Homosexuality - Nature versus Nurture - Literature review Example

Homosexuality: Nature Versus Nurture Introduction The controversy over the appropriateness of homosexuality within society rages on as the scientific and religious communities battle over the origins of homosexual behavior. Wrapped up in the controversy are issues of gender, choice versus biological nature, and the issues of acceptance by society. There are many ways in which science has shown that the origin of gender is in the biology of a person. However, whether or not the biology of sexual orientation has influence of the choice of sexual orientation is still an issue. The various religious communities have taken a position that homosexuality is a choice that is made contrary to God’s wishes. The question remains whether or not homosexuality is a natural choice based on biological urges or if it is the result of choices that are made based on influential environments. In understanding homosexuality, it is first important to understand the terms associated and the varying opinions of experts and “experts”, the former being scientifically educated and philosophically sophisticated, and the later being those who feel the need to speak publicly as authorities, but who have no real empirical evidence to support their findings. Generally speaking, when discussing individuals who term themselves as attracted to those of the same sex, the term gay refers to men who are attracted to men and lesbian refers to women who are attracted to women. However, while the term gay is often used by both sexes, lesbian is considered a strictly female term. There are several premises that have been presented on the state of homosexuality, from a historical perspective, homosexuality was not widely accepted. It has been thought that it was a perversion that was considered a mental disease (Bergman 39), to the thought that it is a sin to be cured through faith and prayer (Cobbs and Carlin 125). However, there is a scientific direction of study that looks for the influence of hormones on gender and sexual orientation that allows for this state to be a natural orientation in desire (Sex). This controversy continues to be unanswered as the nature versus nurture debate has not been fully answered. Gender Issues The issue of gender has been successfully determined as a biological state. According to a team lead by Dr. Roger Gorski at the University of California, Los Angeles a portion of the brain in rats was discovered to be affected by the hormonal environment in such a way that it appeared different between male rats and female rats. Furthermore, the area would change when opposite gender hormones were introduced (Sex). This aspect of the biological design of the brain strongly suggests that gender is created through biological initiatives that develop to designate one individual female and another male. Further proof of this biological decision made through the design of the body is shown in the case of Brenda Reimer. In August of 1965, the Reimer’s had two beautifully healthy baby twin boys that were left in the hands of a surgeon who was intended to give them medically safe and common circumcisions. However, the surgeon used a controversial technique that led to one of the boys having his penis completely destroyed in the process. Because reconstruction was not yet medically developed, he could grow up as a boy without a viable penis, or have re-assignment surgery and become a female (Sex). John Money, a psychologist whose interest was in the nature of gender, was viewed on a talk show saying that the gender of a child was subject to nurture and could be changed with appropriate surgical and hormonal intervention. After much heartache, the Reimer’s decided to choose this path for their child, believing that the procedure of changing the gender of a child had been done previously and not understanding the experimental nature of what was proposed. The child was renamed Brenda and every attempt was made to encourage female behaviors in her development. Brenda’s case managed to prove the opposite of what Money proposed. Despite efforts to push her toward feminine aspects of life, her true nature drew her toward male behaviors. As an adult, Brenda has chosen to live as a man, have reconstructive surgery and has a wife and children (for whom he acts as the father, but for medical reasons to whom was not capable of genetically contributing) (Sex). The Religious Point of View In establishing the biological influences over gender, the problem becomes deciding what this actually proves in regard to homosexuality. The biological influence on gender suggests that behavior is influenced by more than experience. However, it may also suggest that a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl, and God biologically designed them to behave appropriately as heterosexual beings. Capps and Carlin review an article by Pattison and Pattison (1980) that suggests that sublimation of homosexuality can be accomplished by religious faith and influence. The original paper suggests that 11 men were fundamentally changed in reference to their sexual orientation through religious influences and experiences (125). There is debate even among theologians as to the nature of homosexuality. Pattison and Pattison, theological psychologists who write on the topic of homosexuality, according to Donald Capps of the Princeton Theological Seminary and Nathan Carlin of the Department of Religious Studies at Rice University, claim that homosexuality is a result of psychological immaturity (125). Capps and Carlin take exception to the premise, citing that the design of the original research study that explored the conversion of gay men to straight men through prayer and faith intervention is flawed. Still, the concept is not an uncommon opinion and there is a prevailing belief that homosexuality is based on choices made in reference to nurture, rather than biological imperatives that