zippy/samples/human-generated/Homosexuality.txt

The debate over homosexuality has been one of the most long-lasting and controversial
   ones ever. What, exactly, causes homosexuality? Some would say it is a gene, passed
   on from parents to child. Others would argue that it is a result of a child’s
   upbringing. Still more would claim that it is a mental illness that can and should be
   cured. Perhaps then, it is a combination of some of these? No one knows for sure, and
   it is possible no one ever will, but that surely does not stop everyone from coming
   up with their own theories and beliefs on the matter.
Documented homosexuality dates as far back as ancient Greece and other cultures of
   the time, where it was considered to be a very normal and natural occurrence (Emond).
   In his book The Symposium, Plato wrote “Those who are halves of a man whole pursue
   males, and being slices, so to speak, of the male, love men throughout their boyhood,
   and take pleasure in physical contact with men” (qtd. in Isay 11). This shows that
   not only did Plato consider it normal for a male to be attracted to another male, he
   also believed that it began at a very young age, as the word “boyhood” signifies. In
   fact, Plato even considered love between two members of the same sex to be the only
   “real and lasting love” and necessary for democracy. Furthermore, there were many
   occurrences of homosexual behavior in Greek mythology; Hercules is rumored to have
   had 14 male lovers, and Zeus himself partook in such behavior. Even Homer wrote about
   Achilles and Patroclus, who have been considered to be the perfect model of true love
   (Emond).
But it was not until 1869 that the term “homosexual” was first used, to describe “a
   man or woman whose feelings of sexual attraction are for someone of the same sex”
   (Marcus 1). (However, for the purposes of this paper, homosexuality will be looked at
   solely in terms of men). At this point in time, Karl Maria Kertbeny used the word in
   a pamphlet which fought to repeal the current antihomosexual laws of Prussia.
   Kertbeny derived this word from the Greek word for “same” and the Latin word for
   “sex,” whereas a heterosexual is a person” whose feelings of sexual attraction are
   for the opposite sex” (Marcus 1).
It was also in the 1800s when the debate itself over the cause of homosexuality was
   started by Magnus Hirschfeld, a physician, sex researcher, leading sexologist,
   homosexual, and founder of the first gay rights movement in Germany, who believed
   that homosexuality was biological in nature (Marcus 10). Hirschfeld also founded the
   Scientific Humanitarian committee, which was mostly homosexual, in 1897. The
   committee published many books and other forms of literature, which gave Hirschfeld a
   great amount of prestige in his field. He became known as one of the founding fathers
   of sexology, and furthered this position when he opened the world’s first sexological
   institute, the institute for Sexual Science in Berlin, in 1919, which was destroyed
   by the Nazis 15 years later. Hirschfeld largely supported the Urning theory of Karl
   Ulrichs, with minor additions; he believed in some hormonal theories as a cause of
   homosexuality, but this only led to unsuccessful attempts to “cure” homosexuals with
   the use of hormone injections. This theory, which defined Urnings as males who turned
   to other males as sexual partners, was published in twelve pamphlets by Ulrichs,
   starting in1864. The first, Vindex, defended Urnings, while the second, Inclusa,
   which followed shortly after, described the first scientific theory of homoerotic
   desire. Ulrichs believed that Urnings were attracted to other males because they were
   “hermaphrodites of the mind,” meaning while they may have been male in body, they
   were female in soul and mind, leading them to be naturally attracted to males in
   terms of sexual partners. This, he claimed, made laws such as paragraph 175, a law
   adopted by King William I throughout the German Kingdoms at the time of their
   unification which forbade sex between males, and forced criminal penalties upon
   individuals partaking in such behavior, unfair and unreasonable . Ulrichs claimed
   that the origin of such a disposition was natural and inborn (Wikholm).
A couple thousand years after Plato and Homer, Sigmund Freud still believed
   homosexuality to be a natural behavior. In an interview in 1903, he professed his
   beliefs: “I am… of the firm conviction that homosexuals must not be treated as sick
   people… Homosexual persons are not sick. They also do not belong in a court of law!”
   (qtd. in Isay 3). In 1935, he furthered his claims when he wrote a now famous “Letter
   to an American Mother” of a homosexual, which stated that “Homosexuality is assuredly
   no advantage, but is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be
   classified as an illness… Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern
   times have been homosexuals” (qtd. in Isay 3).
However, the general public of the 1800s and early 1900s, including the medical
   professionals, regarded homosexuality as a curable mental illness. Treatments such as
   castration, hysterectomy, lobotomy, and electroshock therapy were used as attempted
   cures. By the mid 1900s, psychotherapy became the most common “cure,” and many
   homosexuals spent countless hours being analyzed in hopes of changing their sexual
   preference (Dudley 125).
