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 5 of 33)
61. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALS? I THINK NOT.
Listen folks. All we are today--every one of us--MUST be a product of evolution, no? So some cave-dude a million years ago decided to sun-bathe during a solar storm, man, and got this, like, really RANDOM mutation, man, and started going crazy balling boys; thereafter, none of the buxom cave-babes could even catch his eye, much less his affection. So...how, pray tell, did this prehistoric Barney Frank pass along his newly minted gene, hmm?
oceola at 12:31PM on Jul 1st 2007
62. This is so silly. Homosexuality has been proven to be environmentally based, along with genetically based. People keep saying "Oh so you can choose to be stop being straight?" so sarcastically when the answer is YES, you CAN. If you don't want to be straight anymore then you've chosen not to be.
Homosexually in essence is a choice, whether chosen outwardly or not. And I am sick of all those Christian haters who ran into a radical that does not make up the majority of the faith and decided that they have some right to attack them. How are any of those people better then the radicals? They aren’t.
Nancy your quote was once told to me by a preacher back before my father disowned me and forced me to move in with my mother. If I didn’t know better, I’d say I know you from somewhere. The Nancy I know is a kind woman, with all grown children, that aren’t half the person she is. She’s a grandmother too, and her grandchildren from her oldest child are heathens. Bible thumpers to the max.
I love that quote you said though. My step mother (her oldest child) kept telling me I shouldn’t tolerate gays because they are “wrong” when she herself is a bit of a gold digging whore. Homosexuality isn’t a natural thing, but it is not a reason to hate or resent anyone. As stated hate the sin, love the sinner. Ever since I heard that from my preacher, I’ve changed my whole outlook on life, and proudly so, for as stated we are all sinners.
We should just stop caring about who’s doing what with whom in bed. Besides how is homosexuality in biblical sense any worse then lying? It’s a commandment not to lie, not one to be straight. What’s with all the fuss?
Brittany at 3:59PM on Jun 28th 2007
63. 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
64. 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
65. 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
66. 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
67. I had gay sex with Dinesh D'Souza and I was better than him !
JeffRey Lee at 1:37PM on Jun 28th 2007
68. 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
69. 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
70. Would that we could all be as perfect as you, Mrs.
T.D. Gaines! I cannot believe that anyone is "forcing" their homosexual agenda on you - why would they? And where is your Christian compassion and tolerence? Your Jesus loved infidels, criminals and deviants, remember?
Samsara at 1:44PM on Jun 28th 2007
71. "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
72. I believe Mr. D'Souza is largely correct. He seems to be espousing "social constructionism," the idea that people's behavior, sexual and otherwise, is largely culturally infuenced. There was a 1994 study by the University of Chicago, "The Social Organization of Sexuality," that came to this same conclusion.
Unfortunately, gay activists, the media and mental health organizations -- all left-of-center politically -- have promoted the opposite, essentialism, as fact, that is, the idea that people are "born that way." Endless studies have been done attempting to prove this. These are generally flawed studies that have suffered from a lack of replication.
The American Psychological Association has stated that most scientists see sexuality as due to a complex interaction of biological, psychological and social factors going back to early childhood. This is probably the best summary of the scientific literature. So while people may not "choose" how they feel, those feelings are not necessarily innate. I still believe that those feelings are largely psychologically driven.
Shalom Stavsky at 2:34PM on Jun 28th 2007
73.
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
74. Mrs. T. D. Gaines-Crockett
Spoken like a true non-hating, non-prejudice, love thy neighbor Christian that you are. YOU, touting your so-called Holier than Thou, supposed Christian beliefs and ways, re-read your Bible, because I don't think the "Big Man Upstairs" cares very much for haters!!! You and your opinions/beliefs/actions are the reason that the country will go to Hell in a brown leather fanny-pack instead of a fabulous Prada over the shoulder bag!! Oh, and by the way, if there were no homosexuals, your hair and home would look like shit! (not to generalize my community)
gomimia at 1:49PM on Jun 28th 2007
75. Talk about irony -- the Ayatollah D'Souza insists that sexuality is a matter of choice in a post that itself is the latest example of Dinesh's own inability to control his obsessive fascination with men having sex with men (his posts on homosexuality in fact rarely discuss women).
Dinesh hasn't done this much vicarious cruising since that weird spasm of McGreevey posts a month or so ago (in which Dinesh revealed far more than perhaps he intended to by quoting all the words to "Where the Boys Are" -- you DO know who Connie Francis's most avid fans are, don't you Dinesh?). "The Enemy at Home" indeed -- more and more, that theme of his latest book seems a metaphor for Dinesh's struggle with his own internal demons.
Alas, I am less confident than some that widespread acceptance of the fact that being gay is innate will somehow lesson anti-gay prejudice. After all, no one questions that being African-American is not a matter of choice, yet the Ayatollah D'Souza is evey bit as racist as he is homophobic.
richter at 1:40PM on Jun 28th 2007