Sociobehaviourists are not convinced by the essentialist biological argument. They believe that environmental factors play the dominant role in determining sexual orientation. The Constructionist School claims that homosexuality is a modern construction that did not even exist some one hundred years ago.[1]

Social theorists usually see environmental factors during childhood as most influential. These factors may include “childhood play patterns, early peer interactions and relations, differences in parental behaviour toward male and female children, and the role of gender constancy in the household.”[2]

One of the first things to note is that the term “homosexual” only came into use fairly recently. The expression was first coined in German by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 in a private letter to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. The first known use of the term in English was in 1892.[3] And it was 1906 before the term became more widely known.[4]

There are two cases where society seems to have a causative affect on homosexuality. In New Guinea, young boys (8-15) in some tribes are inseminated orally by the male warriors of the tribe on a daily basis. In ancient Crete, as a rite of passage, every adolescent boy had to form a homosexual relationship.[5] One must question whether these are transitory homosexual acts, rather than orientation, in the same way that some prisoners perform homosexual acts to relieve their sexual tension (or to impose power hierarchies) while their orientation remains heterosexual.

The occurrence of homosexual acts within ancient Greek society is well documented. Interestingly, Plato, through Aristophanes, in the Symposium gives an explanation of three sexual orientations which appear to have a lot in common with today’s gay, lesbian and straight. Aristophanes is clear that he believes that men who desire men do so because it is part of their nature. They will prefer males all their lives, even though they may, for societal reasons, marry and have children.[6]

Freud, in the early years of the twentieth century, produced a number of articles which addressed homosexuality. His statements are fascinating. While he thought that homosexual orientation was caused by arrested development, a failure to resolve Oedipal issues as a teenager, he nonetheless did not see this as a problem. Indeed he considered it an abuse of psychoanalysis to try to force a person to change. And he acknowledged that he did not know of a successful way to achieve a conversion from homosexual to heterosexual orientation.[7]

In a letter written to the mother of a gay son Freud wrote, “Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness…”[8] He then goes on to explain that many prominent historical figures were homosexuals. Freud himself signed a statement in the 1930s both in Austria and Germany seeking an end to the criminalisation of homosexual acts.[9]

The first major study giving data to support a psychoanalytic model for homosexual orientation was produced in 1962 by Irving Bieber.[10] This replicated the hypotheses of an earlier study in Britain by D.J. West.[11] Bieber asserted that homosexuality was a sign of mental illness, directly refuting Hooker’s earlier work, cited above.

Bieber identified 106 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men undergoing psychological treatment and asked their psychiatrists to fill out a questionnaire. From the 70 surveys that were returned Bieber concluded that the homosexual men had fathers who were emotionally distant and less loving and mothers who were smothering or too intimate.

Bieber goes on to report that psychoanalysis had a 29% success rate in changing homosexuals to heterosexuals.

The influence of this study cannot be underestimated. It forms the foundation of all conversion therapies. These may take the form of a formal group offering conversion or reparative therapy such as NARTH[12], or groups providing advice for fathers to ‘inoculate’ their child against homosexuality.[13]

Bieber’s study has been criticised on numerous grounds. There may have been both treatment bias due to all the subjects being in psychoanalysis, as well as therapist bias, as the data was second-hand interpretation by psychoanalysts who believed that homosexuality was a result of disturbed parent-child relationships.[14]

Bieber may also have confused cause and effect. In other words, a tendency for gay males to bond more with their mothers than fathers could be a result of their homosexual orientation rather than a cause of it.

In 1981 Alan Bell, Martin Weinberg and Sue Hammersmith reported the results of an extensive study lasting many years of the family dynamics experienced by homosexual and heterosexual persons.[15] Specially trained interviewers interviewed 1456 people who were drawn as volunteers from the general public. The results of these interviews, based on 200 standard questions, were analysed using path analysis to uncover the causes of sexual orientation.

The conclusions published showed that the mother-daughter and father-daughter relationships had no influence on whether women were lesbian. For sons, the mother-son relationship had no bearing on whether the son was gay, although there was a slight correlation with the father-son relationship:

“Our findings thus accord with theoretical speculations insofar as they suggest that a father perceived as relatively cold by his son is less likely to get along well with him and offers a less-appealing figure for identification. The influence of paternal traits, however, seems limited to familial relationships; their ultimate effect on a son’s adult sexual preference is at best tenuous.”[16]

Two years later Elizabeth Moberly proposed a refined version of Bieber’s theory on the cause of homosexual orientation.[17] She later became a counsellor with the conversion group Exodus International[18], and Moberly’s work is held in high regard by those involved in conversion / reparation therapy.

Moberly does not equate a homosexual orientation with an abnormal mental illness as Bieber had done. Neither does she accept that the mother-son relationship affects sexual orientation.

“However, if there is a defensive detachment from the father, the only remaining channel for attachment is that to the mother… The reparative drive [of the homosexual] seeks to fulfil needs that are normally met through the medium of the child’s attachment to the parent of the same sex. In this sense, the homosexual love-need is essentially a search for parenting.”[19]

Like Freud, Moberly proposed that all children go through a homosexual phase until they settle into the gender and sexual identity that is appropriate for their sex. She suggested that homosexual men and women spend time with heterosexual people of the same sex to build friendships and learn appropriate behaviour from them.

