As usual Dinesh D'Souza is wrong. He sees the examples of the ancient Greeks and Romans practicing bisexuality as definitive proof that homosexuality is not innate. His theory is that since current Greeks and Romans don't practice rampant bisexuality (let's assume that's true for the moment being) and the ancient Greeks and Romans did, it must be a cultural thing. Not a genetic one.
What's funny about the Christian right argument is that they admit that they are powerless to stop feelings of homosexuality taking over if society opens up to it. What's going through their minds? Perhaps they're not so different from the ancient Greeks after all.
Of course, as Kinsey showed, the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is not a sharp divide (I used to take credit for this idea until I realized Professor Kinsey had written about this before I was even born). It's not a black or white, gay or straight issue. Everyone is somewhere along the gay-straight spectrum.
And the further society opens up to homosexuality as permissible, the more people feel comfortable coming out as bisexual, homosexual, omnisexual or whateversexual.
Let me give a quick and absurdly simplistic example. Let's assume 100 is completely gay and 0 is completely straight on our gay-straight continuum. A person who ranks a 95 on the gay scale is probably going to act out on those innate desires no matter what societal rules there are, even at the risk of being put to death in closed societies.
A person who is a 5 on that scale might never act on any trace bisexual desires he or she might have no matter what the societal norms are. But the more open a society is, the more you will start to draw in people who score an 85, 75, 65, 55, 45, 35, etc. on our fun little gay-straight line.
In a very closed society some one who is "80% gay" might never come out and in a very open society someone who is even "20% gay" might try it. These are gross simplifications, but you get the point. In fact, this is in some ways exactly what the culture warriors on the right have been warning about.
The Christian right (and the religious and cultural conservatives of a great many societies) have been worried about this for a long time. They are right. As society opens up, we will likely be more "gay." Or in reality, be closer to our true nature, wherever that might lie on the bisexuality continuum.
Where the cultural right is wrong is when they make a value judgment on that. Of course, there isn't anything wrong with that all. In fact, since it allows us to be closer to our "real" nature without societal judgments on our natural sexual preferences, there is something very right about it.
As it stands, our current culture doesn't yet appear to be fully comfortable with a truly and widely bisexual society. So, we inch toward progress or slouch toward
Though it must be noted that we have already achieved a great deal of openness on the female side of the equation. Ask around and see if you can find a woman under 25 who hasn't made out with one of their girlfriends.
My informal study on our show indicates about 80% of girls under 25 have at least tried a sexual experience with another woman (I concede that I am no Alfred Kinsey and my so-called evidence is wildly anecdotal, but ask for yourself and you'll see my numbers are shockingly accurate).
D'Souza uses history as his guide. It's ironic because his argument is ultimately against the tide of history and the inevitability of our genes. We know what the future holds, it is our past. The American people are right, our sexuality is innate. We just have to have the courage to own up to it.
Watch The Young Turks
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 37)
16. d wood, there's something inside you that finds michael jackson attractive, right? just admit it to yourself, you'll feel better.
rachel, if you really want to have a go with a mammal of another species, or whatever, go for it! it might be liberating. it's probably safer than same-species sex. but i'd stay away from any birds, especially from asia.
chris, you seem to be very confused. it doesn't look to me like our species is on the brink of extinction. there are quite enough natural heteros to keep the population up there in the billions and billions. so leave the natural gays and in-betweens alone, ok?
Joe Bob at 5:56PM on Jun 28th 2007
17. Being bisexual (and yes I love gurls and boiz) have been married, having had a fience' who let me be me and am now in a same sex relationship, I truly believe this is genetic. If we could change our sexual oreintation, why wouldnt we just do that? Why do we continuously go thru all of the ridicule and such and just not live the "straight" life? I believe this is natures' or our creators natural way of birth and population control. If we all were straight only think of the worlds population at this present and critical time now. we can barely take care of and feed the population now. Maybe this was gods real gift. think if there was no jealosy and we all were intimate as a race. things would b a better place. maybe the ancient greecians had it right. - devyn
Devyn at 6:04PM on Jun 28th 2007
18. Everyone is somewhere between the gay and straight spectrum. Oh my, thats beautiful.
Wait let me think,---------------------------------------------- yup, that's right. Now what?
bluqe at 6:08PM on Jun 28th 2007
19. CJ - please... get a grip. It will never come to pass that 'everyone' is gay. Why? Because nature LIKES diversity. Anyway, even if they were, so what? Gay couples have children all the time. There will always be women willing to carry a baby for two men, or men willing to help two women have a child. Being gay doesn't equal being sterile. Just because some may not WANT to have sex with the other gender, doesn't mean they CAN'T.
Kris at 6:08PM on Jun 28th 2007
20. jana, what a goofy statement -- "if you all thought that a woman should be with a woman and a man should be with a man, humanity would cease to exist". It wouldn't matter a bit what I or anybody else "thought"; people's sexuality is not determined by our opionions. That's the whole point. Enough people are (natuarally, not by choice) towards the 0 (heterosexual) end of the scale to keep the species going just fine.
