« Out of Reach | Main | One of THE BEST PARTS of Facebook »



I hereby confess to mixed thoughts and emotions regarding this. On the one hand, there seems to be biological evidence for same-sex attraction in males (probability increasing with number of older brothers). On the other hand, maybe we'll discover in the not-too-distant future that there's some kind of similar biological evidence for murder attraction, adultery attraction, theft attraction, etc. What will that have to do with anything? Why should a biological basis for same-sex attraction have anything to do with anything?

The homosexual community, for better or for worse, has succeeded in establishing the narrative that gay is something one is, a way one is born, and thus uncondemnable. On the other hand, if that is the case, why does our culture have the word "heteroflexible," or the phrase "lesbian until graduation?"

It's trickier than it looks, no matter which side of the winning narrative one is on.


Doug - I'm afraid I've never heard the two terms you mention. Not saying they're not out there; only that I'm not aware of 'em.

Now - on to your larger point. I for one happen to think that there likely is at least some biological predisposition to actions like adultry and pedophilia (not sure about the others you mention). But - herein lies the difference.

Most of us would admit that adultry causes some harm. Most of us would state that pedophilia causes immense harm. Most of us agree that, despite the harm that adultry causes, people should not be locked up for acting upon it; with acts of pedophilia, they do.

But homosexuality? Where is the harm in two consenting adults that are attracted to one another and that wish to be together actually being together - if they are of the same sex? If you say, "Well; they can't reproduce" - then the same can be said of many heterosexual couples, including yours truly. Should people like me not be allowed to have a life long partner?

I think the point of those who say, "But it's innate" is that it is not a choice and there is nothing easy nor simple about changing one's sexual orientation. Again - if loving someone of the same sex caused problems, then that would be one thing. I, however, cannot see the problems it causes - other than offending some because of their religious beliefs and others because of ... well, because of what, I am not sure.


Doug's points are well taken and well written. Look at all the lesbians who are now married to men, one such profiled in Sunday's NYTimes Style section. There's the term "hasbian" for such women, once in a same-sex relationship, now in a hetero.

While there is nothing harmful, being in a same-sex relationship can cause ALOT of problems - from family members who disapprove or from jobs discriminating, or neighbors who are not sure what to expect or think. There's still the squirm factor in any same sex relationship. It's just not as easy as saying why not.


"Heteroflexible," "lesbian until graduation" and "hasbian" are all found at urbandictionary.com, where peeps go to get mad street cred fo' shiz (Did I just say that?)

I'm adding "hasbian" to my list of words and phrases to provide as evidence for the non-etched-in-stone-ness of sexual behavior.
Also tipping my hat to Anonymous.

The comments to this entry are closed.