Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:09:59 PM
I have recently written several posts about the biological theories of homosexuality, and I have made it clear that I do not believe that sexual preference is biologically determined, or, to be more accurate, that I do not believe there is anywhere near adequate proof of such a belief and that everything I have observed inclines me to believe that sexual preference is largely a socially determined trait. However, for the moment, let me forget about my beliefs and let us agree for the sake of argument that sexual identity is biological.
That causes me to ask one question.
When someone has behaved as a heterosexual all his life and then starts to express homosexual desires, those who believe in the biological origins of homosexuality always claim that the individual was born gay (whether genetic or biological in origin) and was forced by society to act as a heterosexual and is only now expressing his true biological desires.
However, if social conditioning can overcome biological urges, then is it not equally possible that the individual is a heterosexual who has now encountered a community which is urging him to behave as a homosexual? Or whose reaction to cultural forces is to rebel and adopt a socially inappropriate role? Why is the assumption automatically made that an individual who expresses any homosexual desire is a biological homosexual who is repressing those desires?
Similarly, why is it assumed that any bisexual is of the same nature, a homosexual who is culturally forced into a heterosexual role? I know the assumption is society at large enforces heterosexuality, but there are also homosexual communities which can apply force in the opposite direction. Not to mention that certain individuals react to societal pressures by rebelling, and so those pressures can produce paradoxical reactions.
So, what, other than a desire to increase the count of those biologically gay inspires the proponents of biological homosexuality, to automatically assume in every case that the individual is biologically gay and not biologically straight?
POSTSCRIPT
The articles mentioned at the beginning of this article are "
Biology as Justification", "
Cultural Rules", "
Myths of Homosexuality", "
Follow Up", and "
Correlation and Causation Revisted".
POSTSCRIPT II
This argument is also the reason I am often puzzled by arguments made by gay activists. For example, they dismiss arguments that children can be encouraged to be gay by saying that individuals are born gay. However if those born gay can be culturally forced to act as heterosexuals, could not a heterosexual by birth be induced to be gay? After all, there is no logical reason that persuasion by cultural pressure could only work in one direction, so if gay children can be forced into the closet, then logically straight children could be forced to improperly come out of a closet in which they never were.