Posted by Jeffrey Thayne
 |
| People often talk about same-sex attraction as though there were only two possible ways of explaining it, but could there be other, more satisfactory ways to describe it? |
Today, I would like to begin a series about same-gender attraction. In this series, I need to be perfectly clear: I am talking strictly about same-gender attraction, and not about the homosexual activity. Most people recognize that who we consent to have sex with is our choice. Who we are sexually attracted to, however, is the matter of debate. Are our sexual attractions agentically chosen, or genetically determined? Are they a product of social/cultural indoctrination, or are they a fact of biology?
Neither side of the debate has produced convincing arguments. Readers of this site know that, as a philosopher, I do not believe that any theoretical framework can be proven using empirical data. Some theoretical frameworks can certainly explain empirical observations better than others, but that does not prove or demonstrate that the theoretical framework is true. No scientific study is ever fully conclusive, because science is an interpretive enterprise, and not some magic road to apodictic certainty.
Explanations that Ignore Agency
Also, I am often skeptical of the dogmatic claims of scientific researchers, and particularly media reports of their findings. For this reason, I am typically skeptical when the media reports evidence that same-gender attraction is an immutable, genetic condition. I think a lot of media reporting of this type is politically charged and politically motivated, and that many research results have multiple interpretations. Jeffrey Robinson explains:
If you have read the popular media at all, you have seen reports on differences in brain structure and hormone levels and kinship ties, identical twin studies, father/son relationships, mother/son relationships—none of those have really been conclusive. It’s interesting in the media you always hear when they find the correlation; when they fail to replicate that or fail to substantiate it, you never hear about that.1
In other words, the media is very selective about what they report. We do not hear all of the facts, nor do we always get a balanced picture. The research is almost always tentative, and often not replicated.
I also resist the implication that who I am sexually attracted to is beyond my control. This seems to deny the role of human agency in one of the most important arenas of our lives. Without making an arbitrary distinction, it is difficult to avoid making the leap from the belief that same-gender attraction is genetically caused to the belief that the type of men and women we are attracted to is also genetically caused (see here for a perfect example). If my potential marriage partners are restricted to those towards whom I feel some sort of sexual attraction, and if sexual attraction is a purely genetic phenomenon, then my range of marriage prospects is strictly limited by my genes.
Explanations that Ignore Personal Experiences
Despite my deep misgivings with the genetic paradigm, I believe we often trivialize the sincere and deep challenges of those who struggle with same-gender attraction when we brush the condition off as a “lifestyle choice.” There are many who experience the condition as though it is outside of their control. It is unkind to simply chalk up their genuine and troublesome experience to a self-chosen illusion. People don’t often experience same-gender attraction as a choice, and are thus rightfully offended when others condemn them for choices they never recall making.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, in a 1995 Ensign article, quoted Dr. Byne and Dr. Parsons from Columbia University who said, “It is imperative that clinicans and behavioral scientists begin to appreciate the complexities of sexual orientation and resist the urge to search for simplistic explanations, either psychosocial or biologic. Conspicuously absent from most theorizing on the origins of sexual orientation is an active role of the individual in constructing his or her identity.”2 Elder Oaks then cautions us against oversimplifying the issue.
Alternatives
What we need is an scientific/philosophical account of sexual attraction that preserves human agency, but also does not trivialize the very real experiences of those who struggle with same-gender attraction. I believe that Jeffrey Robinson, a Latter-day Saint therapist, has produced an account that does both. He has described same-gender attraction in such a way that (1)Â preserves human agency, and (2)Â explains the experiences of those who struggle with same-gender attraction in such a way that does not trivialize their experiences. In this series, I would like to explore Robinson’s ideas more deeply, and discuss why I appreciate them so much.
Notes
1. Jeffrey Robinson, “Homosexuality: What Works and What Doesn’t Work,†TheGuardrail.com.
2. Dallin H. Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,†Ensign, Oct 1995, p. 7.
For a philosopher, I’m not sure you’ve considered the inevitable implications of your own argument. Allow me to demonstrate:
I also resist the implication that who [you are] sexually attracted to is beyond [your] control. This seems to deny the role of human agency in one of the most important arenas of our lives. Without making an arbitrary distinction, it is difficult to avoid making the leap from the belief that heterosexual attraction is genetically caused to the belief that the type of men and women we are attracted to is also genetically caused (see here for a perfect example). If my potential marriage partners are restricted to those towards whom I feel some sort of sexual attraction, and if sexual attraction is a purely genetic phenomenon, then my range of marriage prospects is strictly limited by my genes….Despite my deep misgivings with the genetic paradigm, I believe we often trivialize the sincere and deep challenges of those who struggle with [heterosexual] attraction when we brush the condition off as a “lifestyle choice.†There are many who experience the condition as though it is outside of their control. It is unkind to simply chalk up their genuine and troublesome experience to a self-chosen illusion. People don’t often experience [heterosexual] attraction as a choice, and are thus rightfully offended when others condemn them for choices they never recall making.
