FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
What Is "A Homosexual"			Vol. 15 No. 4 Jun/Jul 2000

Although the terms "gay" and "lesbian" are already a regular part of our everyday lexicon, in the battle over gay rights, the answers to two questions are critical: 1) what is 'a homosexual?' and 2) 'how did homosexuals get that way?'

In a May 21, 2000, Associated Press poll, 51% of respondents opposed gay marriage, while 34% supported it. Despite the slight majority in opposition, certain constituencies tended to more frequently favor gay marriage, including women (4 of 10 v. 1 of 4 men), the young (54% of those 18-34 v. 14% of those 65+), and Democrats (4 of 10 v. 1 in 5 Republicans).

More importantly, about a third of those polled said they believed that gays are "born that way." Among this group, 59% were in favor of gay marriage. This contrasted with those who felt gays choose their sexual preference, 69% of which opposed homosexual marriage. The March 3, 1993 New York Times/CBS News Poll findings were similar: most of that third of Americans who thought homosexuals could not control their urges said that they were willing to give legal protections and benefits to homosexuals, including bans on discrimination and the right to enter military duty. Most who believed that homosexual activity is learned were not.

These polls indicate that much of the support for gay marriage or gay rights comes from a profound misunderstanding of what a 'homosexual' is and how they 'got that way.' One third of the public apparently believes that those who engage in homosexuality cannot participate in heterosexuality because of either genetics, hormones, or some other factor that has "fixed" their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, this third is disproportionately composed of college graduates the very people who tend to influence social policy. Much of the misunderstanding has been aided and abetted by gay activists, but large contributions have also been made by mental health professionals.

This edition of the Family Research Report aims to dispel the myths about what a homosexual "is" by looking at key empirical data concerning what homosexuals actually do and how homosexuality is defined. The historic definition of homosexuality that just as "a smoker" is a person who smokes, so "a homosexual" is a person who engages in homosexual activity is, FRI believes, the most perceptive and true to the empirical data. Likewise, the traditional understanding of homosexuality that it is an acquired habit or taste like smoking jibes with the bulk of scientific evidence.

To be sure, there is limited evidence that homosexuality in a few may be 'caused by' childhood difficulties they had with their parents. Some physical characteristics (e.g., exceptionally poor coordination among boys or a physical handicap) or personality traits (e.g., timidity and sissiness among boys, general rebelliousness) may predispose one toward homosexuality as well. But the notion that either early relationships or experiences within one's family or genetic differences create a "condition" that necessarily leads someone to exclusive homosexual behavior has very little empirical support.

Further, since homosexual activity can be abandoned much like smoking or adultery, as addictive and seductive as those habits might be the concept of a "homosexual person, once homosexual, always homosexual" is as nonsensical as the concept of someone born as a "smoking person" or an "adulterous person."

However, more and more individuals particularly among the young are buying the notions that 1) participation in homosexuality is the necessary result of "a condition" that blocks functioning as a heterosexual, either due to biology or defective parent/child relations, and 2) those who pursue homosexual activity are "homosexual persons" like "female persons" or "black persons." Once these interrelated ideas are accepted, as the above polls demonstrate, acceptance of homosexuality on a broad cultural scale is almost assured.

What Causes Homosexuality?

The etiology (or cause) of homosexual activity is a controversial topic within the legal, political, and psychiatric professions. Etiologic theories and terms are often intertwined with speculative opinions about the possibly pathological and/or irresistible nature of homosexuality. Also the political considerations of the gay rights movement usually come into play.

Interestingly, although FRI differs sharply with them on the social and moral acceptability of homosexual activity, researchers from the Kinsey Institute or who were influenced by that tradition often side, as does FRI, with the traditional definition of homosexuality, and often agree with FRI on its causes.

On the other hand, many in the gay rights movement contend that terms implying choice and responsibility (e.g., "sexual preference") are "discriminatory" "sexual orientation" is their moniker of the moment. However, sexual orientation and other terms employed (e.g., "obligatory homosexual") are either ambiguous or beg the question of etiology, implying that homosexual desires are "essences, core, fundamental ways of being that are deter
mined prenatally or in early childhood"1 (p. 95). Controlling the linguistic terms of the debate is part of the attempt by homosexual activists to create a new social reality, a class of "victims of irresistible benign sexual urges."

Historic Background

The first person to tie the definition of "homosexual" to biology was Karoly Maria Kertbeny, the Hungarian-German homosexual who coined the term "homosexuality" in 1869. Kertbeny maintained that "all scientific and practical knowledge about the nature of homosexual behavior render laws against it obsolete and anachronistic," and place a special obligation upon the "modern constitutional state" to help society "escape from the monstrous curse" of moral fanaticism that had claimed "millions of innocent victims."

Kertbeny enjoyed his homosexual activity and didn't appreciate having his preference called "evil" or "wrong" (and being at risk of imprisonment if he was caught exercising it).

