A CHOICE?
"That Is The Question."
16 February 2K
 |
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? To die; to sleep...." |
| IS HOMOSEXUALITY A CHOICE?
"That Is The Question."
|
|
In his immortal play "Hamlet," William Shakespeare wrote, "To be or not to be." But if the discussion is about homosexuality, we must re-phrase that famous line, "To act or not to act -- that is the question."This is my lengthiest essay to date, and I ask you to please kindly read it entirely, and consider it carefully. I would also point out that my customary use of occasional lightheartedness will be conspicuously absent from this work, as I consider certain portions of the topic too serious for humor. I will be covering many facets of this subject, starting with the question of "behavior."
In deference to my two brilliant college rhetoric co-professors, who firmly and forever implanted the idea in my head that good writing should contain a "thesis statement" -- a clear sentence describing exactly the point of the essay early on -- here it is:
People who hold the belief that "homosexuality is a choice" are sadly mistaken.
In this essay, I intend to demonstrate that no one -- gay, straight or in between -- has a choice about his or her erotic and romantic attractions; that sexuality is simply a part of the individual make-up the same as hair or eye color. We cannot "choose" what attracts us sexually any more than we can "choose" to be right- or left-handed; any more than we can "choose" to be brown-eyed or caucasian or brunette. And let's understand this clearly from the get-go: I said we cannot choose what "attracts" us. My focus will not be on sexual acts, but rather, the inner process of thoughts and feelings and desires which impels a person to those acts.
There are those who would define a person's sexuality by his or her actions, or behavior. I'm afraid, however, that is an outlandish, unsupportable notion. Human sexuality is defined not by actions, but by feelings. And truthfully, the word "feelings" is insufficient in this context. Because of its rather capricious and ephemeral quality, it tends to trivialize my point. This is why we refer to the sex "drive," a force which is infinitely more compelling than any simple feeling. I can certainly give appreciative audience to arguments people have raised from time to time that "a murderer can claim he 'feels' like killing someone, but that's no justification for taking a life." Very true. It's also a very different matter -- there is a victim involved, which makes it a bad example to start with. Furthermore, there is clearly an evil, and very likely pathological drive afoot within the murderer. Medical scientists in all relevant fields are, by an overwhelming majority, in agreement that there is nothing pathological per se in being homosexual (meaning that one could possibly be homosexual and psychotic, for instance, so there would be a pathological condition there). Granted, there are some dissenters, but it's a small minority -- for example, Paul Cameron and Joseph Nicolosi, whose conclusions are considered gospel by anti-gay organizations. However, these men are a laughing stock among reputable medical professionals, and their research has been proven worthless by more qualified psychologists and physicians. More on the medical community, and on Cameron and Nicolosi, later in this work.
To sum up the point about "feelings," there's an old saying, "Hormones talk louder than vitamins." We "feel" like playing a game of tennis; we are "driven" by bodily needs to have sex. So in order to better understand this essay, please take into account the far stronger and more urgent connotation I'm attaching to the word "feelings" from here on out.
Human beings are not robots. We do not just go bouncing around doing random acts without thoughts and inner motivation behind them -- something makes us want to do them. I often eat spicy chili at lunch because I like peppery foods. I buy my partner a gift because I love him. I watch classic films because I appreciate them. I was born in the United States, therefore, according to the Constitution, I am a U.S. citizen, and I wish to remain one. I play the piano because it is a gift I was born with and I enjoy it very much -- though I'm certainly not Vladimir Horowitz, I sat down and instinctively played at an early age without a single lesson, and later took lessons and built from there. I also have a sexual desire for a man.
One can therefore describe me as: A spicy chili enthusiast (even when I'm not eating it); a reasonably generous husband (even on days when I don't buy my buddy a gift); a film buff (even when I'm not watching one); an American (even when I'm traveling abroad); a pianist (even when I'm not playing); and a homosexual (even when I'm not having sex).
