Research on the origins of sexual orientation is not a recent phenomenon; however, it has received much attention in recent years. This recent public attention is most likely due to the findings steady with the notion of relatively simple links between genes and sexual orientation. Research into sexual orientation simplistically referred to as “gay gene” research is an example of research that provokes intense controversy. Following a thorough analysis of the argument regarding whether or not to conduct genetic research into sexual orientation, I will argue that genetic research should not be conducted into sexual orientation.
Genetic research into sexual orientation has been taking place for years. This research however, has not brought about any substantial findings to indicate the basis for sexual orientation to date, and has taken place in many forms. Researchers have looked into evidence of sexual orientation in bodily features; have looked at neuroanatomical structures, the endocrine system, bodily postures and behaviours as well as studying identical and fraternal twins. Even with this vast amount of research, there has not been any revelation as to the source of the origin of sexual orientation. It previously appeared that sexual orientation was the result of a combination of both genetic and environmental influences following twin studies however recent heritability studies consistently find that almost half the twins pairs are discordant for sexual orientation even though they share the same genes and similar environments (Boetzkes, 470). Clearly, this finding re-emphasizes how little is actually known about the origins of sexual orientation.
This research is discriminatory and worrisome since it has been used to harm homosexual people. Many gay men and lesbians have been forced to undergo “treatments” in order to change their orientation. Other people who are vulnerable to the discriminations of society undergo treatment to escape the discrimination and social disapproval. This type of research treats homosexuals as though they are “unnatural and not normal” human beings. Gay and lesbians are already living in such a suppressed homophobic society and having research conducted into their sexual orientation just reiterates the view of homophobias that being “gay” is wrong and that we must find out the cause so that it can be preventable in the future. Hence, genetic research should not be conducted because it is leading to the “treatment” of homosexuality.
Furthermore, in regards to “gay genes”, genes cannot even directly specify any behaviours or psychological phenomena. In order for the term “gay gene” to have an accurate connotation scientists need to propose that, a particular gene organizes the brain specifically to support the desire to have sex with people of the same sex. However, no one yet has obtained evidence in support of such a simple and direct link between genes and sexual orientation (Boetzkes, 471).
In addition, genetic research into sexual orientation should not be done since its very motivation for seeking the “origin” of homosexuality has its source within a homophobic social setting. Homosexuals are still being treated as “outcasts” and different amongst our so called “normal” society and this type of research is just perpetuating and strengthening the prejudicial attitudes that exist. This type of research will accentuate the views that homosexuals are abnormal and unwanted. By conducting such research, we would be sending a message as though being a homosexual is a “disease” in which we need to find a cure for in order to prevent future people from contracting such a terrible “disease”.
Consequently, genetic research could lead to prenatal tests that claim to detect for genes or hormonal levels that might predispose for homosexuality (Boetzkes, 472). In response, if parents believe that they are able to predict the sexual orientation of an unborn fetus by using a prenatal screening technique, it is possible that they will choose to abort the fetus. By introducing such research and prenatal screenings, we are opening the door to eliminating any person that does not fit our “perfect ideal, ‘normal’ ” person within our highly judgmental society. People would be classifying homosexual tending fetuses as a means to abort just as people classify predisposed mentally retarded fetuses. Similarly, already in China, prenatal testing is taking place to determine the sex of the fetus. If the fetuses are female, they are a means to abortion. Are we going to kill off every fetus that does not live up to the perfections or expectations of society?
It might be objected to my thesis that genetic research into sexual orientation will provide answers to century-old questions surrounding the view that homosexuality is unnatural or abnormal. Furthermore, if indeed sexual orientation is found to be genetic than maybe it will alter the belief system of those people who believe that sexual orientation is a choice when it is not. It may also provide answers to lesbians and gay men themselves who want to know how they developed their orientation. It could also provide answers for heterosexual parents who have bred homosexual children. In addition, since “God” has declared homosexuality sinful and unnatural, a found genetic basis could alter the views of the church. Knowing that a person has not chosen their sexual orientation could also make the case for gay and lesbian rights. (Boetzkes, 473). The idea is that scientific research will reveal that people do not choose their sexual orientation and therefore should not be punished or discriminated against (Boetzkes, 474). Genetic research into sexual orientation is encouraged by some people because they feel that it will help dispel homophobic attitudes in society. People argue that if you can show that homosexuality hash a strong genetic component than homosexuality is not the result of some “sinful” or unethical choice that individuals have made, but rather has a biological origin.
The idea of prenatal screening has also been objected. It has been said that abortions of predisposed homosexual fetuses should not be a concern because it has been claimed that this sort of genetic screening will not become a usual act, because “diagnostic testing is at present the exception rather than the rule” (Boetzkes, 475). It is believed that most people would not choose to have such prenatal testing conducted.
Lastly, various scholars in defense of this genetic research appeal to the “value of truth” stating “knowledge is better than ignorance”. (Boetzkes, 476).
These objections however fail for numerous reasons. The idea that genetic research will provide answers about the origin of sexual orientation, particularly if it is biological, will only be serving the interests and minds of discriminatory societies, not the gay or lesbians that live within it. What good will this genetic research serve to homosexuals? What if we find out the origin of homosexuality whether it be biological, genetic, or environmental and we are still not able to alter it? Then what will be people’s response? The bottom line is that it should not matter if the origin is biological environmental or a mixture of both. Gay and lesbians should have rights no matter what the basis is. The fact is that many homosexuals have accepted their lifestyles and have adapted quite well. Furthermore, even if people have “chosen” their sexual orientation they should be given the same rights and opportunities that heterosexuals are given. We are living in a country that has the “right to choose”. Basically, “we should not grip arguments that seek to legitimate homosexuality by denying that there is any choice in sexual preference, because the implicit premise of such arguments is that if there was a choice, then homosexuals would be blameworthy” (Boetzkes, 475). Clearly, I believe that people will always have their homophobic attitudes regardless of whether the origin was biological or not. Lastly, in response to genetic screening, if this testing became available people would definitely want to use it because such traits are so heavily undesired by a largely prejudicial society.
Obviously I cannot imagine any good that could come of genetic research into sexual orientation due to our overwhelming homophobic societies. To what extent will researchers go to find their answer? Research is extremely costly, and the knowledge of knowing the origin of sexual orientation is definitely not sufficiently necessary. Money should be going towards the research of severe life threatening diseases and towards educating the youth of tomorrow of the differences that exist within our society and how to accept them.
Society should be focusing on “curing” homophobic people in societies rather than the homosexuals themselves.
