IS HOMOSEXUALITY A CHOICE?"That Is The Question"
PAGE THREE
Click HERE ...for the beginning of this essay.
Several months ago, I briefly participated in an on-line discussion group conducted by a strongly conservative fundamental religious organization. To be so completely surrounded by nearly unanimous anti-gay sentiment was an eye-opening experience, to put it mildly. I was called everything from a "pervert" to a "child of the devil." (One wonders how these people are able to reconcile such hateful name-calling with Jesus's command to "Love one another." But as I've always said about Bible thumpers: The "live and let live" pages seem to always be the first ones to get knocked loose from all that thumping. And please, don't accuse me of generalizing -- I know that not all fundamental Christians are "Bible thumpers.")
At any rate, I did encounter one gentleman named Steve who was quite friendly and willing to hear my point of view. What follows is an excerpt from this exchange, and it will include the further examination of medical opinions I mentioned earlier, including those of the infamous Paul Cameron and Joseph Nicolosi:
I would like to address your question, "is homosexuality a natural thing?"
Using the word "natural" in the sense of "occurring in nature," yes, there's no disputing it's natural. It occurs in higher and lower forms of animal life as well as humans. In the past month or so, there was a story that got a lot of press about the two male vultures in an Israeli zoo that had partnered, and saw to the hatching and rearing of a chick from an egg laid by a female vulture. Also, some time if you're interested, check out this article called "The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals."
Using the word "natural" in a personal sense, as in "within one's nature," again my answer is yes. It comes as naturally as breathing to a gay person. In fact, what would be "unnatural" would be to live a lie and try to conform to a heterosexual life for which a gay person has no desire. Do you feel "natural" in your relationship with your female partner? I feel equally "natural" in my relationship with my male partner.
As we all know, the jury is still out on whether sexual orientation is determined genetically. Personally, I don't believe it matters one way or the other if it is genetic. In fact, that could some day open up the potential horror of tampering with unborn babies, should genetic engineering reach the point of being able to make in utero "adjustments," for lack of a better word.
But whatever its supposed "causes," medical scientists in all relevant fields are in overwhelming agreement that there is nothing wrong with it. They state there is nothing pathological -- either physically or mentally -- about being homosexual. Granted, there are some dissenters, but it's a small, mostly outcast minority -- for example, Paul Cameron and Joseph Nicolosi, whose methods and conclusions have been effectively shown to be dubious at best by their peers. Let's begin with Cameron.
Paul Cameron has had his accreditation revoked by both the American Psychological Association and by the American Sociological Association for employing unprofessional methods. A story in the August 20, 1985 edition of the Los Angeles Times reported:
Another source quotes Cameron on the subject of AIDS and homosexuals as saying, "They're getting what they deserve. Unfortunately, others are getting it too."
--Both quotes taken from: University of Florida/Student Report on Cameron.
Turning to the other "godfather" of the anti-gay medical misrepresentation squad, Joseph Nicolosi, it is highly interesting to note that Nicolosi, whose work is quoted by everyone from the "milder" conservative organizations all the way to the lunatic fringe like Fred Phelps, advocates "reparative therapy" for homosexuals, even though he states that a person's sexual orientation can be resisted -- but not changed! In an excellent review of Nicolosi's book, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach, James D. Weinrich, Ph.D., writes:
Now that the subject of alcoholism has come up, the same can be said for Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, who made headlines last year by comparing homosexuals to kleptomaniacs and alcoholics. I submit that a man bright enough to become a United States Senator is bright enough to know the truth in this matter. But Lott, for the sake of political expediency, purposefully lies about it anyway. This is indicative of the incestuous bed-down between the ultra-right-wing of the Republican party and certain religious institutions -- which comes perilously close to the Constitutional line of separation between church and state, if not actually crossing it. But between the rabidly conservative politicians and the religionists, there exists the unwritten agreement that they'll publicly pray from the same hymn book in order to pick the same sets of pockets. The religious organizations get donations; the politicians get campaign contributions, or at the very least, they get votes. In case I may not be making this point clearly enough: These people are media whores.
Back to the use of "natural" in the sense of "within a person's nature."
Yes, Steve, I can honestly and unequivocally tell you that a homosexual orientation is, and has been, part of my nature for as long as I can remember. Before puberty, you may have had crushes on a female teacher or two. Mine were on male teachers. I don't know how old you are, but if you're close to my age, when you were in 4th grade, you may have found Ginger on "Gilligan's Island" attractive (though at that age not attractive in the same fashion and with the same understanding as you would after puberty). But when I was in 4th grade, it was Davy Jones of the rock group "The Monkees." Never once has a carnal thought for the opposite sex come naturally to me. And I assure you, there was never a conscious choice involved. This is not to say I have never been involved in a heterosexual relationship. In fact, I have. Did I love the woman? Yes. Was I able to perform sexually and enjoy it? Yes, thanks to the abundance of hormones typical in a 20-year old. But it was strictly physical and usurious, which was monumentally unfair to the woman. It went totally against my nature to do this, yet I did it anyway. I regret it to this day. Surely, that is how a homosexual person commits a sin of a sexual nature.
One of the stereotypical notions gay people frequently confront is that homosexuality "happens" to them because they somehow have been corrupted, or chosen to corrupt, their natural sex drive. But let's use a little logic here. Earlier, another participant in this discussion, Gary, spoke of having a natural "aversion" to same-sex images and/or actions. If a person is naturally averse to it, then why should he want to try it in the first place? But let's imagine that he or she did try it. Sex does not have the physically addictive properties of cocaine, so in the classic "adolescent curiosity" scenario, as many heterosexual men can attest, one "snort" is not going to take over your mind completely like Jekyll and Hyde. And though there seems to be talk in psychological circles these days of "sexual addiction," it refers to the obsessive-compulsive disorder of repeating the same act uncontrollably. One famous high-ranking politician who shall remain nameless comes to mind as an example -- but that was within his same sexual orientation. Absent any obsessive-compulsive disorder, in the case of someone hypothetically repeating homosexual acts enough times to get himself "hooked" (and that begs the question, "how many times would it take?") I must ask: What's the payoff? Why force something on yourself that you are averse to? What pleasure do you get from it? Obviously, the answer is none. No one is going to perform a sexual act which he finds revolting.
