IS HOMOSEXUALITY A CHOICE?"That Is The Question"
PAGE TWO
Click HERE ...for the beginning of this essay.
No one yet has been able to come up with an effective response to that question, but I'll tell you about a few of the answers that I have been given.
Some have said, "Don't be ridiculous, I never chose to be heterosexual -- I've always been that way, for as long as I can remember. Obviously, I must have been born that way."
( NO KIDDING. And what a coincidence -- I was born the way I am, too.)
Others have said, "I once had someone try to entice me into a homosexual act, and my choice was to firmly say no."
That doesn't answer my question at all -- in fact, it's a complete side-step. I didn't ask about having sex. I asked about feelings of sexuality. It is not uncommon for heterosexual adolescents, especially boys, to experiment with some form of homosexual act. Most of them, obviously, are not homosexual because they grow up to marry and have children and have no interest in ever repeating the experiment. They were not homosexual to begin with. One or two instances of "swinging the other way" did not -- indeed cannot -- make a person homosexual. You don't "turn" gay, you are either gay from the beginning or you're not. It's that simple. If you are one of these misinformed souls who holds the belief that people can be "turned" gay by being "recruited" into homosexuality, then boy, oh boy, you really need to read every page on my website and learn the truth.
Still others have said, "Everyone is born heterosexual. You have simply chosen to rebel against your natural urges -- or perhaps some corrupting, traumatic experience in childhood caused you to become that way."
The second half of that answer, whether they realize it or not, demolishes the "choice" argument, because they refer to some external cause beyond the individual's control. But forgetting that for a moment, to anyone who would make such a statement with a straight face, I must say, I marvel at your abilities as a mind-reader. You really, truly know what goes on inside other peoples' heads that you can claim with such certitude that every single human being is born the same way? Come on, be serious. And take a look in the Bible, where Jesus Christ totally contradicts you when He explains in the Gospel of Matthew that "some people cannot marry because they were born that way." (See my prior essay "Some Are Eunuchs" for more detail.)
Most importantly, though -- does anyone really believe that any sort of "trauma" could result in a shifting of something so vital and elemental in a person as the sex drive? That because a person had a bad relationship with one or both parents, or was somehow physically or emotionally abused, that this would actually "re-wire" him sexually? What a preposterous notion!
By means of some severe "aversion therapy," such as electric shock or chemical treatment, I suppose it's conceivable that you could turn a person off of something -- but how do you turn him on to something else? In other words, let's imagine a malevolent, reverse form of the well-known "Pavlov's Dog" classical conditioning: If a child were repeatedly shown pictures of the opposite sex and severely burned or shocked each time, I could understand how it might have the effect of causing a dislike or fear of the opposite sex. But how on earth would that make him like the same sex? And not only like, but desire the same sex in an erotic and romantic sense?
The "electric shock and aversion" business was an extreme example to make a point, I admit. Therefore, let's back up to the less far-fetched scenario of bad parental relationships, or the possibility of physical/emotional abuse, which some people contend are possible "causes" of homosexuality. I have never, ever, had anyone present any logical or persuasive argument to support this theory, and I simply cannot buy it. Those who embrace this type of reasoning may or may not be aware of it, but they are indulging in a sort of half-in, half-out adaptation of Freud's rather bizarre theories on the "Oedipus" and "Electra" complexes. How many straight people had a "domineering" mother, or an "absent or uncaring" father? Plenty. How many straight people suffered physical or emotional abuse as a child? Plenty more. So how do you explain the fact that they're straight and not gay? Moreover, you have an abundant number of families where one or more siblings is gay, and one or more is not. If bad parenting were at the root of one being homosexual, how do you explain the other(s)? That the parents learned how to be better parents after the elder child? What if it is the younger child who happens to be gay? I have a cousin who happens to be gay who is the youngest of several. The older siblings are all heterosexual. In their family, I might give some credence to the idea that their mother was somewhat "domineering" (no more, no less than the average person, I don't think -- I can be "domineering" too, at times). And I would dispute that their father was "absent or uncaring." But in any case, that is what some people allege to be the cause of male homosexuality, not lesbianism -- my cousin is female.
