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 4 of 33)
46. D'Souza hinted at, but neglected to explore the implications of, the fact that neither pederasty nor marriage was universal in ancient Greece and Rome.
Perhaps the norm for men in those ancient societies was pederasty and a wife. The norm in today's world is heterosexual marriage. Some men in ancient Greece and Rome never engaged in pederasty, and some never got married. In today's world, some men and women never get married because they aren't allowed to marry members of the same sex.
I think all that D'Souza's argument really shows is that when a society sets up one norm for everyone, not all people will conform to that mold. It's probable, given human nature, that some refuse the mold simply because they hate imposed uniformity. But it's also probable, given the social nature of humans and our innate desire to be safe and secure, that most of those who do not conform are risking ostracism only because they /cannot/ conform.
It's really kind of sad that D'Souza tries to make an argument out of this historical trivia. He seems to think he's settled an argument that's been very closely examined for decades in this country, using 3,000-year-old "evidence" that /everyone else/ simply overlooked. They didn't overlook it. They just realized it didn't mean anything.
And just so everyone knows I'm not going out of my way to "justify" my own sexual preferences, I'm straight. I came to the above conclusions because they make sense.
SF at 1:04PM on Jun 28th 2007
47. If he weren't taken so seriously, this would be a great piece of humor. Typical ignorant statements made by an outsider standing safe and sound within their majority smugly making comments on subjects they know nothing about.
Once again, the ignorant tries to frighten the general public by lumping pedophilia and homosexuality together in an attempt sway them into adopting his views. Mr. D'Souza has ignored a great number of facts about greek culture which do not support his statements.
Dwight Ingersoll at 1:04PM on Jun 28th 2007
48. Do any of you people ever really read whats put in front of your face, this writer is from Hoover institution of Stanford U, it's the most right wing institution in the world, hence his opinion, so I'll pay little attention to his words as they are jilted by his believe's. that's all folks. lol
Tom C Smith at 1:07PM on Jun 28th 2007
49. 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 1:09PM on Jun 28th 2007
50. 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 1:09PM on Jun 28th 2007
51. The fallacy in this argument is the necessary premise that the relationship and behavior--whatever it was, which is not in fact well known--carried on by adult heterosexual men with boys in ancient greece and rome was the same thing as adult homosexuality--actual homosexual orientation. The "pederasty" in the ancient world, to the extent that it actually involved sexual behavior, was just a specific form of child abuse, like miliary training or religious indoctrination of children. It had nothing to do with actual adult sexual orientation. The difference between then and now is not in whether people then were homosexual but changed, it's that today we frown on sexual abuse of children.
rich at 1:14PM on Jun 28th 2007
52. I'm not so certain the biological tests are inconclusive. As none are exampled by the author they were judged either irrelevant or to the author truly misrepresentative of his own background and familiarity in their studies.
Bonobo primates have sexual contacts with one another in the main to diffuse tension or show favortism. En toto - although not "conclusive" the very near cousin of man still masturbates with each other. Perhaps they - tongue in cheek - evolved into early Athenian's? Romans - enamored with Greece - conquered and took on attributes of their culture that they favored. They did not exist side by side. Carthaginian - Punic - examples would be more illuminating since they existed together until Rome smote Carthage in the III Punic War - (read: slaughter). Founded along Phoenician mores - this would be more pertinent in view of parallels the City States of Athens, Sparta,..et al.lacked. I'm unaware of what took place in the colonies of either Carthage or the decreasing dominance of Greece in the Mediteranean from Rome's Republic era to Empire. Saturnine paganism - ritual intercourse between males and females with more than two partners is vague in any poetry or story. It's not absolute that penetration was the main purpose of older man and younger adolescent. Pleasure and mutual aggrandizement were more apparent as reason for such relationships. Homosexuality was not the "ticket to Hell" as thought of in this day and age. It is known that the rise of the Church - in European areas - saw any intellectual or sexual parlance as anathema to their existence. This shows up in writings in the Age of Reason aplenty. Protestantism, Calvanism, Lutheran beliefs were just as heretical to Rome for various reasons. Everything pertaining to marriage and procreation was thus dominated by the Roman Catholic Church teachings to the point of murder, war and the heralding of Kings and Emperors who supported the Ecclesiastical Dominance of all. As people can now read for themselves the scriptures - think for themselves about the "Word of God" - the Church, proclaimed even such things as the eschewing the filth of menstruation and any male having sex with a menstruating woman was "copulating in the filth of Eve's sacriledge" one - inconclusively of course - wonders to what extent the Church itself would go to to protect it's pocketbook and dominance over the "idiots" of Vandalized territories.