Kertbeny reasoned that if homosexual practitioners could be defined by their homosexual acts, they might be considered "a people" like Indians, or "homosexual persons" like "female persons." This, he felt, was far preferable to being cast as lawbreakers like swindlers or thieves. And, of course, if homosexual activity was "in their very nature," how could laws against such activity be sustained?

Around the same time, Karl Ulrichs, another activist German homosexual, chimed in with the contention that homosexuality was "natural" for some people because it was "biologically predestined" for them. Ulrichs argued that those who pursued homosexual activity were a "third sex" "who could neither help their sexual behavior nor be responsible for it, and therefore should not be punished."2 Early in the 20th century, Magnus Hirschfeld, another activist homosexual with a sexuality institute in Berlin, also advanced the "third sex" notion.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed almost all official stigma of non-normalcy from homosexuality in 1973, taking homosexuality off its list of mental disorders. Still, in 1992, Richard Isay3, a prominent gay psychiatrist who has contended that "homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is constitutional," complained that "most... dynamically oriented psychiatrists in general and psychoanalysts in particular" still considered homosexuality a pathology. Then president of the APA, Lawrence Hartmann, "guessed" that "most American psychiatrists in 1992 accept homosexuality as... compatible with excellent mental health."4

To settle the matter, Isay got the APA to conduct a poll of psychiatric associations in 34 countries. The APA Psychiatric News (9/3/93) reported that "psychiatrists from other points on the globe continue to view sex between people of the same gender as a mental illness" (p. 2), suggesting that Isay rather than Hartmann might be correct about the contemporary psychiatric consensus, at least as of 1993.

The issue of whether "homosexuality has a biological basis, and, further, that it is inherited"3 clearly has enormous influence on public and professional opinion. Not only is the question disputed within the psychiatric and psychological professions, but it also rears its head in legal proceedings. At the 1995 Vancouver trial of Dale Paterson, convicted of murdering his male lover, Justice Richard Low of the British Columbia Supreme Court held that "homosexuality is a fact, not a lifestyle choice" and banned publication of names of gay witnesses because "they have the misfortune to live in a society which treats homosexuality as a choice rather than a fact."5

Other jurists6 have just as strongly held that homosexuality is a "cancer" and an "evil." They have contended that participating in homosexuality results in antisocial attitudes and behaviors and further, that homosexuality is undoubtedly a matter of recruitment, learning, and choice rather than biologic necessity. Often, these latter jurists called for vigorous punishment of homosexuals.

Is Homosexuality A "Condition?"

As noted earlier, the mental health professions have gone a long way toward defining homosexuality as a "condition," one where a homosexual's sexual object has to be a member of the same sex. The concepts of "homosexual persons" and "homosexual orientation" mesh closely with psychiatric definitions of homosexuality. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders II (published in 1968), said that "even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them" (p. 44). "[W]hen they... experience homosexual arousal,... they are surprised, as if against their will... ["Homosexual persons"] feel obliged by their own feelings to respond to the same gender " according to Dr. E. M. Pattison7, Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior at the Medical College of Georgia.

Despite these professional judgments, empirical data on homosexuality offer a number of challenges to the notion that "homosexuality is a condition" for which homosexuals are "unable to substitute normal sexual behavior" or are "surprised" yet "obliged... to respond to the same gender." Indeed, if homosexuality is a "condition," how can psychiatrists or anyone else explain the following facts?

• · Most surveys have reported that the great majority (80-90%) of those with homosexual experience both men and women have also had full sexual relations (i.e., including intercourse) with the opposite sex, and most of those who call themselves 'gay' or 'lesbian' have also had full sexual relations with the opposite sex. Not too infrequently, these heterosexual acts occur in so-call gay ghettoes, with other gays or lesbians.8
• · It appears that most adults with homosexual experience primarily engage in heterosexuality over their lifetime. Many homosexuals go through a phase lasting a year or two or more of exclusive or near-exclusive homosexuality, followed and/or preceded by periods of generally heterosexual or bisexual behavior.
• · In any given year, a large minority (almost half) of those who report that they engaged in homosexual relations also report that they had heterosexual sex. If asked about "the past 5 years," a majority of 'gays'
• and 'lesbians' claim to have had heterosexual sex.
• · The proportion of homosexual practitioners who have engaged exclusively in homosexuality over their lifetime is very small. If they reach age 40, that proportion shrinks to about 5% of 'gays' and 3% of 'lesbians.'

Other evidence of the sexual flexibility of homosexuals also exists. In the 1969-70 Kinsey Institute study of homosexuals in San Francisco, gay citizens of a pro-gay city were studied by pro-gay researchers. Yet even among those gays and lesbians who rated themselves at the time of interview as "completely homosexual," 62% of the gays and 65% of the lesbians said that they had been "sexually aroused" heterosexually at some point in their life. Among the "almost exclusive homosexuals," 86% of the gays and 92% of the lesbians had been heterosexually aroused.9

Likewise, in the Family Research Institute [FRI] 1983-84 nationwide urban sexuality survey, 84% of lesbians and 48% of gays said that at one time they had been "sexually faithful" to a member of the opposite sex; 88% of lesbians and 73% of gays said that they had been "sexually aroused" by someone of the opposite sex; 67% of lesbians and 54% of gays reported "current sexual attraction" to the opposite sex; and 82% of lesbians and 66% of gays said that they had been "in love with" someone of the opposite sex.

