Reflections on Homosexuality
Part 2: The Issue of Choice and the "Hard-Wired" Theory
Let's suppose we have a man named "Jason" who works in an law office. One day, his company hires a new female associate who's tall, blonde and extremely good looking. What choices does Jason have in regards to his treatment of this new associate of his? He can
(a) Treat her the same as he does his male co-workers.
(b) Ask her out, and pursue a romantic relationship.
(c) Harass her verbally and/or physically when given the chance
(d) Don't talk to her directly, but fantasize about having sex with her in his mind.
(e) Ignore her completely.
But wait...perhaps we haven't considered all the relevant information about Jason. Suppose Jason is what in technical terms we would call a 'heterosexual'--meaning a type of person where the presence of a member of the opposite sex, especially a good looking one, creates a distinct and identifiable chemical and hormonal reaction in Jason, causing a feeling of 'attraction'. Now, armed with this new information, let's consider again the question of Jason's choices in regards to his new co-worker. Are they (a) the same as before? Or (b) are one or more of them are not valid options anymore given his 'condition'.
The answer is (a), obviously. Jason's choices are not limited by any hormonal reaction his body has towards women. He can choose not to harass or molest her, he can choose not pursue a relationship, he can choose not to fantasize about her in his mind. The chemical reaction within his own body, while real and scientifically quantifiable, does not preclude him from making any of the above choices in regards to his co-worker or any other woman he comes across. His free agency is not affected by hormones, in other words.
Society has determined that a person having a hormonal reaction to a particular stimulus is not reason to excuse a person's actions. Persons accused of rape or child molestation, for example, are not allowed to use 'I was sexually aroused' as an excuse for their actions, because society has determined that despite any such arousal condition, a person can and should abstain from doing things that society has found to be improper. Even in a situation where Jason's co-worker was
actively pursuing him for a physically relationship--even begging--Jason still has the choice not to accept, regardless of any physical reaction in his body. (Whether he
should or
should not accept her proposition is not relevant to the discussion, only the point that he has the
option to accept or decline)
Now, substitute 'homosexual' for Jason's 'condition' and switch the gender of the co-worker and ask the above questions again--has anything changed? It hasn't--and as you may have already guessed, that's the point.
The issue of 'choice' is one of the more heated elements of the gay debate today: is homosexuality a 'choice'? Did gays choose to be gay and can they choose not to be? The answer, of course, depends on how you define 'gay'. The issue of 'choice' depends entirely on whether you're discussing homosexuality in terms of 'identity' or 'action', as discussed in the previous section. Once the terms are clear, the answer to the 'choice' issue also becomes clear: 'identity' is not a choice, but 'actions' are. If a person has same-sex attraction, that will possibly stay with them throughout their lives; however, regardless of one's sexual orientation, one can always choose whether or not to participate in sexual behavior--which is the key. As discussed previously, no (correct) religion can condemn a person simply for having same-sex attraction--only the actions that stem from it. A gay person who remains celibate, in other words, is no different from a righteousness standpoint than a celibate straight person--in fact, you might argue that the designations of 'gay' and 'straight' are meaningless in this case.
As mentioned previously, people on both sides of the gay debate cloud the issue by placing the discussion of sin and righteousness concerning homosexuality on the wrong plane of discussion to begin with. Focusing solely on action without passing personal judgments on a person as a person, the issue of choice becomes clear. Mankind, being given the gift of free agency by God, can always choose our actions, including sexual behavior of all kinds.
The 'Hard-wired' Theory
If you've paid any attention at all to the debate on homosexuality on the national level, you've undoubtedly heard the statement that "Homosexuality is genetic", sometimes phrased as "Homosexuality is hard-wired". In fact, that statement is usually followed by the phrase "...and anyone who says otherwise is a backwards, uneducated idiot who deserves to be shot."...or something to that effect, as if genetics was so obvious an explanation for all areas of homosexuality that we should cease all discussion about it right now.
Here's the problem: making broad statements like "homosexuality IS genetic" or "homosexuality IS NOT genetic" are, like many statements about gays, oversimplifications of complex issues. Saying 'homosexuality IS genetic' or 'hard-wired' implies that 100% of homosexuals have a distinct, scientifically verifiable, genetic characteristic that 100% of heterosexuals do not. In other words, sexual orientation is as clearly defined genetically from birth as is our gender.
The only problem? This is obviously false...and anyone who would believe it is obviously a backwards, uneducated id--oh...sorry.
Even the best pro-gay genetic research has only linked 50% of gays at most with any kind of common genetic indicator--a large enough figure to cast doubt on any anti-gay statements that genetics has no part of homosexuality whatsoever, but hardly enough to show genetics is the 'be-all-end-all' explanation for the source of same-sex attraction. (In other words, one side has to explain why the numbers aren't higher while the other side has to explain why the numbers aren't lower.)
Isn't it obvious, though, that both sides arguing genetics as a 'black/white' issue are missing the point--that homosexuality cannot be condensed into simple "yes it is/no it isn't" statements.
I'm not a psychologist, of course, but there's no doubt in my mind that homosexuality (defined as same-sex attraction, remember) is caused or developed by a large number of independent variables such as innate genetic characteristics, the environment we're raised in, exposure to outside influences both as a child and an adult, the people we meet, the relationships we have (and their outcomes), and (although it's not PC to say so) personal curiosity and experimentation. There is not and never will be a complete explanation for the 'cause' of homosexuality because (a) the variables are too many and (b) every person develops differently from one another anyway. The internal and external influences by which gay person A developed same-sex attraction are vastly different than gay person B, even though the end result is more or less the same (although it's often at different times...see below). Thus, by arguing genetics ==> homosexuality as 'true' or 'false', both sides end up wasting time by trying to condense a highly complicated matter down to a simple yes/no statement.
