Gay for the thrill of it.

Lesbianism is more the result of nurture than nature, and lesbian mothers

are far likelier to have lesbian daughters than are straight mothers. Gay

men are "hardwired" in their sexual orientation, while lesbians are not.

And, for the record, there is no gay gene.

According to Dean Hamer, chief of gene structure and regulation at the

Laboratory of Biochemistry at the National Cancer Institute, these

statements are more than just sound bites for journalists, gay activists,

and members of the religious right to speculate upon. They are rooted in

our most fundamental biological makeup. "Just about every aspect of

what we do is affected by genes," says Hamer. "Other factors are

important, but genes do play an important role too."

Hamer lays out his thesis in his new book, Living With Our Genes:

Why They Matter More Than You Think. In everything we do, from the

frequency of sexual activity to anger, aging, and addiction, Hamer writes,

genes are increasingly shown to have a crucial impact. "The real

breakthroughs in understanding personality are not occurring on leather

couches but in laboratories," Hamer

and coauthor Peter Copeland argue in the

book. "Understanding the genetic roots of

personality will help you `find yourself' and

relate better to others. The knowledge can

help you in relationships and at work."

"What he's saying is that there's a bunch

of genes that are not specifically sexual in

their task, but they produce personality

traits that influence our whole selves," says

Simon LeVay, whose 1991 study of the

hypothalamus found differences between

those of gay men and straight men; his

study was considered a landmark in the

quest for a biological connection to sexual

orientation. "That our sexuality is a kind of

mosaic of characteristics, some of which

are specifically sexual and some of which

are chips off a larger block, is very

believable. It's how we intuitively think

about human beings."

Other scientists are

unconvinced. "There is not a

very good self-critical

assessment when people say

there is a gene for this or that,"

says Anne Fausto-Sterling, a professor

of medical science at Brown

University. "If you take a

complicated human behavior 

like shyness, which is

modulated over a lifetime, the

gap between the behavior and

that protein is enormous."

In his book Hamer traces the connection

between several larger traits that he links to

genes, such as thrill seeking and anxiety,

and specific sexual behaviors. For example,

straight men who have a genetic tendency

for novelty seeking are far more likely to

sleep with another man than those lacking

the gene, while gay men with the same

marker are far more likely to have slept

with a woman. Men of either orientation

who have the marker for low anxiety--Hamer

calls it genetic Prozac--are likely to

have sex less frequently than those with a

marker for high anxiety.

"When your boyfriend or girlfriend says,

`Not tonight--I have a headache,' it may be

a genetic thing," Hamer told The

Advocate. "Or maybe you said the wrong

thing that morning. Genes certainly don't

dictate. There is no gene that says you have

to have sex twice a

week." There is also, says Hamer, "not a

single, all-powerful 'gay gene.'" Instead, he

says, a variety of genetic markers conspire 

in a complex manner to shape a person's

tendency to be gay or straight.

Richard Pillard, a professor of psychiatry

at the Boston University School of

Medicine, believes that the evidence favors

a genetic explanation for traits, particularly

sexual orientation. "Some people will say

sexual orientation is so complicated, that

there are many flavors of being gay, and I

would fully expect different genetic

endowments that nudge one toward being

straight or gay," he says. "But it's hard

for me to imagine it's learned. Some farm

boy in Iowa grows up and recognizes some

strange urges within him that his family and

culture never dreamed of, and when he goes

to New York and looks around--wow!--there

are people like him."

Nothing about Hamer's claims will

generate more discussion--and controversy--than

his explanation of sexual orientation,

particularly in women. In an exception to

his general theme, Hamer contends that the

current research indicates that lesbians

are more a product of their environment

than their genes. His findings may provide

comfort to antigay conservatives and

prompt criticism from his peers.

"The argument really depends on

information and data from a number of

different sources," he says. "Men tend

to be more sexually fixed. Women tend to

be more sexually fluid. We've interviewed

lesbians who have always identified as

lesbian but who fantasize about men. I

interviewed one 68-year-old woman who had

always been heterosexual and enjoyed sex

with men but who thought her next lover

would be a woman because men in her age

bracket weren't attractive. You don't find

70-year-old straight men saying, `I think I'll

turn gay now.'"

Hamer says such anecdotal evidence is a

strong indication that genes explain male

homosexuality far more than they do

female homosexuality. In men, he writes,

"orientation had many of the characteristics

of a genetically influenced trait: It was

consistent, stable, and dichotomous,

meaning men were either gay or straight."

Studies of male twins, he contends, back up

that theory.

Not so for women. Recent

work on female sexual

orientation, done by

Northwestern University 

psychology professor Michael

Bailey and Australian geneticist 

Nicholas Martin, suggests that

"female sexual identification is

more a matter of environment

than of heredity," Hamer

writes.

However, Bailey says such a conclusion

overstates the case. "We would say our

research did not find evidence that female

sexual orientation has a genetic

component," he says. "That is different

from the way Dean phrased it. Dean said we

found it wasn't genetic."

Moreover, Bailey says that his study,

part of a larger project involving female

twins, simply did not include enough

lesbians in its sampling to allow for firm

conclusions. "It was not a large enough

sample to do a dependable analysis," says

Bailey. "I would have to say our results are

more in the indeterminate range. I think it's

an incorrect way to characterize our results

to the extent that he characterized our

results that way."

Lesbian activist Urvashi Vaid points out

that so far most of the research about the

biological origins of homosexuality has

focused on men. "A lot more money was

funneled into research on gay men," she

says. "I don't dispute Dean's

conclusion; he certainly knows more than I do.

I wonder what we will find when we go down the

road."

