BLOGS | HOMOSEXUALITY | BARYOMUNSI 

Homosexuality, a sexual attraction between members of the same sex, is a deviant behaviour that has existed for a long time, including the biblical times. 

In the book of Genesis chapter 19, the Bible describes Sodom and Gomorrah as cities which God destroyed because of their sin of homosexuality. 

In the book of Leviticus 20:13, the Bible states that “if a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both commit an abomination. They must be put to death”. 

There has been a debate whether homosexual behaviour is inborn or it is an acquired behaviour that is learnt in life. 

A question is always asked whether homosexual behaviour is the result of nature or nurture. This article attempts to explain what causes homosexuality. 

There are two main theories as to what causes homosexual relations. One is that a homosexual orientation is essentially dictated by genetic or biological factors; put simply, people are born gay. 

The other theory is that homosexual attractions develop primarily as a result of psychological and environmental influences as well as early experiences.

Research studies done  

The question is: what does research say?

There are a number of studies published in the last 30 or 40 years that have claimed to offer evidence in favour of a biological or genetic cause of homosexuality. 

However, a careful review of these studies reveals no credible evidence to associate homosexuality with genetic predisposition or biological factors. 

Three famous studies are trying to bring out the evidence: one on the size of some structures of the brain by Simon Le Vay, a study of twins by Michael Bailey and a study on gene markers by Richard Pillard. Simon Le Vay in 1991 studied the brains of cadavers, including 18 men known to have been homosexual and these were compared with the brains of 16 women presumed heterosexual. 

Levy claimed that some of the hypothalamus structure of the brain was twice as big in heterosexual men than in homosexuals. 

The study postulates that sexual orientation has a biological substrate. This study suffered from grave methodological errors, including failure to identify a control group. 

This study could not be relied on given that the sample size was small and most of the homosexuals had died of HIV/AIDS. 

The researcher had made questionable assumptions regarding the orientation of “heterosexual” cadavers and in addition, it was possible that the observed brain structure changes could be the effects of HIV and AIDS. 

Le Vay, himself admitted that his claim of a correlation between brain structure and sexual orientation could not prove causation or even direction of influence. 

There are other studies done to study the brain structure and link it with sexual orientation. L.S. Allen and R.A. Gorskin in 1991 claimed that the anterior commissure of the brain was found larger in homosexuals compared to heterosexual men.

Other researchers like Mitchell Lasco examined the same brain structure using post-mortem materials from 120 individuals. Other brain structures studied include the suprachiasmatic nucleus and corpus callosum. 

All the claims that were made about morphological differences have been dismissed by other credible researchers and scientists. 

Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard studied twins and claimed to have found a higher rate of homosexuality among identical and fraternal twins than among adoptive siblings. 

In this study, the concordance rate for homosexuality in non-twin biological brothers was only 9.2%: significantly lower than required by a simple genetic hypothesis which on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for fraternal twins and non-twin biological brothers. 

The findings of this study are not consistent with genetic theory. The evidence suggested an environmental rather than a genetic cause for homosexuality. 

We must at least consider the possibility that the higher concordance rate for homosexuality in fraternal twins compared with non-twin biological brothers is due to increase similarity of the trait-relevant environment it is in the former. 

Fraternal twins and full biological siblings share the same proportion of genetic material. Thus, any difference in the true concordance rates would be attributable to environmental rather than genetic factors. Another study that examined identical and fraternal twins in the Minnesota twin registry concluded that environmental factors were a primary component of the formation of sexual orientation. 

The authors asserted that environmental effects were more important in the aggregate than genetic effects in influencing homosexual behaviour. A key finding was made that adoptive brother of homosexual twins are more prone to homosexuality than the biological siblings suggesting that male homosexuality may well be environmental. 

If homosexuality was a trait determined entirely by a person’s genes, one would expect 100% of the identical twins of homosexuals to also be homosexual. 

Yet this is not the case; what is intriguing is the large proportion of identical twins who were discordant for homosexuality despite sharing not only their genes, but also their parental and familial environments.

There are other studies called linkage studies that have been carried out with a view of isolating gene markers on chromosomes that could explain homosexual behaviour. 

One such study was by geneticist, Dean Hammer who claimed that homosexuality is genetically linked to a code on the X-chromosome called Xq28. 

After criticism and review by other scientists, Dean conceded that such linkage studies have not found genes that code for complex behaviours. As scientists, we believe that homosexual orientation is not a simple mendelian trait. 

If homosexuality was genetic, it would have died out. There would be strong selective pressures against such a gene. From an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction. 

Thus, the purported linkage between genetics and sexual orientation stands in apparent contradiction to the flimsy genetic and epidemiologic evidence raised by the above researchers.

 One would ask how do lesbians and homosexuals manage to pass on their gene pool to successive generations. All theories regarding the existence of a “gay gene” remain scientifically unsubstantiated. 

That explains why homosexuals increase in number by recruitment and promotions, and not through reproduction. Other scientific speculations linking sexual orientation to male and female hormones have also been proved unsatisfactory. 

There are studies that have looked at the question: Do upbringing, experience and the social environment contribute to the development of homosexuality? 

The role of personal choice in becoming homosexual has also been explored. People may not chose what sexual feelings or attractions they experience, but they choose the sexual behaviours in which they engage. 

It is assumed that sex orientation is shaped and reshaped by a cascade of choices made in the context of changing circumstances in one’s life and enormous social and cultural pressures.

Parental influence has been established as a contributing factor to sexual orientation. 

In a publication, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Freud described the mothers of homosexuals as excessively loving and their fathers as retiring or absent. 

Other researchers found the mothers of homosexuals to be especially demonstrative, affectionate and emotional, while the fathers were typically unsympathetic or frequently away from home. 

Several other studies point to strong evidence and considerable agreement to family dynamics in the development of male homosexuality. 

Further studies have linked a history of homosexual child abuse to an adult homosexual orientation and to sexual attraction to children.

If homosexuality were the result of biological or genetic factors, one would expect that it would be fairly and evenly distributed both geographically and sociologically among all types of people. 

Studies and observations show that urbanisation and higher levels of education are directly corrected with higher levels of homosexual behaviour and self-identification. 

In the western world, people with this behavioural deviation were historically treated with stigma, as a minority group. Owing to the need for self-preservation, they opted to fight back and mobilise politically. The homosexual lobby group is strong machinery in the western world that ferociously pushes its agenda of promotion and acceptability. 

Our societies as black Africa, do not cherish homosexual behaviour. Even colonial governments realised this and enacted national legislation in Africa that prohibit same-sex relationships. 

To date, over 40 countries in Africa have constitutions or national legislations that explicitly criminalise homosexual behaviour. 

Uganda, and indeed other developing countries, must firmly resist the arrogant behaviour of other societies that want to impose on us these foreign behaviours. 

Homosexuality has no place in Uganda. Let those who cherish it do so in their countries, but they should leave us alone. 

Should we sacrifice our values and morals for the sake of financial support from rich countries that glorify homosexuality? 

No. I support all efforts to strengthen the law in Uganda. Efforts to recruit our people and promote homosexuality, including using new technologies should be resisted. 

All measures to fight homosexual behaviour should be supported in order to keep our values and ethos pristine.

The writer is a medical doctor and is Uganda’s Minister of Information, Communications Technology and National Guidance