbearing rates than is heterosexuality. At present, and for the past thirty years, the childbearing rate for the United States as a whole has hovered around 1.05 children per adult. But 1.05 happens also to be the minimum “replacement” rate.

Because the total American rate is an average of the rate for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, the homosexual rate must therefore be considerably lower than the replacement rate. To whatever extent that homosexuality is significantly and directly genetic — and thus homosexuals would mostly discover their “orientation” prior to marriage — its presence in the population would shrink from one generation to the next. Unless it was continuously “redeveloped” by some nonheritable cause or causes, intrauterine or otherwise, it would eventually disappear:

… one would expect that the role of a major gene in male homosexual orientation to be limited because of the strong selective pressures against such a gene. It is unlikely that a major gene underlying such a common trait could persist over time without an extraordinary counterbalancing mechanism.[126]

The fact that the incidence of homosexuality does not appear to be declining — a point the activists emphasize — is thus itself an argument against its being directly genetically determined. This argument would not hold if genes that merely indirectly increased the likelihood of homosexuality were directly associated with some other trait that enhanced survival and reproduction.

All of these human traits — a tendency to anxiety, stress-responsivity, the likelihood of alcoholism, hormonal dispositions in the mother, hormonal signals from the fetus to the mother, and many others — will have some degree of genetic background. And all may influence the likelihood of later homosexuality. It is not clear how much effect might be directly genetic and how much is indirect. Nor is it clear how many intervening levels of interaction are present between gene and behavior. Once again we need to remind ourselves that the discovery of a correlation between a gene or genes and a behavior is without significant meaning.

The Role of the Family

One of the most consistent findings from the studies of homosexuality is that a familial factor — or factors — strongly influences later sexual behavior. The more recent twin studies of homosexuality grew directly out of earlier ones that repeatedly confirmed an unequivocal family influence. In its decision that homosexuality was not an illness, the APA ignored nearly eighty years worth of psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic observation. The gist of these practitioners’ observations is consistent with what more rigorous scientific data demonstrates (even the biased studies such as by Bailey and Pillard), namely that the family environment plays a critical role in the development of homosexuality.

What did the psychoanalysts learn that activists want us to forget? That in the lives of their homosexual patients there was unusually often an emotional mismatch between the child and same-sex parent (such as a father who subtly or overtly rejects a son who has many “feminine” traits); or an emotional mismatch between the child and the opposite sex parent; or sexual abuse of a child by either the same sex or opposite sex parent; and most often the rejection of a child by same-sex peers.

Many excellent psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic studies describe the complex interactions among these and other factors. Although these studies do not identify or describe any innate components that influence these environmental factors, they generate likely hypotheses to be further tested about the environmental influences on homosexuality evident in the genetics research.

Childhood Trauma

Besides the influence of the family, various other theories of homosexuality have evolved out of the extensive clinical experience of psychoanalysts and psychotherapists. It is not my purpose to provide or critique a detailed survey of these various theories; rather, my scientific purpose is served by demonstrating that the question regarding the precise causes of homosexuality remains open.

Nonetheless we will look at the “soft” consensus that has emerged over the years within the clinical community about how homosexuality occurs and changes. This consensus concerns a number of developmental events and sequences that lead to the habitual use of anxiety-reducing, self-soothing behaviors, including sexual deviations, promiscuity, homosexuality, and many other activities. Quite often an individual will use more than one such outlet. Thus, for example, homosexuality is commonly associated with both promiscuity and alcoholism or drug use. These activities all have a transiently soothing effect and the tendency to become first habitual, then compulsive, and finally addictive.

The developmental events and sequences that give rise to these later problems, though different from case to case, nonetheless share certain general features. These may be lumped together under the heading “psychic trauma.” A typical clinical vignette reads:

two clinical phenomena … are frequently related in analytic practice, namely sexual deviancy and inhibition in creative or intellectual work. The analysands in question seek psychoanalytic help not for their sexual acts and object-choices but because of blockage in their professional activities. In the author’s opinion the roots of both sexual deviancy and creativity may often be traced back to early psychic trauma. The sexual “solution” and the creative activity both represent ways of attempting to overcome the traumatic situation of infancy. These propositions are illustrated by the case of an author who sought help because her writing was completely blocked and because her homosexual love-relations caused tension and concern. The sudden death of her father when she was fifteen months old and her mother’s disturbed way of handling the tragic situation were decisive factors in both the patient’s sexual and professional life.[128]

“Psychic trauma” is a subtle concept that needs explaining. For one, actual physical trauma, including sexual abuse, may well be the source of psychic trauma. In the specific case of homosexuality it often appears to be the source. Nonetheless, actual physical trauma does not have to occur to cause psychic trauma. Also, individuals differ in their innate susceptibility to be traumatized. Thus, a severe, life-changing trauma for one individual may have little effect in another; conversely, what most outside observers rate as a trivial event could seriously wound someone with a particular disposition.

