Are same-sex attractions biologically determined? Most people are under the impression that they are. Organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA), have helped propagate the idea. For example, in the 1998 version of their “Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality” brochure, they say “there is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.” The truth, however, is that no biological link has been discovered to-date.
In an unexpected turn of events, the APA has softened its language, replacing the above sentence with a more modest claim in an updated version of their brochure (now called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality”) (click here for the HTML version). Now it reads:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
While I think there is little reason to doubt that social influences are largely responsible for same-sex attraction, I appreciate their more honest assessment of the biological evidence.
HT: NARTH
Thinking to Believe 
January 22, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Seriously, if you believe sexual attraction is a choice, try being totally gay for just a few weeks. Get lots of gay porn, have lots of gay sex, and really get turned on. If you can really switch your sexual orientation all that easily, I’ll be very impressed.
I’m hetero, and I know that no amount of socialization or torture could get me to be attracted to men. I’d love to see an honest hetero, who believes that being gay is a choice, undertake my suggested experiment, just to prove their point.
LikeLike
January 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Excellent suggestion, Jere. I usually just ask people: Oh, and when did you decide to be straight? The smart ones usually get it immediately and the others don’t generally see the catch 22.
LikeLike
January 24, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Jere,
This post was not about changing sexual orientation. Neither did it make any claims about same-sex attraction being a choice. It merely cited the updated conclusions of a major, secular, and gay-friendly organization—the American Psychological Association—that there is no clear evidence demonstrating that same-sex attraction is biologically determined.
Your response evidences a false dichotomy that is typical of those in both the gay and Christian communities. It is thought that if same-sex attraction is not biologically determined, it must just be a personal preference. That is why so many homosexuals believe their same-sex attraction must be rooted in their biology (because they know their attraction is not just a personal preference that they choose), and why so many Christians believe homosexuals just choose to be that way (because they don’t believe it is biologically determined, and thus all it could be is a personal preference). Not so. Biology is not the only thing that influences our desires and behavior. Social upbringing and cultural conditioning play much larger roles. So it’s not an either-or.
I am not of the opinion that homosexuals choose to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex. That is absurd. People do not consciously choose their sexual attraction (including pedophiles). The only thing we can and do choose is whether to act on our desires. As I have written elsewhere, “I think a lot of Christians are under the mistaken impression that those who struggle with same-sex attraction choose to do so. They don’t. The desires are not chosen. The only thing that is chosen is whether or not one acts on those desires.” And again: “Sexual attraction is not chosen, but sexual behavior is. When I was single I was sexually attracted to women (not by choice), but did not have sex with any (by choice). While homosexuals did not choose to be sexually attracted to those of their same gender, they do choose whether or not they act out on those desires in the form of same-sex activity.”
Jason
LikeLike
January 24, 2010 at 8:00 pm
You’ve paraphrased the words “there is no consensus” into something a lot less precise when you say “there is no clear evidence”. There is a boat load of evidence that indicates that biology is a great, if not overwhelming determinant. Some of it is biological environment (such as the prevalence of homosexuality in the youngest sons being related to how a woman’s body reacts after multiple male pregnancies – strictly speaking “environment”, but not in terms of socialization or cultural upbringing), but I don’t think anyone has done any serious science that claims that homosexuality is mostly determined by social or cultural factors.
I agree with you that acting on desires and having desires are two different things, but frankly, asserting that sexual contact between consenting adults is something that should not be acted out upon if the two adults are the same sex seems to be a untenable moral position. If anything, I’d advocate for sexual contact only in the context of two consenting adults in a monogamous relationship – thus my support for the idea of opening up legalized monogamy (aka “marriage”) to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.
Anyway, in the end, I don’t think that same-sex attraction needs to be a struggle, it can simply be accepted. If there was a universal struggle we could all work towards, it would be the struggle some people have with maintaining loving, stable, monogamous relationships, regardless if the couple in question were the same or opposite sex.