So much for Freud's "Oedipus complex."
This leads me to mention: It has been only very recently that certain fundamental Christian denominations (and "non" denominations) have done this total and abrupt about-face in regard to Freudian and other psychiatric and psychological theories. Actually, some of them have not done an about-face. Click on the following link to see the website operated by The Fundamental Bible Church of Los Osos, California:
"The House That Freud Built," where you will find the following statements:
"In the Freudian interpretation nearly everything that a person does, becomes a disguised or distorted sexual act. Freud related everything to a 'repression' of the sex drive."
"Psychology has increasingly become one of Satan's most effective and deceptive tactics in enticing people to substitute the changing ideas and theories of men for the eternal, unchanging Word of God."
By the way -- are you a fundamentalist? And do you feel I just unfairly lumped you together with the likes of media whore Pat Robertson with his personal 200-plus million dollar fortune, and that I should be ashamed of myself for such a sweeping, inaccurate and unfair generalization? By George, you know, you have a good point, and I sincerely apologize. I was trying carefully to use words like "many" and "some," rather than "all," because I know not "all" fundamentalists act and think alike, but maybe I could have made that clearer. I know for certain that not all people who consider themselves Christian fundamentalists are evil. I have several family members and friends who are fundamentalists, and I number them among the kindest, most honest people I have ever known, so it was a big mistake for me to make what could be construed as a generalization. I stand corrected. And in fairness, you might pass along to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and the rest that I'm a trifle tired of their vicious, utterly false generalizations about gay people all being promiscuous, drugged-up, child-molesting, family-wrecking low-lifes with a secret and sinister "homosexual agenda" (whatever the hell that is), and living the "homosexual lifestyle" (whatever the hell THAT is).
As to the charge that gay people are "rebelling" against natural urges, or have been somehow "corrupted" by traumatic outside stimuli, I assure you, neither one is true. I am not rebelling against anything; in fact, quite the opposite. I am embracing and affirming one of the deepest, most innate and compelling parts of my nature. And my childhood, I'm sure, was no more or less traumatic than that of most other individuals. (The usual implication with the "traumatic" remark people are making is some sort of molestation, and I never had anything even remotely like that happen to me. I will expand on that point in a subsequent paragraph.)
Now I fully expect that some people will attach a negative connotation to the following proposition. That's fine, they may go right ahead, because it's all subjective. But my question to them would be, what do you call the motivation or the desire that makes a person want to make what you call the "choice" of homosexuality? There must be something from within that makes a person want to do it -- as I've established earlier, we are not robots, we are beings with feelings and urges and desires. Now as I said, go ahead and put a negative on it -- call it "the desire to do something bad," if you wish. We'll argue later whether it's good or bad -- obviously I disagree with you. But there is no denying that there is something inside which points a person in one direction or the other. That pointer, that inner compass, is what we have previously shown to be a person's sexual orientation.
A homosexual person can choose to not engage in homosexual relations. Stifling the sex drive is certainly an option a person can take. However, merely refusing to have the sex doesn't remove the sexuality. If I (God forbid) got in some sort of terrible accident tomorrow which mutilated my body and as a result I could never have sex again, I would still be a homosexual, because my mind and spirit will not have changed. I would simply be a homosexual who could no longer participate in a sexual act.
The cavalier suggestion that homosexual persons should stifle their sex drives and permanently abstain from sex makes for a good lead-in to my secondary topic for this essay:
"EX-GAYS"
You may have heard some months ago of the intense controversy generated by national newspaper ads, as well as television commercials aired in a couple of cities, by certain religious organizations suggesting they offer a "reparative therapy" method whereby they can "cure" people of being homosexual. (Egad, the sinister, unvarnished duplicity of these people: some fundamentalists decry psychology as demonic, yet they turn around and undertake to be psychologists themselves by promoting "therapy!") Click HERE for a brief synopsis of this ad campaign.
