Of the False Claim that Men are Born Gay


Now that I have your attention, I will propose the self-identification as being “Gay” is a sociopolitical identification, not a descriptor of sexual behavior or desires. Being born gay makes exactly the same sense as saying you are born Republican. In both cases there are indeed genetic predispositions. In the case of being Republican scientist have determined a specific genetic trait that causes people to prefer things that are familiar and predictable (conservative) to things new and novel (progressive).  Similar findings have been identified in sexual choices. Thus I am quite right in suggesting that linkage.

A recent meta-analysis of many studies by UCLA  ( http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-LLR-Spring-2012.pdf ) had determined that 3.7% of the US population self-identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transsexual. Roughly 1.7% self-identify as gay/lesbian.   Now the gay community bashed the study siting specific studies that show roughly 10% of adults have had at least one same-sex encounter, thus they assert that the nation is 10% gay/lesbian; five times as many as in the UCLA study.

Hold on my gay friends.  Here is where the game begins. The gay activist see numbers as power; to them if a guy has sucked dick even once he’s really gay, even if he hasn’t admitted it. 

Really? That is the same reasoning used by the racist that said one drop of “negro” blood made someone “negro”.   This position is on its face preposterous, unless one considers the political ambitions of the gay activist. They want to claim as many members as possible, and feel empowered to draft people into their group. They realize they have not convinced 4 out of 5 people who they think should join them to do so.

The same UCLA study concluded that slightly more people self-identify as bisexual than as homosexual. Which is also an attack on the gay activist because they claim there is no such thing as a bisexual, only homosexuals who have not admitted they are gay/lesbian.  See the pattern?

While the gay activist are quick to point out 10% of US adults have had at least one adult same-sex encounter, well under half of those people self-identify as homosexual or bisexual. Why?  For the very reason I said up front, being gay is a sociopolitical label; a label that brings negative responses from the religious conservatives and with expectations from the gay establishment. Those expectations are not light. The expectation is to be politically aligned with their leftist agenda, to be socially aligned with their community and to never ever have sex with someone who does not have your type of genitalia. To do any of these you become a traitor. Their term traitor is significant and comes with severe social penalties.   

The political gay/lesbian communities have very intentionally made the bisexual label highly unappealing as you get attacked by both the religious conservatives and the gay community. The same people who loudly decry other’s defining or condemning their sexuality feel completely free to do so to bisexual. The efforts self-appointed leaders are not for individual freedom, but for group power and more importantly their personal power. In this they are not unlike the NOW claiming to speak for all women with little regard that plurality of women who abhor their ideology.

Even with those who have “signed up” they have problems. Men like the Log Cabin Republicans reject the community’s expected politics and surveys indicate that as many as one in three self-identified lesbians have sex with a man at six or more times a year.

So, I say again. People are not born gay. People, most people, as their life progresses find themselves sexually attracted to people of the same-sex to some extent or the other. Circumstances, social and religious beliefs have a huge impact on if and how often they act on that attraction. I have no doubt, if I had been befriended by a self-identified gay person in my middle to late teens, rather than by the Christian Fundamentalist, I would have just as fully adopted the sociopolitical gay label as I did the Christian label. Had I done so my life would have been quite different.  Having said that, I think my underlying iconoclastic nature would have kicked back at being told what to believe by the gay community in the same way that I kicked back at the Christian community and would have come to the same place I am now.

Perhaps I’m comfortable with the bisexual label precisely because I don’t fit into the expectations of either camp. What else is a self-styled moderate to do?

Advertisements

4 comments on “Of the False Claim that Men are Born Gay

  1. As a gay man, I do not think everyone who has a same-sex encounter is gay. It is quite normal, especially in one’s youth, to experiment on urges or feelings. To say that the gays want higher numbers as power sounds a bit crazy and bitter to me.

    I don’t think you are familiar enough to be making all these claims about the “gay community” which, by the way, exists no more than the “straight community”. My reasoning behind this is because bisexuality is not attacked nearly to the extent of coming out gay or lesbian. The reasoning for this: often times it is seen as an experimental stage or is still appreciated as belonging to the specific group that is looking upon them. For this reason, many people I know first come out as bisexual to offer a nice transition period for those people in their life that might not take it as well.

    My third point is reffering to this idea that gay people are some how taught to be gay. You make the claim that if you had been brought up around the gay community you would probably be gay instead you had a Christian fundamentalist background, and therefore, are a Christian. That is pure bullshit.

    I was raised in an extremely conservative home, went to private Catholic school from the age of 3 to 18, went to Church every Sunday, was never sexually abused, and knew not a single out gay person. However, I’m still gay and still a Christian.

    This post is a prime example of what religious conservatives love to do: create fear. You can control through fear and if you make everyone afraid enough they might follow your ways. Well news flash, gay people have been interacting with you everyday whether you knew it or not so get over whatever unresolved child issues you have and realize, whether we are acknowledged or not, we will still be here. Love gay life because its no different than straight life.

    • Thanks for the note.
      I’ve been called a lot of things in the past few decades, but a religious conservative has not been one of them. Cleary you didn’t see my last post about the “Christian Taliban” or the ones advocating Polyamory.
      I’m afraid I must not have made the point clearly.
      I was attempting to parse the difference between the very modern sociopolitical construct of “gay” and the intrinsic variations in human sexuality that leads a few to only want same-sex relations.
      Prior to the 20th century there was no such thing as being gay. There was homosexual behavior to be sure, but the concept of “gay” is entirely a modern sociological construct. And yes, social identity is entirely learned. In the classical world same sex behavior was not considered aberrant at all, but it was also not a sociological identity. There was no question that Julius Creaser enjoyed sex with men, but his identity wasn’t about having sex with men. He was not “gay”.
      I see you have a university email, if I were writing to my peers I would have spelled out the “critical queer theorists” and their political allies rather than the just referring to the political gay community. Unfortunately, in trying to write to a broad audience some nuance gets lost. And yes, as a political movement, this group (like all political groups) is indeed looking to increase their perceived numbers and power. That is the very nature of politics. That doesn’t make them bad, but it does make their words and deeds subject to the same critical scrutiny as I give other groups both right and left.

      • I first want to apologize for claiming you to be a religious conservative. After reading a few of your posts, I see you are nowhere near that title. Having spent quite some time in the Midwest, it becomes second nature to equate those who challenge the nature of homosexuality with those sternly against it due to moral conflicts.

        I realize quite well that the notion of being gay is a relatively modern concept. I also am quite familiar with Queer Theory, the constructs supporting the theory, and those individuals still shaping the theory. What I don’t like about your post is the idea offered is lacking a bit of common sense and is kept as dialogue opposed to practicality. Queer Theory suggests that the whole classification of gay is not necessary in our perceived everyday doings and that the self-identity of being gay is a social construct. As nothing more than dialogue and debate, this seems to work rather well. The idea that all sexual orientations are equal and not really that important to society working as a functional unit is an idealistic view that is intangible.

        If we look back through history, we see every society has acknowledged homosexuality as something different then heterosexuality. Some cultures thought it a curse, others didn’t care, and some even upheld it as an honor like the Mohave Indians who thought it a great spiritual gift. Regardless, we have to realize that homosexuals have always been lumped together in one social group. This is made very clear when people talk about the gay political movement. However, there can be no more a gay political movement then there can be a white political movement. Yes, gay people may have similar political goals due to discrepancies in the law specifically targeting regulations against gay people, but that’s where the classification of a gay political movement stops. Of course gay people want numbers when it comes to rights, but they are not trying to get them by proclaiming more people to be gay. No, they are working hard to change the perception of homosexuality and propagate the idea of individuality and personal concerns over an idea of a group movement. I understand and respect your viewpoint but find it hard to translate it from discourse and make it applicable to the current social condition.

      • I take the approach that for the vast majority of people, the genitalia of the person with whom they are sexual is an ever changing matter of circumstances. Kinsey postulated that there were few people permanently on the two extremes of his hetro-homo sexual scale and for the vast majority of his interviewee’s they moved around on the scale throughout their lives.
        There has been no research put forth that undermines that postulate. What still makes people upset was not that he said there were few 100% homosexuals, but that he said there were equally few 100% heterosexuals. The very notion that most men and women could and would have positive sexual relations with members of their own sex is deeply frightening to many people. I have long contended that violence against gay males is a psychopathic expression of fear of the aggressors own homoerotic feelings.
        Thus I see all efforts by all sides to dictate to others what their sexual desires “should be” as oppressive and equally oppressive is the efforts to link ones sexual desires to other socio-political orthodoxies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s