Science and Sexuality

[Haven]

Recently there's been a blizzard of homosexuality threads on this forum, each asking a slightly different question about the relation of sexual orientation to genetics and other biological factors.

As someone who researches this on an academic level, I can tell you that professional scientists are just as divided as many posters on this forum about the ultimate "cause" of sexual orientation (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and so on).

First, it's important to note that many researchers feel that investigating the cause of sexual orientation is inherently unethical, because it takes religious right arguments seriously and contributes to the marginalization of people with minority sexualities. If a non-genetic cause were found to be primary, religious right groups could use that as a tool to oppress lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people. I happen to agree with these researchers; while it's interesting to know what makes someone gay, straight, or bi, the ultimate cause of one's orientation should be socially irrelevant: a person should be treated with dignity and respect no matter what causes their sexuality.

With that said, there are some consensus views in the recent scientific literature (since 2010) about the causes of sexual orientation:

1. Sexual orientation (whether homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual) is not a choice (Wang et al. 2012).

2. Homosexuality and bisexuality are not caused by childhood sexual or physical abuse, although there may be a higher incidence of childhood abuse among LGB people (Roberts, Glyman, & Koenen 2013; Bailey, Ellingson, and Bailey 2014; Zietsch et al. 2011).

3. There are likely some genetic and some prenatal hormonal factors in determining sexual orientation. (Jordan-Young 2012; Wang et al. 2015; Sanders et al. 2015)


Debate questions: Is this representation of the current state of the scientific literature accurate? Is there a "smoking gun" showing that sexual orientation is wholly biological (or non-biological)? Is there any evidence that sexual orientation is a choice? Is it ethical to look into the causes of sexual orientation?


References:

Bailey, Drew H., Jarrod M. Ellingson, and J. Michael Bailey. "Genetic confounds in the study of sexual orientation: Comment on Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen (2014)." Archives of sexual behavior 43, no. 8 (2014): 1675-1677.

Jordan-Young, Rebecca M. "Hormones, context, and brain gender: a review of evidence from congenital adrenal hyperplasia." Social Science & Medicine 74, no. 11 (2012): 1738-1744.

Roberts, Andrea L., M. Maria Glymour, and Karestan C. Koenen. "Does maltreatment in childhood affect sexual orientation in adulthood?." Archives of sexual behavior 42, no. 2 (2013): 161-171.

Sanders, A. R., E. R. Martin, G. W. Beecham, S. Guo, K. Dawood, G. Rieger, J. A. Badner et al. "Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation." Psychological medicine 45, no. 07 (2015): 1379-1388.

Wang, Binbin, Sirui Zhou, Fuchang Hong, Jing Wang, Xiaoli Liu, Yumao Cai, Feng Wang, Tiejian Feng, and Xu Ma. "Association analysis between the tag SNP for sonic hedgehog rs9333613 polymorphism and male sexual orientation." Journal of andrology 33, no. 5 (2012): 951-954.

Zietsch, Brendan P., Karin JH Verweij, Andrew C. Heath, Pamela AF Madden, Nicholas G. Martin, Elliot C. Nelson, and Michael T. Lynskey. "Do shared etiological factors contribute to the relationship between sexual orientation and depression?." Psychological medicine 42, no. 03 (2012): 521-532.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]

I feel it is unethical to let the religious right steer avenues of scientific exploration. Groups that do this are ceding the conversation away from scientific exploration and giving it to other groups to take the lead. As has been demonstrated on this site earlier people with a non scientific agenda will exploit a lack of consensus anyways.

The only way to end religious persecution of groups is to shine that light of scientific inquiry upon it and reveal the truth for what it is.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]

Is this representation of the current state of the scientific literature accurate?

Sounds about right, though I haven't been following it that much so I'd say....probably(?)

Is there a "smoking gun" showing that sexual orientation is wholly biological (or non-biological)?

Not that I've seen so see above response

Is there any evidence that sexual orientation is a choice?

Totally a choice? No. But there are some people in some situations where that could be the case to varying degrees

Is it ethical to look into the causes of sexual orientation?

Depends on who is asked I'd guess. Many religious people like to get involved with the lives of people they don't know and control them so to them it's likely very ethical. That is, until their sexuality is looked into. Then it's many times a totally different response lol
Unless it's totally for curiosity, why would anyone care what causes someone else's sexuality? Boredom? Control?

[Talishi]

First, it's important to note that many researchers feel that investigating the cause of sexual orientation is inherently unethical, because it takes religious right arguments seriously and contributes to the marginalization of people with minority sexualities.

1. If you do not take arguments seriously because they originate from the "religious right" then you are not doing science, but comparative theology.

2. If you cannot even determine whether genetics contributes to homosexuality, how can you state that simply investigating that contributes to the marginalization of people?