Choice and sexual orientation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The debate over choice and sexual orientation addresses the issue of the degree to which sexual orientation is genetically determined (i.e., unaffected by experiences or conscious choices); and also whether orientation can be affected by choices made by adults (or adolescents). The issue is an extremely controversial and significant one, for social, political and religious reasons.
Ethically (or morally), if it is a matter of choice - that is, if a person can choose whether or not to be gay (either because there are no orientations or because orientations can reliably be changed through psychotherapy or some other method) - then those who consider homosexuality to be harmful would see this as evidence that acting on homosexual urges is immoral.[citation needed] If, on the other hand, sexual orientation proves to be a genetic or biological trait that generally cannot be changed, many people will see this as evidence supporting the opposing view that homosexuals should not be criticized for being what they were born to be, and that their sexuality and inclination is part of their essential being and should be respected. For those who do not see homosexuality as harmful, the question of whether or not it is the result of a conscious choice is irrelevant.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Historically, in classical (Greek/Roman) times, a variety of sexual orientations were part of society. Largely due to religious influences, same-sex relationships were viewed very negatively in the West until relatively recently. In many parts of the world, homosexuality is still viewed in a negative light. Verses in the Judaic, Christian and Islamic Holy Books are often taken as clear statements that God does not condone homosexual activity in humans.
In this context, there is a strong impetus to examine why and how people develop sexual orientation, and the issue has strong political overtones.
In either case, it is probable that many people do not have any strong views on the issue, since the homosexuals who care about the debate, as well as those religious people and others who have a strong motive to argue it, are both in the minority. However, it is still a question which attracts much interest from genetic and psychological perspectives, separate from its political and social dimension.
[edit] Views
[edit] Biological influence hypothesis
Empirical studies that attempt to quantify biological influence on sexual orientation<ref>An increasing number of studies have investigated this link, but no scientific consensus exists as to the specific biological factors that may play a role</ref> are discussed in Biology and sexual orientation.
[edit] The role of choice
Almost everyone agrees that the decision to engage in a particular sexual behavior (whether driven by a spontaneous erotic desire, external suggestion, or any other influence) is in normal circumstances a conscious choice. The main disagreements are over whether a.) there is an underlying orientation which controls emotional desires and responses to events, and whether b.) acting on same-sex or other sexual attractions is moral, immoral, or orthogonal to moral considerations.
If sexual orientation is (completely or almost completely) a conscious choice, then social and cultural influences probably play a large role, as they do in "lifestyle" choices such as what foods to eat or how to throw a birthday party. This hypothesis predicts that in societies where (for example) homosexuality is widely discussed or accepted, more people will report themselves to be homosexual. For those who believe homosexuality is immoral, this theory provokes concern that positive or even neutral portrayals of homosexuality will harm children, adolescents, and even adults, by influencing them in that direction.
[edit] Orientation as a conscious choice
Also, a small number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people believe they have - more or less consciously - chosen their sexual orientations, as shown by books such as Vera Whisman's Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity (1996) and websites such as QueerByChoice.com. These people feel that all human beings have a potential for heterosexual as well as homosexual feelings and that it is a matter of individual choice whether to open oneself to this potential or not. They stress the fluidity of sexuality. Many of them also think that the concept of choice is more promising as a political strategy than biological essentialism. They criticise biological determinists for being apologetic and avoiding the issue of morality. In their view homosexuality is not immoral and therefore does not have to be justified as an inborn orientation that the homosexual "can't help". Some of them fear that a view of homosexuality as grounded in some physical difference will only lead heterosexual conservatives to think of homosexuals as having a biological defect. They don't want to be granted gay rights out of pity for some innate "illness" but expect to be given the same rights as heterosexuals, because it should be immaterial to any free state who they choose to sleep or share their lives with.
In the 1970s, the view that homosexuality could be chosen became a fundamental precept of the lesbian feminist movement.
Some advocates of the choice hypothesis believe that sexual orientation is not a choice that is necessarily made casually or easily changed. Most choice advocates have a negative view of all non-heterosexual orientations. Therefore, they might, for instance, consider homosexuality to be a personal problem not unlike a drug or alcohol addiction. A person might be unable to change their orientation without help, but in the end, their own choices and behaviors are shown to be an integral part of their problem.
[edit] Orientation as innate or unconsciously developed
Today, many people believe that sexual orientation is not chosen. Numerous surveys and considerable anecdotal evidence seem to show that the gender(s) toward which most people have had spontaneous erotic desires (whether heterosexual, homosexual, both, or otherwise) have not changed since the feelings began in adolescence. However, it must be noted that these surveys, by their very nature, may include an element of bias in their demographics (ie; only gay people can comment on their experiences with being gay and so on). Moreover, such surveys have been only carried out fairly recently, historically speaking, and may reflect a short-lived phenomenon in human history.
Some people believe that homosexual behavior is wrong but do not believe that the homosexual orientation is chosen. This often leads to the conclusion that people who are non-heterosexuals should be treated with respect or compassion, but that they should be discouraged from acting on their "immoral" and spontaneous erotic desires. Although the Roman Catholic Church believes homosexuality is not innate, it does preach respect with discouragement regarding individuals who embrace homosexual thoughts and actions.
