Gay from birth?

From Drudge we read this report

Here's the punch line of the article. I am adding emphasis in order to comment below.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men."

He suggests the effect is probably the result of a "maternal memory" in the womb for male births.

A woman's body may see a male foetus as "foreign", he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child.

The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University said: "These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator between biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons."

"But the question of mechanism remains."

Andy Forrest, a spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall, said: "Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice.

"It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin colour."

Well, no doubt there is likely a possible biological factor that can be identified as a part of the development of homosexuality. However, let's look at what the article actually reports.

1. The scientists are looking for the "causative" mechanism to account for a phenomenon -- why the chances of a man being homosexual increase in relation to the greater number of older brothers he has. But, the article posits a hypothesis -- antibodies formed by the mother MAY affect male fetal brain development. That is a hypothesis to be tested, not a scientific conclusion. Since they don't find a correlation between social factors and increased homosexuality, the scientists observe that the lack of said social factor being identified strengthens the notion that there is a intra-uterine mechanism. That is not a proof and anyone who tries to imply it is is being either inexact or misleading.

2. But even if it turns out to be the case, one has to ask what it actually implies. It does not imply that such a state of affairs is one to be applauded or acknowledged. For instance, we find many, many human conditions that are caused because of things that go on in the womb during the development of the child. But, that does not mean that the status of those conditions is automatically affirmed as good. Some new research suggests that obeseity and diabetes result from developmental issues that are not what they should be in the womb. Hence, even if the research turns out to be correct and the hypothesis were to be shown to be adequate, one can still ask what it implies.

3. So, the claims by Andy Forrest that there is credible evidence that appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined is far from true. First, a hypothesis that attempts to make sense of phenomena is not the same thing as credible evidence. So, it cannot appear to indicate anything in particular. But even more importantly, the hypothesis is not anywhere near concerned with homosexuality as genetically determined. The kind of biological determinations that the hypothesis suggests are not genetic, they are hormonal or electro-chemical, but they are not genetic. That is a different issue all together.

4. All things being equal then, this new research can provide us with some interesting insights and some further information to consider, but it does not trump the further metaphysical and moral questions that Christian faith has raised about the nature of homosexuality across the ages. Those are questions that cannot be dismissed.