In the 1992 nationwide University of Chicago sex survey,10 only around 10% of men who reported sex with men and/or boys and only about 5% of women who reported sex with women and/or girls claimed that they had only had same-sex relations. Since most of the homosexual respondents were fairly young, these 10% and 5% percentages will probably shrink as these homosexuals age.

Kinsey's Findings

Kinsey has gotten a lot of bad press because of his odd samples and his use of child molesters' reports. Indeed, Kinsey's estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality or just about any other sexual phenomenon are laughable his samples were wildly unrepresentative of the general population, and heavily skewed toward the criminally and sexually rebellious. Further, as an activist, he was trying to prove that homosexuals were considerably more numerous than people thought. As a consequence, some have judged all of Kinsey's scientific efforts in the sex arena as worthless.

Kinsey's understanding of homosexuals, however, should not be ignored. Not only was he one himself, but it is unlikely that anyone has personally interviewed so many homosexuals in so many diverse situations in a systematic way. Kinsey had exposure to "both sides" of the homosexuality debate. At one time in his life, Kinsey was by all accounts an earnest, celibate, church-going Christian. Over time, he turned into a crusading atheist, sexual revolutionary, and sexual adventurer extraordinaire.

In 1941, he said that when looking at "the homosexual" "the picture is one of endless integration between every combination of homosexuality and heterosexuality;... and that the exclusive activities of any one type, may be exchanged, in the brief span of a few days or a few weeks, for an exclusive pattern of the other type, or into a combination pattern that embraces the two types" (p. 428).11

The recent conversion of no less than five major lesbian leaders to heterosexuality because they "all fell for men" demonstrates that Kinsey's 60-year-old observation has currency today. As lesbian activist Faderman noted in commenting on these conversions, "Observation tells us that the neat categories of sexual identity are often an illusion. People in real life can move in and out of these categories, spending one portion of their lives as straight and another as gay and then perhaps straight again."12

Kinsey reported that those who engaged in homosexuality were exceptionally sexually flexible, intensely sexualized, and highly venturesome. Kinsey's published data reveal that homosexuals are much more willing to "try it" with an animal, a child, a man, many women, or for that matter "something completely different."

Kinsey participated in homosexuality, was married with children, and was given to all kinds of unusual sexual activities himself. He apparently brought about his own demise by hanging himself by his scrotum for "sexual pleasure." In addition, he personally interviewed over 1800 homosexuals, so he was well aware that "the homosexual" was typically the quintessential sexual explorer.

At the time Kinsey published his first scientific article about homosexuality, he was respond ing to and criticizing a contention that homosexuals have a different hormonal profile than heterosexuals. In the 1940s, hormones were a popular biological mechanism for explaining how homosexuals 'got that way.'

Out of 1300 completed interviews, Kinsey pointed to 354 he had by then conducted with homosexuals. These interviews showed a tremendous diversity in sexual activities. How, Kinsey asked, could they be hormonally (or in any other way biologically) different while at the same time "there are very few 'homosexuals' who have not had at least some, and in many cases a great deal of heterosexual experience" (p. 426)?

Indeed, Kinsey declared, of "the first 108 individuals in our series who have had more than 100 homosexual contacts each, 55 (= 5l%) have made distinctly successful heterosexual adjustments. There are two cases of males... who had had 15 and 17 years of almost exclusively homosexual experiences, who at ages 30 and 28 (respectively) began practically exclusive heterosexual activities which involved intercourse 3 to 7 times per week. On the other hand, we have a few cases... in which exclusively heterosexual activities were abandoned within a brief span of time for more or less exclusively homosexual activities" (p. 428).

Kinsey's findings from almost 60 years ago buck the notion that "homosexuality is an innate/unchangeable condition." If homosexuals are "driven" by a 'fixed biological need' to engage in homosexuality, how could they also engage in heterosexuality?

Kinsey commented on the supposed kinds of homosexuals as well: "The literature constantly makes a sharp distinction between incidental and exclusively homosexual experience, between so-called 'acquired, latent and congenital (constitutional) homosexuality,' and between 'true inverts' and 'normals.' But although we have more detailed data on a large number of cases than are recorded in any of the published studies, we fail to find any basis for recognizing discrete types of homosexual behavior."

"An analysis on any basis will show every type of intergradation between the extreme cases in our series. There are individuals who have had a lone and more or less accidental experience; there are cases which have had as many as fifteen or twenty thousand homosexual contacts... There are cases which have confined their homosexuality to a single male partner;.... There are cases which began in pre-adolescent sex play, and cases... which did not begin until after 30 or 40 years of age. We have cases where the homosexuality was confined to a small portion of the life span, a case (4340) where it has extended over 60 years of the life span,... There are cases in which the homosexual activity was continuous throughout a single period of the history, there are cases where it has been discontinuous with breaks of anything up to 34 years between the periods of participation..."