promote same sex attraction. The Pope in 2008 made statements that suggest that homosexuality must be denied and that the Church “demands that the order of creation be respected” and that the Church is mandated to “protect the human beings against self-destruction“ (Messia). These comments, although without the specific mention of homosexuality, were seen by gay rights advocates as an admonishment against same-sex attraction. Another attitude toward homosexuality that can be found in historical philosophy and some contemporary legal systems is that homosexuality is a state of deviance that is either a mental illness or criminal behavior. According to psychologist Martin S. Bergman, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its list of diagnostic and statistical manual through pressure from the Gay Liberation Movement (39). Previous to this time, the adaption of homosexuality was considered a state of mental illness and deviant behaviors that would be subject to the same treatment that is still supported by many religious organizations (Cobbs and Carlin 127). According to social psychologist Anissa Helie, there are at least 83 countries in which homosexual behavior is illegal, 26 of which are Muslim, and within those 26 countries, seven consider it an offense that warrants the death penalty (120). Yet, same-sex sexual behavior and desire still continues in these countries despite mortal threats, suggesting that there is more to the homosexual orientation than the concept of choice allows. This fear of homosexual behaviors to the point of condemning them to a death penalty sentence can be considered homophobic. American clinical psychologist and gay activist George Weinberg first coined the term ‘homophobia’ in 1967 and began using it in the 1970‘s in writing and speaking events. He conceives of homophobia as an “irrational revulsion“. More specifically, he defines it as an irrational condemnation of homosexuals which can result in violence, deprivation, and separation (Wickberg 46). The term describes the way in which an opinion become irrational thought as it provokes terrible consequences of discrimination and violence. According to psychologist Daniel Wickberg, homophobia “is both a disease and an attitude, a mental illness and a particular stance toward the world, a pathology and an unquestioned cognitive and emotional feature of the personality” (46). Normal, Abnormal, and the Power of Acceptance Psychologists Stephen Sherblom and Michael Bahr argue that it is a natural state for some to have sexual feelings toward members of the same sex. However, the issue becomes in defining what is ’normal’ and whether natural and normal are the same thing (81). In an attempt to help schools deal with students who are dealing with homosexual orientations in sexual development, the concept of how to approach the issue - as a normal state of being or as an abnormal state that requires special handling - creates a quandary for administrations. If in this case, the premise that homosexual behavior is driven by biological imperatives is accepted, how then is the school to approach awakening desires in students who are confused because they do not have the same kind of desires as their fellow students? (Sherblom and Bahr 82). The decision on how to consider homosexuality as a state of being outside of the norm broke down into considering if it was a state of being good, as in having a high I.Q., if it was neutral, as in being left handed, or if it was bad, as in being overly aggressive (Sherblom and Bahr 82). The difficulty comes when schools must be responsible for establishing a safe environment where harassment and hostility must be avoided. Sherblom and Bahr suggest that the least harmful way to approach the topic is to promote acceptance, starting with self-acceptance for those who are experiencing homosexual desire. In creating an atmosphere of acceptance, a less hostile environment is encouraged (84). According to Sherblom and Bahr, non-heterosexual youths are more likely to end up exhibiting self-destructive behaviors that put their lives at risk than heterosexual youths (84). They suggest that this is a result of a sense of being different, leading to a general sense that they either don’t belong or are not accepted. Therefore, creating an agreed upon understanding of normal can allow for these students to become less self hateful and cope with the feelings that are not similar to their peers. If normality is understood as what is most common, then homosexuality with the schools would not be what is most common among the students. However, if normality is considered through a recognition that it is normal to have differences in sexual orientation, then a sense of acceptance can emerge that protects those students who find themselves attracted to the same sex (Sherblom and Bahr 86) The Biology of Homosexuality Current perspectives on the development of sexual orientation in regard to biology have explored a variety of possible links. Italien psychologists Andrea Camperio-Ciani, Francesca Corna, and Claudio Capiluppi, have found a pattern in genetic ancestry that shows that male homosexuality may stem from a maternal family heritage that is pre-disposed to a greater number of women in the family than men. As well, the more male children there are in a family, the more likely that one of the younger brothers will be predisposed to homosexuality (2219). While the likelihood of homosexual tendancy is not guaranteed, these patterns show that there are possibilities of genetic influences to the development of same-sex sexual orientation. A problem develops, however, when discussing homosexuality as absolutely not being part of a choice, but rather a definitive component of genetic influence. Sociologist Dawne Moon discusses this in her discourse that was the result of a discussion between a Protestant church group who believed that homosexuality was a choice and a group who represented the Gay