"These are narrow studies of narrow

groups of people," says Kerry Lobel,

executive director of the National Gay and

Lesbian Task Force. "To the extent that

they inform our discussion, they're

interesting. There's no question that

both men and women would agree we're

fundamentally different creatures when it

comes to the expression of our sexual

orientation. You don't have to

be a rocket scientist or a

geneticist to understand that's

true."

In another study cited by

Hamer, the sister of a lesbian

had a 6% chance of being a

lesbian herself--six times more

likely than the general

population. The correlation

between lesbian mothers and

daughters, however, was an

astonishing 33%. In other

words, the daughter of a lesbian

had a 1 in 3 chance of being a

lesbian herself.

"Genetically speaking, this

result was impossible," Hamer

writes in the book. "This was

the one family pattern that

could not come from genes.

There was no genetic model

that could explain how a

parent and child could be more

similar genetically than two

sisters."

Hamer concluded that something was

being transmitted all right, but not through

genes. "Some people would say that lesbian

mothers are teaching their children to be

lesbian, but I think it's probably more

indirect than that," he says. "It probably

has to do with a certain liberality or

acceptance, which is one of the traits

people learn from their surroundings."

The ratio, however, is remarkable for

another reason: It does not conform to 

other studies of children with lesbian

parents. Those studies have consistently

found that children growing up in lesbian

households are no more likely to become

lesbians than children reared in

heterosexual households.

"This is the only shred of evidence in

that direction at this time," says Charlotte

Patterson, a professor of psychology at the

University of Virginia who has done

extensive research on lesbian parenting.

"The sample is very small and is a highly

selected group of people. The question of

whether these results would be replicated in

a larger sample remains quite open." The ratio cited

by Hamer has led some activists to worry

that it could pop up in custody cases as a

reason not to grant lesbians access to their

children.

Hamer acknowledges that concern. "This

is a sensitive issue because it can be used to

argue that lesbians shouldn't have children,"

he says, "but good studies show that the

children of lesbians are just as well off as

children of heterosexuals." Hamer also

concedes that many of his conclusions are

drawn from studies "based on small

numbers."

Just as his past research was used in

political skirmishes over gay rights, Hamer's

current work will probably find its way onto

the same battlefield. Many gay activists

believe, like Lobel, that "the reason for our

sexual orientation is irrelevant" to the quest

for gay rights. Some antigay activists,

however, are already embracing the latest

findings as proof that gays are made, not

born. "This is a major departure," Robert

Maginnis, senior policy adviser for the

Family Research Council, a conservative

think tank, told The Washington Times.

"And it certainly makes the case that

socialization plays a role in this."

Ironically, antigay activists

have traditionally argued

against Hamer's assertion that

there is a genetic basis for

homosexuality. Even if such a

connection were proved, says

Charles Socarides, a proponent

of "curing" homosexuality

through therapy, it "would not

necessarily preclude regulations

on homosexual behavior."

Socarides has said, "If we

discovered that being a serial

killer or sociopath was genetic,

though we might not blame the

serial killer or sociopath for

being so, we certainly would

not allow him to act upon his

serial killing or sociopathic 

disposition."

Hamer is no stranger to the field of

genetics as it relates to homosexuality. In

1993 he published a paper indicating that

the DNA markers on a section of the X

chromosome known as Xq28 correlated to

sexual orientation in some men. After

studying 40 pairs of gay brothers, Hamer

found that 33 of the pairs carried the

identical DNA strand.

Some conservatives accused Hamer of

having a personal agenda, claiming that he

was gay. At the time he refused to

comment on the allegations. Now when

asked of his own orientation, he says

mischievously, "I don't speak about that

with reporters. You'll have to ask my

boyfriend."

As for the use of his work in political

arguments on either side, Hamer

thinks it is "very dangerous to mix biology

and genetics with legal, social, and ethical

concerns."

Since Hamer's 1993 findings, which have

not been replicated by other researchers,

similar dramatic results have been few and

far between. "Things have been pretty

much at a standstill since Hamer's article,"

says Pillard. "Nobody else has really pushed

the issue forward, largely, I think, because

of lack of funding."

"There haven't been been huge

breakthroughs in the

last couple of years,"

agrees LeVay. "Some of the things I would

think would be exciting findings have not

been found. I wouldn't say the biology is

terribly exciting right now."

However, the genetic origins of sexual

orientation have gained popular credence

with each passing year, to the frustration of

critics. "They framed the debate, certainly

in the gay community," says Fausto-Sterling.

"Hamer has gained notoriety

because he's saying things people want to

hear."

She argues that a significant number of

scientists believe that the nature-nurture

debate is too reductive. "The body

and the psyche are always coproduced,"

says Fausto-Sterling, who is writing a book,

Body Building: How Biologists Construct Sexuality,

that outlines her theory. "There are a

number of us who are working within a

framework of how to understand organisms

that breaks away from a `genes are us' point

of view."

Hamer believes that the information

from the Human Genome Project, a

federally funded effort to map the entire

human gene code, will eventually prove him

correct. "Ten years from now we will know

all the genes in the

genome and barely understand all they can

do," he says. "It will take us another 100

years to understand all these connections,

especially for behavior layered on all

our experiences, our society, and our

culture, which have a huge influence as

well."

In the meantime, Hamer says, gays and

lesbians should be involved in understanding

the implications of all genetic research, not

just that portion dedicated to sexual

orientation. He would like to see activists

take advantage of federal funding to put

together a symposium on the topic. Vaid 

says she is in the process of organizing just

such a meeting. "The idea is, we're going to

bring together researchers and activists to

really think about the cultural, legal, and

ethical aspects of the genetic research that's

coming out," she says. "Science is only

going to keep finding out more and more

about us, and there are tremendous political

issues that arise from that kind of research.

I hope we can position our movement to be

prepared to deal with them."