Recently, I had something one might call an epiphany.  It was an average day, the birds were singing, the hobos were harassing unsuspecting tourists, and several gay men were showing too much skin in Chelsea.  I was having a relatively pleasant conversation with a close conservative strait friend of mine when the unthinkable happened: as I stood there agape, he suggested that the recent spike in individuals openly identifying as gay had nothing to do with an increase in acceptance but because “being gay” was “in vogue,” much like boy bands or bellbottoms.  When the fireman had finished dousing me with water after I’d spontaneously burst into flames, I calmly explained to my friend that the suggestion was both inaccurate and offensive.  Evidently, he had no idea what I and other gay men and women had gone through in coming out and the fact that a close friend and intelligent person would suggest something of the sort only seemed to confirm the fact I conceived about many strait people’s backwards views of homosexuality.  Strait people simply could not understand gay people because by definition they could not empathize with them because they were strait and they could not sympathize because they were ignorant monsters.

But then it suddenly dawned on me.  For someone who does not really know what it is like to be gay and is taught by others who are not gay that homosexuality is aberrant or strange, it is easy to see why they might have a difficult time understanding.  Frankly, it took me a long time to conceptualize who I was and why being different was not a death sentence but merely another one of life’s beautiful colors. 

But the questions will ever loom in the horizon of one’s mind: is it my choice?  Is it genetic?  Is it environment?  Is it madness?  While there are no definitive answers, the facts in the debate are necessary to draw each person a better picture of what homosexuality is and why gay people should not be considered crazy or afflicted.  First, we can examine some myths about homosexuality and sexuality in general.  Then, we should take a brief look at the gay gene debate, and finally I will advance my own view on the links between heredity and environment in sexuality.

First, let’s examine a few myths.  I urge the reader to stop reading now if they have sensitive ears since the sound of their preconceived notions being shattered might cause permanent damage.  But to keep the brave from failing too quickly, we’ll start with more blatant myths.  For some reason, people spread the inane rumor that there is one type of gay person…flamey gay man and bull-dyke lesbian.  A ballet dancer…gay.  A woman fireman…dyke!  White House correspondent/gay male prostitute…ok, well you get the picture. 

If we look deep into the realities of gay men and women, we will see that gay people like strait people come in all varieties.  In New York City for example, there are dozens of bars that identify as gay and all of which have different scenes or crowds.  Heaven on Saturdays caters to twinky young boys looking to sparkle their lives away with glitter while the Eagle caters to many muscle men and leather daddies complete with tool belts, chains, and motorcycles.  Therapy caters to an after work crowd while Posh is very Cheers like.  And on and on.  Every type of person in the spectrum is represented somewhere, from professions to masculinity to color to interest in leather. If we look into professions, sports, schools, we would find countless different types of people, gay and strait.  Unfortunately, despite what we are lead to believe, our media has done a terrible job of really exploring this reality: Shows like Will & Grace or Boy Meets Boy or countless others do a disservice by creating a poster image of a gay person that is often a “type” but not a rainbow.  And the blame also squarely falls on those who take the time to form an opinion: if you do not take the time to research what type of people identify as gay or lesbian or bisexual or transsexual than you discount yourself as having an informed opinion.  Think about it: If you ran around saying that 2 + 2 = 7 without ever taking the time to learn math or pick up a book, people would be right to call you ignorant.  Actually, you’d probably be called stupid, but I was trying to be nice.  Hold whatever opinions you want, just don’t expect me to value them because you went through all the trouble of waking up and opening your mouth. 