There, by the way, you have people who -- whether they realize it or not -- tacitly admit that though there is an element of choice in whether or not to have sex, there is not a choice involved in a person's sexual orientation. But about those ads -- it is highly interesting to note that while they talked of "leaving the homosexual lifestyle," they did not make any claims of being able to change sexual orientation from gay to straight. As author Paul Varnell observes, writing for The Independent Gay Forum:
On closer examination the ads seem very cagily written, as if they were drafted by a lawyer who was acutely aware of what he could and could not get away with.
Instead, the ads say gays can "leave homosexuality," leave "this lifestyle" and "leave their homosexual identities." They can "overcome homosexuality" and become "ex-gays."
What do gays leave homosexuality for? For "sexual celibacy and even marriage," say the ads. This claim is so central that it is repeated in two of the ads. Yet celibacy is the cessation of activity, not of feelings. And although the ads suggest "even" the possibility of marriage, they do not claim that ex-gays stop having gay feelings or are heterosexual.
The August 4, 1998 edition of USA Today quotes Bob Davies of Exodus International: "There are no statistics but I would say that a minority of individuals coming through these ministries have made it in the long run, [remaining] free of homosexual behavior for five years or more.... Even fewer develop full-fledged attractions for the opposite sex or go on to marry" [emphasis mine].
Additionally, the man who is perhaps the most prominent "poster boy" for the "ex-gay" movement, John Paulk, was quoted in the April 21, 1993 edition of The Wall Street Journal as follows: "I don't know if I'll ever have the intensity for sex with women that the average man on the street has."
It is inconceivable to me that these men do not realize how foolish and contradictory they sound. On the one hand, they claim that homosexuality is not chosen, and in the cases of Paulk and Davis, both cast extreme doubt on the ability of anyone to "change" it. Yet on the other hand, they set up organizations for that express purpose -- to change that which cannot be changed! (Incidentally, if by this point in reading, you are still a "choice" advocate, allow me to make a suggestion: Contact those three men above, and explain to them that they have been wasting a great deal of time and money, and have become all worked up over nothing; that they should instead employ your method, and simply "choose" not to be gay any more. After all, if you can choose to go one way, then it only makes sense you can just as easily choose to go back. Obviously, they haven't figured that out. You would be able to spare them a great deal of further agony.)
Along the lines of what I wrote above, these people do in fact "attach a negative connotation" to a homosexual orientation: They refer to a supposed psychological disorder which they call "S.S.A.," or "Same Sex Attraction." (Does this foray into psychology make them devil worshippers?) The fact that the overwhelming majority of medical professional associations claim this is utter nonsense is well-documented. Chief among the evidence are the statements by both the American Psychiatric Association and The American Psychological Association which unequivocally state there is nothing pathological or defective about a homosexual orientation:
Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities;
Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations. Quoted from: APA Policy Statements on Lesbian and Gay Issues.
On the matter of percentage, let me digress for a moment with this quick sidebar:
Actually, the percentage of homosexual persons is considerably larger. The most reliable data which has yet emerged comes from a rather unusual source, that being exit polling from the last Presidential election. A New York Times survey indicated five percent of the respondents identified themselves as gay. And considering that many people would have a "none of your business" attitude about such a question, it is perfectly logical to assume the number is even greater than five percent. But in any case, it's a non-issue. Who cares if we make up ten percent or one tenth of one percent? Neither number proves a thing.
But back to this alleged "hijacking." What a wild stretch of the imagination, not to mention a dreadful insult, to suggest that the entire membership of these professional organizations would have no more ethics than to allow any element, small or large, to con them into taking a position they believed to be untrue. And I must say, that tiny one percent group of "hijackers" sure gets around. They bullied not only the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations, but the American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, good heavens, even The American Dental Association and The American Bar Association! The list grows each day with yet another professional group who has gone on record opposing the notion that homosexuality is some sort of "defect."