"[A]lthough there are some 'homosexuals' which show what are popularly considered to be 'effeminate' characteristics, there are others that are physically as robust and as athletically active as the most 'masculine' of men.... one of the most actively homosexual cases in the series (case 2777) is a male with some 15,000 male contacts, and a concurrent heterosexual element which includes intercourse an estimated four or five thousand times" (pp. 426-428).

Lest it be thought that Kinsey exaggerated his findings or that he interviewed a particularly unusual sample of homosexuals, consider the much more recent results from three large probability surveys conducted in America and Great Britain. When asked about their experiences in just the past year, the percentage of those with homosexual experience who also claimed at least one opposite sex partner included 36% of men and 50% of women in Britain13, 61% of men and 14% of women in one U.S. study from 1996, and 26% of men and 23% of women in a second U.S. study from 1992.

For experiences over the past five years, the percentage of those with homosexual experience who claimed at least one opposite sex partner included 57% of men and 71% of women in Britain and 51% of men and 64% of women in the U.S. Across one's lifetime, these same percentages rose to 92% of men and 94% of women with homosexual experience in Britain and 91% of men and 94% of women with homosexual experience in the U.S.

While most participants in the 'gay subculture' call themselves 'homosexual,' some say that they are 'heterosexual,' and a large minority call themselves 'bisexual.' Names and labels aside, it is what people do that counts in getting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant. Kinsey and the research teams in the largest British13 and U.S. government sex surveys only indexed what people reported they had done sexually. That is, they defined "homosexuals" by their acts.

When defined in this manner, these surveys demonstrate not only how flexible or 'plastic' is the sexuality of 'homosexuals,' but also that any claim that most homosexuals "cannot" have sex with the opposite sex is plainly false. For the great bulk of homosexuals, homosexuality is a 'preference' or an expression of 'the most enjoyable sex I can currently get at this time.'

Given these facts, just because someone calls himself "a homosexual" does not mean he isn't currently engaged in heterosexuality, or that he hasn't had extensive heterosexual experience. And, it is possible that he might have considerable heterosexual experience again. All of the findings above are consistent with the notion that "being a homosexual" is a matter of preference at this time, not some sort of biological necessity or psychological 'obligation.'

If "sexual orientation" is taken to mean some fixed need to engage in homosexual activity coupled with an inability to have heterosexual sex, almost no homosexuals could fit its meaning. The contention of gay activists that they "cannot change their sexual orientation" or that homosexuality is "an enduring characteristic of the individual" cannot be true of very many homosexuals, if any.

The traditional viewpoint that most anyone might be seduced or tempted into homosexual activity under the right circumstances, and that homosexuals are people who practice homosexual behavior, is much more consistent with the empirical facts. Kinsey, himself a homosexual activist, produced a considerable amount of empirical data that reinforced the traditional understanding and definition of "homosexual."

Of course, Kinsey did not agree with the traditional condemnation of homosexual activity. Instead, he argued homosexuality was part of our "mammalian heritage" (whatever that is). As it was therefore "natural" and so many people engaged in it, homosexuality ought to be socially accepted, under Kinsey's thesis.

The major competing thesis, what we might term the Kertbeny/Ulrichs/Hirschfeld/Isay view that those who engage in homosexuality are compelled by their very nature to engage in homosexuality came to be adopted by most psychiatrists. The fact that psychiatrists are paid to "treat psychic conditions" rather than police bad behavior probably had something to do with it. And because homosexuality was for some time a "mental health issue," the definition of "homosexual" employed by psychiatrists came to dominate the mental health field. In turn, psychiatric opinion greatly influenced other professionals.

Like most reductionist philosophies, the medical/psychiatric model of homosexuality regards homosexuality as the result of something else a condition stemming from either biology or defects in socialization. Freud posited that an "arrested development" due to family difficulties produced the "condition of homosexuality," which then precluded heterosexual sex. Whether due to biology or early childhood experiences, from the medical/psychiatric point of view, homosexual activity is not a choice, it is a necessity or compulsion born of some biological or psychological need.

If homosexuality is a need (meaning that its absence would place one in a pathological state), it then follows that since homosexuals are "suffering" from a "condition" "beyond their control," they are "victims of their parents' upbringing." Following this line of reasoning, psychiatrists have generally held that those who engage in homosexuality should not be punished for their homosexual behavior. So felt Freud, so feels the APA, and not by happenstance, so feel conservative psychiatrists and organizations such as Charles Socarides and the National Association of Reparative Therapy and Homosexuality [NARTH].

Scientifically, the main problem with the medical/psychiatric model of homosexuality is it does not seem to "fit the facts" very well. Too many supposedly "compelled" or "obligated" people with a "homosexual condition" report heterosexual sex. In fact, the great bulk of the evidence [some of which will be presented and discussed in the next issue of Family Research Report] supports a learning model of sexual preference a learning model that does not hinge upon child/parent relations.