And so when we think of “trauma” we are apt to conceptualize it objectively, as a measurable outer event. This kind of trauma lends itself to quantitative research. One example is the studies that have found a disproportionate extent of sexual abuse in the childhoods of adult homosexuals.[129]

But psychic trauma is actually a purely subjective experience. The link between psychic trauma and measurable external influences can vary from tight and obvious to loose and invisible. Parental behavior, for example, can range from being, as many unprejudiced observers would agree, “bad” to being “good,” while still being poorly matched to the needs of the child through no fault of the parent.

Thus “inner oriented” approaches to the concept of “psychic trauma” or “wounding” — whether secular (meaning psychoanalytic) or spiritual — provide a necessary additional perspective. For practical reasons, however, this perspective will remain almost invisible to rigorous scientific methods.

The kinds of traumas that can result in disturbed behavior are many and varied. Two specific traumas are most commonly associated with homosexuality.

The first is the trauma caused by the child’s subjective experience of the same-sex parent’s lack of availability, rejection, or even harsh verbal, physical, or sexual attack. By objective standards, the parent himself or herself may or may not be described in these terms. Rather the child’s subjective experience of the parent creates the effect. This may give rise to the child’s profound longing for love from that parent, a longing that he or she will likely enact in later relations with peers of the same sex. This longing may also become sexualized — that is, linked to the distress-relieving capacity of orgasm.

The results of a study by George Rekers reflect this:

Significantly fewer male role models were found in the family backgrounds of the severely gender-disturbed boys as compared to the mild-to-moderately gender-disturbed boys. Male childhood gender disturbance was also found to be correlated with a high incidence of psychiatric problems in both the mothers and fathers and with atypical patterns of the boys’ involvement with their mothers and fathers….[130]

The second is the trauma caused by the child’s subjective experience of the opposite-sex parent’s lack of availability, rejection, or even harsh verbal, physical, or sexual attack. This may give rise to the child’s fear of that parent, which will likely show itself later as a heightened wariness and avoidance of opposite-sex relations.

We must add a caution, however. Although these kinds of trauma are unusually common in the childhoods of homosexuals, they are not universal. And in many cases other, less typical traumas are present. This reflects the inherent complexity of homosexuality, a complexity stemming from the interactive or multiple genetic, intrauterine, environmental, family, social, psychological, and habitual influences on the course of development. Thus even common, quite general disturbances in family life, such as parental separation, are associated with a measurably increased incidence of homosexuality. Such general disturbances are more readily quantitated than the “inner” experience of “psychic trauma.” A different study by Rekers reflects this:

56 boys diagnosed with gender disturbance, ages 3 to 18 yr. (mean age 8.4 yr.), were classified according to family structure. The proportion of gender-disturbed subjects separated from one or both parents (66 percent) was significantly higher than the 35 percent to 48 percent separated from one or both parents in comparable US general population statistics.[131]

Other possible causes of psychic trauma abound; thus the literature is filled with case studies that show many different kinds of childhood backgrounds. This diversity of experience does not mean that all possible childhood experiences lead to homosexuality and therefore that none do. It reflects, rather, that the compulsive pursuit of pleasure (of all sorts) is the most common human response to distress.

Clearly, a major factor that influences the final outcome of any developmental process is the partially innately determined, partially learned sensitivity of individuals to their environment. This affects the degree of distress they experience in response to it.

Rekers gives a sound general overview of the origins of homosexuality:

At the present time, we may tentatively conclude that the main source for gender and sexual behavior deviance is found in social learning and psychological developmental variables … although we should recognize that there remains the theoretical possibility that biological abnormalities could contribute a potential vulnerability factor in some indirect way.[132]

7. The Gay Gene?

On July 15, 1993, National Public Radio reported a new study in Science due to be released the next day.[133] The tenor of the report was to celebrate the so-called discovery of the gene that causes homosexuality. Near the end, the necessary caveats were quickly added, but most laymen would have turned off the radio thinking that homosexuality is caused by a gene. But is there such a “gay gene”? The discussion in the preceding chapters should help us put the most publicly trumpeted scientific research on genetics and homosexuality into its proper, limited perspective.

