Are People Born Gay?

Meet Ted Haggard - one of the skeletons in the Evangelical movement's closet that refuses to stay dead.

A former poster boy for the Christian right-wing, he was once on the forefront of the Moral Majority's resurgence in America.

Three years ago, author Jeff Sharlet boasted that "no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism."

Ted himself spoke to President Bush and his advisers on a weekly basis, once joking that the only issue he didn't see eye-to-eye with Bush on was whether Ford or Chevrolet produced the superior automobile.

Ted Haggard was also one of the most vocal and outspoken critics of homosexuality, preaching a bigoted agenda from the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. He opposed gay marriage, same-sex civil unions and proudly declared that homosexuality was an aberrant and sinful lifestyle condemned in the scriptures.


But then, in one of modern history's most delicious twists of irony, Ted Haggard was 'found out.'

A male prostitute, Mike Jones, came forward and revealed that Ted Haggard had been a monthly customer of his for over three years, paying Jones for clandestine homosexual encounters fueled by crystal meth.

Suddenly, this shining star of the anti-gay movement was exposed as a meth-snorting, prostitute-frequenting fraud, who lived a double life behind his family's back. Jones revealed that Haggard had enjoyed snorting meth before he'd even met his current wife, was a frequent 'bottom' (the recipient of anal sex) and fantasized about an orgy with six teenage 'college guys.'

Following this exposure, the downfall of Ted Haggard was drawn out and messy. Initially denying the claims, sneering: "I have not, I have never had a gay relationship with anybody," he soon struggled against his church's attempt to brush his indiscretion under the carpet. They washed their hands of him, but annoyingly (and entertainingly) he refused to go down quietly.

In fact, HBO will soon be airing a documentary about him, in which he complains that he never claimed to be heterosexual in the first place and, while still 'struggling' with same-sex attraction, is "committed to living a heterosexual life, because I believe it's better for children to be raised by a mother and a father."

Reaction

Many Christians are highly critical of Ted Haggard's decision to air his sexuality on television; since Ted Haggard's downfall exposed many of the flaws and hypocrisies of the modern Evangelical movement.

At the time of the scandal, the first thing most people realized about Ted Haggard's exposure was how neatly it fitted into the Shakespearean philosophy of he 'doth protest too much.'

It's a generally accepted belief that the more aggressive and homophobic somebody's rants are, the more likely that they're just trying to overcompensate for their own repressed sexuality. Ted Haggard, as one of the most outspoken critics of homosexuality, neatly confirmed that belief when he was exposed.

But it's the second generally accepted belief that the Evangelicals are protesting. When Ted Haggard goes on television to claim that he'd never truly been heterosexual, he's going to confirm the theory that people don't choose to be gay - they're simply born that way.

Born That Way

As John Adams once said, facts are stubborn things. If it's proven that people are born straight, gay or somewhere in between, it neatly skewers the concept of homosexuality being a 'sinful choice' that can merely be renounced.

This is one of the most stringently enforced beliefs the Conservative Christians keep falling back on: The concept that people aren't 'born' gay. They believe that homosexuals 'choose' to be like that, or society (specifically liberal news channels) 'turn' them gay with their disgustingly permissive attitudes.

But while conservatives are quick to hold up scientific papers that deny the existence of a so-called 'gay' gene, the one thing you'll find noticeably absent from their arguments are the testimonies of any gay people. This is because, like many conservative beliefs, their arguments simply don't hold up to scrutiny.

Ask somebody gay whether they 'chose' their sexuality and you'll be generally laughed at.

In fact, I asked acclaimed novelist and journalist Paul Burston, editor of Time Out London's gay section, how he came to understand his sexuality (hopefully, he won't mind me reprinting it here):

Personally, I knew I was gay from a very young age - or if not 'gay', then certainly 'different'. The notion that someone would choose to be a member of a persecuted minority is ridiculous. It's a myth put about by homophobic assholes in an attempt to justify their bigotry.

Of course one can choose to act on the impulse or not, but the impulse is there. Homosexuality has existed in all cultures at all times, and rarely has it been actively encouraged - quite the contrary in fact. Despite, this gay men and women continue to come out, and fight for acceptance in an often hostile world. If they could choose to be straight, I dare say some of them would.

The only man I ever knew who tried to deny his true nature and live a straight life ended up hanging himself. Maybe the Christians think this was for the best?

I might not have a petri-dish containing the 'gay gene,' but I do have many gay friends and from speaking to them (something most Christians haven't done) there is no doubt in my mind that they're born with a predetermined sexuality, much like the rest of us.

The Ramifications

Whether you 'choose' your sexuality, or are stuck with it from birth, it still won't stop Christians claiming that homosexuality is abhorrent and sinful. In fact, it actually supports that notion.