A second myth is that homosexuals are incapable of holding relationships, at least long term.  I would immediately apply the research flaw I argued above to those who contend this.  Furthermore, I wonder what the basis for comparison is.  I didn’t realize that the U.S. record for 4.95 divorces per 1,000 people (highest in the world) or that in the 1990s for every two new marriages there would be one divorce was the hallmark for stability (University of Missouri, Robert Hughes, Jr, PhD)    Gay people getting relationship advice from strait people is like Tammy Faye Baker consulting for Revlon!  Third, and always overlooked is that with the countless marriages that gay people WANT to have in states like California or Massachusetts (or in most civilized countries around the world) should be evidence that despite countless setbacks, legal obstacles and the trauma of the closet and the bigotry exerted in many parts of our society – to overcome that and still be together is remarkable.  In fact, maybe those couples who’d been together for a half century despite the invisibility of homosexuality pre-Stonewall should be the one telling the world how to make marriages or relationships work.  And take out arranged marriages, marriages of convenience or pregnancy and so on and so on - being together does not imply love, stability, or the very beauty that marriage and relationships should represent.

My third myth segues straight from that previous point.  Many people argue that homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality are aberrant because the very numbers of heterosexuals so overcast the alternatives that it has become standard.  First, the notion of homosexuality is not new and our current bigotry towards it stems directly from Judeo-Christian fundamentalism.  The Bible is often quoted by ignorant preachers and half-wits who clearly are incapable of understanding the blatant contradictions in their own views.  Paul to the Romans can be explained by illustrating Paul’s historically documented disdain for Romans taking of their slaves to illustrate lust and power, not homosexuality.  The Sodom and Gomorrah tale is well known to be an assault on a lack of hospitality (which in those days was a crime punishable by death) or rape than an assault on homosexuality.  Deuteronomy or Leviticus: believe in these passages and you must also accept not looking at your wife while she is on her period and on and on.  And don’t even get me started on shell fish.  Don’t even get me started!  Either way, Jesus, the man Christians believe to be God, never said it.  So why men and women do unchristian-like things in the name of a man who never told them to is beyond me.  Whatever passage people choose to recite it is more a lack of historical knowledge mixed with ignorant bigotry that perpetuates these views than the actual voice of God condemning Gay men and women.

But to the point at hand: the numbers.  What are these population accounts based on.  Ask any gay person if they always identified as gay and I’m sure for more than the majority, there was definitely a time when they were in the closet.  I was in the closet for up to twenty years of my life.  I have closeted friends who are in their thirties.  How can we ever know just how many gay people there are when we exist in a society which for the most part disdains them.  Coming out was one of the most trying moments of my life.  Many people have attempted suicide.  And here’s the kicker, often, it is the person you least suspect who might be gay.  It took me running into my neighbor’s dad online once to realize this.  I personally have been approached or propositioned countless times by older, closeted males, DADS, married who wish to remain married but actually call themselves gay in the closet.  Try it sometime, research it.  Maybe your Dad is/was gay.  Possibly your cousin.  Maybe your husband or boyfriend.  Or your son.  This goes for the ladies, too, although I do not offer the same type of certainty only because my experience is not in that realm.  Go ahead, deny it.  It’s impossible.  Not real.  Of course, it’s a made up fantasy that a crazy writer made up.  Or maybe not.  But in the end, perhaps only some of us want to know the truth.  Anyone deaf yet, that may have been a loud shattering.

So there went a few myths I hope have at least been questioned.  Now for the actual debate, so called anyway.  First, a few points from those who espouse the existence of a gay gene, then some from those who champion an opposing view.  Then my own two cents on the issue.  In any case, the case for a “gay gene” is as of late growing in strength.

Richard Pillard, a professor of psychiatry at the Boston University School of Medicine suggests, “…That both orientations are genetically programmed, that both appeared during the evolutionary history of our species and therefore may exist at least in rudimentary form in our close primate relatives.” He continues by citing evidence in other animal species including sheep and primates that frequently show same sex partnerships and preferences.  Further, he contends that unlike other perceived reproductive disadvantages such as Huntington ’s disease which occurs in one in 4 million people, homosexuality is far too common to be considered a mutation.  Instead, he asks us to view reproduction on a larger scale such as the “Oak (which) produces thousands of acorns and is lucky if one or two grow to make acorns of their own. The larger land mammals on the other hand, have relatively few offspring and are metabolically expensive in guarding and protecting the relatively few offspring that we are able to have.” 