You've heard the expression, "We've always done it that way" is not a good reason for continuing something. Apply this logic to these medical groups. So what if they once believed homosexuality was some sort of illness? "Time marches on," as they say, and one hopes that as it marches, humanity learns a few things. Medical science once believed that controlled release of blood had a therapeutic effect. As a result, doctors accidentally bled to death the man who at the time was our former U.S. President, George Washington, in an attempt to cure his influenza. Medical science once believed that psychotic individuals were "demon-possessed," and as a result, mental patients were caged in barbaric hovels and regularly beaten by their "care-givers." Like all human beings, medical men and women learn from their mistakes and improve over time. Deleting homosexuality from the roster of disorders was simply a testimony to one such learning experience. The only unfortunate thing is that it took them so long to do it.
In addition to my earlier description "foolish and contradictory," I would add that because they fly in the face of reputable medicine, these "ex-gay" religious fanatics are also dangerous. Consider this information from an article which appeared in The Detroit News called "Efforts to 'cure' homosexuality can cause lasting damage:"
Reparative therapy not only encourages self-hatred but often sours family relationships by spreading the myth that homosexuality results from poor parenting. Some patients suffer spiritually when they cannot do what they're told God requires. And a great many temporarily lose their capacity for real human intimacy. Repressing gay desires creates a void, not a true heterosexual, Shidlo finds.
Shidlo's alarming evidence shows that mental health associations must go much further than the APA's Aug. 14 resolution, which warned psychologists not to dupe patients into thinking that being gay is sick. As Shidlo points out, selling a "cure" for homosexuality "should not be a licensed activity."
Bussee had a major role in the 1976 founding of the first and biggest "ex-gay" organization, Exodus International. Cooper eventually came to do volunteer work for the organization some time later. These two men came to their senses, left the organization around 1978, and lived happily together as homosexual partners. Bussee issued this statement of recantation: "There may very well be out there people that I talked to who are dead now because they committed suicide because of the guilt that I inadvertently heaped on them."
Sadly, Cooper died of AIDS some years later. As you can imagine, today's Exodus leadership fosters the innuendo that Cooper was unfaithful in his partnership; however, it is well known that AIDS can take ten years or more to manifest itself in an infected person, so that amounts to nothing but sheer speculation, if not character assassination of a dead man who can not defend himself.
For a brief but fascinating story of one man who was fortunate enough to have escaped from an "ex-gay" cult, CLICK HERE.
The article by Paul Varnell in The Independent Gay Forum which I quoted above touched on the issue of celibacy, and how the "ex-gay" organizations believe this is the path that homosexual persons should take "if all else fails" -- meaning if they are the sort who simply cannot force themselves into a heterosexual relationship. I have what I would call at the very least a modicum of experience with this matter of celibacy, and can speak to it with some authority.
In the Gospel of Matthew, 19:11-12, Jesus Christ speaks of those who have chosen not to marry for the glory of heaven. While I personally have questions about precisely what benefit God would get out of that, I still would not throw cold water on someone who has taken such a path for that reason. "A man is rich in proportion to the things he can afford to leave alone" is a motivation I can understand. But assiduously abstaining from this particular thing is, in my opinion, only for the rarest of individuals.
At this moment, I am in the den, watching one of our cats eating her breakfast. She just ate her fill, and instinctively performed the action of burying the remains -- although, not literally. She simply mimed the ritual she would have done in the wild by scratching the kitchen tile floor several times. But the point I am leading up to is that this little creature has an inexorable instinct to perform certain actions -- so strong, in fact, that she improvises by scratching a tile floor instead of the earth! We human creatures have instincts that are equally strong. Can perpetually stifling one as basic and powerful as the need for sex be natural or healthy? I think not.
