The Missing Gene: The Failed Search For the Gay Gene

Homosexuality continues to be a divisive issue in America. Though a small percentage of Americans consider themselves gay, many have rallied behind their cause and fought for equal protection, equal rights (such as marriage and civil rights), and the like. One of the arguments made by proponents of homosexuality is that homosexuality is not a choice but a birthright.

Here in lies our societies obsession with trying to find a genetic or pychological scapegoat for everything. It is argued that if a gene can be found proving that sexual orientation is determined at birth, then one's sexual lifestyle is not only morally permissible, but should is a civil right. With such a gene homosexuality cannot be considered as an abomination against God, but rather the outworking of who we truly are.

The argument is nice, but there remains no evidence. Unless we make a "gay of the gaps" hypothesis, the argument remains ludicrous because not a shred of evidence has been found. One scientist calls the gay gene theory "bad science" (to read the full argument of this scientist, click here). Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and the former head of the National Human Genome Research Project, concludes that "homosexuality is not hardwired."

The evidence is so lacking that even homosexual activist are admitting it.

Peter Tatchell, a UK homosexual activist, has recently commented that there is no evidence whatsoever that the homosexual lifestyle is determined at conception. In fact, Tatchell seems to find the idea of a "gay gene" preposterous. He writes:

[Sexuality is] far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow...

Examples of sexual flexibility... don't square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination.

Despite obvious theoretical and empirical weaknesses, the claims that certain genes cause homosexuality have been seized upon and vigorously promoted by many in the lesbian and gay rights movement (especially in the US).

The haste with which these unproven, questionable theories have been embraced suggests a terrible lack of self-confidence and a rather sad, desperate need to justify queer desire. It's almost as if those pushing these theories believe we don't deserve human rights unless we can prove that we are born gay and that our homosexuality is beyond our control: 'We can't help being fags and dykes, so please don't treat us badly'. This seems to be the pleading, defensive sub-text of much of the pro-gay gene thesis...

The homophobes are thus, paradoxically, closer to the truth than many gay activists.

His argument is interesting. The fact that people suddenly change in the middle of their life, he argues, suggests that a gay gene does not exist. It is an interesting argument, but activist will likely ignore it. "Sexual flexibility," as he calls it, is an argument nonetheless. If we are hardwired toward a certain sex then it seems that mankind has done a very good job hiding it. It would imply that there have been millions, if not billions, of persons born gay who have lived a heterosexual lifestyle their entire life and did not know that they were actually gay.

Tatchell gives an example of this sexual flexibility:

Some years later, the Kinsey researchers famously reported the case of a happily married young woman who, ten years into her marriage, unexpectedly fell in love with a female friend. Divorcing her husband, she set up house with this woman. Many years later, despite a fulfilling on-going lesbian relationship, she had an equally satisfying affair with a man. Examples of sexual flexibility, like that of this woman, don't square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination.

Tatchell also distinguishes between genes that influence and genes that cause. I am not going to debate whether or not there are genes that "influence" one's sexual lifestyle. Sexual drive, maybe, but lifestyle, I'm not so sure. But nonetheless, Tatchell's distinction is significant. Despite the hopes of homosexuals everywhere, there remains no credible evidence of a gene that causes one to be gay, straight, bisexual, or other. As Tatchell points out:

The relative influence of biological versus social factors with regard to sexual orientation is still uncertain. What is, however, certain is that if gayness was primarily explainable in genetic terms we would expect it to appear in the same proportions, and in similar forms, in all cultures and all epochs. As the anthropologists Clellan Ford and Frank Beach demonstrated in Patterns Of Sexual Behaviour (1965), far from being cross-culturally uniform and stable, both the incidence and expressions of same-sex desire vary vastly between different societies.

They found, for example, that young men in some tribes (the Aranda of Australia, Siwan of Egypt, Batak of Sumatra, Anga of Melanesia and others) had relationships with boys or older male warriors, usually lasting several years, often as part of manhood initiation rituals. Eventually ceasing homosexual contact, they subsequently assumed sexual desires for women.

If sexual orientation was genetically prefixed at conception, as the proponents of the gay gene claim, these young men would never have been able to switch between heterosexual and homosexual relations with such apparent ease.

He makes a good point. The inconsistencies of the evidence make one important point: no one is born gay or straight. No such gene exists nor will one be found. If the hopes of finding such a gene persists, I assume that scientists will begin to look for transvestite genes, pedophilia genes, polygamy genes, bestiality genes, and all the rest.

This whole debate illustrates one important thing: man will do whatever he can to excuse the sin he wants to get away with. The search for the gay gene is man's attempt to tell God it's not his fault, it's God's. This is no different than what Adam and Eve did in the garden in Genesis 3. Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent. The trend continues today. Rather than confess our sin and turn from it, we seek to blame it on others, on our society, and now, on our genes. "It's not my fault God," we say, "you made me this way." It is amazing what man will do to excuse himself.

I do not want to paint Tatchell as someone on the "religious rights" side. In fact, in the same article, Tatchell attacks the religous right homophobes and goes on to argue that though we are not born with a predetermined sexual lifestyle, choice has very little to do with our sexual orientation. He rather argues that our early years determine our later sexual orientation.

Though Tatchell and I disagree on this and on homosexuality being a sin, we can at least agree that there is no homosexual birthright. Gay gene proponents have been dealt a mortal wound by which they may never recover. Christians must remain steadfast on this issue knowing that God has declared His verdict and it is not up for debate, no matter who or what man may blame their sinful lives on; even if they try to blame it on their Creator.