Homosexuality Is Wound in an Individuals Genetic - Essay Example

? Homosexuality has been a highly controversial since time immemorial. In essence, quite a lot of data and information has been written pertaining to the subject with each and every person expressing his or her opinion. In this case, there has been a wide variation of the opinions expressed by different individuals. One opinion that captured my attention was in the New York Times newspaper on January 28 2012 by Frank Bruni. In the article titled, “Genetics or Not, Gay Won’t Go Away”, Frank acknowledges that, for decades, homosexuality has been widely ostracized, undergone moments of patchwork acceptance before experiencing a heady triumph in the recent times. He acknowledges that homosexuals have invoked homosexuality as a way of explaining why discrimination is senseless and homophobia unwarranted. The main theme in his article is that homosexuality is wound in an individual’s genetic make up rather than a matter of choice. Frank goes on to quote scholars like Clinton Anderson, who says that the dynamics via which an individual becomes gay are not yet known. He builds a thesis that substantial evidence indicates that there are connections between hormones, sexual identity, brains and genes. In addition, he borrows from the study which shows that 52% of identical twins are gay compared to only 22% of fraternal twins or 11% of adoptive brothers who turned out to be gay. This, he posits, shows that heredity and not the environment, called the shots as far as determining an individual’s sexual orientation. In addition, more research has identified common chromosomal and anatomical traits among homosexuals in which case, homosexuality is a result of a set of genes. In this case, he likens sexual orientation with skin color and therefore, an unchallengeable biological matter. While he may be having quite valid arguments and invoking the opinions of scholars on the issue, I find his opinions quite warped. Homosexuality is not a genetic issue but rather a matter of choice, which is mostly influenced by the environment in which one lives. In making up his thesis, Frank mainly focuses on the high number of identical twin brothers who have turned out to be homosexuals as compared to the fewer number of fraternal twins and adopted brothers who have gay sexual tendencies. While he may take this as an indication that genes play a pivotal role in determining an individual’s sexual orientation, it is ironical that adopted brothers would have gay tendencies having in mind that their genetic make-up is not similar. Is it not more logical to explain this percentage as having been influenced by their socialization (Paul, 1986)? Socialization refers to the process by which animals (or more aptly human beings) learn how to recognize other species, which it cohabits with. In learning the interaction process, the human beings would learn communication techniques and how to communicate but also how to recognize as well as respond to other people’s intentions (Kenneth, 1988). This is exactly the same thing that happens as far as homosexuality is concerned (Jeffrey et al., 2001). As research has shown, the number of people who ascribe to homosexuality has risen in the recent times. Is this truly an indication as to changing genetics or hereditary composition (Paul, 1986)? That is definitely not the case. Many people have come up in support of homosexuality thereby triggering curiosity amongst the young people, who have gone ahead and become inducted into homosexuality. This is definitely not a case where homosexuality genes were present but suppressed. It is a case of straight individuals socialized into a particular habit thanks to their curiosity. In essence, many people will acknowledge that technological advancement has contributed immensely to the rise in homosexuality. While internet has marked a giant technological leap, it has also created avenues where homosexuality can be nurtured. Pornographic sites have cropped up stirring and shaping these feelings, with many young people experimenting on them and eventually getting hooked into homosexuality. If it was actually a matter of biology, does it not beat logic why and how people were more capable of suppressing such a thing in the past (Paul, 1986)? This is a clear indication that most people who have come up as homosexuals or gay have had these feelings shaped or awaken by their socialization and especially by the influence of the media and other contemporary forms of socialization (Erik, 2004). Homosexuality has also been explained as emanating from sexual abuse in the childhood of an individual (Jeffrey et al., 2001). Research has shown that young boys who were sexually abused by adult males may grow to doubt their own sexuality and conclude that they were actually homosexual. In essence, such confusion about one’s sexuality in male children who underwent sexual abuse in their childhood would lead to homosexuality (Jeffrey et al., 2001). In addition, homosexuality has been shown to be more likely to occur in children who had absentee or distant fathers (Erik, 2004). In essence, many kids who did not enjoy the presence of their fathers in their childhood would yearn to be close to their fellow men in order to compensate for the fatherly love that they lacked in their childhood (Kenneth, 1988). Quite a lot of evidence points out that a high percentage of homosexuals or gays had distant, less loving and attentive fathers compared to heterosexuals (Erik, 2004). Conclusion Homosexuality as a subject has been quite controversial since time immemorial. There are divergent views as to what is the root of homosexual tendencies. It has been believed that homosexuality is rooted in individuals’ genetic make-up. However, quite a substantial number of people have come up and stated that they are homosexuals by choice and not by chance. In addition, research shows that many homosexuals developed the tendencies from their childhood either due to socialization or as an effort to compensate for the affection of distant fathers (Jeffrey et al, 2001). Alternatively, they could be influenced by abuse in their childhood to believe that they are homosexuals. Either way, the insinuation by Frank Bruni that, homosexuality is a wound in an individual’s genetic make-up is not only warped but also ignorant of the fact that there is no conclusive and comprehensive explanation as to what causes homosexuality. References Bruni, F. (2012). Genetic or Not, Gay Won’t Go Away. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/bruni-gay-wont-go-away-genetic-or-not.html?ref=opinion Holland, E. (2004). The Nature of Homosexuality: Vindication for Homosexual Activists and the Religious Right. New York: Universe. Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., & Donovan, C. (2001). Same sex intimacies: families of choice and other life experiments. New York: Routledge. Rosenfels, P. (1986). Homosexuality: the psychology of the creative process. New York: Ninth Street Center. Lewes, K. (1988). The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality. New York: Simon and Schuster. Lewontin, R. C., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. (1984). Not in Our Genes New York: Pantheon Witt, K. (1992). Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology. The New York Times, September 14, 1992, p. A17 Read More