Dr. Evelyn Hooker, a heterosexual psychologist, conducted a ground-breaking study in
   the mid 1950s that went along similar reasoning as Freud. In this courageous
   experiment, Hooker compared the psychological profiles of sixty men, half homosexual
   and half heterosexual. She disagreed with the popular belief at the time that
   homosexuality was a mental illness, and concluded that there was no significant
   psychological difference between homosexual and heterosexual men; “gay” men were no
   more insane than their “straight” counterparts (Marcus 183).
Fortunately, many prominent psychiatrists also believed that homosexuality was not an
   illness, and their lobbying, along with the innovative study performed by Hooker, who
   has been referred to as “the Rosa Parks of the gay movement” convinced the American
   Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees to vote to remove homosexuality from the
   Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a mental illness in December of 1973. Just over
   a year later, the American Psychological Association also removed homosexuality from
   their list of mental illnesses (Marcus 11). The American Psychological Association
   further reiterated this belief when an overwhelming majority of the Council of
   Representatives adopted the Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual
   Orientation in 1997, which publicly chastised those who attempted to “cure”
   homosexuality by means of various forms of treatment. It stated, rather that
   homosexuality was merely a difference in the opinion and values of the common person,
   but must still be respected as an individual orientation, and thus treated as one
   (Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation).
Perhaps one of the most famous studies on this topic was concluded in 1991 by Michael
   Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University, and Richard
   Pillard, an associate professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of
   Medicine, and found that sexual orientation in males is largely due to genetics. For
   two years, these men studied the number of occurrences of homosexuality in both
   monozygotic, or identical twins (a set of twins coming from the same fertilized egg
   and thus having identical DNA), and dizygotic, or fraternal twins (a set of twins
   from too separate zygotes, causing them to have similar DNA, but not any more so than
   that of two ordinary siblings), in addition to adoptive brothers of gay males
   (meaning that all of these males would have been raised in the same environment). In
   total, 110 pairs of twins (identical and fraternal) and 142 sets of male and their
   adopted brothers were studied, where at least one of the two had been classified as
   homosexual, either by self-identification or other means. Out of the 56 homosexual
   males who had identical twins, 29, or approximately 52 % of their identical twin
   brothers were also found to be homosexual, as compared to only 12, or approximately
   22 % of the 54 non-identical twins of homosexual males, and 6, or approximately 11 %
   of the 57 adopted brothers of homosexual males who were unrelated in terms of
   genetics. Strangely enough, the study also included pairs of biological brothers that
   were not twins, and out of the 142 homosexual males studied, only 14, or about 9 %,
   had homosexual brothers, which is approximately the normal statistical incidence of
   homosexuality in the general population (Bailey & Pillard).
More and more people are beginning to believe that homosexuality is not a “choice,”
   but rather a feeling that one is born with. As one grows older, they become aware of
   sexual feelings towards other persons. The only difference between homosexuals and
   heterosexuals is that while heterosexuals are attracted to members of the opposite
   sex, homosexuals are attracted to those of the same sex. Therefore, neither
   homosexuals nor heterosexuals really have a “choice” in the matter, and asking a
   homosexual “Why are you attracted to other members of your sex” is likened to asking
   a heterosexual “Why are you attracted to members of the opposite sex?” After all, why
   would anyone choose such a difficult lifestyle? As a homosexual, one risks horrifying
   their parents, other family members, and friends to the point of losing all contact
   with them, ruining their career, being condemned by their religion, being beat up for
   publicly displaying their sexuality, and much much more. Rather, the only actual
   choice is whether or not to be open with one’s sexuality and sexual preference;
   whether to act on one’s sexual desires, whether to tell others about such feelings,
   or whether to live a whole life as a lie and suppress these attractions (Marcus
   9).
To supplement my findings from research, I have conducted personal interviews with
   two adolescent homosexual males, James Dobbens and Daniel Woods. Both were asked how
   what they thought determined homosexuality (nature vs. nurture) and why, when they
   realized they were homosexual and how they knew, and similar questions. Both believed
   that homosexual was a result of nature, rather than nurture (Dobbens & Woods).