In response to this research, the Wall Street Journal likewise headlined their report the next day, “Research Points Toward a Gay Gene.”[134] A subheading of the Journal article stated “Normal Variation,” leaving the casual reader with the impression that the research led to this conclusion. It did not, nor could it have. Indeed, the subhead merely alluded to nothing more than the researchers’ own personal, unsubstantiated opinions that homosexuality, as they put it, “is a normal variant of human behavior.” Even the New York Times, in its more moderate front-page article, “Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes” noted that researchers warned against overinterpreting the work, “or in taking it to mean anything as simplistic as that the ‘gay gene’ had been found.”

At the end of the Wall Street Journal article, at the bottom of the last paragraph on the last page deep within the paper, a prominent geneticist was quoted for his reactions to the research. He observed that “the gene … may be involved in something other than sexual behavior. For example, it may be that the supposed gene is only ‘associated’ with homosexuality, rather than a ‘cause’ of it.” This rather cryptic comment would be difficult to understand without the needed background information. Yet it is the most critical distinction in the entire article.

In the study the media was trumpeting, Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a new kind of behavioral genetics study now becoming widespread — the so-called “linkage study.” Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family and is correlated to a chromosomal variant found in the genetic material of that family.

Insignificant Statistics

The authors of the Hamer study discovered that in a small number of families the maternal uncles of homosexual men — but no other relatives — were disproportionately homosexual. Because women have two X and no Y chromosomes (XX), while men have one X and one Y (XY), this finding seems to suggest that if a heritable factor contributes to male homosexuality it would have to be on the so called “X chromosome.”

This is because mothers of male homosexuals would carry the gene on one of their X chromosomes but it would not be expressed in these mothers themselves. The lack of expression would either be caused by their having a second, normal X chromosome or because the specific trait in question would not express itself in females even if they carried two of its genes. Remember that male homosexuality and female homosexuality are not likely to be the same phenomenon.

The uncles of the homosexual men (their mothers’ brothers) would be more likely to carry but also to express the gene because, like their sisters, they could have received an affected X chromosome from their mothers. (But as males, they would lack a second, “normal” X chromosome to compensate for the “abnormal” one.)

After finding a family sample in which the appearance of homosexuality seemed to follow a pattern of mother-son inheritance, the authors then examined the X chromosomes of the family members. The normal, multibanded appearance of the X chromosome is well-known. What they looked for was some variation in its typical banding pattern specific to this family, and especially to its homosexual males and their mothers. Such a variation was indeed found. The chromosome consists of some one hundred genes; the variation was found on the region known as q28 (Xq28, since it is the X chromosome).

To make the case that a gene or genes even influence male homosexual behavior several conditions must be met. The study must have been conducted with adequate care and its statistical assumptions must be valid. The variation in the chromosome must be present in most male homosexuals — not just in those male homosexuals whose families demonstrate a maternal-uncle pattern of male homosexuality. Or it must be present at least in many other families that demonstrate such a pattern. And the inheritance pattern itself must hold up when a larger family sample is examined. (Recall that to confirm the genetic background of a trait linked to but a single gene would require eight thousand individuals.)[135] If all these conditions were met, however, they would still not even remotely come close to the claim that “homosexuality is genetic” — for all the reasons discussed previously.

As it is, the Hamer study is seriously flawed. Four months after its publication in Science, a critical commentary appeared in the same publication. It took issue with the many assumptions and questionable use of statistics that underlie Hamer’s conclusions, but not with his research methods and raw data, which met acceptable standards for linkage studies. Genetics researchers from Yale, Columbia, and Louisiana State Universities noted that:

Much of the discussion of the finding [by Hamer et al.] has focused on its social and political ramifications. In contrast our goal is to discuss the scientific evidence and to highlight inconsistencies that suggest that this finding should be interpreted cautiously….

[The study’s] results are not consistent with any genetic model…. Neither of these differences [between homosexuality in maternal versus paternal uncles or cousins] is statistically significant…. Small sample sizes make these data compatible with a range of possible genetic and environmental hypotheses….

