A question that is still debated in today’s community is whether or not sexual orientation is biologically based.Evidently, there are two strong stances regarding the topic. First, there is a side that claims orientation is a biological matter that is simply encoded in one’s DNA– saying yes, people are “born gay.” Two articles written by Brian A. Gladue, Stanton L.Jones, and Alex W. Kivee will dive deeper into the evidence regarding sexual orientation being of biological descent. The protesting side of this topic claims the opposite– sexual orientation is a product of environmental influences and social behaviors. Believers of this proposed side, comprised of Karen Harbeck, Ritch C. Savin-Williams, and Lisa M. Diamond, have collected pushing their proposed side.
In the first article supporting sexual orientation as a biological factor, Brian A. Gladue presents his research in the works entitled, The Biopsychology of Sexual Orientation. Glaude provides information showing that there are in fact, multiple biological factors that contribute to the orientation of a person. The article is broken down by different biological factors and how each factor directly correlates to the ultimate attraction (or lack of) to another individual. Genetics, hormonal, neuroendocrine, neuroanatomical, and neuropsychological are the different categories that Glaude uses to differentiate certain factors in biology that go into the theory of sexual orientation. The researcher also provides tables and further research splitting the findings by sex, orientation, and different brain regions stimulated. In conclusion to the research, Brian Glaude states that not every one is the same and follows a set “orientation path”, but that genetics is deeply rooted to the orientation of an individual– finding certain areas in the brain differ between homosexual and heterosexual individuals.
The second academic piece, Scientific Research, Homosexuality, and the Church’s Moral Debate: An Update, are from researchers, Stanton L.Jones and Alex W. Kivee. The researchers of Wheaton College explain that biological factors such as behavioral genetics are key in determining a person’s orientational preference. Jones and Kivee use tables primarily to display results indicating that activity of the functions of the brain differ by individuals who are either heterosexual or homosexual. An interesting aspect to this research is that the scientists go into detail about their research dealing with genetic scanning and brain functions. The researchers are essentially collecting data and seeing if it correlates on a larger scale. Most of the analytical and data utilized by this article have been that of infants and brain functions of young children, with a strong data relating towards twins, fraternal not identical. Jones and Alex ultimately found that they encountered a lot of inconsistencies within their studies and that some homosexual individuals showed no significant difference from their heterosexual counterparts.
On the opposing side of the sexual orientation debate, The work,Contemporary Theories of Sexual Orientation written by Karen Harbeck, goes into the topic of sexual orientation and how environmental influences are what really shape sexual orientation. Harbeck writes that although there are some compelling arguments stating biological origin, social behaviors and societal norms strongly outweigh any pre-programmed genetics. The researcher goes into psychoanalytic theories dating back to Freud , as to how learned behaviors acquired at an early age only enhanced as an individual got older. Harbeck focuses her study on homosexual men, as there is more studies equated with the men. Harbeck goes into cultural data and gender roles, stating that gender roles correlate into sexual orientation.
Another finding regarding sexual orientation as an environmental originator, comes from researchers Ritch C. Savin-Williams and Lisa M. Diamond. Their work, Sexual Orientation as a Developmental Context for Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals: Biological Perspectives, dives into the issues of label phenomena and imprinting, The scientists go into the topics of environmental impacts on orientation and how our society has an urge to create paranoia revolved around constant labeling and stereotypes. According to Williams and Diamond, self labeling is a social norm that instinctively happens when the individual is at the age of adolescence or even younger– in a struggle to find their sense of identity. Another aspect of this article is that it explains that by being recognized amongst peers in a certain way, can alter your own perception of yourself at an early age– including sexual orientation.
The articles pertaining to the side of sexual orientation being a product of biological factors had very strong data backing up most of the work being said, In the article, The Biopsychology of Sexual Orientation, the writer does a phenomenal job providing definitions, tables, and coherent statistics to readers. The other advancement of this academic piece, is that the writer refrained from any sort of bias while writing this piece. It was third-person formatted so that the data was presented without any motives sensed. The second article was just as analytical as the first piece, but where the first article had more academic writing– the second article displayed more statistical data. Most of the data was from toddlers or infants in regards to the data pool, so a possible limitation could have been that the data was not clearly representative of all individuals. All of the writers seemed credible and trustworthy in their credentials. Collectively, the side providing evidence for biological origins had clear, compelling arguments.
A major Critique for the side of environmental origins would have to be a lack of concrete data. Where the biological side had a great data representation for their side, the environmental side presented the research as “what if’s.” The concepts were interesting and compelling, but lacked concrete data and came across as more philosophical than scientific– which hurt some of the credibility when reading the article. What the two articles did really well on was that both pieces of work incorporated biological data from the opposing side. That was a good move for the writers, as they were able to build up their opponent and then counteract whatever data they incorporated.
After looking into both sides, the side that seems most compelling and logical is the theory that sexual orientation is biologically based. Both arguments for that side were more than credible with the data included and information laid out. The opposing side had an interesting claim, but there wasn’t enough supported data. The data ultimately outweighed the scenarios of the environmental theory. I have to choose the side of biology.
References
Gladue, B. A. (1994). The Biopsychology of Sexual Orientation. Current Directions In Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 3(5), 150-154. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770648
Jones, S. L., & Kwee, A. W. (2005). Scientific Research, Homosexuality, and the Church’s Moral Debate: An Update. Journal Of Psychology & Christianity, 24(4), 304-316.
Anderson, J. (2011). Conservative Christianity, the Global South and the Battle over Sexual Orientation. Third World Quarterly, 32(9), 1589-1605. doi:10.1080/01436597.2011.618648
Bartoli, E., & Gillem, A. R. (2008). Continuing to Depolarize the Debate on Sexual Orientation and Religion: Identity and the Therapeutic Process. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 39(2), 202-209. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.39.2.202
Harbeck, K. M. (2009). Contemporary Theories of Sexual Orientation. Research Starters Sociology (Online Edition),
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (1997). Sexual orientation as a developmental context for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Biological perspectives. In N. L. Segal, G. E. Weisfeld, C. C. Weisfeld, N. L. Segal, G. E. Weisfeld, C. C. Weisfeld (Eds.) , Uniting psychology and biology: Integrative perspectives on human development (pp. 217-238). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10242-005