Furthermore, biologists Robert Trivers and James Weinrich, offer an altruism model as an explanation of homosexuality.  The argue for the possibility of “kin altruism” which says, “That gay people may have evolved character traits of an altruistic nature that prompt them to work harder for the protection and advancement of closely related family members rather than invest in having children of their own.”  Evidently, this type of behavior is seen in several species of animals although only speculated in humans who, “Seem rather short in the department of altruism.” 

And,

Ray Blanchard and his colleagues at the Clarke Institute in Toronto recently analyzed thousands of families and found that gay men have a later birth order than straight. Specifically, the gay men had more older brothers but not more older sisters once the older brothers were taken into account. A psycho-developmental explanation springs to mind: A young boy might develop homosexual attractions more readily if an older brother is in the picture.

I find this final possibility contrary to my own experiences and it tends to cause some doubt in my mind.  However, a recent Swedish study at the Karolinska Institute claims, “That gay men and straight women respond similarly to hormonal sex scents, and differently than straight men do.” 
In fact,

Using brain imaging, the scientists studied responses to a testosterone derivative in men’s sweat, called AND, and an estrogen-related compound in women’s urine, called EST. They found that sniffs of EST activated the ordinary olfactory region in straight women and gay men but fired up the hypothalamus, a region of the brain connected to sexual behavior, in straight men. Meanwhile, AND activated straight men’s olfactory while firing up the hypothalamus in straight women and gay men.

According to the Advocate’s Lisa Neff, “So far the science suggests homosexuality is like “this plus that,” genes working in concert with environment and experience, as is the case with other traits and characteristics.”   She cites, “One of the first widely reported studies, Simon LeVay’s work at the Salk Institute in 1991, (which) suggests a part of the brain—the anterior hypothalamus, which regulates metabolism and sexual response—is twice as large in straight men as in gay men.

And in 1992 researchers,

reported evidence of genetic determinants of lesbianism and bisexuality. In 1993, Dean Hamer and his team at the National Institutes of Health reported that some gay brothers—33 of 40 pairs—shared a marker on the maternal X chromosome. In the mid 1990s Ray Blanchard studied gay men and their siblings and linked fraternal birth order: Gay men are more likely than lesbians or straight men to have older brothers, suggesting that occupying a womb that previously held males increased the probability of homosexuality.

However, nothing is conclusive on this end of the debate as those opposed to the notion of a “gay gene” repeatedly contend.  In fact, Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D., a leading researcher on the topic, frankly refutes and even condemns much of the research proposed by other scientists as “misleading.”  Satinover argues that, “All the research that has been done on homosexuality has been selectively trumpeted through the press in carefully crafted form in order to shape public opinion-hence public policy-in predictable ways. The research itself means almost nothing.”   Furthermore, he argues, “Most of the research has been hastily and often sloppily done-but this point is a distraction. Even were it superb, the findings would still mean almost nothing.” And, “To whatever extent this research has been good enough to generate valid conclusions at all, these conclusions are precisely the opposite of what is claimed in the press.”

What does Satinover use as his basis for these accusations?  Evidently plain science:

Complex behavioral traits are the product of multiple genetic and environmental antecedents, with 'environment' meaning not only the social environment but also such factors as the 'flux of hormones during development, whether you were lying on your right or left side in the womb and a whole parade of other things'...the relationships among genes and environment probably have a somewhat different effect on someone in Salt lake City than if that person were growing up in New York City.[17] English translation: "You're more likely to become gay growing up in Manhattan than in Utah among Mormons and Christian fundamentalists, even if everything else is the same, including genes."

He then argues, “...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a non-Mendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.[16] English translation: "It is not possible to know what the findings mean, if anything, since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited the way eye-color is."

He then offers us some very interesting points on heritable and inherited.  Heritable appears to imply that the trait such as personality characteristics or artistic expressions are a synthesis of various genetic and environmental factors.  Inherited however means directly determined and influence by genes such as eye color.