The dominant psychiatric opinion from the early 1900s through 1973 that those who engaged in homosexuality were 'sick' (i.e., had a pathological condition) and needed to be 'treated' so that they could sexually express themselves heterosexually does not wash today. Most of those involved in homosexuality do not have to be 'treated' to have sexual relations with the opposite sex. They already have done so and many continue to do so! Indeed, those men and women in the 1994 British survey who reported 10 or more heterosexual partners were the ones most apt to report having had a homosexual partner.

These results are awkward indeed for those who believe that homosexuality is an "identity" like black or female. For the last few decades, under constant bombardment from the mental health movement, gay activists, the media, and perhaps even the civil rights movement (e.g., black = gay), many have accepted homosexuality as an "identity" stemming from a "condition." Indeed, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council justified their rejection of Dr. Laura Schlessinger's new TV show largely because homosexual behaviors "are as much a part of their [homosexuals'] being as the color of one's skin" (Reuters, 5/11/00).

As a consequence, people are categorized as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" like the races are categorized as 'black' or 'white.'

300 years ago, people were characterized as onanists or non-onanists, depending on whether or not they withdrew prior to ejaculation or masturbated.14 Onanism had some currency through the 19th century, but today the word has disappeared from the popular lexicon, and whether people are 'withdrawers' or 'masturbators' seldom turns up in contemporary discussion. So there is no guarantee that the term "homosexual identity" will have any more intellectual currency 50 or 100 years from now than "onanist" has today.

Using the psychiatric concept of 'obligatory homosexual,' if "true homosexuals" are defined as those individuals who at this point in time regard heterosexual sex as so noxious, scary, or unfamiliar that they might be unable to perform, but simultaneously consider homosexual sex enjoyable, we might be looking at perhaps one-third of one percent of adult men and one-fifth of one percent of adult women (amounting to a few hundred thousand people in the U.S.). In so doing we would be considering only a small fraction, perhaps 5 to 10%, of all those who practice homosexuality.

But who these 'true' homosexuals are, if they actually exist, is difficult to determine. Why? Just as most heterosexuals find that, after a lifetime of heterosexual involvement, they have managed to try many things they would have once regarded as 'uninteresting' or 'impossible,' over time just about all homosexuals manage to have heterosexual sex. Perhaps the 'true homosexuals' who die without ever having heterosexual sex find their homosexual situation too comfortable or find learning how to negotiate and engage in heterosexuality too difficult or the opportunities too limited. In other words, maybe they don't do it because it would take too much effort.

The Homosexual 'Identity:' A Recent Invention

A good argument can be made that the "homosexual identity" we talk about today is a recent phenomenon, gaining some currency just before the Second World War, but not really "jelling" until the 1960s-1970s when its social construction was polished.15 Kinsey could have used the term "gay" instead of the awkward "the homosexual" in his works. The movie star Cary Grant, himself a homosexual who eventually married, called himself "gay" in a 1930s movie. Since Kinsey immersed himself in the homosexual milieu, it is not likely that Kinsey was unaware of the term.

Kinsey also could have used "homosexual" instead of "the homosexual," but by employing "the homosexual" Kinsey made it clear that he wasn't about to join those activists seeking to create a new being based on sexual desire, nor the mental health camp that saw homosexual activity as a compulsion stemming from some childhood pathology.

Celebrating the fact that a brand new identity has been fashioned by activists, Neil Miller, writing in The Advocate, the premier American magazine for homosexuals, said "In the past century the evolution of lesbian and gay identity has radically transformed our notions of sexuality so much so that as we attempt to project ourselves across culture and history, we may find it more difficult to see our reflections than we had assumed. But surely, if our identity is indeed our own creation, we have that much more reason to be proud of it."16

Indeed. In a little more than a century, homosexual activists have effected a most clever self-serving deception that they are just doing what comes 'naturally' given their 'condition.' Undoubtedly there are some homosexual practitioners who for psychological reasons at this time "cannot" have sex with someone of the opposite sex, just as there are some people who for psychological reasons "cannot" at this time have sex with anyone. Maybe they regard it as too 'dirty,' 'painful,' 'obscene,' or 'weird,' or perhaps their first experience/attempt was too traumatic to even want to try again.

But time and life have a way of often making things "possible" that at an earlier time were not it just depends upon the circumstances. FRI suspects (although the experiment has never been done) that if a healthy young man and a healthy young woman knew that they would have to live alone together on a deserted island for 20 years, 99% of the time sex between them would eventually be of mutual interest and as a consequence would almost certainly occur.

Of course, we live in a society in which many lifestyle choices are offered, not just 'heterosexuality-or-nothing.' Most of those with homosexual desires can find a comfortable 'community' that will reinforce and support their homosexual inclinations in any large city. Few in these communities are ever threatened with a challenge to change their sexual practices. Yet even in these 'gay ghettoes,' many homosexual practitioners engage in heterosexual sex (at times gays have sex with lesbians⁸), and some simply 'leave the homosexual ghetto' for heterosexual love, even marriage and children. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, asexuality not one of them is "inevitable or unchangeable."

