A Scientist's View on Sexual Orientation

With all the media attention focused on the use of fraudulent "ex-gay" therapy at Marcus Bachmann's "clinics" at the expense of tax payers and Tom Pawlenty's (Pawlenty is pictured at left) disingenuous efforts to pretend that the verdict is still out on whether or not sexual orientation is an immutable trait as opposed to a "choice" that is subject to "change" through prayer , a/k/a brainwashing and guilt, Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist, has a timely op-ed piece at The Advocate that basically rips the Christianists like Marcus Bachmann and Pawlenty a new one and makes it VERY clear that there is no question - at least not to those who inhabit the rational, tethered to reality world - that sexual orientation is an immutable, genetic based characteristic that cannot be changed regardless of pious efforts to "pray it away." Yes, individuals can play mind games, endeavor strenuously to deny who they really are (I did that for 37 years), and buy into all the anti-gay religious doctrine bullshit, but at the end of the day, they are still gay and ALWAYS will be. Here are some op-ed highlights:
*
In a recent interview, Tim Pawlenty was asked “Is being gay a choice?” The presidential hopeful replied that “the science in that regard is in dispute.” As a working molecular biologist, that was certainly a surprise to me.
*
In fact, the scientific community has long regarded sexual orientation – whether gay, straight, or somewhere in between – as a phenotype: an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For us, the role of genetics in sexual behavior is about as “disputable” as the role of evolution in biology. Come to think of it, pretty much the same folks are opposed to both ideas.
*
The empirical evidence for the role of genetics in sexual orientation has steadily mounted since I first entered the field in the early 1990s. . . . Each of these studies has led to the same fundamental conclusion: genes play a major role in human sexual orientation. By contrast, shared environmental factors such as education, parenting style, or presumably even exposure to Lady Gaga, have little if anything to do with people's orientation.
*
[T]here is a solid scientific explanation for how genes that increase same-sex attraction might persist or even increase in the population. Careful family studies by two groups of investigators show that the same inherited factors that favor male homosexuality actually increase the fecundity of female maternal relatives, and that this effect is sufficient to balance out the decreased number of offspring for gay men and maintain the genes over the course of natural selection. This explanation may not be the only one, but it serves to show that the evolutionary paradox is not necessarily overwhelming.
*
Given the accumulated evidence, why might Pawlenty assert that the scientific community is still debating the role of biology in sexual orientation? Probably because that's what the religious fundamentalist groups that vehemently oppose LGBT rights want people to think, and have spent considerable time, effort and money trying to promote.
*
There is good reason for their opposition to the scientific findings. Studies in college classrooms have shown that exposure of students to information about the causes of sexual orientation has a direct, positive influence on their opinions about LGBT civil rights.
*
Basic rights are just that – basic. But it is essential to acknowledge that lack of scientific knowledge can actually result in having our rights and freedoms taken away through the actions of misinformed voters, legislators and judges.