<Course>
Many experts have long debated about the basis of homosexuality, and it seems that much have been said about it. In particular, two authors have expressed conflicting ideas about this topic. Reviewing both of their arguments is imperative in order to come up with a more thorough understanding of this debate.
In his work entitled “The Neurodevelopment of Human Sexual Orientation,” Qazi Rahman, a Psychobiology professor, focuses his study on the biological basis of homosexuality. Specifically, he presents pieces of evidence to support his claim that being a homosexual is not a matter of choice. For instance, Rahman starts by studying the genetic factor behind sexual preference. He does this by analyzing the results of family and twin studies. According to Rahman, these studies “provide clear evidence for a genetic component to both male and female sexual orientation” (as cited in Author 16). This means that there is an increased rate of homosexuality among the families of homosexual individuals. Moreover, Rahman suggests that maternal genetic transmission is another factor for homosexuality (Author 16). This means that a mother who has homosexual relatives can transmit the same genetic tendency to her male children. These same findings have not been found among fathers. An additional support that Rahman presents is the fraternal birth order effect. This concept refers to the idea that male homosexuals “have a greater number number of older brothers” when compared to other makes who are said to be straight or heterosexuals” (Author 16). These are the major pieces of evidence that Rahman presents in his study to show the strength of his claim that biology is the basis of homosexuality.
On the other hand, there are those who believe that homosexuality does not have a biological basis. These include Stanton Jones and Alex Kwee. These researchers believe that the presented pieces of evidence regarding the biological basis of homosexuality are not strong enough. There are reasons why Jones and Kwee are not convinced this argument. One of these reasons is the weakness of the methodology used in the studies relating to the twin and family studies. The samples in these studies are said to be biased (Author 21). In order to prove this, Jones and Kwee cited the findings of Bailey. Using unbiased samples of twins, Bailey found out that genes have no significant effect on homosexuality (Author 21). In fact, another study that was conducted by Kendler et al. focused on behavioral genetics, and this supported Bailey’s findings, too (Author 21). Furthermore, it is not definite whether the difference in the brain structure of homosexuals and heterosexuals is an effect or the cause of homosexuality. For instance, Mustanski et al. talked about a “full genome scan of sexual orientation in men” (as cited in Author 22). However, Jones and Kwee argue that the population used in these scans were also biased because it was possible that those who participated through advertisements were most likely carrying genetic factors relating to homosexuality (Author 21). Moreover, even the fraternal birth order effect being regarded as a proof of biological basis of homosexuality has been regarded as flawed. One of the major studies that supported the concept of fraternal birth order effect used samples from gay communities (LGBT and Toronto Gay Pride Parade), but this population was prone to biases (Author 27). This was because gay men who were born after several older brothers were overrepresented due to the fact that they were probably more out or proud of their sexual preference; thus, they were an active part of the gay community (Author 27). These are some of the reasons why Jones and Kwee do not take the side of those who support the biological basis of homosexuality.
Between the arguments of Rahman and Jones and Kwee, my own personal belief regarding the basis of homosexuality does not have anything to do with biological make-up. Because I see the human existence from creationist perspective, I believe that the divine creator only made a male and a female. In other words, the human biological make-up can only be distinguished as either a man or a woman. However, this does not mean that when a male is sexually attracted to another male, his feelings is invalid. It can be a true and valid feelings, but I do not believe that such tendencies are genetically hard-wired. Instead, a sexual preference other than one’s gender is a matter of choice. Like any other decision that people make, such as what food to eat or what clothes to wear, homosexuality is also highly influenced by social factors. It is a learned preference. For instance, during childhood, many individuals are not yet equipped to handle sexuality. Naturally, boys will tend to like girls and vice versa. However, some boys may seem to develop a sense of deep attraction to other boys or they may seem to be curious about the way girls live their lives. This can happen. Now, when this boy receives the guidance to properly equip him to handle sexuality, that is being a male, he will most likely not learn to be homosexual. However, when he learned that such way is acceptable and even celebrated, learning homosexuality can be considered as a valid option. In addition, when a male or a female has been consistently exposed to the norms of homosexuality, learning process can also occur. This does not mean that being around homosexuals can make one a homosexual, too. It only exposes a person to learn a sexual preference that he/she may or may not apply. A person will remain either a male or a female, biologically, unless otherwise altered through science, but their sexual orientation may vary depending on the reality that they learned to believe.
