Andrew’s Debate

Homosexuality – Nature or Nurture?

——————————————————————————————————————

The Great Debate of Homosexuality – Nature vs. Nurture

 

Good morning fellow debaters, members of the audience and adjudicators. As you already know, today’s topic is nature verses nurture in the great debate of homosexuality. I am here to eliminate some of the false propositions asserted by the opposing side. Before I begin however, I have a few explanations for you to ponder.

 

We all know that we cannot justify our behavior by an appeal to our nature. It’s completely irrational to blame ones genes on the epidemic of domestic violence, gang bloodshed and interracial strife. Whatever the causes, we cannot excuse violence on the part of a person who claims, “This is just the way I am.” Yet, isn’t this the characteristics of the ‘gay gene’. A reason to decide ones own sexuality because of a flaw within the genetic make up of a few. Or, could it be the notion of homosexuality as a disease. A plague, left uncontrolled and free to populate? Today, ladies and gentlemen, I will show you the key flaws in nature fundaments and explain why sexuality is a direct result of nurture through adolescents.

 

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 of the 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 those different formations of the brain, more specifically a smaller hypothalamus is believed to govern sexuality, cause a person to be homosexual.

 

For the most part, these studies are not conclusive, in fact, they are all scientifically flawed. 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. The again, all of this is entirely unscientific. Levay concluded that there were shrinkages in comparison to a normal hypothalamus. You may be also wondering, how he concluded that there is a difference in the size when nearly all humans are different heights, weights and sizes. The answer, the scientific conclusion is flawed.

 

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)

 

Homosexuality cannot be formed through reproduction amongst one another either. This is however, no cause for homosexuals not raising children. In fact, its common for men to raise children and require the innate companionship only the feeling of offspring can fill. Another questionable characteristic of homosexuals is what would fill this void without the need of children?

 

Hormones may also play a vital role in explaining homosexuality. 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. (wiki 2007) 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. The only problem with this theory is that studies conducted by Glass and Johnston concluded that yes, there were differences in hormonal changes within homosexuals, but these men suffering a deficiency didn’t change sexual orientation or any effect in the quality of sexual response, but an increase in sexual drive. 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 (Blumenfeld and Raymond 1988, 129).

 

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. (Sigmund F, 1967)

 

It must however, be noted that modern day psychologists still stage there ideologies on Freud but often take a different approach. For example, “Irving Bieber, terms homosexuality as, “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.

 

Gerard van den Aardweg, a Dutch psychologist heavily adapted in homosexual communities has come to the conclusion there are only three notions for the most part of homosexuality, inferiority complex, child-in-the-adult, and self-pity habit. All with a variety of psychic hang ups, obsessive emotions, inadequate feelings of insecurity, and inner conflicts which are all attributed to nurturing flaws through out there lives (Aardweg 1985, 51-52).

 

The most common nurture theories of homosexual causation focus on deep disturbances in the parent-child relationship during the first few years of life. In the classical psychoanalytic explanation, every child moves toward the parent of the opposite sex, and the inevitable frustration of that desire leads the child to resolve the conflict by turning to the same-sex parent known formerly as the oedipal complex. What is considered now, is that there could be a formidable occurrence which affects a child negatively to detest a parent. For example, a loss of a parent through death or divorce may disturb the parent-child relationship (M. T. Saghir).

 

The upshot is that in the case of both male and female homosexuals, the problem of nurture may involve a difficulty in reconciliation with maleness. Certainly this is the dominant explanation for developmental theorists in the case of homosexual men, whose desire as an adult is not to be a woman but to identify with a man. Sexual desire is an understandable outgrowth of this intense need, but sexual satisfaction does not meet the underlying need. For many homosexual men the cycle of need, temporary fix through sexual gratification, and deeper frustration sets the psychological stage for obsessive and compulsive sexual behaviour, most often in the form of promiscuity (Aardweg 1985, 51-52).

 

As you can now see, sexuality is determined due to nurture, not nature. As Sigmund Freud was quoted “It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too” From this, I leave you. Thank you very much for listening.