This journal article summarizes and critiques arguments for biological bases of homosexuality. It notes that while recent media attention has focused on certain studies finding biological influences on homosexuality, scientific study of biological factors has occurred for over a century. However, the assumption that biological findings will reduce discrimination is problematic. Specifically, the research often does not include lesbians or bisexuals and so may only benefit gay men legally. Additionally, basing civil rights arguments entirely on scientific findings leaves the arguments vulnerable if the research is contradicted later.

1. • Bio-Rhetoric, Background Beliefs and the Biology of Homosexuality
• Journal article by Robert Alan Brookey; Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol. 37, 2001
BIO-RHETORIC, BACKGROUND
BELIEFS AND THE BIOLOGY OF
HOMOSEXUALITY.
by Robert Alan Brookey
In the past few years the media have given great attention to scientific research which
indicates that homosexuality may have some biological cause. Contrary to the current
hype, the scientific study of homosexuality is hardly a new phenomenon. In fact,
theories about a biological basis for sexuality can be traced back to the nineteenth
century. What distinguishes this old research from the new is the untested belief that
contemporary findings will somehow ease the social pressures put upon gays and
lesbians. For example, Hamer's (Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu, & Pattatucci, 1993)
research on the "gay gene" has been hailed as a valuable tool in the on going battle for
gay rights. Hamer reported that he had isolated a genetic market on the Xq28
chromosome that correlates with male homosexuality. Shortly after Hamer's study was
published, the Human Rights Campaign Fund released a special press packet
suggesting that the biological research on homosexuality will provide a powerful
argument for gay rights (Watney, 199 5). Specifically, advocates of gay rights
maintain that this research proves that sexual orientation is not chosen, and therefore
gays should not suffer from discrimination because of their sexuality.
Gay 'rights advocates believe the biological research on homosexuality will establish
homosexuality as an immutable characteristic, and thus extend to homosexuals the
constitutional protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although this argument may
seem compelling, it is based on a simplistic, and not wholly accurate reading of the
Fourteenth Amendment (Stein, 1994). Furthermore, if this argument is taken at face
value, some troubling problems emerge. For example, most of the biological research
(Hamer's study in particular) does not include lesbians as subjects. In fact, Hamer has
gone on record as saying that lesbianism is not genetic, but socially and culturally
produced (Gallagher, 1998). In addition, most of this research (again, Hamer's study in
particular) argues that bisexuality is not biologically based. Given that the biological
argument assumes that rights should be extended to sexual minorities whose sexuality
is biologically based, and given that the biological research excludes specific sexual
minorities, it would seem that the biological research would only benefit a specific
group: male homosexuals (Zita, 1994).
Of equal concern, however, is how the dependence on biological research places the
gay rights movement in a precarious position. After all, if the argument for rights is
based on specific research, what happens to the argument when the research is
rendered obsolete? For example, a recent study published in Science casts doubt on
Hamer's genetic research. The authors (Rice, Anderson, Risch & Ebers, 1999)
concluded their report by observing:
It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Homer's original study. Because
our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to
detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do
not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation. (p.