Born Gay Theory

If a young boy has a feminine throw he may be homosexual. Also if he has a soft or high voice this would be another detection that one would be homosexual. There have been many conclusions and statements as to what causes homosexuality. These are the traits that normally are classed with someone who is homosexual. The popular argument in today’s society is that homosexuality is something that is inborn, genetically linked to an enlarged gland in the brain or due to a particular chromosome. This would prove that it is natural, and that it is luck of the draw whether one is homosexual. There have been many studies done to prove this theory, but due to a lack of evidence it has remained just that, a theory. Homosexuality, contrary to popular beliefs, is not inborn and has yet to be proven.
Dr. Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at the Salk institute of Biological Studies in San Diego, conducted a series of autopsies in order to seek out the reason for sexual orientation. In 1991, he conducted autopsies on forty-one people in search of an answer (Winslow 2). Among these cadavers, nineteen were allegedly homosexual men, sixteen allegedly heterosexual and six allegedly heterosexual women. His study was primarily centered towards a group of neurons in the hypothalamus structure. This structure is called the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, or otherwise known as the INAH3 (Dallas 111). His reports showed that he found a portion of the brain that he believed regulated to sexual behavior in men. The gland he discovered was “twice as large in men assumed to be homosexuals as it was in those who were homosexual”(Winslow 2).
In the same year that Dr. LeVay performed his research, there was a pair of researchers out for the same answer to homosexuality, that it is inborn. Dr. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwesten University and psychiatrist Dr. Richard Pillard of Boston University School of Medicine experimented with twins comparing fraternal twins to identical twins. Within each set of twins, one was homosexual. The doctors were out to prove that if one twin was homosexual there was a pretty good chance that the other was too. This would prove homosexuality to be true because if the chemical make-up of one were so similar to the other then they would both be gay (Newman 2)
Pillard and Bailey’s study showed that the identical twins had a much greater chance of both being gay then the fraternal twins did. “They found that, among identical twins, 52 percent were both homosexual, as opposed to the fraternal twins, among whom only 22 percent shared a homosexual orientation”(Dallas 114). Because the study was done with twins, Pillard and Bailey concluded “higher incidence of shared homosexuality among identical twins meant that homosexuality was genetic in origin”(Dallas 114)
In 1993, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer institute and his co-workers performed further studies towards the genetics of homosexuality. They studied thirty-two pairs of non-identical homosexual brothers. No two pairs were related. “… Hamer and his colleagues found that two- thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material.”(Newman1). Researchers in the past have claimed that the “homosexual” gene was past down maternally. Because of this, Hamer looked closely at the region of the X chromosomes in which most of the brothers shared. “Hamer concluded that the region in question, known as the Xq28, might carry a kind of gene associated with homosexuality”(Watson 2).
Although all of the research is reportedly conclusive and is sometimes quoted as factual, they do not prove that homosexuality is genetic. For this reason, all three have flaws and holes in the research. Dr. William Byne of Columbian University calls inborn evidence “‘inconclusive’, and compares it with ‘trying to add a hundred zeros so you can get one.’”(Dallas 117).
Dr. LeVay’s research was not uniformly consistent and allowed his studies to be inconclusive. His research seems to claim that all of the homosexual subjects had smaller INAH3s than the heterosexual subject. In actuality “… three of the homosexual subjects had larger INAH3s that the heterosexuals. Additionally, three of the heterosexual subjects had smaller INAH3s than the average homosexual”(Dallas 112). In response to these reported inconsistencies, Dr. John Ankerberg of the Ankerberg Theological Research