Homosexuality is Innate
Homosexuality is Innate
The United States has come a long way since our puritanical ancestors fled to its Colonial shores in search of religious freedom. America was to serve as a haven for minorities threatened with religious or political persecution in other lands. One of the first things these pilgrims did upon arrival was to draw up a code of conduct: “Capital offences liable to death” included such offences as treason, murder, witchcraft, arson, sodomy, rape, buggery (here denoting bestiality), and adultery (Crompton 277-278). Although hundreds of years have passed since these pilgrims burned their first witch or executed their first sodomite (sodomy being defined as any sexual act not directly procreative) one aspect of our society remains stubbornly in the Dark Ages: our views on homosexuality. My purpose in this paper is to prove that homosexuality is innate and our culture should not deprive homosexuals of the basic unalienable right accorded to its citizens.
The term homosexual is just a little over a hundred years old and comes from a combination of the Greek term homos meaning “same” and the Latin “sexual”. The noun is first recorded in 1912 in English and 1907 in French. Technically its use can apply to either male or female; but in non-technical use it almost always applies to male homosexuality. The often derogatorily used slang “homo” was first attested in 1929 (etymonline). In this paper I will be using the term to apply to male and female homosexuals.
A Choice?
Detestable, abhorrent, an abomination, a tragedy, evil, selfish, unnatural, filthy and degrading—these are all terms applied to homosexuality by conservative Christians claiming to represent the Bible’s stand that all practicing homosexuals are deserving of death/damnation. One need not look very far to find countless examples of those tormented by their natural desires within conservative faiths. I remember sitting at an assemblage of just such a group and hearing a letter read regarding a man who wanted desperately to be acceptable to his God—the God of the Bible–yet he had always had homosexual tendencies. He chose to live a life of isolation and loneliness rather than sacrifice his faith. I remember my sadness upon hearing of this man who couldn’t associate with men because he was attracted to them, and couldn’t associate with women because it was unseemly. My faith broke a little on that day. I had always been taught that homosexuality was a choice made by perverts and pedophiles. This experience showed me it had to be innate. One cannot just overcome such a tendency by entering into a heterosexual relationship. Many have tried, few have succeeded. This is only one experience but research on the web brings awareness of thousands who have become suicidal because they cannot force their minds to come in line with “Biblical requirements”. Why would somebody arbitrarily choose such a lifestyle that only brings them pain and isolation? I don’t think they do. Homosexuals have been victimized, mistreated, and even killed on the basis of their lifestyle.
Persecution of homosexuals didn’t begin to take root until late in the twelfth century (unless I miss my guess, this is about when the Church’s authority became absolute). This mindset continued for centuries until doctors and psychiatrists decided to do homosexuals a favor–they chose to identify homosexuality as a pathology rather than a crime. This didn’t influence conservative religionists who always choose the Word of God over science; but enough scholarly individuals sat up and took notice and study continued. Sigmund Freud stated in 1935, “Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness…Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too…” (Herek 1-2).
As time went on attitudes regarding homosexuality shifted ever so slightly. Those who were willing to think for themselves subscribed to the psychological theory that homosexuality was due to overbearing mothers and absentee or distant fathers (Lewis). Even some of the conservative religions adopted this belief, laying the blame squarely in the laps of the parents. This dubious achievement only caused further emotional damage as parents blamed themselves for their children’s sexual orientation and all parties became buried in guilt. Happily in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association voted to delete homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. The New York Times carried the headline, “Doctors Rule Homosexuality Not Abnormal.” This shift in ideation was in direct result of scientific evidence. “The APA’s Committee on Nomenclature reviewed numerous studies that used standardized instruments and nonpatient populations and showed that most gay persons were satisfied with their sexual orientation and were not impaired in their social functioning” (Lamberg 1). These findings flew in the face of Biblical adherents whose entire basis for dismissing homosexuality was a firm belief that such people are miserable, diseased, and tormented by their un-wholesome lifestyle due to their alienation from God.
In 1991, the homosexual community received another breakthrough at the hands of science. Acclaimed Neuroscientist Simon LeVay discovered a modest but significant difference in the size of the hypothalamus in a group of dead straight and gay men. In his 1993 book The Sexual Brain he proposes that “sexuality in all its forms is ultimately attributable to physical structures of our brains, everything from mere sexual orientation to preferences for specific kinds of sexual acts and positions”(Sartelle 2). LeVay’s opponents claimed there was no way to determine if the brains LeVay studied were different in structure or because of the effect of homosexual behavior. However, the American community embraced his study with eagerness. At last, scientific “proof” that our sexuality is forced upon us and not just a product of free will. Such a finding should contribute to the equal protection of homosexuals under the civil rights law (Sartelle 2).
The United States, however, is slow to accept ideas that conflict with long-held beliefs. It was not until 2003 that same sex sexual activity was legalized nationwide, and even though our neighbor to the north allows same sex marriage throughout their country only five states and one district permit it here (Wikimedia). This is despite the large percentage of Americans who now believe homosexuality is innate. Upon further investigation it becomes apparent that LeVay’s study and apparent discovery of the “Gay Brain” had little influence over Americans on a profound level. Conservative opponents point out that even though homosexual feelings may be biological that does not mean they are uncontrollable. Can a man use his elevated levels of testosterone to excuse habitually violent and aggressive behavior (Sartelle 3)?
It has been theorized that “the right wing’s vicious homophobia is testimony to an underlying acceptance of the fundamental susceptibility of all individuals to the appeal of homosexual relations” (Sartelle 3). Such behavior betrays an inner conviction that all humankind is inherently bisexual and if society tolerates homosexuality then everyone will eventually try it. It reminds me of the football player on Glee who persecutes Curt (the homosexual) because of his own latent homosexual desires. Kinsey reached these conclusions in his studies on human sexuality in the 1940’s. He found that any simplistic division of heterosexual versus homosexual is erroneous as human sexuality is far more complicated (Sartelle 4).
Conclusion
The American viewpoint of homosexuality reminds me of a tug-o-war in which the conservatives are on one side, the liberals are on the other, and the homosexuals are caught in-between. “Conservatives seek to contain the threat of homosexuality through moral injunctions’ while the ‘progressives’ seek to contain it by making it something absolutely confined to an identifiable group within society” (Sartelle 4). Why is containment so necessary? Fear of contamination. This would explain why we prefer clear and observable differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals which result in the strict stereotypes such as the feminine, fashion loving gay man and the butch, aggressive lesbian. Gays and lesbians participate in this stereotype and fill their assigned roles admirably (Sartelle 5).
Ideally, homosexuals shouldn’t have to revert to the “I have no choice” defense because it puts them in a defensive position, indirectly asserts that there is something wrong with homosexuality, and represents them as victims of their own desires. All these things are negative and do little to elevate their stand in society. It’s better to simply accept that some people are heterosexual and some people are homosexual. Just like some people are black and some people are white; or some men like fat women and some women like short men. Religious right wingers will always reject homosexuality because to do otherwise challenges their belief in God and the sanctity of his Word. However, I perceive our society moving toward a larger appreciation of diversity. Old normative standards are falling away and the new global perspective is forcing us to change ideals. “Homosexual relations should be accepted for the same reasons as any other consensual form of sexual expression: as an affirmation of our human freedom”(Sartelle 6). Just as we have the freedom within this country to choose who we are to marry, homosexuals should have that same choice. To deprive them of that basic unalienable right is un-American.
Works Cited
Crompton, Louis. “Homosexuals and the death penalty in Colonial America.” Faculty Publications— Department of English (1976): 277-293. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
Etymonline. “Homosexuality.” Online Etymology Dictionary, 2001-2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/
Greenberg, Aaron S., and J. Michael Bailey. “Do Biological Explanations of Homosexuality Have Moral, Legal, or Policy Implications?.” Journal of Sex Research 30.3 (1993): 245-251. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
Herek, Gregory M. “Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health.” Psychology. UCDavis, no date. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Lewis, Gregory B. “Does Believing Homosexuality Is Innate Increase Support for Gay Rights?.” Policy Studies Journal 37.4 (2009): 669-693. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
Sartelle, Joe. “Rejecting the Gay Brain (and choosing homosexuality).” Bad Subjects #14–May 1994. Web. 24 Feb. 2011.http://www.development.umd.edu/Diversity/Specific/Sexual_Orientation/Reading/Essays/rejecting-gay-brain.
Wikimedia. “Samesex Marriage.” Wikimedia Commons. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=samesex+marriage+US
