Why homosexuality is wrong scientifically

He adds that once the data are broken down into men and women, and into those who had only had same-sex partners versus those who had encounters across sexes, the number of people in each group becomes so small that the genetic linkages are very weak.

Dean Hamer, a retired geneticist in Haleiwa, Hawaii, who published some of the first studies on the genetics of sexual orientation, is disappointed with the study. Defining sexual orientation on the basis of a single same-sex encounter is not a useful way of categorizing people, he says, because many people who identify as heterosexual have experimented with a same-sex partner.

Instead, he thinks the researchers have found genetic markers associated with openness to new experiences, which could explain the overlap between people who have had a homosexual partner and heterosexual people who have had many partners. Zietsch says that risk-taking can explain only part of the statistical link between markers associated with same-sex encounters and those associated with number of partners. Hamer acknowledges that linking a complex behaviour to genetics is extremely difficult, but says he is glad the team is researching sexual orientation.

Zietsch, B. Nature Hum. Article Google Scholar. Ganna, A. Science , eaat PubMed Article Google Scholar. Download references. Article 10 NOV News 05 NOV News 04 NOV Research Highlight 03 NOV News 09 SEP Article 03 NOV Every now and then a family member receives a larger dose that affects his or her sexual orientation, but the allele still has an overall reproductive advantage.

Another way a "gay allele" might be able to compensate for a reproductive deficit is by having the converse effect in the opposite sex. For example, an allele which makes the bearer attracted to men has an obvious reproductive advantage to women. If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction, but so long as this happens rarely the allele still has a net evolutionary benefit. There is some evidence for this second theory. Andrea Camperio-Ciani, at the University of Padova in Italy, found that maternal female relatives of gay men have more children than maternal female relatives of straight men.

The implication is that there is an unknown mechanism in the X chromosome of men's genetic code which helps women in the family have more babies, but can lead to homosexuality in men.

These results haven't been replicated in some ethnic groups - but that doesn't mean they are wrong with regards to the Italian population in Camperio-Ciani's study. Some researchers believe that to understand the evolution of gay people, we need to look at how they fit into the wider culture.

Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring.

Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down. Vasey hasn't yet measured just how much having a homosexual orientation boosts siblings' reproduction rate, but he has established that in Samoa "gay" men spend more time on uncle-like activities than "straight" men.

His lab had previously shown that gay men in Japan were no more attentive or generous towards their nieces and nephews than straight, childless men and women. Vasey believes that his Samoan result was different because the men he studied there were different. He studied the fa'afafine , who identify as a third gender, dressing as women and having sex with men who regard themselves as "straight".

They are a transgender group who do not like to be called "gay" or "homosexual". Vasey speculates that part of the reason the fa'afafine are more attentive to their nephews and nieces is their acceptance in Samoan culture compared to gay men in the West and Japan "You can't help your kin if they've rejected you". But he also believes that there is something about the fa'afafine way of life that means they are more likely to be nurturing towards nieces and nephews, and speculates that he would find similar results in other "third gender" groups around the world.

If this is true, then the helper in the nest theory may partly explain how a genetic trait for same-sex attraction hasn't been selected away. That hypothesis has led Vasey to speculate that the gay men who identify as men and have masculine traits - that is to say, most gay men in the West - are descended from men who had a cross-gendered sexuality. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.

These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.

How many gay people have children also depends on how you define being "gay". Many of the "straight" men who have sex with fa'afafine in Samoa go on to get married and have children. But that doesn't mean there's no homosexuality there. Similarly in the West, there is evidence that many people go through a phase of homosexual activity.

A potential negative societal result of these studies could be parents selecting against fetuses with "gay genes," or even people trying to erase these genes all together as a "cure" for homosexuality. On the other hand, a possible positive societal effect is these studies proving that sexuality is not learned behavior, and that gay people do not chose to be gay.

This supports the view that we should support gay people, because they simply cannot help that they are not straight. However, this implies that if we had a choice, gay people would chose to be straight, when it's never made clear why anyone would make that choice. Being gay is fraught with danger, nearly all of which stem from homophobia, and not from how someone identifies. However, most gay men would not choose to be straight. So even if studies that demonstrate that sexual orientation has a strong genetic component , can improve the tolerance of gay people, by supporting the idea that people do not chose to be gay, it still does nothing to promote acceptance.

These studies treat queerness in the same way they would treat a disease. They are often performed with the implicit assumption that being cis-gendered and heterosexual "cis-het" is the "healthy" default, and any deviation from that is a pathology that needs to be solved. Because gender dysphoria is classified as a mental disorder, it is easily framed as a disease that needs to be cured. This could then lead to the idea that there should be a cure for transness, and that identifying genes "for" transness could also lead to a cure for gender dysphoria.

However, gender dysphoria is, in a large part, caused by societal responses, such as misgendering referring to a person using the wrong gender pronouns , and transphobia. In fact, research has found that using the appropriate name and pronouns can reduce depression and suicidal thoughts in trans children.

The problem is not people being trans, but rather how society treats trans people. There is already a treatment for gender dysphoria. Hormone replacement therapy and gender affirmation surgery have been proven to be very successful in the treatment of gender dysphoria by a range of studies. Again, gender dysphoria can already be treated. And it's worth repeating that plenty of trans people do not experience gender dysphoria, or chose not to seek medical intervention for it, which still does not warrant their transness to be "cured.

A technician loads DNA samples into a desktop genomic sequencing machine, a method that has been used to identify specific genes associated with gender identity and sexuality. Which brings me to another important point: every queer person is different. Science likes condense data into means and categories, but in some cases this does more harm than good.

For example, this gave rise to the myth of a "female" and "male" brain, when in reality, most brain exhibit a mosaic of features - the variation among the groups is bigger than the difference between the mean. As a queer scientist, I absolutely sympathize with the desire to study queer topics. I myself have wondered what role genetics have played in my sexual orientation ever since I found out that both my aunt and great-aunt are gay. And I have used studies showing that being gay has a genetic component to shut down homophobic comments.

But as a queer person, I also see the harm that such studies do to the community. So am I saying that scientists should completely steer away from any research on queer topics? Absolutely not. But it is important for scientists to ask themselves why they are researching that topic. Scientists constantly have to grapple with why the questions they are asking are important and how they will impact society.

This is of the utmost importance when they are studying vulnerable minorities.