Joe Bob at 6:13PM on Jun 28th 2007
21. This is the most brilliant and accurate article that I have ever read on sexual preference. I thoroughly concur!
Tom at 6:21PM on Jun 28th 2007
22. If gayness is at all genetic, then you just know very religious cultures are bound to be super-gay. In rational cultures, really gay men will have sex with men. But, some gay Baptist will marry a woman and thinks about Charles Bronson while having sex with her. Then, a son is born and the son is gay, too. Think about what is going on in those pews.
lil_turk at 6:23PM on Jun 28th 2007
23.
Limited views on both sides. Very limited views. Please, genetics is not a diety of any form don't worship the double-helix!
Sexual orientation is not gentically predetermined. There is no reason why genes would encourage anybeing to pursue homosexual behavior. Sex is, evolutionarily speaking, a means to ensure future generations. If you can't procreate than nature is not on your side... You can't even argue that homosexuality is a way to ease population control. If evolution wanted humans under control we would either be A) tastier or B) have more miscarriages. That's how nature controls populations, not by making non-breeding xenotypes.
Homosexual tendencies are a nurture issues. Even the author gets this, although their terminology is off. The more open a society the more individuals choose to pursue a behavior not intended for biological fittness (go look up the term before you argue or get insulted). The more a behavior is displayed as being pleasing and pleasure inducing the more people will pursue it. Especially if your poll reaches only to those members of a society that promote that behavior. I would check the girl-on-girl statistic to make sure that isn't what happened. Trawling lower Manhatten and handing out twenties to anyone who will kiss her girlfriend in public is not scientific research.
So, no, no one is inherently gay. That would be a genetic flaw that would been sorted out prior to birth. And on the off chance that it was at some time a genetic tendency it was killed in round one, the mutation needs to be transmitted sexually and same-gender couple can't conceive a child without medical aid. The ancient Greeks didn't have that medical aid and there are questions whether everyone who has the money for such help should be given it (money does not equal intelligence).
Leilani at 6:30PM on Jun 28th 2007
24. I do hope there is a od and that he then judges all straight people that did the judging for him. I hope that all people that teach to hate are condemned to hell and I do hope there is a hell. I hope that Jana and Lori are waiting to be judge to hell.
ray at 6:39PM on Jun 28th 2007
25. All i'm saying, Lori, is that Christ spoke of love and tolerance. He was the guy that threw out the rules while passing a message of love and acceptance. It wasn't until the bible was pieced together did the "religious" leaders of the time decide to keep that messed up passage in Leviticus and maintain a level of bigotry. Name one place in the bible where Jesus is heard to say that being gay is bad. It's not going to be there. So unless you are Jewish, why is leviticus that important? I hear Fred Phelps needs some advocates, go talk to him.
Phoenix at 6:44PM on Jun 28th 2007
26. The comments comparing pedophilia to homosexuality are absurd for one simple reason: adult men abuse girls and boys in approximately equal numbers. So, by the argument, being heterosexual also makes one prone to molesting children. Absurd! Pedophilia has little to do with sexual orientation and more to do with manipulation, criminality, gratificaiton, laziness, and poor social skills. Dr. T
Tara at 6:52PM on Jun 28th 2007
27. If everyone was gay the world wouldnt end.Gay people have been artificially in seminated. That was not a good argument
.
Bull at 6:56PM on Jun 28th 2007
28. Since both Uygur and D'souza mentioned the Greeks & Romans, this seems like a good time for a couple of jokes. I heard these two awhile ago, and they seem a good fit for this part of the blog.
Q1: How do they separate the men from the boys in Greece?
A1: With a crow-bar!
Q2: If Germany was attacking Italy from the rear, do you think Greece would help?
¡¡LOLOL!!
Ken Berg at 6:58PM on Jun 28th 2007
29. Leilani, let's not worship nurture, either. There is definitely a genetic component to sexual preference, though it doesn't account for everything.
From the wikipedia article about homosexuality:
"Twin studies give indications that male homosexuality is genetically mediated. One common type of twin study compares the monozygotic (or identical) twins of people possessing a particular trait to the dizygotic (non-identical, or fraternal) twins of people possessing the trait. Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic brothers and 22% of the dizygotic twins were concordant for homosexuality."
So it would seem that both genetics and environment are working here. In any case, it appears that sexual preference is determined very early; if not at conception, or in the womb, before the age of 3 or 4. Almost everyone feels that they have always had the preference they have.
I think the point of C.U.'s post is that it is not a conscious decision.
Joe Bob at 6:58PM on Jun 28th 2007
30. there is also another scripture on homosexuality in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 6:9.
jjkrenek at 7:04PM on Jun 28th 2007