Even as the number of Americans who support same-sex marriage reaches an all-time high, the ratio of Americans who believe that sexual orientation is innate to those who believe it is environmentally determined has remained relatively unchanged since the year 2000.
A Gallup Poll conducted earlier this month showed that 37 percent of Americans believe that being gay or lesbian is “due to factors such as upbringing and environment”; 42 percent think that people are born with their sexual orientation.
There is no consensus on the issue in today’s scientific community. “Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles,” the American Psychological Association writes. “Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
There is evidence of physical differences between homosexual and heterosexual brains: A research project at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm found that “the brains of gay men and women in some aspects are similar to the brains of those of the opposite sex.” But those differences probably did not arise from environmental or genetic circumstances alone. Another study from the same institute examined differences between identical and fraternal twins in Sweden. It found that both genetic effects and the non-shared environment — that is, environmental differences in each twin’s upbringing — had moderate effects on determining sexual orientation.
But perhaps the question of nature versus nurture is not the question we — or Gallup — should be asking. “It’s not worthy of debate, necessarily,” said Ellen Kahn, director of the Human Rights Campaign’s Children, Youth & Families Program. “What your beliefs are is less relevant because we’re familiar, more and more, with gay and lesbian people. Why doesn’t matter as much.” This view is borne out by the data: Even as beliefs on the origins of sexual orientation remain the same, acceptance is steeply increasing every year.
The more pernicious question, Kahn said, has to do with malleability of sexual orientation. “We have to continue to point to volumes of scientific evidence that you cannot change your sexual orientation; the only thing you can do is choose to acknowledge it and share it.” A comprehensive 2009 APA review of journal literature on sexual-orientation change efforts found that attempts to alter a person’s orientation are “unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm.”
Perhaps, then, we should stop considering the nature-versus-nurture question altogether. Jamie Tabberer wrote in The Independent earlier this year, “For me, a resolution will come when people stop asking about it — because acceptance shouldn’t depend on the answer.”
- 1 Only the Margin Seems in Doubt in the Presidential Race
- 2 The Late-Breaking Democratic House Targets
- 3 Great Democratic Hopes Energize Quiet Faithful in Missouri
- 4 Will Congress Try to Rein in Obamacare Premiums?
- 5 Smart Ideas: Ken Bone Revealed a Serious Policy Divide, and Elizabeth Warren Seeks a Co-Presidency
What We're Following See More »
Twenty-three members of Congress "on Thursday asked the Justice Department to clarify how a looming rule change to the government's hacking powers could impact privacy rights of innocent Americans. The change, due to take place on December 1, would let judges issue search warrants for remote access to computers located in any jurisdiction, potentially including foreign countries. Magistrate judges can normally only order searches within the jurisdiction of their court, which is typically limited to a few counties."
"Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced that her campaign and joint fundraising committees raised $101 million in the first 19 days of October, giving her committees $153 million in cash on hand." Her campaign itself has about $62 million on hand. The campaign said the average donation was $50.
Hillary Clinton appeared on the campaign trail for the first time with Michelle Obama on Thursday night. At the joint appearance in North Carolina, Mrs. Obama said, “When you hear folks talking about a global conspiracy and saying that this election is rigged, understand that they are trying to get you to stay home. They are trying to convince you that your vote doesn’t matter, that the outcome has already been determined and that you shouldn’t even bother to make your voice heard.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that "there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices—appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election." Speaking to reporters in Colorado, Cruz said: "I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”