LikeLike
January 25, 2010 at 10:45 am
The morality of homosexuality and the cause of same-sex attraction are two separate issues. Regardless of one’s viewpoint on the morality of homosexuality, the fact of the matter is that there is no clear evidence for a biological cause. Indeed, if it was purely biological we would expect for both individuals in a set of identical twins to always have the same sexual orientation since they both share the same uterus (hormone theory) and DNA, and yet that is not the case. Only ~38% of male twins and ~30% of girl twins are both gay when at least one is gay. I don’t put it out of the realm of possibility that there could be a biological contribution involved, but to-date, none has been found, and the twin studies make it clear that it can’t be the determining factor.
But all the talk about what causes homosexuality is irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality: a point usually lost on those who support homosexuality.
Jason
LikeLike
January 25, 2010 at 11:00 am
I’m sorry, but you’re misstating things again. “No clear evidence” is not the same thing as “no consensus”.
Perhaps we can state it this way – twin studies I’ve seen cited indicate more than a 50% correlation, clearly indicating that biology is a significant, if not a majority, factor in sexual attraction. The study you cite with 38% or 30% may indicate that although biology is a primary determining factor, strong social and cultural environmental differences can mask it – unfortunately we have no real way of quantifying that between identical twins, but it would be interesting research.
Now, given the causes of homosexuality, it seems difficult to assert that it is inherently immoral. But even if you assume that sexual attraction is 100% choice, there is little reason to assert that homosexuality is inherently immoral. It would be akin to stating that being attracted to red-heads is immoral, but brunettes are fine (or, putting it in terms of action, it would be moral to date brunettes, but immoral to date red-heads).
LikeLike
January 27, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I agree that “no consensus” is not the same as “no clear evidence,” but they are related in that the latter is often the reason for the former. And that is precisely what the quote from the APA is getting at. They begin by noting the lack of consensus, but then go on to explain why: “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” The last I checked “no findings” is indicative of a lack of clear evidence. There may be evidence that can be used to support the idea, but it is not clear and decisive. Biology could be a contributing factor along with socio-cultural factors, or it may not be involved at all. “No findings” are able to decide the matter yet.
The 38%/30% are the largest numbers I have ever heard of, and I don’t even remember the source for that information. Here are the twin studies I am aware of, and the numbers are far below what I reported:
1. The Australian Twin Register study examined 49 sets of identical twins in which at least one twin self-identified as homosexual. Of that number, only six had a twin that was also homosexual (8%). This was reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2000.
2. Admittedly, the above sample is quite small. But a 2002 twin study conducted by Peter S. Bearman (Columbia University) and Hannah Brückner (Yale University) titled, “Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex” (appearing in the American Journal of Sociology) studied 30,000 twins. They found that only 6.7% of identical twins in which at least one twin self-identified as homosexual, were both homosexual. Interestingly enough, the rate for fraternal same-sex twins was higher (7.2%) even though fraternal twins do not share the same DNA. Even more astonishing was their finding that opposite-sex fraternal twins were twice as likely to both be gay as are same-sex twins.
It seems 7-8%, then, is a much more accurate rate of gay twins. With such low rates, clearly DNA cannot be the cause of same-sex attraction (SSA). But let’s say you are right, and other, supposedly more reliable studies show it being over 50%? That still doesn’t show that SSA is biologically determined. At best it could show that it is one factor involved that predisposes people toward a certain behavior, but it cannot determine it. For that we would need 100% concordance rates, but by your own admission we don’t.
tbc…
LikeLike
January 27, 2010 at 3:59 pm
continued…
What do the causes of SSA have to do with the morality of homosexual behavior? Surely all would agree that pedophiles don’t choose to be sexually attracted to children (biology, sociology, or a combination of the two are surely responsible for the origin of such desires), and yet no one thinks that because these desires are not chosen, therefore pedophilia is morally acceptable! You may say, “But that’s because children are involved and they cannot consent.” I agree that there are other considerations, and that the analogy is not exact, but the principle remains the same: just because we understand that there are external factors that cause certain desires, it does not mean those desires are normal or should be acted on. For example, what if we found a biological cause for incest. Would that make it morally acceptable for a father to sleep with his 20 year old, consenting daughter? Most would say no, because we recognize that biology does not inform morality. It may help us understand why some people do some immoral things, but it does not make the immoral thing moral.
