- Feb 5, 2002
- 182,790
- 66,272
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Continued- Born That Way? | First ThingsThe causes of homosexuality are infamously difficult to pin down. Science (in the American Psychological Association) and religion (in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) have agreed that, in the current state of things, there is no single cause to which we can definitively point and say, “Here, we have found it!” Indeed, in some circles, the discussion is about homosexualities, to remain open to the possibility that one person’s homosexuality might not have the same origin as another person’s homosexuality. These questions never cease to intrigue, and once again, they have hit the news with a new study suggesting that epigenetics may lie at the root of the development of homosexual orientation.
Investigations of the etiology of homosexuality may be interesting, especially insofar as they shed light on the origins of human sexuality in general. However, these investigations have tended to be ideologically driven on all sides. This has particularly tended to manifest around the idea that one is “born gay,” with many gay activists flatly refusing to consider the possibility that a gay person is not “born gay,” while many religious conservatives have responded with a mirror refusal to consider the possibility that one is. What exactly is meant by “born gay” often seems to have little significance; the phrase itself becomes the shibboleth which one camp must blindly accept and the other must utterly anathematize.
This ideological commitment to a particular answer to these questions suggests underlying premises. It seems that all are agreed that, if one is born gay, it would necessitate revising traditional morality in ways which one side wants, and the other does not. There seems to be an echo of the old zoological argument, where one points to homosexuality among bonobos and dolphins to prove that it should not be opposed among human beings. There, the traditional moralist was usually quick to see through the facade, and see that “nature” was being used equivocally.
Last edited: