It is an age-old question in the behavioral sciences. Do human beings act the way they do because they are born with certain characteristics, or do we behave a certain way because we learn behavior from our environment? This issue often becomes critical when Christianity and homosexuality are addressed together. "How could a loving God make someone a homosexual and yet condemn him for fulfilling his inherent nature?" I'm not convinced that this issue is as critical to understanding between Christians and the homosexual community as is often thought. However, looking at the issue can be a valuable resource for communication and understanding.
The traditional view of human behavior is that we are pre-programmed by our genetic make-up. This view sees life as a kind of unfolding drama, where each period of a person's life is predetermined, but it unfolds over time and with interaction from culture. This view would see one's behavior later in life as present in one's genetic material from conception.
Another view maintains that humanity is born with a clean slate. There are no pre-programmed requirements to be fulfilled. Instead, human beings behave the way they do because they learn to behave in a certain way. One's environment influences, trains, and teaches a person to behave the way they do. The biblical emphasis on training a child and passing down traditions and truths from one generation to the next appears to support this view of human development. According to Professor Benjamin Lahey:
Language plays a good example of the interplay between nature and nurture in our lives. There can be no question that experience is important in language development. Children will only learn to use language if they are exposed to language, and will learn to speak whatever language to which they are exposed. ...But neither goldfish nor marmosets will learn to speak a human language when given the same amount of experience required by a human child to learn language. One must have a human brain to learn human language.
It appears that the best answer to the nature vs. nurture debate is that both work together to make us who we are. However, the debate continues regarding many aspects of human behavior, including homosexuality. Those who raise the issue of whether a person can be born homosexual, with a predisposition toward either side of the argument, usually do so for biased reasons. Sometimes researchers are willing to admit their lack of complete objectivity. Others, particularly some who are entrenched in religion, refuse to admit that they are biased against such research, regardless of the outcome.
Homosexuality as a Trait from Birth
Many people have come to believe that there must be a genetic explanation for homosexual behavior. Several studies have been done concerning groups of twins, the best being those with identical twins who were raised in different environments by different parents, to determine whether there is a gene that causes one to be homosexual. One study found that 52 percent of the identical twins of those who practice homosexual acts were found to practice homosexual acts as well. This would appear to indicate that there could be a genetic cause for homosexuality. One conclusion indicated that since a person with the closest possible genetic make-up to a homosexual man is more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual, the cause must be found in the genes.
Another interesting recent study is that of Simon Levay, a neuroscientist with the Salk Institute of La Jolla, California. He studied 41 male cadavers, with 19 of them believed to have been homosexual. He found the hypothalamus area of the brain to be smaller in the cadavers believed to be homosexual than in the ones believed to have been heterosexual. The conclusion being that it is possible that different formations of the brain, more specifically a smaller hypothalamus that is believed to govern sexuality, cause a person to be homosexual.
For the most part, these studies are not conclusive. The issue of brain size is extremely difficult. It would be nearly impossible to know the sexual activity of a person after they are dead. Therefore, Levay's study of cadavers has some problems. Also, even if his theory holds true, How do we determine whether one's sexual practices were not the cause of the difference in brain size? It is just as plausible that the men were born with a normal size hypothalamus, but years of homosexual practices brought about the shrinking noticed by Levay. All of this assumes that there is agreement on what a normal size hypothalamus is, which there is not.
Studies of twins have been completed numerous times and have often shown that identical twins share many traits in common, even when raised in different environments. This indicates that genetics certainly play a role in whether one tends to be homosexual or heterosexual. Limitations arise from the genetic arguments put forth by twin studies. Not enough has been done to control for the environment in which the twins were raised. This fact would certainly have an impact on whether one was born to practice homosexuality. Since the possibility of environment playing a role exists, the studies must be able to either dismiss or support environment as an issue. However, this is a difficult feat to accomplish.
It is very difficult to prove a genetic cause of sexual orientation. This is not to suggest that heredity has nothing to do with sexual orientation, only that it seems not to be sufficient to account for it. In fact, there may be a basic theoretical difficulty in all genetic research. Since the only acceptable evidence for a genetic basis to homosexuality would have to come from studies of relatives, to argue for transmission within families it makes sense to study family members (especially twins); but families share not only genes but also a wide range of environmental factors: parental attitudes, religion, friends, school environments, and so forth. To demonstrate the connection one would have to separate the genetic components of behavior from the non-genetic, and this is almost impossible to do. (Blumenfeld and Raymond 1988, 123)
It is unlikely that a specific gene alone causes homosexuality. Some would claim that it is impossible because homosexual men cannot reproduce among themselves. However, it is not uncommon that many homosexual men father children for various reasons. Some have sex with women in order to attempt to overcome their homosexuality and therefore produce offspring. Others simply want to be fathers and bear children because of the innate desire to reproduce. Homosexual men who do not bear children are sometimes disappointed that they have no biological offspring. Nothing would prohibit a homosexual couple from being excellent parents whether the child is biological or adoptive.
Hormonal Imbalances
Another issue relative to a physiological cause for homosexual behavior is hormones. The endocrine glands, the Pituitary, Thyroid, Adrenal, Pancreas, and Ovaries for the female and Testes for the male, excrete hormones that are carried throughout the body in blood and other fluids. These hormones control and stimulate the various functions of the body. Some have speculated that a difference in hormones could be the cause for one's erotic attraction to the same gender.
Although estrogen is usually associated with the female, and testosterone with the male, both hormones are present in the human body regardless of sex. One key difference is that testosterone is produced in a woman's adrenal gland, where a man's testes produce nearly ten times the amount of testosterone as his adrenal gland. These hormones increase during adolescence and cause the body to begin to develop mature sexual organs and characteristics. They also exert some measure of control over one's sexual desire and pleasure. Some have used hormonal therapy as a way of dealing with sexual dysfunction.
In order for the endocrine system to have an affect on homosexuality, it would be logical that homosexually active men would either have less testosterone, or more estrogen, than heterosexually active men. Although studies have been conducted with varying results, there is little evidence to completely support this hypothesis. One difficulty is that hormone levels were often measured from urine, which is an unclear means of studying hormone levels. More recent studies, using blood-testing techniques, can more accurately measure hormones. However, the work still comes up inconclusive with apparent opposite conclusions by different researchers.
Naturally, any evidence needs to be carefully examined according to the results and the reliability of the test base. For instance, a test base of those who smoke marijuana would show a decline in testosterone since marijuana use reduces testosterone levels. One group of fairly conclusive studies found an unexpected result. “Several studies (including Glass and Johnston) grounded on the hypothesis that gay males suffered from a deficiency in testosterone, injected study groups of men with large amounts of that and other masculinizing hormones. The result in all cases was not, as expected, a change in sexual orientation or any effect in the quality of sexual response, but an increase in sexual drive. Similarly, estrogen was found to decrease male libido, but not sexual orientation.” (Blumenfeld and Raymond 1988, 129)
Although further research is certainly warranted, there is no evidence to claim that hormones cause homosexual desire or behavior. Instead, these hormones, in the adult, appear to simply impact the intensity of sexuality rather than orientation. There is some evidence, and some researchers have suggested, that a hormonal imbalance during development in the fetes, or puberty, may have some impact. However, this research has not been able to be repeated and is therefore quite questionable. All in all, there is little evidence to show a hormonal causal relationship with homosexuality.
Physical Characteristics
It has been suggested that one's tendency to develop homosexual desires be caused, at least in part, by one's physical characteristics. Those who hold this view would say that men who have a more feminine appearance are more likely to be homosexual. Often such things as body size, muscular development, strength, wrist size, and size of the genitalia, are connected with homosexuality. The man who appears more like a woman would then be more inclined to play the role of a woman, according to this idea. Often this idea is applied to the size of a man’s penis.
In spite of what may be claimed on the street, there is no evidence to even remotely make this connection. Although some theorists believe that early body type can influence one's development of self-identity; this would be more an environmental cause than a physical cause. This is simply not a serious issue. Homosexual men come from many different body types and strengths. They are certainly not all effeminate. Those who hold to this prejudice are imposing an unrealistic attitude on others, and often result in cruelty and mistreatment. Contrary to popular myth, Alan Bell found, "Only twelve percent of our white male sample expressed a preference in a large penis in a sexual partner." (Bell 1976, 137)
The case for a biological cause for homosexuality limited. The issues and research simply do not support this claim at this point in human understanding. Obviously, the complexities of being human are not as easily discovered, as we would like to think.
Homosexuality as Learned Behavior
Studies and psychological theories abound regarding the possible environmental causes to homosexuality. Sigmund Freud believed that homosexual men might be fixated with their mothers. He felt that the choice of having sex with other men gave these men the ability to have sexual relations, yet remain true to their mothers, whom Freud believed to the first love object of a boy. He further thought that homosexuality could be caused by an extreme fixation on the penis. In this scenario, those without a penis are viewed as without sex. Therefore, the homosexual man cannot imagine having sex with someone without a penis.
It must be understood that not everyone, and certainly not all modern psychoanalysts hold to Freud's view of the sex drive being primary. Others have developed their own theories regarding the development of sexual preference according to environmental causes. After Freud, many of his followers developed theories related to family life, initial sexual experiences, exposure to the same sex predominantly, and further studies of a fixation on the penis as causes for homosexuality. “Irving Bieber, for example, terms homosexuality a, "hidden but incapacitating fear of the opposite sex," a way to get love and acceptance from men that homosexuals could not get from their fathers. He based this conclusion on the results of a questionnaire he distributed to homosexuals and heterosexuals undergoing psychoanalysis.” (Blumenfeld and Raymond 1988, 137)
Sigmund Freud determined that homosexual conduct was certainly not "normal" in the sense that the vast majority of society did not practice homosexuality. He attempted to make this determination based on language and arguments that were amoral. However, the realm of behavioral sciences held that homosexuality was a mental disorder.
This view remained intact until 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality in itself as a disorder. The two criteria established by the groups for determining whether a condition is a disorder were, if the condition causes severe subjective distress, or, an inability to function in the society as a whole. The causes of distress for those who practice homosexual acts were determined from this point to be because of the expectations of family and society, not the homosexual acts themselves.
Various other studies have had mixed conclusions and certainly the data can be challenged regardless of the position taken. Excessive masturbation, an accidental homosexual encounter as a child, a missing or uncaring father, an unhappy or unfulfilling first heterosexual experience, dominant mothers, and poor role models all have been presented at one time or another as causes of homosexuality.
Gerard van den Aardweg is a Dutch Psychologist with many years of experience within the homosexual community. He currently practices in the Netherlands and specializes in the treatment of homosexuality. He concludes that homosexuality is a form of neurosis that stems from an inferiority and complaining child complex. His theory is that, in at least this pertinent area of life, a complaining child lives within the adult to the extent that a homophile neurosis develops.
Thus we have three notions that for the most part overlap: inferiority complex, child-in-the-adult, and self-pity habit (also called "complaining sickness"). These are adequate descriptions of what is going on the mind of neurotic people in general, that is, people with a variety of psychic hang ups, obsessive emotions, inadequate feelings of insecurity, and inner conflicts. ...Kinds of inferiority complexes and variants of the "inner complaining child" are legion. The homosexual inferiority complex is one of them. Hence, apart from the specific symptom of homosexual desire, homophilia is not an isolated phenomenon, but one of an endless series of neurotic problems. (Aardweg 1985, 51-52)
Dr. van den Aardweg goes so far as to report successful therapies to deal with what he calls "homophile neurosis" and outline the steps of therapy required to address the issue. Included in his therapy program is the issue of religious conversion, although his is not a distinctly Christian practice.
Guilt and Fault
Perhaps one of the greatest reasons for the debate over whether homosexuals are born or made regards the issue of guilt. Some would insist that homosexuals are born homosexual in order to promote the lifestyle as normal and acceptable. In other words, guilt is removed because the practice can be reduced to the same kind of issue as the color of one's hair or whether one is left-handed or right-handed. However, it has never been conclusively shown that homosexual behavior is a trait certain people are born with.
Others would like to insist that people who practice homosexual sex do so out of a sense of rebellion and desire to be different. They might conclude that, yes, homosexuals choose to be sinful and are therefore worthy of the utmost punishment due to their sins. If it can be shown that homosexual behavior is a simple choice, then the heterosexual majority believes it can easily condemn the homosexual minority.
However, it can also not be concluded that homosexual tendencies are completely at the choice of the individual. As a matter of fact, studies indicate that those who practice homosexuality believe that they have no choice but to do so. Most even profess to have tried to be heterosexual, but simply could not enjoy sex with women to the same extent that they were fulfilled in their relations with men.
The issue of fault and guilt is extremely difficult, except when we remember that guilt is a human phenomenon not a homosexual phenomenon. Whether someone is born with homosexual traits or they learn them is irrelevant. From the biblical perspective everyone is born with the guilt of sin. The entire human race is guilty. Homosexuals are certainly guilty of sin as a part of the overall sinfulness of mankind, if for no other reason.
One's tendencies to enjoy or lean toward certain acts are influenced by our genes. The possibility of sexual attraction to the same sex is inherited from the generations of people that preceded us. However, one must consider whether being predisposed to a particular act justifies the behavior.
The best answer is that probably both nature and nurture are true. The reasons for sexual conduct are often as varied as the people who are participating in the conduct.
..homosexuality involves a large number of experiences--developmental, sexual, social, and psychological--and that even after a person has been labeled "homosexual" on the basis of his or her preferred sexual object of choice, there is little that can be predicted about the person on the basis of that label. One's experience of homosexuality differs according to one's age, social status, sex, race, and geographical residence.
Some may have simple desires, others may have more complex reasons for sexuality than can be determined by social scientists. God has designed humanity with the capacity for great variety and uniqueness. It is in this very diversity that God’s nature and creativity are displayed. No group, regardless of their sexual attractions are any more or less a part of that diversity.