Whenever we discuss homosexuality, we seem to have a single, huge problem. That is that so many myths have grown up around the topic. Some are simply popular myths, such as the idea that women are more "open" to experimentation. Others have been accepted as "facts", even by those who should know better, such as the 10% estimate for the prevalence of homosexuality.

I dealt earlier with the idea that there is some innate brain difference between men and women, or that there is some definably way in which transsexuals have the brains of the other sex. However, there remain several other myths I wish to briefly cover.

First, let us look at the most accepted myth, the idea that 10% of the population is homosexual. There are so many problems with this one it is hard to know where to begin. The number itself comes from a highly ideological researcher (Kinsey) whose methods, and not only in the 10% estimate, have been roundly criticized, but that has been well documented elsewhere. So, let me instead ask a more relevant question. What does the 10% mean? Does it include men who had sex with men while in prison? Does it include men or women who ever had sex with members of the same sex? Does it include any individual who ever had an attraction to a member of the same sex? As you can tell, depending on how you answer these questions, you can make the number smaller or larger. The problem is, when anyone hears "10% of the population are gay", they don't know which of these criteria is used, and so they assume "gay" means 10% of the population is exclusively involved in sexual relations with members of the same sex.

A second popular myth is that women are more prone to casual lesbianism. It seems most popular among those in their 20's or younger, and the reason is obvious. Those of us older than that recall a time before our "porn culture" made lesbianism popular, when women were as little inclined to lesbianism as men were to homosexuality. The trend toward casual female lesbianism came at almost the same time as "Girls Gone Wild" appeared on the scene, making faux lesbianism not just a route to fame and fortune, but also a casually accepted social phenomenon. Oddly enough, those old enough to remember 80's club culture, or those even older who recall the 70's glam and club scenes, can recall when things were exactly reversed, and male homosexuality was more in vogue, making men, not women, more prone to casual homosexuality.

Which brings me to my third myth, the idea that cultural attitudes do not cause homosexuality to proliferate. As my previous example shows, cultural norms clearly do effect the expression of homosexuality. Today, when macho gangster culture prevents men from any but the most heterosexual roles, but our porn obsession makes lesbianism popular, women will become lesbians of opportunity, engaging in same sex activity to meet the demands of those around them. On the other hand, when male homosexuality was accepted as fashionable in the 70's and 80's, while lesbianism was associated with definitely unfashionable militant feminist "bull dykes", it was  male homosexuality which proliferated, often being adopted as a fashion statement.

And we can see that in certain circles today. While casual male homosexuality is precluded by the machismo of pop culture, in many other circles, such as academia, machismo is positively frowned upon, and there both male and female homosexuality are more common than in the general population. In academic and artistic spheres, casual male homosexuality is every bit as common as female. So, why is that the case? Because society encourages it among academics and artists, but the different social pressures of pop culture do not. The culture tends to encourage or discourage homosexuality, despite myths tot he contrary.

Of course, the counter argument is that homosexuality is genetic and that society is simply allowing the expression of homosexuality, so we should encourage homosexuality, so as to allow people to expres their genetic identity. However, this is an absurd argument for several reasons.

First, homosexuality does nto follow the pattern of other genetic features. People are not "gay" or "straight", they are all manner of gradations between, from fully, exclusively homosexual to fully, exclusively heterosexual. Now some will argue the same is true of height, but there is another difference, people will reach a height and stop, while individuals change sexual identities constantly. Genetic traits do not behave that way, once they are expressed, they are expressed, they do not fluctuate , reverse and otherwise change.

To which the counter agrument is that social pressures force people to hide their sexual nature, or to feel guilt and try to change. But then that makes the genetic argument rather pointless. If people are "born gay", but can be forced to be heterosexual for their entire lives by social pressures, then logically, people could also be encouraged to be homosexual though they are "born straight". If that is the case, then the genetic argument is pointless, as the fact that genetics can be overcome by social pressures means that, effectively, genetics plays no role, with society fully able to shape people.

And experience shows this to be the case. The situational homosexuality seen among prisoners, or in many eras among sailors proves that environment can clearly change one's sexual behavior. Likewise, the increase in homosexuality in cultures which encourage it, and its decline in cultures which forbid it, clearly indicates that social pressures are far stronger than any alleged genetics.

So, it is possible some individuals are born with a predisposition one way or another, but since social pressures are clearly so much stronger, it makes no sense to speak of being "born gay". Obviously it is a trait which can be both encouraged among those not "born gay" and suppressed among those who are. Which makes the entire genetic argument rather pointless.

And impossible to prove. If social pressures can force born gay men to be straight all their lives, and environmental or social pressures can force straight men to be gay, then there is simply no way to determine who is genetically gay and who is genetically straight. Thus, even if there were a mysterious gay gene, we could never find it, as social factors are so powerful that they completely obscure genetic influences. So this question can never be answered in any case.

I am sure there are other myths which need to be debunked, but for the moment those three seem the most common, so I will leave it at that.

POSTSCRIPT

I am also amused by those who confuse genetics with morality, arguing that homosexuals should not be penalized by religions because they are "born gay". However, that mistakes the fact that predisposition does not mean one must act. For example, most religions discourage premarital and extra marital sex of any kind. Despite the fact that most practitioners are "born straight" and presumably inclined to such acts. Religion isn't changed by the idea that there is some genetic predisposition to being gay. They simply say one must resist the urges the same way heterosexuals must outside of marriage. Genetics is not destiny, though many who lobby for casual acceptance of homosexuality, and homosexual promiscuity, would argue otherwise.

POSTSCRIPT II

Just to be clear, I favor no legal penalties for homosexuality, and as I wrote elsewhere I think marriage should be outside the scope of government, however, I completely disagree with the homosexual lobby's efforts to force not just tolerance, but acceptance. If people, groups, and religions want to look down upon homosexual activity, that is their right, just as it is the right of those homosexuals who sneer at "breeders" to do so. A man's thoughts are his own, and should not be open to rule by community vote. So, while I favor no government disabilities, I do not agree with the gay lobby's efforts at thought policing and rewriting of religious doctrine.

POSTSCRIPT III

The introduction of faux lesbianism is actually a perfect example of my complaints about our worship of youth. The tendency started among the young. Adopting a wholly objective view of one another, young men came to expect young women to act as the women did in pornography, and that trait was then adopted by their elders, who see everything young as "hip". This also helps explain how the self-centered, obnoxious, impolite habits of youth have become the cultural norm. Sadly, where in the past we expected teens to grow up and act like their elders, we now tend to expect elders to act like teens, leading to an ever increasing immaturity in our culture.

How else can you explain a fifty year old man, blithely shouting into a cell phone, without a thought of those around him, talking about watching porn films with his eighteen year old girlfriend? Or women in their forties proudly describing their "sexual conquests" of twenty-something boys? People who need to be told not to "text and drive"? Or politicians who would risk their occupancy of the highest office in the land to have a fling with a barely legal intern?

What would once have been considered unseemly if not shameful, and certainly obnoxious, is now viewed as the norm. We have become a quite impolite, self-absorbed, unkind, unfriendly, nasty society thanks mainly to our adoption of the mindset of teenagers.

POSTSCRIPT IV

In response to this article, I received a reply saying that science had conclusive shown that homosexuality is "biological" though not genetic. Whether genetic, hormonal, or due to another biological cause does not really change my argument, and I remain as skeptical of it as I do of many other biological determinist arguments.

When I heard arguments that schizophrenia had been "proved" to be genetic in origin, I always asked that someone show me a conclusive genetic test for schizophrenia. We can do it for Huntington's or cystic fibrosis, so if schizophrenia is genetic, why can't we do it for that?

And I will ask the same of homosexuality. If homosexuality is biological, or, to drag in another claim, if transsexuals are biologically caused, then show me a test which can conclusively show someone is gay or is a transsexual. If it is biological, then a test should exist. I will make allowances for atypical cases, as with all medicine, but it still must be better pure chance.

Somehow I doubt such a test exists, for homosexuality any more than for transsexuality or schizophrenia. For all their claims of being pure, rational scientists, a lot of biological determinists are more charlatan than scientist, making extremely exaggerated claims without even the hint of proof to back them up.