Thursday, July 14, 2011

Is It A Choice? A Scientist's View

When Tim Pawlenty said the science was "in dispute” about whether being gay is genetic, that sure came as surprise to molecular biologist Dean Hamer, Co-Director of the OUT IN THE SILENCE Campaign.

By Dr. Dean Hamer for The Advocate:

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. Back then, the only quantitative data was derived from studies of unrepresentative and potentially biased samples of self-identified gay men and lesbian. But in the intervening 20 years, studies of twins – the mainstay of human population genetics – have been conducted on systematically ascertained populations in three different countries. These studies are notable because they have large sample sizes that are representative of the overall population, they’re conducted by independent university-based investigators using well-established statistical methods, and the results are published in the peer-reviewed literature.

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. While there is a substantial amount of variation that cannot be ascribed to either heritable or shared environment, the differences might also be due to biological traits that are not inherited in a simple additive manner.

One criticism frequently leveled at my work was that sexual orientation couldn't possibly be inherited because “gays don't have kids.” As the gay father of a daughter with lesbian mothers, I always had to shake my head in disbelief – but now there 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.

Another criticism frequently brought up by politically motivated critics of the research is that there is still no single identified "gay gene." However, the same is true for height, skin color, handedness, frequency of heart disease and many other traits that have a large inherited component but no dominant gene. This doesn't mean that sexual orientation is a choice; it simply confirms that sexual orientation is complex, with many genes contributing to the phenotype.

In certain animal model systems, the precise genes involved in sexual partner choice have in fact been identified and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in detail. Humans may be more socially and culturally complex, but it is likely that some of these mechanisms are preserved, as they are for every other behavioral trait we know.

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. This fits with polling data showing that people who believe that gays are "born that way" are generally supportive of full equality, whereas more than two thirds of those who believe it is "a choice" are so opposed that they favor the re-criminalization of same-sex relations.

I would never want my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness to be subject to a DNA test or any other sort of scientific analysis. 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.

At least Pawlenty acknowledged that science has some role to play. I doubt that would be the case for his competitor Michele Bachman, who considers sexual orientation to be so malleable that people can “pray away the gay”. She's hopeless. With Pawlenty, it might just take some education – and plenty of Lady G, of course.

Dean Hamer is a molecular biologist who works on human genetics and HIV prevention and is the author of several scientific books including The Science of Desire. When he's not in the lab, he is visiting small towns and rural communities with his husband Joe Wilson on the OUT IN THE SILENCE Campaign.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Help Us Speak OUT IN THE SILENCE in Pennsylvania's Most Conservative Communities

On May 2, State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the Pennsylvania General Assembly's "No. 1 Conservative," introduced House Bill 1434, a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage Between ‘One Man and One Woman’ in the state.

Not only would such a measure NOT 'protect' marriage, it would cause real harm to real people by denying fundamental rights and protections to families comprised of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people -- excluding them from the institutions of marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Such mean-spirited, politically-motivated attacks also stir up irrational fears and hatred of their targets, putting LGBT people at-risk of losing jobs, housing, access to higher education, personal safety, and sometimes their very lives.

We believe that a vast majority of Pennsylvanians have a more welcoming and inclusive view of their LGBT families, friends, and neighbors, even in the conservative districts of the Marriage 'Protection' Amendment's 37 co-sponsors.

That's why we want to hold very public OUT IN THE SILENCE town-hall screening events in these co-sponsors' very communities, helping to bring people of good will there together to effectively express their support.

And we need your help!

If you live, or care about what's happening, in one of these legislative districts, we want to work with you on an event to raise visibility and help build the local movement for change.

Please check out the list of target legislative districts below and be in touch with us to get involved:


If Not Us, Who? And If Not Now, When?


Penna. Marriage Protection Amendment (HB 1434) Co-Sponsors

Daryl Metcalfe (R) – Butler County / Cranberry Township

Scott Boyd (R) – Lancaster County – Lampeter

Stephen Barrar (R) - Chester / Delaware County - Boothwyn

Michele Brooks (R) – Crawford / Lawrence / Mercer County – Greenville & Meadville

Martin Causer (R) – Cameron / McKean / Potter County – Bradford & Coudersport

Jim Christiana (R) – Beaver County – Monaca & Aliquippa

Paul Clymer (R) – Bucks County – Perkasie

Jim Cox (R) – Berks County – Sinking Spring

Tom Creighton (R) – Lancaster County – Manheim & Denver

Matt Gabler (R) – Clearfield / Elk County – DuBois & St. Marys

Mark Gillen (R) – Berks County – Reading

R. Ted Harhai (D) – Fayette / Westmoreland County – Monessen

Doyle Heffley (R) – Carbon County – Lehighton

Dick Hess (R) – Bedford / Fulton / Huntingdon County – Bedford

David Hickernell (R) – Dauphin / Lancaster County – Elizabethtown & Columbia

Scott Hutchinson (R) – Butler / Venango County – Oil City

Rob W Kauffman (R) – Cumberland/Franklin County – Chambersburg & Shippensburg

Fred Keller (R) – Snyder / Union County – Mifflinburg

Mark Keller (R) – Franklin / Perry County – New Bloomfield & Chambersburg

Jerry Knowles (R) – Berks / Schuykill County – Tamaqua

Timothy Krieger (R) – Westmoreland County – Greensburg & Youngwood

John Lawrence (R) – Chester County – West Grove

Jim Marshall (R) – Beaver County – Beaver Falls

Carl Walker Metzgar (R) – Bedford / Somerset County – Somerset & Hyndman

David Millard (R) – Columbia County – Berwick & Bloomsburg

T. Mark Mustio (R) – Allegheny County – Moon Township

Donna Oberlander (R) – Armstrong / Clarion County – Clarion & Numine

Jeffrey Pyle (R) – Armstrong / Indiana County – Ford City, Apollo, & Home

Kathy Rapp (R) – Forest / Mckean / Warren County – Warren

Mike Reese (R) – Fayette / Westmoreland County – Mount Pleasant

Brad Roae (R) – Crawford County – Titusville & Meadville

Rick Saccone (R) – Allegheny / Washington County – Jefferson Hills

Curt Schroder (R) – Chester County – Exton

Jerry Stern (R) – Blair County – Hollidaysburg

Richard Stevenson (R) – Blair / Mercer County – Grove City

RoseMarie Swanger (R) – Lebanon County – Lebanon

Will Tallman (R) – Adams / York County – Hanover

Randy Vulakovich (R) – Allegheny County – Glenshaw