Here are a few additional observations about the 'hard-wired' theory. This is not a research paper, mind you; however, I will discuss briefly some outside sources and how they demonstrate that even within the gay community the 'hard-wired' theory has little credibility as an explanation for same-sex attraction.
My first point: The 'hard-wired' theory doesn't account for the vastly different times in their lives in which gays realize that they are attracted to the same sex. Some people's orientations are clear from childhood, while others don't notice their 'gayness' until they are 40 or older. Case in point: author Carren Strock reports that she was happily married to a man for 27 years before her first love affair with a woman. She wrote a book about women in similar situations entitled
Married Women Who Love Women (see the Amazon listing
here). In it, she interviews over 100 other women who were previously married (to men) and later started a lesbian relationship with another women. Strock's book reports that 59% of the women interviewed had no idea of their same-sex orientation before they were married. A similar book,
Women & Love, by Shere Hite (listing
here) has a complementary figure: 61% of the surveyed women 40 and older who were presently living with a female lover reported being married previously to a man.
Now, I have no idea what a genetic analysis of all these women would indicate--I'm merely noting that if homosexuality is "hard-wired", there seems to be an awful lot of women who (1) noticed their homosexuality much later in life than you would think for being hard-wired that way since birth and (2) seem to have participated in healthy heterosexual relationships for a long time before becoming lesbian. Even accounting for a percentage of these women getting married for 'show' or because of societal pressure, the numbers involved (60%) are significantly higher than one would expect for a group which in theory should be incapable of having a normal heterosexual relationship.
In a similar vein, a study in the
Social Organization of Sexuality (1994) asked men and women who had had a same-sex partner some time in their adult lives (age 18+) whether they had also had at least one
opposite-sex partner in the same time period. Approximately 80% of the men and 90% of the women said yes--they had had some combination of same-sex and opposite sex partners from age 18 to the present. Now, of course, there's always some margin of error with surveys (often large) due to various factors such as sample size and respondent honesty (although I don't know why they would lie about something like this...) so you may take these figures with a grain of salt if you'd like. Still, 80% to 90% of gay men and women having at least one heterosexual partner since they were 18? Even if the numbers reflect people who are strictly homosexual now (not people who constantly switch back and forth, in other words), that's still a very large percentage of people who at one time had a opposite-sex partner which again, according to the 'hard-wired' theory, should be impossible.
Isn't it fair to ask the question why, if 'homosexuality IS genetic', there's such a large population of homosexuals who have participated in heterosexual behavior at some point in their lives? Carren Strock, among others, says she was 'happily' married for a long time before becoming a lesbian. What factors, then, led to her 'conversion' at that point of time--after 27 years of marriage? Obviously, genetics offer only an incomplete explanation--but the gay community seems to think researching or even discussing other factors that lead to homosexuality is a slap in the face. What about women who were
unhappily married--those whose husbands didn't treat them well and who found better love and support from a female source? Can you say for sure that the previous marriage had NO effect whatsoever on the women's turn to lesbianism--emotionally or psychologically? (In other words, is it fair to ask that if woman X had had a better husband would she have still turned to a female lover? Or is that just another one of those questions that only backwards, uneducated idiots ask?)
Of course, the obvious explanation from many people upon seeing the above statistics is 'bisexuality'. While the existence of bisexuals isn't in question, the sheer size of the numbers mentioned above indicate that either (a) there are a LOT of bisexuals in the world, far outnumbering the 'pure' homosexuals by a significant margin, or--more likely--(b) human sexuality is a lot more fluid than anyone cares to admit.
Bisexuals presents a problem in and of themselves: how does bisexuality fit into the 'hard-wired' theory? More problematic than bisexuality, in fact, is another term that almost directly contradicts the hard-wired theory, yet is widely accepted by the gay community:
Bi-curiousness.
The Lesbian Glossary (yes, there is such a thing...) defines 'bi-curious' as:
1. A curiosity about sexual relations with a member of the same gender.
2. a person who contemplates a sexual interest in both sexes.
Okay...read that again. Now tell me how the whole concept of 'bi-curiousness' doesn't violate the whole idea of sexual hard-wiring... A quick glance around the gay online community shows a multitude of bisexual and bi-curious dating services along with message boards, chat rooms and special interest groups (if you're feeling adventurous, just enter 'bisexual' or 'bicurious' into a search engine) That's an awful lot of official recognition for a group of people whom the hard-wired theory of homosexuality says
shouldn't exist. What is 'bi-curiousness' if not direct evidence that personal curiosity
can play a part in sexual orientation?
Let me note again that I am not theorizing about the 'source' or 'cause' of same-sex attraction, only that I reject the idea that homosexuality can be explained in very simple terms. A casual glance at the life stories of gay men and women show a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. I believe it's a fair question to ask if and how those backgrounds and experiences shaped that person's sexuality. I don't see why either side could object to more exploration into the matter--why would they be afraid of the truth unless one or both sides is afraid of being 'exposed'. If the chasm between the two sides of the gay debate is ever going to be bridged, both sides have to abandon the simple-minded explanations for same-sex attraction and be willing to examine the issue more closely. One side saying 'black' and the other saying 'white' when the answer is clearly 'gray' solves nothing...
Next:
Gay marriage