Before the power of the Three religions, homosexual pleasure did not have the taboo it does today. By the ads in the paper of married men seeking laison with bi-sexual or homosexual males seems to belay the "attitude" of society no matter in the Mediteranean or otherwise today.
Studies of other mammals shows "overstimulation" of life requirements - resources -(females lose fertility, males mount males, females mount females) leads to another study where human females in the last trimester do not apportion testosterone which studies show leads from undescended testicles to the incompletion of hardwiring of the brain for the male animal. This also shows that the testosterone required to turn us - all beginning as females - into males. Studies in the Soviet Union after WWII showed statistically and realisitically -more males generated per pregnancy than females. As happened anecdotally in the USA after the Civil War.
Nature produces what Nature requires. Ergo: Homosexuality is not an aboration or abomination at all. Intolerance of Nature only supports that after 10,000 years man has not come closer to understanding - but farther away from itself and humanity.
Conjecture and history are - in this author's example even - anecdotal at best. Facts are obviously missing which would support neither the premise nor the conclusion. I've never met an ancient man who had a young male lover - best be said it supported a social indemnity unknown except by the Ancients themselves.
John at 1:14PM on Jun 28th 2007
53. The example of what the ancient Greeks found acceptable has nothing to do with the facts. Homosexuality was accepted by the culture of ancient times. Things changed when Christianity came into power. The change in what was socially acceptable has no relation to whether homosexuality is genetic. Genetics are based on biology, not society.
J. Rountree at 1:14PM on Jun 28th 2007
54. To Ze:
"Knight_of_BAAWA, if you think hes hating on gay people, then your just a retard or you have a hard time reading english."
No, he hates gays.
Can you change to be gay? Didn't think so.
" He isnt lying about anything, these are actual facts. If they hurt your homossexuality, "
I'm actually hetero. It's nice to see that there are still idiots like you who think that anyone who doesn't hate gays must be gay. It's the same mentality as "if you're for niggers not being lynched, you're a nigger-lover". Atavistic. Primitive. Backward. Unevolved. Moron.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 1:15PM on Jun 28th 2007
55. "I don't understand poster #1 and his response. D'Souza was not being hateful in any way. "
He is. His entire idea is "homosexuality CAN'T be genetic--it just CAN'T". Well--I asked him if he could change to be gay. That pretty much shuts up any idiot who think that it just CAN'T be genetic, as such would interfere with their hatred.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 1:18PM on Jun 28th 2007
56.
Nancy:
Of course Jesus hates the "sin" of homosexuality. It is very apparent given the number of times he discussed it in the Gospels.
Sarcasm aside, relying on the Bible as your infallible lawbook is silly. True, Leviticus 20:13 says quite clearly that homosexuality is an abominable act. But Leviticus also forbids the eating of shellfish (11:10) and pigs (11:07). Seriously, read Leviticus. Tell me how many of God's "laws" listed there you actually follow.
By the way, I'm straight. I did not choose to be straight.
Tony Messinger at 1:20PM on Jun 28th 2007
57. Dear Dinesh,
First of all, I can see how the character in Plato's symposium might have thought it 'unfair'. After all, many Greeks thought of their sexual practices as an expression of love. If that were so, love should be given freely. Also, they viewed a man's wisdom and knowledge as his true essence and, as such, EXTREMELY valuable. Therefore, to have to 'give' what was tantamount to one's soul for a merely physical encounter was to have grossly overpaid.
To say that homosexuality is not genetic because the gene pool has not significantly changed and the Greeks and Romans do not continue this practice today is unfair. Many cultures--including our own--have changed their customs and governed actions once considered 'normal' with laws prohibiting them. It is only natural that as time goes on, people become more civilized and, in the process, expect more from Government and from themselves. The 'gene pool' did not have to significantly change for the laws and expectations of society to do so. Conversely, just because societal expectations and laws change does not mean that natural inclinations are negated. If a man come home early to find his wife in bed with another man, does he not feel the urge to kill him? Until fairly recently, such a man would've gotten off on a 'diminished capacity' defense. Hell, fifty years ago, he wouldn't have even been charged. Today, society demands it's pound of flesh and people are forced to stifle their violent urges--regardless of provocation.