In Summary

The concept of "homosexual persons" is no more scientifically sound or useful than the concept of "smoking persons." People who engage in homosexuality are homosexuals in the same sense that those who smoke are smokers. Sexual behavior is like any other behavior chosen. People make the choice and are responsible for either practicing or refusing to practice homosexual activity, adultery, drunkenness, prostitution, substance abuse, etc.

This "behavior based" definition was employed throughout the Western world until recently. A little over a hundred years ago, activist homosexuals attempted to redefine the concept of "homosexual." They tried to get society to adopt the view that "homosexuals" were different a "third sex," "biologically driven" to engage in homosexuality and shun heterosexuality. That is, "homosexuals" were unique among breakers of the law. Instead of choosing to steal as thieves do, they were "driven" to engage in homosexuality it was beyond their control.

By the mid-20th century, this activist-pushed view of what a homosexual "is" had been mostly adopted by the mental health movement. Psychiatrists often pointed to child/parent problems instead of biological precursors for why homosexuals were "driven" to have homosexual sex. Still, the psychiatric definition that points to homosexuality as "a condition" has today been adopted by many other professionals, and various Christian and Jewish denominations and ministries.

FRI believes that adopting the psychiatric/mental health definition of homosexuality is a profound mistake. First, it is inconsistent with most of the empirical data on the issue of homosexuality. Any definition and understanding of a phenomenon that does not match the empirical reality eventually lands in the intellectual dustheap.

Second, by putting "the cause" of homosexuality at the feet of parents or within the genetic makeup, etc., adoption of the medical/psychiatric definition of "homosexual" inevitably leads to rejection of the traditional stance regarding homosexuality. Namely, that participation is a choice for which the actor is responsible. For as the gay activists who started this new way of looking at homosexuality inquired, "if homosexuals are 'victims' of either their parents or their biology, why are they censored or punished for what they do?"

References:

1. Kitzinger, C. & Wilkinson, S. Transitions from heterosexuality to lesbianism: the discursive production of lesbian identities. Developmental Psychology, 1995, 31, 95-104.

2. quoted in Lehrman, N. S. Homosexuality: a political mask for promiscuity: a psychiatrist reviews the data. Tradition, 2000, 34, 44-62.

3. Isay, R. Homosexuality and psychiatry. APA Psychiatric News, 2/7/92, p. 3,17.

4. Hartmann, L. Homosexuality and psychiatry. APA Psychiatric News, 2/7/92, p. 3.

5.Vancouver Sun, 3/30/95, p. B1.

6. Rees, J. T. & Usill, H. V. They stand apart: a critical survey of the problems of homosexuality. New York: MacMillan, 1956.

7. Pattison, E. M. Homosexuality: classification, etiology, and treatment. Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology, D. G. Benner, Ed), Grand Rapids:Baker, 1985, pp. 519-526.

8. Lemp. GF, et al. HIV seroprevalence and risk behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women in San Francisco and Berkeley, California. American Journal of Public Health, 1995;85:1549-52.

9. Bell A. P., Weinberg M. S. Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1978.

10. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R. T., & Micheals, S. The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1994, p. 312.

11. Kinsey, A.C. Criteria for a hormonal explanation of the homosexual. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, 1, 424-428.

12. Faderman, L The Advocate, 4/29/97, p. 80.

13. Johnson, A.M., Wadsworth, J., Wellings, K., & Field, J. Sexual attitudes and lifestyles. London: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1994 for Britain; U.S. data from Laumann, et al. 1994.

14. see Sedgwick, EK. Tendencies. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 1993.

15. see Michael Foucault The history of sexuality: vol. l: an introduction. NY: Random House, 1978.

16. Miller, N. Background search, The Advocate Issue 683, 6/13/95, p. 29.
Americans Too Fat? 'Fudge' the Data

Sexuality is a collective enterprise. To be sure, most sexual activity occurs in private. But what society scripts or prescribes for sexuality is very important, and what some can "get away with" has importance as well. If a society constructs and enforces a script that allows sex "only between a man and a woman and that only in marriage," very few will do or try to do otherwise. Indeed, some primitive societies have devised incredibly convoluted sexual scripts that bear almost no relationship to the necessities of reproduction.

With regard to homosexuality, London may have been the first city to permit individuals to collectively "break the rules." In the first quarter of the 18th century, Molly houses1 appeared in London. The effeminate/transvestite men who met in these houses acted in particular ways and developed a jargon of their own. They carried on homosexually with each other in private, often using St. James Park as a meeting place.

These sissy men were permitted to create what appears to have been the first modern "homosexual society within a society." The term "Molly-coddle" stems from these 'sissy' sodomite men who bore a distinctive gait, feminine trappings, and exaggerated feminine mannerisms. Of course, they did not have a "molly-pride parade," nor did the Mollies shelter most of those who engaged in homosexuality at that time. But by
relaxing the anti-sodomy standard for the Mollies (who were often mocked and pitied), London tolerated this expression of homosexuality.