Liberation Movement who took the side that biology was the source of homosexual desires. In the process to prove that homosexuality is a natural set of desires, the concept of choice was then taken away from individuals (577). The group in favor of establishing same sex desire as a natural set of urges, denied the rights of those who had desires toward both sexes and did not affiliate themselves as either homosexual or heterosexual, thus invalidating the concept of bisexuality. Essentially, in a search to promote the natural state of homosexuality, the natures of those who had not committed to either set of desires was made deviant in the argument. Hormonal influence in the womb have been shown to influence the sexual identity and orientation of a child. Testosterone levels within the mother’s womb have been proven to influence girls by the level to which they behave more feminine or masculine in their childhood. A study done by professor of psychology Melissa Hines in association with Charles Brook and Gerard S. Conway at City University in conjunction with Bristol University, discovered that girls exposed to higher levels of androgens, testosterone in the womb were more likely to exhibit masculine behaviors and become tomboys (Konner, 2002). While this study is specific and in no way bares conclusive results on the origins of sexual identity and orientation, and while there specifically is no research that proves that identity and orientation are biologically induced, this research does indicate the possibility of this association to biological influence on gender and orientation. According to Sherblom and Bahr, there are differing reports about the percentage of the population that is homosexual, but that there is a consistency in that there is always a percent of the population that is homosexual (87). Therefore, this consistency suggests that there is a sense of normalcy to some of the population being attracted to the same sex. Homosexuality and Family Homosexuality has been a part of society throughout history and in the new emergence of liberation, the desire to form familial bonds has become an increasing legislative debate. Currently, there are movements toward legislation that allows for homosexual couples to jointly adopt children and to form legally committed bonds of marriage. In seeking to join society in creating support and legitimacy for their emotional bond within couples, they seek to belong to the culture and to society in a contributory manner. According to psychologist Charlotte Patterson, homosexual couples report the same satisfaction in committed relationships as do heterosexual couples. The report shows that homosexual couples have the same needs and desires that do heterosexual couples in regard to the satisfaction that is sought through commitment and have just as many barriers to leaving a relationship as a married couple might experience, despite the lack of social legitimization of the union (1057). Most research reported by Patterson shows that gender identification and sexual orientation was no more or less influenced by having same sex parents as by having opposite sex parents (1064). According to this type of research, families and relationships formed with same sex couples at the core have similar problems and positive aspects to heterosexual families resulting on no particular ill effect on children. Conclusion The controversy about the origins of homosexuality has an effect on proposed legitimization of unions between same sex couples and to the adoption and parental legal choices that are intended to support the formation of families. If the state of homosexuality is considered a normal state of sexual orientation, then this would be done with the understanding that same sex desire is created through a biological designation. However, if the religious nature of the issue is accepted , then the state of sexual desire for the same sex is a psychological state that must be treated for its deviance and shunned for its abomination to the will of God. As reports on same desire suggest that more harm than good can come from an atmosphere of non-acceptance, society has a responsibility to make a choice about the issue that best serves members of the society. As the possibility for hostility is weighed against the possible problems with acceptance, the answer to the controversy has important implications within societies and cultures. Works Cited Bergman, Martin S. “The Relevance of History to the Psychoanalytic Controversy Over Homosexuality.” EBSCO Publishing. (2002) 37-41. Camperio-Ciani, Andrea, Corna, Francesca, and Capiluppi, Claudio. “Evidence for Maternally Inherited Factors Favouring Male Homosexuality and Promoting Female Fecundity.” Proceedings: Biological Sciences. 271.1554 (November 2004): 2217- 2221. Capps, Donald and Carlin, Nathan. “The “Religiously Mediated Change” of 11 Gay Men: A Case of Unexceptional Sublimation.” Pastoral Psychology. 57 (2008): 125-146. Helie, Anissa. “Holy Hatred.” Reproductive Health Matters. 12.23 (May 2004): 120-124. Konner, Melvin. (2002), The Tangled Wing. New York: Henry Hold and Company, L.L.C. Messia, Hada and Vincio, Alessio. Pope’s Message Anger’s Gay Rights Activists. 23 December 2008. CNN Europe. 26 May 2009 Moon, Dawne. “Discourse, Interaction, and Testimony: The Making of Selves in the U.S. Protestant Dispute Over Homosexuality.” Theory and Society. 32.5/6 (December 2005): 551-577. Patterson, Charlotte, J. “Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men.” Journal of Marriage and the Family. 62.4 (Nov. 2000): 1052-1083. Sex: Unknown. 30 October 2001 PBS Nova 26 May 2009 Sherblom, Stephen A. and Bahr, Michael W. “Homosexuality and Normality: Basic Knowledge and Practical Considerationf for School Consultation.” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. 18 (2008): 61-100. Wickberg, Daniel. “Homophobia: On the Cultural History of an Idea.” Critical Inquiry. 27.1 (Autumn 2000): 42-57. Read More