Different perspectives on whether homosexuality is biology or choice

It’s a question asked in various forms for countless years. Does homosexuality come from a person’s biological makeup, or is it a choice?

With different perspectives from different fields of study, five University of Montana professors addressed this question Thursday night at a panel discussion to a packed audience in the University Center.

In his humorous and personal speech, English Department Chair Casey Charles suggested the discussion be renamed “Homophobia: biology or choice.”

Today, Charles said, homosexuals have come to celebrate “gay science,” which provides a biological basis for being gay, as a discovery to explain their differences. But he questioned why homosexuals, including himself, need to justify their existence with science.

“I went through it. I slept with women. I prayed to the God of heterosexuality,” Charles said.

But he said he doesn’t do it any longer. “I am buying into my right to desire who I want to,” he said.

Charles questioned what right scientists have to study homosexuality. He said instead of inquiring into biology, people should fight for equal rights and celebrate homosexuality’s heritage and culture.

Panelist Anya Jabour, history professor and co-director of the Women’s and Gender Studies program, suggested that sexuality is the product of culture, which changes over time. 

Jabour said certain sex acts were made criminal like adultery and sodomy, but sex mainly centered on the realm of marriage and procreation. Jabour cited a case from Scotland in 1811 where two women were tried for “deviant sexual acts.” The women were acquitted because of the common belief that women had no passion. Jabour provided a quote from the judge on the case: “Sex between two women is like committing murder with hocus pocus.”

The common view of the 19th century was that women were thought to be passionless and physically unable to have sex without the presence of a man, according to Jabour. Same-sex female relationships weren’t seen as homosexual but as superior – free of economic exchange and passion, she said.

It wasn’t until the time period of 1880 to 1920 that scientists defined homosexuality as a condition related to non-conforming gender roles, Jabour said.

She said if a man was the dominant partner in a relationship he would be regarded as normal, even if he were having sex with a member of the same sex, because he was fulfilling the traditional gender role.

“Sexuality is culturally constructed in history. Homosexuality is neither biologically dictated nor individual choice,” Jabour said.

Bryan Cochran, a professor of clinical psychology, said that the question is not black and white.

In 1997, the American Psychological Association reversed an established precedent that homosexuality is a mental illness and stated that it is not an illness and there is no therapy to “cure” it, he said.

Homosexuality is a part of one’s self just like culture or language, and it isn’t a matter of choice, said French Professor Michel Valentin. He said sexuality is something that is embedded in one’s self from biological determinism. It is something that can’t be controlled, he said.

Valentin asserted that there is no such thing as healthy sex; there are rifts in all cultures regarding sex, whether it is the incest taboo or sexual relations between men and women. It all comes from the subconscious, he said.

“You don’t choose to be homosexual; there’s something in you; there’s nothing wrong with it,” said Valentin, adding that it’s the cultural reaction that’s often bad.

Human sexuality instructor and clinical sexologist Lindsey Doe said she gets upset when she teaches human sexuality with an old curriculum that tells her to ask, “Where does homosexuality come from?” Doe said if that question is to be asked, then the same needs to be asked about heterosexuality.

The panel of professors took questions and comments after their individual speeches.

One audience member asked how homosexuals could promote dialogue to overcome intolerance.

Charles answered that broaching dialogue involves risk-taking to break down the stigma surrounding homosexuality, and it can be dangerous.

Another audience member remarked that the risk-taking isn’t needed by homosexuals, but rather by many heterosexuals who should interact and get to know everyone, regardless of sexuality.