The relaxation of scripted sexual standards in large cities has continued and expanded. Large cities permit and promote the growth of homosexuality through various 'gay parades,' 'gay rights' statutes, and protected status laws for homosexuals. The outcome of this tolerance is unfortunately clear. In 1994, the University of Chicago study2 reported that if U.S. boys were reared in a city between the ages of 14 and 16, their chances of engaging in homosexuality were 3 to 6 times greater than if they had been reared in a rural area.

References:

1. Bray, A. 1995, Homosexuality in Renaissance England. NY: Columbia Univ. Press.
2. Laumann, et al, 1994, Sex in America, p. 304.

Americans are getting fatter and fatter. According to professional wisdom they should consequently be living shorter and shorter lives. Alas, Americans are getting both fat and more longevous! What to do?

U.S. government scientists have an answer. The new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] growth charts for children were supposed to be "characterized strictly as growth references that represented national data for all variables." But, guess what? The kids were found to be fatter than they were supposed to be. So what did the scientists do? They simply excluded recent data from all children aged 6 or older from the new standards even though a large, carefully done sampling of such children had been conducted!

So the 'new' standards are not entirely empirical, but rather modified to fit the theories of nutritionists to "avoid an upward shift of the weight and BMI curves... [under which] fewer children and adolescents would have been classified at risk of overweight or overweight [sic]" [p. 3].

Reference: Advance Data June 8, 2000, published by CDC/NCHS

Sexual Revolution Hits Russia

Return to top

The social impact of television was reasonably well-established back in the 1960s when communities that didn't have TV were compared before and after television was introduced. These studies suggested that the presence of TV promotes poorer scholarship among kids and is also associated with a heightening of unsocial and antisocial activities.

Russia presents another opportunity to study a before-and-after phenomenon: in this case what the 'sexual revolution' does to a country. Early in the Soviet revolution, all kinds of sexual licence were allowed to flourish. Prostitution, homosexuality, easy divorce, no laws against fornication, etc. all were encouraged with the slogan that 'sex is like drinking water.'

Well, that part of the Soviet experiement quickly frightened the Soviet rulers. By the 1930s, the Soviet state was as straight-laced as any Victorian society.

Then Communism fell, and "freedom" of varying sorts arrived, including sexual freedom.

The results? From 1989 to 1997, cases of gonorrhea experienced a 4300% increase. The rage of syphilis shot up 63-fold. In fact, in Moscow the proportion of birthing mothers with syphilis is nearing 1%. Just about every rate of kind of infection is up including papillomavirus and herpes simplex virus infections.

Marriage has declined as an institution, even as 'cohabiting' has increased. Pornography has also increased. In a word, Russia is becoming much more like the West in its sexual habits.

Reference:

Borisenko KK, Tichonova LL, Renton AM. Syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections in the Russian Federation. International J STD & AIDS 1999;10:665-668.

Corner

Ostensibly 'ruled' by the U.S. constitution, each year nine unelected judges impose their lawyerly opinions on society. The opinions unleashed by the Supreme Court on June 28, especially its opinion in the Boy Scouts of America [BSA v. Dale] case, should make Americans tremble. The decision holds gay rights at bay for a while, but the measured threat by the four dissenting justices demands the response of impeachment now, before they spiral out of control any further.

The BSA defended itself as having a right to associate or not associate with whom it pleased and contended that BSA has 'always' been against homosexuality. The State of New Jersey argued that it was "not persuaded... that a shared goal of Boy Scout members is to associate in order to preserve the view that homosexuality is immoral" because it was difficult to find BSA official pronouncements against homosexuality. Further, NJ contended that it had "a compelling interest in eliminating 'the destructive consequences of discrimination from our society,' and that "'the reinstatement of [former scoutmaster] Dale does not compel Boy Scouts to express any message.'"

While the Supreme Court decision made no statement about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual activity it implied that it was acceptable. The scout decision turned on the narrow constitutional right of a voluntary organization to choose its members: e.g., "the forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group's freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." However, this right to associate is only guaranteed if there is no compelling state reason to deny such freedom, something the Supreme Court has overridden in previous cases in regard to both race and sex.

The majority reasoned that "Dale's presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior." The majority leaned on the reasoning of Hurley, where a homosexual group was not allowed to march in Boston's St. Patrick's day parade. "Justice Stevens' dissent makes much of its observation that the public perception of homosexuality in this country has changed. Indeed, it appears that homosexuality has gained greater societal acceptance.... But this is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who refuse to accept these views. The First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety or not.... While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government."

The dissent by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens argued that:

1) the merit of New Jersey's law to "eradicate the cancer of unlawful discrimination of all types from our society" was laudable. The majority replied that nondiscrimination had expanded considerably. The city of Boston now additionally bans discrimination on the basis of "[being an] ex-offender, [having received] psychiatric treatment, and military status." Washington, D.C. has added "personal appearance, source of income, and place of residence," and Seattle has added "political ideology." Nowhere did the majority argue that many types of discrimination are necessary and worthwhile for a healthy society.

