Examining the Arguments of Homosexual Activist

One of the guests on the Drew Mariani Show on Friday, March 10th, 2006, was from "Courage," a Catholic organization that helps men with same-sex attraction find healing. A homosexual man called the show in anger. In his diatribe, he made a claim that I often hear from homosexual advocates. This claim is that homosexuals know better than anyone else what causes their homosexuality. This is a claim that needs to be examined. While we're at it, let's also look at the claim that appeared frequently in the editorial pages discussing the recently passed marriage amendment. This claim is that homosexuals would never choose to be homosexual, because to do so would be to choose to become outcasts. While both of these arguments seem reasonable and even convincing at first blush, they actually fall apart on scrutiny.

Let’s examine the first argument first. The idea that homosexuals are the best judges of the causes of their sexual preference is rooted in the argument that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, and is therefore present from childhood. Homosexuals self-report that they have always felt “different” from other boys, and that they had very early attractions to other boys or men that they eventually came to realize indicated same-sex attraction. The weakness of this argument is the assertion, as was made by the caller into Relevant Radio, that self-reporting is a more accurate measure of truth than external observations and scientific studies. In the field of psychology self reporting is considered the weakest form of support for a theory. In some cases self-reporting is the only way to get information, so psychologists will use interviews or surveys. Whenever possible, these methods of study are backed up with more concrete methods such as experiments or field studies. Why is self-reporting so weak? First of all, most people are not in the habit of carefully examining their lives. We may know what we have experienced in our past, but we don’t always examine why. Our memories are often blurry, and are also colored by our current ideals and identity. More importantly, our perception of events in our lives is biased.

For example, I tend to think of myself as an honest man. I put great value on my integrity. When I think back on my childhood, I remember an instance when I was punished for nearly a week. I don’t remember what the infraction was, but I remember having to write 300 sentences because of it. I also remember being quite convinced that I had been wrongly accused. I recall feeling as if I had righteously endured an injustice in order to make peace with my teacher. Because of the value I put on my integrity, I am very likely to convince myself that my perception of this event is a true memory. Perhaps it is. I really don’t know for sure. If I were interviewed about this incident, though, I am pretty sure that I would report it as I remember it. Was I really the falsely accused righteous victim, though?

Because of the doubts and shadows of our memories, self-reporting is a very weak method of finding the truth, especially when a scientist is trying to identity cause-effect relationships. What happens to its accuracy if I have an agenda? Wouldn’t somebody who has a vested interest in proving that homosexuality has always been a natural part of his identity tend to interpret events in his life according to that bias? Even if he is an honest man, he could easily misconceive his memories. Things are especially murky in the area of sexuality. When hormones are raging and body parts are out of control, sexual excitement can occur for any number of reasons. Concurrently, teen emotions are intense and largely uncontrolled. Love for a same-sex friend can easily turn into an intense emotional experience. Rejection by members of the opposite sex readily turns into a generalized fear, hatred, or sense of alienation from all members of that sex. I was once laughed at by a girl I asked to go to a dance with me. It took quite a few months before I started feeling attracted to girls again. Can we really accurately read the experiences of our own sexual maturation to determine how they have affected the person we have become as adults? In fact, isn’t the ability to gain an objective, external study of such events the very reason that psychology and sociology exist as sciences in the first place?

Now let’s examine the claim that nobody would choose to be homosexual. In one sense the Catholic Church would agree with this statement. Like all sexual perversions (which we all have, by the way), homosexuality is “inherited” as part of our fallen human nature. With this realization, the genetic question is really beside the point. However, we are able to choose how we respond to those desires. If I ever chose to act on some of the promptings of my sense appetite I could have ended up fired, in jail, and divorced. I tell you this in all confidence that my desires are no more perverted than yours. Fortunately, my will is strong enough to resist them and even to start slowly turning my sense appetite around (with the grace of God) to turn my perversion into rightful sexual desires. The error committed by both sides of the debate over whether homosexuality is inborn or chosen is the assumption that these are mutually exclusive options.

But why would someone choose to become alien, outcast, and marginalized? Whey would they choose a lifestyle that requires them to keep their lifestyle secret? These questions reveal an oversimplified vision of what it means to make a moral choice. People picture in their minds somebody saying one day, “I think I want to be homosexual.” Most of our moral choices are just not that simply made. Rather, we make moral choices in baby steps. We follow a small leading of the sense appetite to try something new that is only a little naughty. As we warm up to the new desires that arise from this small choice, we slowly choose to try slightly more deviant behaviors. This causes us to warm up to new desires that are even more deviant. Slowly, bit by bit, we find ourselves suddenly becoming somebody we would have found abhorrent (or at least unlikely) before we began this journey. Such a gradual fall can sometimes seem like an inevitable part of who we are. “I don’t know how I got here, so it must just be who I was meant to be.” This is why moral knowledge, frequent examination of conscience, and a quest for moral perfection are so important.

People who oppose the idea that homosexuality is a choice probably run a bit of a double standard. Research has shown that similar fateful forces work on rapists, adulterers, and pedophiles. Would homosexual activists argue that people suffering these fallen sexual desires are not chosen and so should not be punished or marginalized? Of course not. Often the response to this line of thinking is that rapists, adulterers and pedophiles hurt other people and who do consenting adult homosexuals hurt? However, such a differentiation acknowledges that inborn impulses can, and oftentimes should be controlled.

Homosexuality is a struggle. Homosexuals do not deserve our derision and hatred. They deserve our love. But true love seeks healing where healing is necessary, even when the one in need of healing doesn’t recognize the need.