In each of the above characterizations, I underlined and italicized the motivational words to make it clear I was talking about the thoughts behind the actions, rather than the actions themselves. Look again at the words "want," "like," "love," "appreciate," "wish," "enjoy," and "desire." There's not a single action in there anywhere -- I didn't do anything. I could be sitting perfectly still in a chair and every single one of those descriptions would be accurate, even though I'm not acting them out.
None of those single traits by themselves in any way defines the entirety of my being, of course. Rather, each is merely one component of the whole. But they are present within me even when I'm not "doing" the particular action or behavior associated with each. Again, it is the feelings or motivations behind the actions which define those parts of me -- not the actions themselves.
If you are a heterosexual person, consider your own urges for the opposite sex. I strive at all times to not be sexist in my attitudes, but obviously I speak from a male perspective. For that reason, my examples will deal primarily with men; however, I'm certain you'll find they work equally well for women.
As with any subject, we learn more about it as we study it in greater detail. Studies in human sexuality have been progressively more revealing with each passing year, and yesterday's erroneous expression sexual "preference" has now yielded to today's more accurate term, sexual "orientation," and rightly so. Apply this to your own feelings and experience, and you will understand (and be forced to agree with) my point: You, the heterosexual man, do not "prefer" women. Having a "preference" for one over the other implies that you find the idea of sex with a man appealing to some extent, but to a greater extent, feel an attraction for women. Consider the following illustration: Though I enjoy both sausage and pepperoni pizza, I "prefer" pepperoni, if given a choice. However, I find pizza with mushrooms singularly unappetizing and will not eat it; therefore, it would be inaccurate to say I "prefer" pepperoni over mushroom pizza -- I simply like one and dislike the other. It is the same with matters of human sexuality: Unless we are talking about a bisexual person, no "preference" is possible.
If you are a man who is attracted to women; if you find the sight, and sound, and scent of a female appealing; if, when you have erotic dreams, they deal with female images; if you are, in general, sexually "turned on" by being in the company of your wife or girlfriend; then you are heterosexual. And no behavior or action is required to prove this is true -- you know you are heterosexual without actually having sex. This is not a gray area of preferring one over the other; it is an unconditional, black-and-white state of affairs whereby you are oriented to one sex and not the other.
If you are a man who is attracted to men; if you find the sight, and sound, and scent of another male appealing; if, when you have erotic dreams, they deal with male images; if you are, in general, sexually "turned on" by being in the company of your male partner or boyfriend; then you are homosexual. A person who has a mixture of these feelings for both sexes is, to whatever degree, bisexual.
What choices are available to a person in this regard? Could I choose, let's say tomorrow morning, to never again have sex with a male partner? Certainly. But would that make me stop desiring it? It most assuredly would not -- while the action might change, the feelings wouldn't. Conversely, could you choose tomorrow morning to stop desiring women? I'd love to know how you propose to do that.
Now let's go one step farther with this "choice" concept: Could you choose to go against every feeling within you, and force yourself have a sexual encounter with a person of the same sex? Possibly you could. (Though it would have to be some sort of action satisfying only the other person, because a heterosexual man could not become aroused -- with the possible exception of very young men who are "plagued," as it were, with nearly constant erections.) But even if you did this, would it then make you like it, or want it? Impossible. I submit that if you are truly heterosexual, then you find the idea of same-sex relations completely unappealing. And incidentally, it is this same complete lack of appeal with which I view any opposite-sex relation for myself. And like you, in acting contrary to your orientation in a same-sex encounter, arousal for me in an opposite-sex encounter would be impossible.
I believe it is now fair to say that I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that heterosexuality is not a choice; so let's now climb over to the opposite side of the fence.
Continued....
CLICK HERE TO READ NEXT SEGMENT
Return to menu of essays
Return to "V.E.'s" home page.
| www.TheViscount.com A Website Dedicated to Gay Equality |
| Read about the Google search engine “Miserable Failure” phenomenon; see it explained here. |
|