The hallmark characteristic of an X-linked trait is no male-to-male transmission. Because few homosexual men tend to have children, a study of male homosexual orientation will reveal few opportunities for male-to-male transmission, giving the appearance of X-linkage. In this context, examining the rate of homosexual orientation in the fathers of homosexual men is not meaningful. In the study by Hamer et al., there were only six sons of homosexual males, clearly an inadequate number for a meaningful test. Hamer et al. also present four pedigrees [four different families] as being consistent with X-linkage. Only one homosexual male in these four pedigrees has a child (a daughter). In the context of trait-associated lack of male reproduction, such pedigrees would be relatively easy to obtain. Thus the family data presented [by Hamer et al.] present no consistent support for the subsequent linkage results.

… Such studies must be scrutinized carefully and dispassionately.[136]

In response, Hamer responded as follows:

We did not say that Xq28 “underlies” sexuality, only that it contributes to it in some families. Nor have we said that Xq28 represents a “major” gene, only that its influence is statistically detectable in the population that we studied.[137]

Nonetheless, regarding the failure of their most important “findings” to achieve even statistical significance, they themselves agree — in a rather awkward circumlocution — that:

the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a non-Mendelian [that is, polygenic, multiple factors influencing expression] trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.[138]

In lay terms, this translates as, “we have no idea how significant this finding is or indeed whether it is significant at all.” And in a recent edition of Science devoted to behavioral genetics Hamer stated — to his fellow scientists — that:

Complex behavioral traits are the product of multiple genetic and environmental antecedents, with “environment” meaning not only the social environment but also such factors as the “flux of hormones during development, whether you were lying on your right or left side in the womb and a whole parade of other things….” The relationships among genes and environment probably have a somewhat different effect on someone in Salt Lake City than if that person were growing up in New York City.[139] [For example, conservatives in Utah are less likely to become homosexual than liberals in New York.]

Needless to say, none of the disclaimers were given equal time in the press as the original overblown claims. And worse yet, Hamer himself testified as a sworn expert witness to the Colorado court that heard a motion to void the state’s “Proposition 2,” which would have disallowed sexual behavior as a legitimate basis for formal minority status on a par with race. On the basis of his research Hamer testified that he was “99.5 percent certain that homosexuality is genetic.” The judge who heard the case ultimately struck down the law.

On June 25, 1995, reports surfaced and were later confirmed by Science that Hamer is under investigation by the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services because he may have “selectively reported his data.” There was no fanfare this time on National Public Radio.[140]

Conclusions We Can Make

What can we conclude about the biology of homosexuality? Let us turn in more detail to the most comprehensive review article — cited previously — on the subject of the biology of homosexuality, including genetics. “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biological Theories Reappraised” was written by William Byne and Bruce Parsons from Columbia University. This article was published in the same issue of Archives of General Psychiatry as Bailey and Pillard’s study of female homosexuality, Lidz’s response to their first article, and their response to Lidz.

The article reviews 135 research studies, prior reviews, academic summaries, books, and chapters of books — in essence the entire literature, of which only a small portion is actual research. The abstract summarizes their findings concisely and is by far the best available assessment of the current status of this research:

Recent studies postulate biologic factors [genetic, hormonal] as the primary basis for sexual orientation. However, there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the current status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual’s sexuality emerges. Because such traits may be heritable or developmentally influenced by hormones, the model predicts an apparent non-zero heritability for homosexuality without requiring that either genes or hormones directly influence sexual orientation per se.[141]

The desire to shift to a biologic basis for explaining homosexuality appeals primarily to those who seek to undercut the vast amount of clinical experience confirming that homosexuality is significantly changeable, as we will soon discuss.

We can summarize the conclusions about the biology of homosexuality in ten points.

First, a certain genetic constitution may make homosexuality more readily available as an option, but it is not a cause of homosexuality. Without that constitution it would be unlikely for an individual to choose homosexuality freely. With that constitution, it may be more likely that he or she would.

Second, if we accept proponents’ research uncritically, this predisposition contributes no more than 25 to 50 percent to the likelihood of an individual actually becoming homosexual. But a realistic assessment of the research shows that the genetic contribution, though not zero, is likely to turn out to be far smaller than that — perhaps between 10 percent and 25 percent.