Exactly when did you make a non-biological, non-genetic choice to be heterosexual, Jeffrey? After all, your own argument, turned on its head, is every bit as logically valid against heterosexuality as it is against homosexuality!
Nick,
Exactly when did you make a non-biological, non-genetic choice to be heterosexual, Jeffrey? After all, your own argument, turned on its head, is every bit as logically valid against heterosexuality as it is against homosexuality!
You are exactly right, and that is precisely my point. I don’t recall making a choice to be attracted to women, any more than those who struggle with same-gender attraction recall making a choice. That is one thing I appreciate about Jeffrey Robinson’s paradigm (which I will detail in future posts, so be patient 🙂 ). I believe it preserves the element of human agency in sexual attraction without discounting our lived experiences. Believe me, I’ve considered the implications of the argument; notice, this is but an introductory post to an entire soon-to-be-posted series on the issue. Let’s see what’s to come before jumping to conclusions about arguments I haven’t made yet. 🙂
I’m not going to claim that people make conscious, deliberate choices to be attracted to certain people. I would, however, like to present a paradigm that preserves the “active role of the individual in constructing his or her identity.” I don’t believe we are the passive victims of our genes or environment.
There are studies in brain plasticity that suggest that human sexuality is not only plastic, but is highly plastic. Thus our sexual preferences are continuously being chosen – day to day, moment to moment. I do not buy that there is a one point in time, all-or-nothing choice that will determine your sexual preferences for the rest of your life.
I’m willing to wait and see where you go with this Jeff. I hope that you make the case that starting from the premise that attractions are fundamentally biological in nature or origin is the wrong starting point. I see far too many folks today (on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue, for example) buying off on the assumption that sexual orientation (be it homosexual or heterosexual) is a matter of biological constitution. Many seem to want to claim that heterosexual orientation is normal and its expression is socially beneficient while homosexuality is abnormal or perverse and its expression is socially destructive. Unfortunately, as Nick pointed out above, once you grant that sexual desire is biological in nature, any arguments against homosexuality are ipso facto also arguments against heterosexuality. That doesn’t mean that I am advocating the notion that attraction is solely a matter of deliberative conscious choice — which is an absurd position that one is forced into only if one adopts the false dichomy of “born that way” versus “freely chosen to be that way.” Rather, I think that the only way to preserve sexual desire as fundamentally meaningful and moral is to disabuse ourselves of the notion that desire is first and foremost a matter of mechanical biological construction. Agency, as you well know Jeff, must be central to any substantive discussion of the meaningfulness and moral quality of human relationships (sexual or otherwise). However, we do the debate a disservice if we either (a) locate something fundamentally meaningful and social like sexual desire in things that are not fundamentally meaningful or social (like genes and neurochemistry) or if we (b) seek to defend agency by ignoring the embodied nature of agency and the constitutive condition that the body and biology play in providing context for desires.
That was all too brief and cavalier, but oh well . . . I was pressed for time.
Dr. Gantt, I’d like to hear more about what you mean. I read a booklet on homosexual legal issues once that laid a legal basis for supporting traditional marriage. I liked their aim, and it’s probably the most thorough, well-thought-out rationale I’ve read so far. But I was still vaguely uneasy about relying too much on the rationale they chose in some points. I still can’t put my finger on exactly why, so I need to think about it more. I’m very interested in hearing your and Jeff’s thoughts on the subject.
I agree that we simplify the issue of sexual orientation when we think of it as a question of biology or agency. The old nature vs. nurture debate I believe is meaningless and a waste of time when it comes to sexual orientation. If the issue was either nature or nurture we would see very few gay people raised in heterosexual opposite-sex households and a high present of homosexuals raised in homosexual same-sex households. The truth is we see the same percent in both. Similarly, we see a pretty similar rate among animals, domestic and wild, as we do in the human population. If it was an issue of nature or nurture homosexuality would not be seen among animals, because homosexual animals do not produce or rear offspring.
I think there are much more useful questions. One being, is the experience of being homosexual and heterosexual equivalent? In other words is a homosexual’s attraction to the same sex just as real and natural in their lives as it is for a heterosexual person to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.
Also, when talking about agency I think there are also very important questions. God’s plan is a plan of happiness. What life style choices will bring the most peace and happiness to a homosexual person? Living as and active Mormon in a heterosexual marriage; Living as and active Mormon celibately; Living a none Mormon none monogamous lifestyle; Living as a none Mormon in a loving monogamous relationship. I think we can see that these are not really the only choices or the only variations to be chosen, but if we believe in free agency and a loving heavenly father who wants happiness for his children these are very important question. And much more useful questions than nature vs. nurture debate. In fact if you are or know a gay Mormon I would say these are the quintessential questions.