A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
This view, I think, is simply wrong.
If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty prevalent in Greece and Rome today? Has the gene pool changed that much? These questions can be deepened by noting that for the ancients, there was no question of being either heterosexual or homosexual. The Greeks and Romans were both. In other words, Greek and Roman males typically were married and had families, yet these same married men also had sexual liaisons with younger boys.
I'm sure if someone in those days conducted a poll, the Greeks and Romans would confidently proclaim their sexual practices "natural." If you told the ancient Athenians that other societies weren't into pederasty like they were, chances are they would laugh and say that obviously pederasts in other cultures were concealing their true inclinations. With the same cultural myopia, we think that since there are homosexuals in our society, and since they clearly aren't whimsically "choosing" to be homosexual, therefore homosexuality must be biological and innate. But this is a non-sequitur, and history suggests that it is not so.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 33)
31. The writer is confusing behavior with orientation. Maybe he'd like to wander into a local prison and ask the men there if they're gay. The fact that they are having sex with men because there aren't any women available doesn't make them gay. Similar to the Greeks who had sex with young men--that was a cultural behavior, not a reflection of orientation. Orientation can't be changed (and falls along a continuim from straight to gay, not merely one or the other)--behavior can. In fact, many believe that the New Testament references to homosexuality are in reallity only condemning straight men who have sex with men "as with a woman", not those who are gay. At any rate, ancient Greeks having sex with boys really has no relevance to sexual orientation in America today. I hope that was not supposed to be a "scholarly" piece.
Wolf at 12:34PM on Jun 28th 2007
32. While you bring up an interesting point, I think you are looking at an incredibly broad and complex situation and trying to boil it down to simple terms. You are framing the discussion in the terms of, "you are either gay or straight, and for the same reasons."
For one, I don't think you can lump together homosexuality and homosexual behavior together as the same thing. While the buggeries of ancient greece are certainly profound, we can not necessarily equate these behaviors to being homosexual.
Instead, I would equate them with societal pressures and possibly pavlovian mechanisms.
Overall, remember that homosexuality and heterosexuality is a false dichotomy. While homosexuality has a biological component, such doesn't preclude a straight person from being conditioned to find homosexual acts erotic, as in the case of ancient greece.
Pete at 12:35PM on Jun 28th 2007
33. nancy - yeah right. If your kids came home and told you they'd read "Heather Has Two Mommies," you'd be on the school steps with a protest board and a TV news crew. And if one of your kids comes home and says "Mom I am Gay..." would you be understanding, or act like a proper God-nazi and try to send them to an ex-gay camp? My parents know all about me, to the point where they are tanked in my gay-themed books (I'm an author by trade). I get the distinct feeling that - just after your Christo-hissy - you would not be anywhere near as accepting as my family has been.
And Charles, news for you too, buddy. Jesus loves me and he knows I'm gay.
Tim at 12:39PM on Jun 28th 2007
34. Greetings all!
Wow! This is always a hot topic and it never will seemingly come to a conclusion; at least one which will satisfy everyones particular position. It seems to me that a more important issue now is: What do we do to move beyond the discussion? What do we do to rid ourselves of the negative rethoric-on bot sides of the issue? I assume it too easy to just "agree to disagree"; besides to do so would be a cop-out. To explore a theological solution would only serve to complicate th ematter and infuriate many. It truly seems to me that regardless of how a person "becomes" gay- nature or nurture- homosexuality is a part of the universal fabric and to suggest a "cure" is insulting and futile. If there is a God (and this writer believes there is and I am a firm student of the Christian Gospel message)then each of us will have to answer for all that we do and all that we are in this life. We are all a part of a creation-- the same creation-- flaws, flawlwss and all.
Tony at 12:41PM on Jun 28th 2007
35. I'm one of those radical Christians referenced by another contributer to this blog...and I believe homosexuality can be and is genetic. I also believe that many if not most or all who are gay cannot choose to not be gay...and I believe the Bible supports this. You see, in Romans it says that God "gave them up...to dishonor their bodies among themselves" (1:24) and "God gave them up to vile passions...men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another..." (1:26-27) and again "God gave them over to a debased mind". (1:28) Man decides not to acknowledge God, God gives them over and they cannot come out of it. Homosexuality is like any other sin though...we are dead in our trespasses...and we cannot choose to make ourselves alive, or free from our sins. God says we are "slaves to sin". Without God, no man can change who he is. Is homosexuality genetic (sins of the fathers are passed down for 4 generations, Deut 5:9), probably. Is that in contradiction with Christianity, no. But according to the Bible, it is still a sin from which man needs to be saved.
ryan at 12:42PM on Jun 28th 2007
36. Dinesh,
I applaud your bravery in stating the obvious. The Greek analogy is perfect. All of my gay male friends were molested as children by men. Their only reference to sex was that. So they repeated what they learned to be sex. If you have been abused you are likely to be an abuser. Is abuse genetic, no. Socially learned yes. I believe Homosexuality is the same way, a learned behavior. Do I HATE my gay friends? No. Just stating my opinion.
blkoliveoil at 12:43PM on Jun 28th 2007
37. It is a little strange that someone could come away with the impression that there is any expression of hatred in Mr. D'Souza's article. His comments are true according to history books and artwork. In ancient times sex was prevalent among men-men, women-women, men-women, man-animals.
I personally do not believe that we were born to be homosexual, that it a choice we make. What is a shame is the amount of money that is being spent to try to prove that there is a gene to substantiate that homosexuality is inherent.
Saywhat at 12:44PM on Jun 28th 2007
38. Tim,
I guess to sum it all up, you are just saying, I don't want to change.
Jesus Does Love You! He knows your gay too! But he still hates your sin!
Nancy at 12:45PM on Jun 28th 2007
39. obviously Dinesh is no historian, otherwise he would know that bisexuality was common in many ancient societies. I would be willing to bet that true homosexuality ( people who are strictly homosexual ) was no more common than today, but that bisexuality was. In cultures where women where considered greatly inferior to men in all aspects of life a man of means would have sex with his equal or at least same sex. Some studies have actually shown that these practices where not as widespread among the lower classes.
Bisexuality may well be more culturally driven than biologically, and one only need to look the evidence for this to see how Dinesh's postition is flawed. In a culture such as our's that has a judeo-christian heritage homosexual/bisexual behavior is persecuted, and in some case fatally. So it tends to reason that the small percentage of people that would contiue this behavior in face of this persecution would be the ones with a natural biological drive. In ancient culture where there was not this persecution but acceptance heterosexuals would be more likely to engage in a culturally accepted mode of sexual expression. Especially in cultures that saw half of there population as inferior.
zane at 12:46PM on Jun 28th 2007
40. Nancy, Your whole argument of "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" is really just so much Bullsh*t.
John at 12:47PM on Jun 28th 2007
41. Is Homosexuality Genetic? Absolutely not. It was made perfectly clear in the Bible that it is a sin. Innocent babies are born without sin thus making a genetic mutant homo-gene impossible.
Decent Americans, Republcians and Christians, are sick and tired of having the homosexual agenda and every other immoral Liberal deed, forced upon them. I pray that people in this country will open their eyes before the whole blame country is taken over by infidels, criminals, and deviants.
Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett at 12:48PM on Jun 28th 2007
42. It doesn't really matter if homosexuality is genetic or not.
I hear alcoholism is genetic, should we have drunken parades with fancy floats driven by drunk drivers?
Should we encourage our youth to explore smoking because a gene has been found that triggers tobacco addiction?
The list could go on and that's what makes this an issue of right and wrong regardless of genetics.
-
Wally at 12:49PM on Jun 28th 2007
43. The problem with an absolutist view is that it lacks any appreciation of the depth of an issue, any nuance. In the case of Dinesh D'Souza, he believes sexuality must be a choice because there is a precedent in which the expression of sexuality has been culturally influenced. A few problems with that:
1)The most important, he overlooks decades of important work in the area since the studies of Alfred Kinsey which suggest that it is not a dichotomy between "gay" and "straight", but that most people fall somewhere in between and, while having preference for one sex, have a latent atraction, to whatever degree, to the other (the expression of which can be culturally influenced, as in ancient Greece or feudal Japan). There is a small percentage of people on the exclusively gay side of the spectrum, just as there was in ancient Greece alongside the mostly heterosexual/slightly bisexual pederasts.
2)By characterizing the scientific studies of sexuality as more controversial and inconclusive than they actually are, D'Souza is showing that his ideology is preventing him from seeing what is there.
3)Even if latent homosexuality could be changed (i.e., "cured"), why should it be? Who is Dinesh D'Souza or anyone to want to change an intimate and personal part of a person's identity (particularly when it does no harm and adds diversity to a society)? What is easier and better, to "cure" homosexuality or to "cure" homophobia?
Joseph Von Hoven at 12:53PM on Jun 28th 2007
44. I strongly believe that our genes comes with certain hereditary clues since birth, however it is the mind who should rule the flesh, it's all with the mind that we are capable to change our ways whether is hereditary or a product of rough childhood - we have the power to control the flesh if we only put our mind in it our behavior could improve just like the way we manage to develop good table manners or getting used to constantly brushing our teeth - it's hard work i know but it's all worth accomplishing.
Louis at 12:54PM on Jun 28th 2007
45. ok nancy,
then leave your husband/boyfriend, if you're that fortunate to have one and come on over to the "pink" team. Quit your heterosexual ways and desires, if you can, or should I say "want" to come and get yer self a nice new Lesbian girlfriend!!!! It shouldn't be too hard to change. And since when is human sexuality equated to the addictions of smoking and drinking???
gomimia at 12:59PM on Jun 28th 2007