Consider again the very impelling connotation of the expression sex "drive." We're talking about a powerful force that never completely stops, even well into old age. Nonetheless, I lived for just over one year in celibacy, from 1984 to 1985 -- no small feat for a healthy and "charged up" young man of 27. But this was not entirely calculated at first. It was early in the age of AIDS, when there was still much to learn about how it spread and how it could be prevented; therefore, I kept to myself out of fear of contracting it. Plus, I had taken a job in an area with little or no presence of an "out" gay community; therefore, very few opportunities presented themselves anyway.
In short, for various reasons I walked a mile in those shoes. Can those in the so-called "ex-gay" organizations who advocate celibacy for others make the same claim? To interfere with someone else's life is presumptuous enough -- but to get into the intensely personal realm of a person's sex life and seriously suggest that they abstain from sex is supremely arrogant.
Continued....
To those who would insist that homosexuality is a choice, I want to ask you one simple question: When -- and more importantly, why -- did you choose to be heterosexual? For you see, if you speak in terms of sexuality as being a matter of choice, then you must disagree with everything I have written on the prior page, because you are stating that you made a choice to be heterosexual. If you suggest that at some point in my life I was confronted with this sort of choice, then at some point in your life you must have been confronted with it as well. This must work both ways if there is any logic at all in your argument.
This "psychology equals Satanism" view is now being played down in many fundamentalist sects. (It would be awfully inconvenient for one of their newest heroes, the former-nude-picture-poser-turned-radio-psychologist/gay-basher, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, if it weren't. This fraudulent woman, by the way, is not degreed in psychology at all, but rather, in physiology, which is vastly different.) But in any event, fifteen or so years ago, it was not uncommon to hear it echoed in many mainstream Protestant denominations: the local Baptist preacher (in the town where I lived in 1983), or Pat Robertson (whom I distinctly remember once suggested it on his TV program), and many other exponents of fundamentalism put psychiatry and psychology nearly on the same level as devil worship, just as you saw above. To hear them tell it, the name Freud might as well have been Beelzebub. So why the 180-degree turnabout? I'll tell you why. Because by pulling out of context the occasional psychiatric snippet (about which they have scant if any understanding), they engage in a thinly-disguised attempt to buttress their anti-gay propaganda -- one of their biggest fundraisers. I never thought I would live to hear fundamentalists go from reviling Freud's theories to revering them -- yet lo and behold, that's precisely what they've done. Is there nothing that organized religionists won't do out of the love of money?
The so-called "cure homosexuality" campaign
In private, they're a bit more candid (and thereby dishonest):
Quoted from: 
(Click on emblem for full text of article.)
Exodus International is the first and largest of the so-called "ex-gay ministries." Contrast their statement of belief with the following:
In Newsweek magazine, August 17, 1998, Anthony Falzarano, president of Transformation Ministries, another "ex-gay" organization, is quoted as saying, "Homosexuality is not a lifestyle we chose" [emphasis mine].
There are those who claim that these two gigantic professional organizations were somehow hijacked by a band of "homosexual activists" and bullied into retreating from their earlier position that homosexuality was some sort of mental defect. Yet in the next breath, these same people will insist that homosexuals make up only one or two percent of the population. How on earth can they account for such disproportionate power in a tiny minority of one or two percent?
In diametric opposition to every reputable professional in the mental health field, these "ex-gay" outfits have set themselves up as psychological practitioners, seeking to "cure" that which the experts unequivocally state is not "sick." These quacks are unable or unwilling to furnish any documentation on their "success" rate, if we can strain the imagination and call it that. But from the large number of "dropouts," their failure rate is there for all the world to see. The most prominent (and in my mind, the most gratifying) example of "ex-gay dropouts" is that of Gary Cooper and Michael Busee.
Quoted from: 
(Click emblem for full text of article.)
CLICK HERE TO READ NEXT SEGMENT
Return to menu of essays
Return to "V.E.'s" home page.