He then proposes the following point to what types of traits cause homosexuality:

Science is being seriously obstructed in its effort to answer that question. If we were allowed- encouraged-to answer it, we would soon develop better ideas on what homosexuality is and how to change, or better, prevent it. We would know who was at greater risk for becoming homosexual and what environments- family or societal-foster it. As one prominent gay activist researcher implied, all genetic things being equal, it is a whole lot easier to become "gay" in New York than in Utah. So who do you think would benefit most from that kind of research?

Overall, the debate is very muddled because everyone appears to be missing the point.  As a result, I will advance the following assertion and then support it so the reader will not lose sight of the main idea: homosexuality is a heritable trait that is based on a series of complex social, genetic, and environmental factors.  Now, what do I base this conclusion on: plain logic and an examination of the actual points being made.

What Satinover and the scientists he accuses of misleading the public are guilty of doing is debating an irrelevant point: whether or not a gay gene really exists.  People do not really care if there is a gay gene or not.  All the polls on the subject are really asking people if homosexuality is a choice or not.  The evidence above on both fronts seems to be quite clear that homosexuality is far more dependent on factors outside the control of a person than any choice.  If a human being reacts subtly to scents or if animals who base their actions on instinct can exhibit these traits, then it would appear that homosexuality is widespread and not a choice at all, but a disposition that is a result of countless activities in the brain, the body, the environment and so on.

Furthermore, where is the debate over the strait gene.  It seems that if someone decided that there wasn’t a gene that produced a homosexual disposition, then the same logic would have to apply to a strait disposition.  After all, people used to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth.  It is not impossible that our views on heterosexuality as being “normal” might be misconceived and biased by years of bigoted ideas.

And arguments of mutation are already being conceded as statistically absurd and even those numbers are based on flawed notions of who is “out” and estimates which are as hopelessly inaccurate as walking into an unfamiliar pitch black room and trying to count how many cracks there are in the walls.  Satinover’s assertion that it is easier to “become gay” (like becoming a crossing guard or break-out rock Diva) are easier in NYC than Utah is based on completely flawed logic and is nothing more than a psychological anachronism.  It is probably quite true that you are more likely to “come out” and identify as gay in NYC where people are generally informed and can read books other than the Bible, but that in no way implies that there are more gay people in NYC.  English translation: he’s a moron.  Well, actually, he is not.  Satinover’s views are simply representative of the power of corollaries that are drawn from inaccurate conclusions.

Another point that needs to be addressed is the idea that homosexuality is a reproductary disadvantage.  This is completely absurd from the standpoint of looking at human beings.  First, many homosexuals have children.  Many use surrogates or act as surrogates for others.  There is no evidence that homosexuals are infertile or incapable of producing children.  Simply because two gay people cannot produce a child together, does not mean homosexuals cannot produce children or raise children.  In fact, logic would serve the opposite point since adoption and surrogacy laws which prevent homosexuals from obtaining children are so consistently overcome. 

And shouldn’t we in a society judge humans by standards we do not apply to animals?  To say that “natural” is a product of a human’s ability or desire to reproduce minimizes what it means to be a human being.  I know I would be offended if someone told me I was a bad person because I couldn’t or better said “wouldn’t” want to “knock a bitch up someday.”  I am more than the product of my hypothetical ejaculations.  Gay people like strait people and any other type of sexualized person are thinkers who can find other ways to reproduce but more importantly, alternate and sometimes better ways to live.  A gay couple living in a pent house apartment who adopt and provide their children with love and all the other amenities of life are just as qualified as a single parent raising his or her eight children on welfare stamps in a roach-infested apartment.  In fact, that same gay couple has been proven in countless studies to be just as nurturing if not more so than an identical strait couple. 

And so we bas a community have a few tasks at hand.  If we wish to form an opinion on other people, we need to inform those opinions.  Furthermore, when we look at sexuality, we should see it as an ever-changing and ever-challenging body of knowledge that is much more complicated than the simple and often misguided notions conjured from the pulpit or the loneliness of one’s own mind.  No one exists in solipsism where the only one held accountable for your opinions is you.  Opinions affect us all, especially harmful ones.  And for too long, we have allowed bigotry and ignorance to affect public opinion and policy on homosexuality.