Claiming the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality is the same as the difference between red-heads and brunettes is grossly inaccurate. The color of one’s hair is irrelevant to sexual coupling, whereas our biology is. Our sexual organs are made to function with members of the opposite sex, not the same sex. There is a principled, biological reason for viewing homosexuality differently from heterosexuality, but the same cannot be said regarding hair color.
Jason
LikeLike
January 27, 2010 at 4:27 pm
“no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 🙂 Again, “no findings…permit scientists to conclude” does not mean “lack of clear evidence of a minor biological influence” or “lack of clear evidence of a major biological influence”. It simply means that a clear conclusion is directly determinative, not that there is not clear evidence indicating of what factors are obviously at play.
http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html
Note anywhere from 43% concordance to 100% concordance in the three studies cited. Again, all appropriate disclaimers about study size, etc, apply. I’ll take a closer look at the Bearman study, but it certainly seems like an outlier.
“At best it could show that it is one factor involved that predisposes people toward a certain behavior, but it cannot determine it. For that we would need 100% concordance rates, but by your own admission we don’t.”
So what does “determine” mean? I think here we need to accept that “determinism” really is a matter of degree, and can’t be spoken of in absolutes, if for no other reason than Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. So at best, it can show that biology greatly or overwhelmingly predisposes people to a certain behavior. Would it help if we said “it is biology which is the largest factor in predisposition to homosexual behavior?” Would that be a palatable statement for you?
“just because we understand that there are external factors that cause certain desires, it does not mean those desires are normal or should be acted on.”
Certainly, but we could say the same thing about heterosexuality, or typical heterosexual behaviors. Once you start poking around into the activities of consenting adults, you hit a slippery slope. You may feel that having sex without socks on is immoral, even though one is biologically predisposed to such a fetish. Declaring any consensual activity between consenting adults as “immoral” doesn’t seem to have any rational or justification besides the arbitrary whim of the observer.
Insofar as a biological cause for incest, would the same apply to non-biological children (woody allen comes to mind)? Does it require that the person know that it’s incest (in the case of a person who didn’t know they were sleeping with their relative)? For it to be biologically determined, you’d almost have to have some sort of visual cue that someone is directly related to you, and as far as I understand, nobody has ever shown that children, separated from their parents at birth, have any sort of sixth sense for determining who their parent is out of a lineup of randomly selected people.
“Our sexual organs are made to function with members of the opposite sex, not the same sex.”
I know plenty of gay and lesbian folks who will assure you that our sexual organs work just fine with members of the same sex 🙂 But if procreation is your point, why not declare any sex not for procreation immoral? Anyone who has any sort of reproductive disfunction would be immoral to have sex in that case.
There is a principled, biological reason for viewing homosexuality differently than heterosexuality, but it is both arbitrary and irrational, however heartfelt.
That all being said, I will state that the color of one’s hair can be functional regarding sexual coupling, primarily in the regard that procreating with someone too genetically similar to you can lead to all kinds of nasty recessive traits coming out like hemophilia. The best bet for biology is to find your mate in a gene pool as far away from your own as possible to prevent inbreeding, and hair color can be an indication of that.
LikeLike
January 27, 2010 at 4:28 pm
minor edit:
“It simply means that a clear conclusion is directly determinative”
should read:
“It simply means that a clear conclusion isn’t directly determinative”
LikeLike
August 30, 2015 at 10:08 pm
[…] APA softens its tone on a biological cause for same-sex attraction […]
LikeLike