When it comes to sexuality, the options don't just include 'straight,' 'gay' or 'somewhere in between.' Christians often find parallels between homosexuality and sexual preferences, like pedophilia or bestiality.

Texas senator John Cornyn argued: "If your neighbor marries a box turtle, it doesn’t affect your everyday life. But that doesn’t make it right." (Los Angeles comedian Aziz Ansari then pointed out that a box turtle was a pretty random animal to choose for an example, suggesting that at; "one point or another, Senator Cornyn must have thought about making love to a box turtle.”)

If it's true that people are born with predetermined sexualities, it also would be true that those with illegal sexual preferences (such as toward children or animals) are also 'born that way.' Nobody would argue that pedophilia or bestiality are acceptable, so why should homosexuality be any different?

Sticky Points

This is generally the impasse that people reach in the debate about whether homosexuality is 'right' or 'wrong.'

Conservatives argue that men and women are born 'male' or 'female' and designed to mate with each other, making homosexuality 'unnatural.' More liberal people point out that homosexuality is rife in nature, which means it's logical that such behavior would be exhibited by the 'human animal' as well.

Conservatives counter that argument by refuting the appeal to nature, stating that many animals devour their young, practice cannibalism and live polygamously. As man is 'better' than animals, they shouldn't allow themselves to practice cruel 'natural' behavior.

[Wait? Doesn't that totally demolish their 'unnatural' argument? Editorial Bear]

Conservatives would be better off retreating to the position, the one that equates homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality. Neither of those sexual preferences is acceptable in civilised society and while people might be 'born' attracted to animals or children, they're quite rightly condemned if they act on their desires. What makes homosexuality different to either of those two abnormal sexual preferences?

The answer is: Consent.

The reason pedophilia and bestiality are both illegal is because practicing them implies rape.

Children are not old enough to give informed consent, so an adult who has sexual relations with a child does so against that child's will (even if the adult considers the sex to be consensual.)

Animals, likewise, can't give consent and therefore sexual relationships with animals is considered cruelty.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, involves two consenting adults, who enter willingly into the relationship without hurting each other or the rest of the community. It's that difference which presents a fundamental difference between homosexuality and other, abhorrent sexual preferences.

With most conservatives, the belief that homosexuality is 'right' or 'wrong' is deeply ingrained - but allowing gay people to have committed relationships, recognized by law, isn't about whether gay sex is a 'sin' or not:

It's about whether two consenting adults have the freedom to live their lives as they choose to. Anti-gay activists are basically saying: "Even though your lifestyle doesn't impact mine, I choose to deny you the same rights I enjoy."

To me, that's as fundamentally 'wrong' as anything two men or two women could get up to behind closed doors.

Born Gay

But back to the question regarding whether people are born gay or straight... I've often argued that the answer is 'neither.' I believe sexuality is a pretty fluid thing and nobody is ever 100% truly 'straight' or 'gay.' Funnily enough, my conservative Christian chum CK argued exactly the same thing (sort of) in this post about Ted Haggard.

I believe men and women are born merely preferring men or women. They can really prefer men, or really prefer women, or be somewhere in between (or hover in the red area around illegal sexual preferences.) For example, I'd imagine my sexuality would look something like this:


As you can see from this chart, I completely prefer women, but I do own several Coors albums and admit that John Barrowman is a handsome fella.

John Barrowman: Pretty handsome fella

CK's sexuality, on the other hand, would probably look something like this:


As you can see, he prefers women even more adamantly, with that preference offset only slightly by the fact that he drives a Kia.

Hopefully CK has a good sense of humor!

When it comes to most 'straight' women I know, even the most rigid of them would probably admit to having a sexuality resembling this:

Straight women overwhelmingly prefer men, but I have yet to meet any woman who wouldn't willingly make out with Angelina Jolie 'just to see what it would be like.'

Angelina Jolie: Straight women's kryptonite

Personally, I think my belief about people's fluid sexuality is pretty convincing - even more so now I've got these pretty charts to back my theories up with.

I think if more people accepted that sexuality isn't quite as black and white as Christians would like to believe, I think there'd be far less fuss and bother about the question of whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. As long as no children or animals are being mistreated or abused, what does it matter what somebody's preferences are?

Many Christians argue that humanity has risen above the law of nature, so even though homosexuality is rife in nature, we shouldn't allow ourselves to define 'right' or 'wrong' merely by what happens out in the jungle.

But if humanity has truly risen above the laws of the animal kingdom, why on Earth shouldn't the rules regarding human sexuality be a little more sophisticated than those of mother nature?

After all, the world is overstuffed with six billion hungry people. The last thing we need is to have sexuality reduced to being merely the tool of procreation. If it was, we'd be knee deep in babies before we knew it!