I do think there is a genetic component to homosexuality--as there is with most behaviors--but it is certainly not the end-all, be-all that those who refuse to take responsibility for the feelings they act on would have us believe. I have known MANY children who came from households where one parent was homosexual. In all cases where the parent came out of the closet while the child was young (say, under 13), the children of the same gender as the homosexual parent later claimed themselves to be homosexual. In all cases where the parent waited until the child was in the teens--after they'd established a sense of sexual identity--they stayed straight. My conclusion then would be that younger children, forced to deal with the reality that their parent is 'different' convince themselves that they too are homosexual as a way of identifying with the parent whom, naturally, they love.
I realize that this observation is analogous but, as I've seen so many cases of what I've described above, I feel it too overwhelming to ignore.
The only real litmus test as to how genetic homosexuality might be is to check on the sexual orientation of children of homosexuals whom were given up for adoption. Where the child grows up knowing nothing about his/her birth parents, the child cannot then be trying to gain the approval by identifying themselves as a homosexual.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 1:21PM on Jun 28th 2007
58. double wow to Oceola & Louis!! Table manners, brushing teeth, gay cave dudes?!! no wonder this world is soo screwed up! The both of you inately knew what your preference was at an early age, no choosing, no training/re-training the brain, no practise, just plainly what you prefer or what you're attracted to period. Oceola, random, idiotic thoughts may point to early signs of a mental illness, or the fact that an early ancestor of yours and Barney's sunbathed in that darn solar storm, affecting your descendants future brain chemistry!
gomimia at 1:23PM on Jun 28th 2007
59. where have you been? i lived in rome and milan for years and have been many times to greece. Trust me when i tell you, there are MANY many homosexuals in both countries. i actually found there to be more there than here per capita(hello, fashion, art and design? come on!). my friends joke constantly about how it seems there are no straight italians after 2 drinks.
the catholic church considers it such a 'sin' that it's rarely discussed openly, but gay locales are FULL. many are married simply because of religious pressure, and i had one friend who killed himself because he couldn't stand living that dual life. it is opinions such as yours that foster that type of pain. he suffered over his sexuality, trying to be 'straight' because of family and church pressure saying it was 'immoral'.
just because culturally it was acceptable to the ancient greeks and romans doesn't mean it was a choice. another comment here said it perfectly, CAN YOU CHOOSE TO BE HETEROSEXUAL? ask yourself the question first before trying to propose some random hypothesis based on a false premise, with no empirical evidence. and you are at STANFORD?
maybe you're bisexual, and from your experience you can choose to be with one or the other with no true preference, that would at least explain your view somewhat. unfortunately, it's like looking at the horizon and saying the world is flat, or at the stars and thinking we are at the center of the universe. it is antiquated and uninformed. sure, you can continue to believe it and live your life like that is true, but as a scholar, shouldn't you be asking yourself bigger questions and making less assumptions?
sexuality is a complicated beast. it is different for each and every person on the planet, like our face, faith and love. it is FAR more complex than "i choose" or "gene 21... on". it is even different at any given moment in time. have your sexual appetites or interests been exactly the same from day one? have you 'chosen' to be attracted to someone? put some real thought into it and give others some respect.
kevin stea at 1:26PM on Jun 28th 2007
60. Wow Ryan, you hit the nail on the head.
Gomimia, any sexual activity outside of legitimate marriage (as defined by the bible as one man and one woman)is considered immoral according to God's Word, and becomes equated by God as idol worship, which for Christians, is forbidden by God. It is not forbidden among those who don't believe in God or don't care what God wants, but God does want His people to conform to His Word, not the laws and rules of mankind. So it would be wrong for a Christian to accept and support homosexuality because God's Word forbids it. Also, we don't want to teach our children that it is right when God says it is wrong. And God is our judge, not mankind. Why would a Christian want to try to become a homosexual when God forbids it? To make the homosexual feel better about their lifestyle? That would dishonor God and that is not the goal of a Christian lifestyle. Getting the truth of God's Word out is not racist or hateful, but it can feel that way to someone who doesn't like it or believe it. It only becomes racist and hateful when mankind tries to become the judge rather than leaving the judging in God's Hands where it is anyway and will stay.
There are sexaholics anonymous meetings, just like alcoholics anonymous meetings, and a variety of others.
Risa Avari at 1:27PM on Jun 28th 2007