The APA (American Psychological Association) has strongly criticised both Bieber’s and Moberly’s approaches. Indeed they have criticised the entire reparative movement based on the constructionist theories of homosexual development:

“Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients’ sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.”[20]

The Guardian published an account of the movement to ‘cure’ homosexuality in 2004 that helpfully personalises the issues.[21] The article dealt with a recent 2000 study in which Robert Spitzer, who was involved in the 1973 campaign to remove homosexuality from the APA DSM list of disorders, found that there may be some change in those who have undergone ‘therapy’ for their homosexual orientation.[22] Spitzer’s study, to his surprise and to the delight of those involved in therapeutic programmes for homosexuality (or “same-sex attraction disorder”, as it is referred to by NARTH), showed that there was some movement towards the heterosexual end of the sexuality scale.

Spitzer’s study has raised many questions, particularly in relation to the subjects he interviewed (by phone). Spitzer found it difficult to recruit volunteers, and it was revealed that conversion ministries themselves forwarded a significant proportion of the “converted” subjects to Spitzer. Of these many were directly involved in leading conversion ministries themselves. It is, of course, in their best interest to say that the therapy has worked. There is also a question as to how ‘gay’ the subjects were before the therapy. In other words, perhaps the subjects would have been placed towards the middle of the sexuality scale in the first place (with a bisexual orientation), and thus would have been more open to a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. The success of the therapy would thus be more about repressing one side of a person’s sexual identity, rather than actual conversion.

Other social questions that are raised by some who consider homosexuality sinful include whether homosexuals are more likely to abuse children, or whether they can parent effectively. It is also asked whether children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to become homosexual, and whether they are in some way under-developed psychologically and socially.[23]

Not everyone who considers homosexuality sinful makes the link to child abuse. However, some do, with comments such as the following made on the Church of Scotland discussion board during the General Assembly 2006: “Don't you care for the future of Scotland? Don't you care for the future of our children (obviously some do care for the future of our male children)? What perverts. How can this be? How can this be? God have mercy on us. God have mercy on those in charge for allowing these vulgar deviants inside the door of your church buildings.”[24]

The recent case of two gay men sent to prison for a combined 11 years for abusing children in their care lends fuel to this righteous fire.[25] But one case proves nothing. What do the statistics tell us?

The American Psychological Association and National Association of Social Workers prepared an extremely useful amici curiae brief for a case (Boswell vs Boswell) in which the life-partner of a gay father was banned from being present when the child was with its father. The brief was used to overturn the trial verdict. It contains the results of numerous studies that answer concerns such as these.[26]

In a study undertaken over a year in a large Denver hospital, only 0.7% of the children who received treatment for abuse had been abused by an adult offender identified as gay or lesbian. In detail, 1 girl out of 219 who had been abused was abused by a lesbian, and 1 boy out of 50 was abused by a gay man. On the other hand, 88% of the abusers had documented heterosexual relationships, and most of the abuse (77% for girls and 74% for boys) was attributable to someone in a heterosexual relationship with a member of the child’s family.[27]

On parenting by homosexual couples, a number of studies have been performed. In one study of gay and straight fathers the researchers found

“…no differences between homosexual and heterosexual fathers in their degree of involvement with their children or in the level of intimacy they had with their children. The difference the study did find were that homosexual fathers were more likely to set and enforce limits on their children’s behaviour, were more responsive to their children’s needs, and were more likely to explain the reasons for rules.”[28] They concluded that there was no difference in overall abilities or skills.

The same is found for lesbian mothers. In the amici curiae brief for Boswell vs Boswell it states:

“These studies consistently demonstrate a ‘remarkable absence of distinguishing features between the life-styles, child-rearing practices, and general demographic data’ of lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers. This research provides additional support for the conclusion that sexual orientation is not an important variable in predicting parenting ability.”[29]

On the question of whether the child of homosexual parents is more likely to have a homosexual orientation than if a straight couple raised them: this does not appear to be the case. A study of 82 boys (all 17 or over) to 55 gay or bisexual fathers showed that only 7 were either gay or bisexual themselves.[30] A study of sons and daughters of 40 gay fathers found 1 of 21 sons and 3 of 27 daughters had a homosexual orientation.[31]

Similar studies with lesbian mothers have found that there is no statistically significant difference in the sexual orientation of the children they raise and those raised by heterosexual parents.[32] Researchers conclude, “The truth is that most children of homosexual men and women turn out to be heterosexual.”[33]

The proportions of children who have a sexual orientation towards the middle or homosexual end of the sexuality scale in these and many other studies fall within the normal range for the proportion of non-heterosexual individuals within society as a whole.[34]

The final question is whether children raised by gay parents would be psychologically healthy and socially adjusted. Most of the studies have been on lesbian mothers, but the few studies on gay fathers seem to correspond to those of lesbian mothers. The studies have shown no appreciable difference between children raised by homosexual parents and those raised by heterosexual parents.

“The most striking feature of the research on lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children is the remarkable absence of pathological findings. The second most striking feature is how similar the groups of gay and lesbian parents and their children are to the heterosexual parents and their children that were included in the studies.”[35]

The evidence for the role of environmental factors indicates that these have a smaller impact on sexual orientation than has theoretically been expected.

The classical psychoanalytical approach to ‘blame it on the parents’ either with an overbearing mother or distant father seems to have no or very little basis in reality despite influential research from the 1960s.

Studies have failed to establish any link between homosexual orientation and mental illness, and additionally, studies have shown that “children of homosexual parents and children from same-sex partnerships appear to be as well-adjusted as other children, and no more likely to be homosexual than children of heterosexual partnerships.”[36]

Finally, numerous studies have also contradicted the principles underlying current conversion therapies for gay and lesbian people.