   Dobbens reasoned that most parents would not raise their children to be homosexual;
   “They’re not like ‘My child’s going to be gay!”’ (Dobbens). Dobbens believes that he
   was born homosexual. When why he was a homosexual, he explained “It’s just the way
   you are, you can’t explain it, I was just born that way, it’s like asking how the
   world was made – no one really knows” (Dobbens). He went on to explain that while his
   nurture did not impact his sexual orientation, it did affect his view of it. When
   discussing the role of parents and upbringing in a child’s sexuality, he commented
   “They can bring you up [to be] open minded to [homosexuality], but they don’t bring
   you up [to be a homosexual]… I grew up in a place where [homosexuality is accepted],
   so that’s why I’m so open about being gay; I accept myself… [Whether or not you
   accept homosexuality and can be honest with yourself if you are homosexual] depends
   on how you’re brought up” (Dobbens). Woods generally agreed with Dobbens, and
   justified his belief that homosexuality was caused by one’s nature, rather than
   nurture, when he commented that “there’s nothing in my upbringing that exposed me to
   anything like [homosexuality]” (Woods). When asked why he was gay, he explained that
   it is simply “something that I can’t help… embedded in my head; nothing made me do
   it” (Woods). He went on to explain that it the same thing as the primitive attraction
   between males and females, only it was between males and other males. He added that
   “nothing happened [to make me homosexual]; it’s always been there. I’ve always been
   attracted to guys” (Woods). What I find to be extraordinary about Woods’ case is that
   he remarked how while he has always been sexually attracted go guys, he is
   romantically attracted to women in the sense that he has always wanted a girlfriend
   and to be close with other females, etc… but never in a sexual sense. Though he has
   “always kind of fantasized about getting married [to a female],” these feelings come
   from his “romantic side, which is different from the sexual side” (Woods). He says
   that if he married a female with which he shared a strong trust, maybe he could work
   it out. He then went back to talk about homosexuality as in innate characteristic;
   “It’s like race. It’s all something you can’t help; it all comes to you… It’s
   internal, you can’t help it” (Woods). When asked if he thought homosexuality was
   caused by a gene, he commented that he thought that it was more of an instinct. He
   gave the example of birds, which are born with instincts such as knowing how to build
   a next, or catch their prey. Woods also thought that maybe it was caused by something
   in the development of the embryo. All in all, Woods views homosexuality as
   “fascinating.” His final thought: “I also believe everyone has at least one
   homosexual attraction. It’s not black and white [homosexual vs. heterosexual]; it’s a
   spectrum” (Woods).
Yet there are arguments against homosexuality as caused by genetics. According to
   Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the advantageous traits are passed on, while
   the disadvantageous ones eventually die out. For instance, heterosexual males have an
   average of five times as many children as homosexual ones, as a female is required to
   reproduce children, yet homosexuals are, by definition, not sexually attracted to
   females. Therefore, from the evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality becomes one of
   the disadvantageous traits. Because consequently heterosexual men contribute five
   times as much genetic information to the next the gene pool, if homosexuality was
   indeed caused by a gene, it would have died out entirely by now, or at least been
   reduced immensely in the number of occurrences. Since neither of these events have
   yet taken place, it can be concluded that homosexuality is not caused by a gene
   (Fulkerson).
My findings throughout my research have led me to conclude that there is no
   definitive answer on what causes homosexuality. No one knows for sure now (although
   many think they do), and perhaps no one ever will know the whole truth. Nonetheless,
   I am apt to believe that homosexuality is the product of some kind of combination of
   genetic and environmental causes. Perhaps one may have a genetic predisposition
   towards homosexuality that has been passed on from previous generations. However this
   does not necessarily determine a homosexual; rather this predisposition must be
   triggered by environmental factors. This is why Bailey and Pillard found in their
   study that while they was a greatly elevated chance that two males sharing the same
   genetic makeup would also share the same sexuality, this was not the case 100 % of
   the time. This seems to be the most likely explanation as of now, but even as I write
   this, new studies are being done. Perhaps the truth is right around the corner.

   Works Cited 
   APA Online. 2003. American Psychological Association. <http://www.apa.org>. 
   Bailey, J. M., and R. C. Pillard. "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation."
      Archives of General Psychiatry 1089-1096 (1991). 
   Dobbens, James B. Telephone interview. 6 June 2002. 
   Emond, Charles. Mountain Pride Media. June 1999.
      <http://www.mountainpridemedia.org>. 
   Fulkerson, Richard. Nature and Nurture. 15 Dec. 1999. Iowa State University.
      <http://www.public.iastate.edu>. 
   Homosexuality. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven P, 1993. 
   Isay, Richard A. Being Homosexual. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1989. 
   Marcus, Eric. Is it a Choice? San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993. 
   Wikholm, Andrew. gayhistory.com. 1998. <http://www.gayhistory.com>. 
   Woods, Daniel S. Telephone interview. 6 June 2002.