2) the Boy Scouts were rather quiet and equivocal about their supposed rejection of homosexuality. It noted that given the scouts "self-proclaimed ecumenism," its treatment of sexuality in its 1972 Handbook made it "even more difficult to discern any shared goals or common moral stance on homosexuality." It further pointed to equivocal statements by the scouts on the issue, seemingly indicating that the Boy Scouts would change its stance if it became illegal to discriminate against homosexuals (p. 10), and noted the fact that some of the statements were unsigned and not widely disseminated.

The dissenters faulted the scouts for being equivocal about homosexuality "since at least 1984 it had been aware of this issue... yet it did nothing in the intervening six years... to explain clearly and openly why the presence of homosexuals would affect its expressive activities" (p. 16). Their conclusion? "The evidence before this Court makes it exceptionally clear that BSA has, at most, simply adopted an exclusionary membership policy and has no shared goal of disapproving of homosexuality" (p. 23) and "nothing in our cases suggests that a group can prevail on a right to expressive association if it, effectively, speaks out of both sides of its mouth. A State's antidiscimination law does not impose a 'serious burden' or a 'substantial restraint' upon the group's 'shared goals' if the group itself is unable to identify its own stance with any clarity" (p. 24).

The majority 'gave considerable slack' to the scouts, accepting policy statements that were arguably obscure to grant that the scouts did, in fact, have a point of view deploring homosexuality. In fact, in talking with FRI before the case was filed, BSA lawyers explicitly rejected any assistance toward proving the harmful/wrongful nature of homosexuality because they were going to 'rest on the first Amendment, period' and did not want to incur the wrath of the gay rights movement or the media.

3) the majority ruling implied that "an openly gay male is irreversibly affixed with the label 'homosexual.' That label, even though unseen, communicates a message that permits his exclusion wherever he goes. His openness is the sole and sufficient justification for his ostracism. Though unintended, reliance on such a justification is tantamount to a constitutionally prescribed symbol of inferiority" (pp. 35-36). "Unfavorable opinions about homosexuals 'have ancient roots.'... Like equally atavistic opinions about certain racial groups, these roots have been nourished by sectarian doctrine... Indeed, the past month alone has witnessed some remarkable changes in attitudes about homosexuals." The dissent then pointed to the 'benefits [granted] to gay partners by the big 3 automakers,' Gay Pride Day at the CIA, and gay couples accepted as role models at Exeter private academy.

Note what is going on here. Five judges gave a large 'benefit of the doubt' to the scouts, even though the scouts have not been and currently are not clear and open about scout opposition to homosexuality. Both the majority decision and the dissenting opinions provide ample evidence that the judicial elite sees nothing wrong with homosexuality per se and desires to grant it equivalent status with heterosexuality.

One judge could have reversed the decision. The scouts had better institute an anti-homosexuality policy and communicate that policy to their charges if they hope to be sheltered by the First Amendment for very much longer. Further, absent strong evidence that homosexuality is harmful or bad, the next case heard on the issue could easily 'go the other way.'

As further evidence of the tentative nature of the "win," amicus briefs on behalf of the Boy Scouts turned out to be a waste of time and money. Not a single scout-supportive amicus was cited by the majority. The dissenting opinion, however, cited briefs filed by the Deans of Divinity Schools and Rabbinical Institutions, the United Methodist Church, and the American Psychological Association, all against the Boy Scouts.

The most ominous claim the dissenters made, and the one that should worry everyone was this: "that such prejudices are still prevalent and that they have caused serious and tangible harm to countless members of the class New Jersey seeks to protect are established matters of fact that neither the Boy Scouts nor the Court disputes. That harm can only be aggravated by the creation of a constitutional shield for a policy that is itself a product of a habitual way of thinking about strangers. As Justice Brandeis so wisely advised, 'we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles.' If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold."

Note that the dissenters did not say "if we would interpret the constitution by the light of reason" but rather "if we would guide by the light of reason." These 'dictators of democracy' consider themselves superior to the many thousands of years of real-life experience that Christians, Jews, and Muslims have had dealing with the problem of homosexuality, superior to the revelation each faith claims to have received from God.

If this court does not see itself bound by the beliefs and customs of the American people whom, in theory they are sworn to serve just what informs their "legal principles?" If they don't believe God has spoken about homosexuality, what but prejudice could inform their "bold minds?" Without revelation as the dictators of the past 80 years have demonstrated all things are possible. The cabal that would "guide" America "by the light of reason" arrogantly cannot see that without revelation, nothing but opinion matters!

Bold thinkers have been ever ready to sacrifice whatever and whoever it took to help construct a vision of their 'perfect world.' Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot all were graced with boldness of thought that rose above traditional constraints. Hitler, in Mien Kampf, alerted the world as to what he would do if he came to power. Similarly, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens have put America on notice as to where they are headed in the BSA dissent. Now, before they wreak more damage, now is the time for them to be given their walking papers.

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher

Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©1999

Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site