It's just the queerest choice

By Steven Hussey

On viewing the shocking Mail & Guardian report of the unwarranted police brutality and homophobia incident that occurred in Vosloorus recently, I was disappointed by a comment that someone posted, describing homosexuality as “Western” and “un-African”. The comment went on, “it’s absolutely not genetical (sic); there’s absolutely no medical or scientific evidence to prove that gay people are born that way. In other words, it’s just a choice like choosing to be a paedophile, a drug addict, a serial killer, an adulterer, or a thief”. The irrelevance of the comment to the article is obvious: how does the asserted aetiology (that is, the cause) of homosexuality at all relate to the accounts of police grossly undermining constitutional rights? But with so much international discussion on homosexual tendencies as nature or nurture and its relation to morality, I feel compelled to ask: what does it matter? I have come across countless debates with the same simplistic and illogical extremes: if homosexual urges are innate (ie genetic) they must be moral (because the subject acts according to what comes to him/her “naturally”); if a great deal of environmental influences are present, then homosexual urges are a choice, and it is not necessarily moral. What utter rubbish! I argue here that the nature vs nurture argument is absolutely irrelevant to our moral evaluation and acceptance of homosexuality.

Perhaps I should start with the latest figures that science has produced about the genetic component of homosexuality, and here I speak from the viewpoint of a geneticist. The most thorough study I am aware of, which looked at the co-prevalence of homosexuality between 3 826 pairs of twins of the same sex in Sweden, found that about 35% of male homosexuality could be explained genetically [1]. So it turns out that sexual preference is mostly due to random environmental effects (that is, if we can extrapolate the Swedish study to all populations). There is no such thing as one deterministic “gay” gene, and conversely no single gene for “straightness” will ever be found, because the genetic basis of sexual orientation is due to the combinatorial inheritance of many small-effect genes.

Where does that leave us? Does that mean sexual preference is a choice? Not necessarily. Consider for example the phenomenon that the chance of a son being gay increases for each successive son a mother produces [2]. This is possibly due to intra-uterine hormonal or immune effects experienced by the foetus prenatally. It is environmental, not genetic, yet it can play a significant role in sexual preferences in adolescent life. Furthermore, it is now known that homosexuality has an evolutionary advantage for sons with many older brothers, lending a functional role to this phenomenon, and amazingly homosexual men tend to have brain connectivity patterns similar to those of heterosexual women, while those of homosexual women resemble heterosexual men [3]. These trends are not due to learned behaviour or upbringing, nor are they necessarily genetic, but I would still consider them innate.

After that biological discourse, let’s squarely address the misconceptions about nature vs nurture once and for all. If an urge is genetically determined (ie innate), is it always moral to act according to those preferences? No. Consider the possibility that the urge to murder was 100% genetic — in such a case murder would still not be ethical irrespective of the genetic contribution towards the murderer’s inclination. Let’s not go into the almost trivial question about “how genetic” a trait must be before it is considered immutable — is it 51%? 99%? Should courts give a heavier sentence to a murderer with a 51% genetic contribution to murder compared to one with a 99% contribution? Moving on — conversely, if a trait is completely a matter of choice and, were homosexuality completely environmental, would it be, de facto, “unnatural” or “immoral” if it does not conform to societal norms? Moreover, would it be justified to try to “cure” homosexuality if it were environmental? Let me answer that metaphorically. Consider the fact that I happen to like the music of Beethoven above that of Marilyn Manson, and assume it is not at all genetic. You can spend hours deconstructing my musical upbringing and socio-political history, to explain why I happen to find Beethoven beautiful. At no point did I “choose” to like Beethoven — I was always inclined to like Beethoven, for whatever reason, and there is little that could change that. Could you call my preference towards Beethoven “unnatural” if society found his music vile? Now, imagine the frivolous stupidity of a fundamentally Mansonist society that chastised me for my preference towards Beethoven, because I could not prove that my preference was genetic. Imagine the ridiculousness of a right-wing Mansonist movement that used the fact that there is a strong environmental contribution towards Beethovenian preferences as the justification for why it should be “treated”. Finally, imagine the ignominy of a society that encouraged the persecution of Beethovenists and fostered pure apathy for their abuse by Mansonist police officers who couldn’t give a hoot for Beethovenian constitutional rights.

This is the true absurdity of the homophobic among our society and the all-too-popularised nature vs nurture debate. The aetiology of homosexuality has nothing to do with its morality, and yet the acceptance of homosexuality in church circles has become a pointless tug-of-war between genetic and environment contributions (whatever the latter may entail). Sadly, the fact that sexual preference is not 100% genetic has accompanied the baseless opinion of many that see it as a condition that must be cured. Besides, surely a subconscious choice follows from an inherent tendency? To quote Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu on homosexuality: “It is so improbable that any sane, normal person would deliberately choose a lifestyle exposing him or her to so much vilification, opprobrium and physical abuse, even death.” [4]

I don’t know why I like Beethoven. Who cares — I just do! And I will always find his music the most beautiful.

Steven is completing an MSc in biotechnology at the University of Pretoria. He is a 2010 Mandela Rhodes Scholar and an ardent enemy of superstition and indoctrination. He reveres the genetic mechanisms responsible for the perpetuation of life on earth and the use of DNA technologies to overcome food insecurity, genetic disease and industrial pollution.

References

1. Långström, N, Q Rahman, E Carlström and P Lichtenstein (2008). Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden. Arch Sex Behav 39(1): 75-80
2. Blanchard R (1997). Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females. Annu Rev Sex Res 8: 27–67.
3. Savic, I and P Lindström (2008). PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(27): 9403-9408
4. Sermon by Archbishop Desmond Tutu at Southwark Cathedral. Available online at http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12039.htm