Nurture vs. nature: Was Bill Richardson wrong?

The sad and silly spectacle of Larry Craig's bathroom escapade has once again forced America to contemplate the nature of sexuality. The latest rumors concerning Condi Rice also have America thinking gay. (She owns a house with a female liberal activist, and their mutual friend is homosexual.) And when Democrat Bill Richardson gave the "wrong" answer regarding the cause of homosexuality, he nearly ended his candidacy.

The Richardson controversy rankled me. Activists attacked him because he said: "It's a choice. I'm not a scientist. I don't see this as an issue of science or definition." This response conflicted with current Democratic party orthodoxy, which holds that Mother Nature makes the choice for us.

Does she?

Frankly, I doubt that Richardson cares much about the origins of gayness. He probably just misrecalled which answer he was supposed to give. The larger question is this: Why are we asking political candidates to offer opinions on what is, in essence, a question for biologists and social scientists?

Sorry gov, but this question is an issue of science and definition. I, too, am no scientist, but I don't mind skimming the literature. Right now, anyone surveying the paperwork in the case of nurture vs. nature will see much evidence favoring "nature" -- but if you think the matter has been adjudicated, think again.

A brain researcher named Simon LeVay found that one group of neurons in the hypothalamus was more prevelant in heterosexuals than in homosexuals. However, his work has not been successfully replicated, and LeVay has insisted that "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay." Dean Hamer's studies of chromosomal links are not conclusive. A recent Italian study suggests that female relatives of gay men tend to be more fertile than other types of women, but this finding hardly proves the genetic theory.

We have good evidence indicating that the morphology of the brain differs between gays and straights. Gays tend to have a much larger anterior commissure, a bundle of white fibers connecting the two hemispheres. The suprachiasmatic nucleus (a part of the hypothalamus) also tends to be larger in gays.

Studies involving twins have been used both for and against the genetic theory.

We therefore cannot discount the idea that brain morphology has been altered by environmental factors. Researchers Gregory Cochran and Paul Ewald have proposed a pathogenic theory of homosexuality. The idea is, at present, very politically incorrect, and no studies back it. However, viruses have been known to cause changes in brain structure.

Obviously, this post can take only a passing glance at so large and contentious a field of study. This area of research is still quite young. We may be fifty years away -- perhaps even a hundred years away -- from a definitive answer.

One should also note that some gays object to all genetic theories and embrace the notion of homosexuality as a choice. Gore Vidal objects to being called a gay man, since he maintains that the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" describe acts, not people. In an 1991 essay on sex in The Nation, Vidal wrote:

Actually, the perecentage of the population that is deeply enthusiastic about other-sex is probably not much larger than those exclusively devoted to same-sex -- something like 10 percent in either case. The remaining 80 percent does this, does that, does nothing; settles into an acceptable if dull social role...

I don't know where Vidal found these numbers, although some wags might suggest that he yanked them out of a location germane to this discussion. Perhaps he simply wanted to visualize the largest possible population of potential conquests.

We don't really know what percentage of the male population is gay -- or, if you prefer, what perecentage of the male population has an enlarged anterior commissure. The number is probably somewhere between two percent and ten percent; the majority of the male population would probably rather have carnal knowledge of a honeydew melon than of another man.

Such, at least, is my guess.

I emphasize the word to emphasize my primary point: We are still guessing. Science has not spoken -- not conclusively, not yet.

So why was Richardson castigated for giving the "wrong" answer (presuming he meant to say what he said, which I don't think he did)? How can there be a "wrong" answer, given our unimpressive state of knowledge?

And why is someone like Gore Vidal permitted to opine that sexuality is purely a matter of choice, while any Democratic presidential candidate who seconds the notion is considered guilty of Thoughtcrime Most Foul?

Personally, I suspect that genes play a large role. But suspicion is not scientific proof, and I cannot fairly demand that everyone else share my hunches.