Third, when the actual incidence of homosexuality in the population is higher, the apparent influence of this possible genetic predisposition will be lesser and the influence of nongenetic factors greater. This is because the arithmetic used to assess probable genetic influence in twin studies requires a baseline estimate of prevalence in the general population. The rarer the trait, the more meaning a given level of concordance will have. That is, if the trait is almost universal, two twins are just as likely to share it as two unrelated individuals. If the trait is extremely rare, the twins will likely share it only if they share some factor common to both (such as a gene or genes, environment, experiences).

Fourth, the incidence of homosexuality depends on its definition. Using definitions that activists prefer, in some cultures male homosexuality — especially between older men and adolescents — is universal. With an incidence of 100 percent, the measurable genetic contribution in such a culture would be zero.

This huge cultural variability in incidence — from 1 to 100 percent — suggests the possibility that many strains of homosexuality could exist. At a minimum two classes exist: one class linked indirectly to a complex genetic component of the limited sort previously discussed, such as in the relationship of height to basketball-playing; the other would be almost entirely influenced by culture. The former would tend to be present in some measure even when culturally taboo and would be associated with a very low incidence rate. The latter would predominate in cultures where the taboos against homosexuality were nonexistent or relatively weak and would be associated with a relatively high incidence rate. In cultures such as ours where the taboo is weakening there is likely to be a mixture of types present.

Raw statistics about incidence from a cross section in time are meaningless when the two or more types are not separated out. We cannot say that the incidence of 2.8 percent for male homosexuality is necessarily the minimum — that is, the rate that would exist if the cultural type of homosexuality was eliminated. (See the discussion in chapter 14 on homosexuality in modern Judaism.) This fact renders meaningless any heritability estimates, because they all depend on meaningful general incidence rates.

Fifth, given that such cultures have existed where the incidence of homosexuality is far greater than at present, the incidence of homosexuality is clearly influenced by mores. Where people endorse and encourage homosexuality, the incidence increases; where they reject it, it decreases. These factors have nothing to do with its genetics.

Sixth, some yet-to-be determined proportion of any apparent genetic influence on homosexuality is actually a nongenetic, though innate, prenatal influence. This influence may be hormonal, autoimmune, from some undiscovered factor or factors, or a combination of all these. The proportion of this seemingly genetic but actually intrauterine and nongenetic influence is neither “all” nor “none.” It may well be closer to the former than the latter if certain European studies on hormonal effects prove correct. This intrauterine influence may be an abnormality that could eventually prove to be correctable. Nonetheless, the practical influence of such an intrauterine predisposition can be at most no more than the maximum degree of seeming heritability — that is, considerably less than 50 percent.

Seventh, of the remaining 50 to 90 percent of the extrauterine, noninnate causes of homosexuality, a substantial but not yet quantifiable portion represents the individual’s response to both environmentally reinforced attitudes and behaviors as well as to innate predispositional pressures.

Eighth, whatever genetic contribution to homosexuality exists, it probably contributes not to homosexuality per se, but rather to some other trait that makes the homosexual “option” more readily available than to those who lack this genetic trait (as in the correlation between height and basketball). The homosexual option may be selected for personal reasons, such as a response to trauma, or social reasons, such as overcrowding or subcultural mores, or both. It is reinforced each time it is selected. Therefore it is even more likely to be reselected the next time.

Ninth, in light of population genetics and the importance of replacement rates, the fact that homosexuality continues to exist suggests strongly that: (a) genetic influences are far from sufficient to cause homosexuality, though they may increase its likelihood; (b) the genes that influence the appearance of homosexuality do not code for homosexuality per se, but rather for other traits that themselves do not adversely affect heterosexual reproduction.

And tenth, most studies to date have many flaws. Some are caused by the intrusion of political agendas into what should be objective research, and some are due to the complex nature of the subject. These flaws must temper any conclusions we make. It is premature (and will almost certainly prove to be incorrect) simply to state that homosexuality “is” or “is not” genetic, innate, psychological, chosen, or social. It was extremely premature to pronounce it not an illness decades ago.

My primary aim in part one has been to demonstrate that hard science is far from providing an explanation of homosexuality, let alone one that reduces it to genetic determinism. My purpose so far, thus, will have been well served if the discussion helps to guard against the grossly overblown claims of interest groups who misuse science for political ends. As we have seen in the case of homosexuality, for all the public fanfare, science has accomplished almost nothing we did not know from common sense: One’s character traits are in part innate but are subject to modification by experience and choice.

 

---