In any diatribe on topical philosophy the subject of homosexuality must be addressed. It has certainly caused much heartache over the years. There is still much confusion over the underlying issues. Let me briefly try to explore some of them.

It is sometimes claimed that people can be naturally homosexual. The argument seems to run as follows. Although it is not known how, heterosexuality "must" be controlled by genes. Therefore it is argued, it is at least conceivable that if the relevant genes are unusual in some way the person may thereby be disposed to become homosexual, bisexual, transsexual or even celibate. This of course leaves the puzzle: since homosexual acts do not lead to procreation why has any such gene survived?

Some empirical evidence was once sought by surveying a range of homosexuals seeking how they thought they had become so. The survey reported that in 95% of the cases, the cause was clearly nurture; 5% could not be so assigned. Thus it appears that it may be possible that in this 5% some were caused by nature.

It could just as well be that in those 5% of cases the nurture factor had in all innocence been overlooked, or ignored, by the researcher or homosexual concerned. If you cannot make one explanation fit, i.e. nurture, it does not mean that the only other one you can think of is correct, i.e. nature. There is as yet no direct test, although research into the possibility of there being a gay gene continues. Even the interesting survey in 1993 of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers was inconclusive It appears to me that the claim for there being a natural cause for homosexuality is not yet proven, even where differences are noted in the brains or DNA of those claiming to be naturally gay.

I suggest that until it can be conclusively proved otherwise, homosexuality should be regarded as a choice for all, not an inevitability for some. For example, another survey in 1994 reported that of a large sample of both male and female homosexuals 75% were bisexual. They just preferred homosexuality from choice. In her fascinating book "New Passages" by Gail Sheehy, she reports that perhaps over 50% of US women in their 50s who were previously heterosexual are choosing or exploring homosexual life styles. I find it hard to believe that their genes have been changed by the menopause. Their conscious preference may well have done. It could be, of course that male and female homosexuality are fundamentally different, not just different facets of the same "aberration".

I use the quote marks because we should resist the temptation to make a moral judgement. Nature is amoral, neither good nor bad. Although there are apparently similar activities amongst several species of animals, there are those people who would insist that all human homosexuality is unnatural, and hence immoral. The unnatural is not necessarily immoral. There may be good reasons why some things are immoral, but not natural ones.

As I judge the balance of probability, homosexuality is principally a result of nurture, hence by choice, conscious or subconscious. At some stage in a homosexual’s life a decision has been taken.

For example, in the agony-aunt columns, one sees letters along the lines: "I feel different. I have not felt comfortable with many of the accepted attitudes of those around me. I have met someone new with whose views I can empathise, but that person is homosexual. I must therefore be homosexual [by nature, implied]. What should I do?" The aunts used to reply that there probably was no connection at all. It was up to the individuals to decide, but they should not feel under any pressure to identify themselves with any sexual orientation using the yardstick of normal friendship.

Nowadays, I sense that the aunts are less forbearing, sometimes almost encouraging the person to try homosexuality by emphasising that it carries no shame, or at least to go for counselling to see if they do have such tendencies. If you are, you are, they seem to imply. To me that is irresponsible.

In a mutually respecting society we must take responsibility for our own actions, conscious or subconscious, or even pre-ordained. If people choose to be homosexual then they must take the consequences. In our aptious society, however, the consequences should be no more, no less, than the consequences of any decision involving human relationships. If by being an active homosexual, or developing any other unusual trait, a person maintains the fundamental life view "I’m OK, you’re OK", and its derivatives, then no crime is involved.

On the other hand, if others are exploited, either against their will or their interests, (for example pederasty or paedophilia), then that should be regarded as a crime. Both the victim and the victimiser(s) will need relevant respective treatment. Such deviant activities are immoral because of their underlying attitudes and effects, not intrinsically for what they are. Their existence should not be an issue, their context and consequences should.

return to Contents

go to Terrorism

View my guestbook