A small but substantial group of psychotherapeutic professionals, primarily but not entirely conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims (and in the larger cultural and political debate) view sexual orientation as something that can be challenged or changed in adolescence or adulthood in some individuals. In this case, the primary aspect of sexual orientation which is of interest is whether attractions are for members of the same, opposite, or both genders. (For discussion about whether there are exactly two genders and what constitutes gender, see the article on sex.)
Note: political opponents of this hypothesis refer to people as consciously "choosing" their orientation. Neither scientific proponents or religious advocates ever say this, although the view is frequently attributed to them. They say rather that orientation can be changed with conscious effort. The decision to leave one's orientation alone or to attempt to alter it is what is "chosen", not the orientation itself.
[edit] Current scientific view
Though science currently has no definitive answer to the question, most scientific evidence seems to suggest that genetics is the largest factor affecting sexuality. On the one hand, it is known that environment and life can fundamentally shape the human psyche from a very early age, and many homosexuals trace their orientation back to such formative incidents in whole or part.<ref>The Biological Research on Homosexuality</ref> Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience.<ref> Myths & Assuptions about LGB People, Texas Women's University Counseling Center</ref>
On the other hand, homosexuality is ubiquitous in nature and appears to arise naturally in hundreds of species which are not subject to the same psychological and environmental pressures as humans.<ref name="geographic">[1] James Own, National Geographic News, "Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate." July 23, 2004. Retrieved August 5, 2006.</ref>
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III and DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) based upon many decades' years research, declassified homosexuality as a clinical condition and deleted it from their books. A clinical condition involving "homosexuality" remains --ego-dystonic homosexuality--which signifies a person who may be suffering emotional pain from feelings about his/her sexual orientation.
[edit] Other aspects of the debate
[edit] Changing sexual orientation through therapy
Most contemporary mental health professionals consider "reparative therapy" - therapy which attempts to actually change a patient's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual - to be ineffective and in some cases, psychologically harmful. The term itself is controversial, as it implies that homosexuality is something which needs to be repaired. However, there is also a modern ex-gay movement which claims that homosexuals can become heterosexual or otherwise "leave homosexuality behind" through counseling, prayer, aversion, or other therapies, if they choose to do so.
See Homosexuality and psychology.
[edit] Sexuality in non-human species
Some people consider it instructive or suggestive to look at how sexual behavior operates in other species in nature. The study of animal sexuality is a rapidly developing field, and current findings can be summarized briefly as follows:
It used to be believed that only humans and a handful of species performed sexual acts other than for procreation, and that animals' sexuality was instinctive and a simple response to the "right" stimulation (sight, scent). Current understanding is that in many species animals try to give and get sexual stimulation with others where procreation is not the aim (including from objects, other species, or via masturbation) and homosexual behavior has now been documented in over 450 species.
Also, it seems likely that animals are not aware that sex will result in reproduction, and that pleasure would indeed be the main attraction of sex.
[edit] Moral and religious considerations
Religious authorities which regard homosexuality as wrong or "sinful" often distinguish between immoral sexual acts and non-heterosexual feelings. Adherents to these codes of conduct are often advised to abstain from sexual acts in general, or to attempt to foster opposite-sex relationships; celibacy is considered to be an acceptable or sometimes even admirable alternative to homosexuality. (e.g., in the Roman Catholic Church.) Some religions hold heterosexual marriage to be morally superior to celibacy, or mandatory for entry into a desirable form of the afterlife. (e.g., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)
Not all religious sects regard non-heterosexual orientations as wrong, nor do all adherents of organized churches that do hold that view. Some denominations provide specific, nonjudgmental outreach, support and even advocacy for homosexual, bisexual and transgender populations, such as the Metropolitan Community Church and Unitarian Universalism. See religion and homosexuality for a more complete discussion.
Proponents of the "choice about behavior" position point to taboo or illegal sexual acts, such as pedophilia or incest, where society requires individuals not to act out their desires, as examples where choices are expected to be made whether orientation is a matter of choice or not. Opponents usually argue that such a comparison is flawed as pedophilia and incest is generally without consent ( indeed children cannot legally consent to sex in many countries ) as opposed to homosexual sex between two consenting adults.
For the purposes of sexual behavior, some people may choose to be celibate or sexually active, and self-identification (consistent with their values) is a psychological and social phenomenon distinct from sexual behavior and attraction.
[edit] External links
- [2] Change is possible - testimonies from ex-gays.
- Is homosexuality a choice? -- Paper on Dr Paul Kenyon's Home Page, University of Plymouth, Department of Psychology
- Position paper - Catherine L. Harris, PhD., Psychology Department, Boston University
- Will A Gay Gene Get Us Anywhere? and Catching the Phoenix by Nick Yee
- QueerByChoice.com
- Choice in Sexual Orientation: The Sword That Cuts Both Ways
- Scientific articles Articles by Daryl J. Bern about his Exotic Becomes Erotic developmental theory of sexual orientation
[edit] See also
- Determinism
- Free will
- Genetics
- Homosexuality and religion
- Human sexuality
- Psychology
- Societal attitudes towards homosexuality
[edit] References
<references/>
