Is Gallup Asking the Wrong Questions About Sexual Orientation?

Americans’ beliefs on the origin of sexual orientation have less and less to do with attitudes toward the LGBTQ community.

A supporter of same-sex marriage holds American and gay pride flags in San Francisco
National Journal
Kaveh Waddell
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Kaveh Waddell
May 29, 2014, 9:45 a.m.

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.

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.”

What We're Following See More »
APPEALS COURT RULED TRUMP EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY
Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Travel Ban
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Supreme Court announced "that it would consider a challenge to President Trump’s latest effort to limit travel from countries said to pose a threat to the nation’s security." The case concerns Trump's most recent attempt to make good on a campaign promise "tainted by religious animus" and only questionably justified by national security concerns. The decision to take the case, called Trump v. Hawaii, comes almost exactly a year after Trump issued the first travel ban. The ban under consideration affects Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea.

Source:
FACES STIFF OPPOSITION FROM BOTH PARTIES
Trump Proposes 95 Percent Cut To Office of Drug Control Budget
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

Trump wants to move the two grants, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas grant and the Drug Free Communities Act, to the Justice and Health and Human Services departments, respectively. This would result in a $300 million plus reduction in funding, about 95 percent of the cost of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "'I’m baffled at the idea of cutting the office or reducing it significantly and taking away its programs in the middle of an epidemic,'" said Regina LaBelle, who served as ONDCP chief of staff during the Obama administration. This is the second time the Trump Administration has proposed gutting the agency.

Source:
HOPES A DEAL CAN GET DONE
Schumer Meeting with Trump for Last-Ditch Meeting
12 hours ago
THE LATEST
BY SCALISE
House Told to “Stay Flexible”
14 hours ago
THE DETAILS
ALREADY PASSED CR, MCCARTHY SAYS
House Is Heading Home
14 hours ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login