The other overblown stereotype is that homosexuality "happens" as a result of some sort of childhood trauma, usually sexual molestation. I won't say it is impossible this is true. But I assure you, I was never molested. And of the many hundreds of gay acquaintances I've made through the years, I met only one who claims to have been molested, by his mother's second husband. (As is usually the case, it was a heterosexual man who perpetrated that molestation. Most pedophiles are not gay.) Among straight acquaintances, I have known several women who have told me of their being molested by men. With all of these people, however, male or female, the only thing they have described is a difficulty in allowing or maintaining intimacy with a sexual partner -- none has ever told me of any kind of "reversing" of his or her sexual orientation. Their sexual orientation is what it always was; it's simply that they have problematic sexual relationships within it. I have never met a lesbian woman who claims to have been molested as a child by a woman, so I can't address that.
Incidentally, speaking of molestation, I and every gay person in my cadre of friends and acquaintances would never hesitate to speak against pedophilia, and would insist that it always be criminalized. Ages of consent vary somewhat by state. In Illinois it is 17. I can't imagine myself ever favoring it any lower -- yet in some states, it is as low as 14. (As a quick side note, it is intriguing when you consider that these laws have always been crafted mainly by heterosexual men -- they are the majority in any segment of people, as they are in state legislatures). In my view, that limit should be raised.
Turning now to one of my sorest spots, and that is the "recruitment" argument. This is rather imbecilic on its face. Consider what is being suggested: "Uncle Gay Wants You! Join us and face possible alienation from your family, friends, and church; termination from a job; eviction from an apartment; a blackened eye or worse -- not for anything you've done, necessarily, but only because of who you are!" OK, flippancy -- I'm guilty as charged. So for a non-facetious scenario, let's imagine one involving sweet talk or coaxing or downright browbeating into a sexual act involving an inexperienced or naive young (but above the legal age of consent) person, by an older person looking for cheap release. I fully agree with you that's wrong. But gay people didn't necessarily invent that, and we certainly don't have the monopoly on it: it's called "seduction." This never happened to me. My first experience, at approximately age 16, was consensual, with someone almost identical in age, and I initiated it. I have made several gay acquaintances who tell me a seduction by someone older did happen to them; however, they also unanimously tell me that while it might have not been a pleasant experience, it was not a conversion for them, but rather a confirmation of their gay identity of which they were already aware. I also have a straight friend who had it happen to him, did not like it, and is a decidedly heterosexual man (just as he always was), today married happily with several children.
As to your belief that homosexuality is "wrong," I believe for you it very likely is, because you are heterosexual. My advice would be that you not do it (not that you asked for my advice, and not that I meant to imply you were thinking about doing it). For a heterosexual person, I can see how it would be considered wrong. But for homosexual person, I do not believe it is wrong.
Continued....
Is homosexuality "a choice?" Here is one of the most intelligent, thoughtful answers to that question that I've encountered. Like California with its upcoming "Proposition 22," the Iowa State Legislature several years ago debated a piece of anti-gay marriage legislation. Representative Ed Fallon, an openly heterosexual man with a wife and children, stated:
Please, dear reader, I implore you: Use your head. Who would choose to face potential rejection from friends, family, employers, church or neighbors? Who could choose to face potential physical harm? Who does choose to be something so widely ridiculed, often hated in some circles? Can you imagine yourself making such a choice? If not, then how can you imagine it of someone else? This makes no sense whatsoever.
Steve wrote:
I didn't feel at all like you were trying to set me up Steve, so not to worry. But you hit upon the crux of the matter: If there is any slam dunk proof, I don't know of it either. (How would we recognize it anyway?) But there is ample evidence to support my assertions. I'll offer some of it here, let you examine it, and you can make up your own mind.
Additionally, here is a quick one-sheeter on Cameron, prepared by Gregory M. Herek, PhD, professor at the University of California: Paul Cameron Fact Sheet. In this document, you will see that medical groups in essence call the man a quack, and that a federal judge in Texas stated he is guilty of "fraud and misrepresentation." Yet this Paul Cameron is the man upon whose research all the luminaries and organizations of the "religious right" rely. We're talking The 700 Club, The Family Research Council, Leadership University, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Janet Folger, Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries (the group responsible for placing the "cure homosexuality" ad campaigns)... the list goes on and on. These people make reckless and slanderous generalizations about gay people based almost solely upon the work of an individual who can accurately be described as deranged.
So here before us we have a case of two medical professionals -- Nicolosi saying homosexuals should be "repaired," Weinrich saying they should not -- yet both agreeing that a person's innate sex drive cannot be altered. This testifies to sheer malpractice on the part of Nicolosi. It is also a form of malpractice of which these so-called "Christian" organizations are guilty. They are well aware of the unreliable nature of these two crackpots, Cameron and Nicolosi. In other words, Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, Folger and the rest are lying -- and they know they are lying -- about gay people. But because there is money to be made, they do it anyway.
That concludes the reprinted excerpts from the discussion board. I will now briefly wrap this up on the final page.
CLICK HERE TO READ FINAL SEGMENT
Return to menu of essays
Return to "V.E.'s" home page.
