The cause of

homosexuality and, more importantly, the culture's opinion of homosexuality

is a hotly debated topic, but regardless of one's political position,

it is an inescapable topic in today's culture.

As children

reach pubescence, they experience a host of emotions and many adult homosexuals

say that it was in early adolescence when they first realized that they

were homosexual. Developing a response to adolescent homosexual urges

requires an understanding of the issue that goes beyond one's emotional

response to it.

It is frustrating

that there is no clear answer regarding the cause of homosexuality. Persuasive

arguments can be made on both sides of the issue. One must weigh the evidence

and decide which argument is most persuasive. Herein I present a summary

of opposing views on three points in the debate and I argue that regardless

of one's views on adult homosexuality, adolescence is not the time to

make decisions on this issue.

There is evidence

that sexual orientation is genetic. This evidence is used as reason not

to dissuade one from pursuing same sex relationships, even in adolescence.

It is argued that a homosexual is genetically made that way and can no

more change his or her sexual orientation than can a heterosexual. Indeed,

some homosexuals have deeply desired to change to a heterosexual lifestyle,

but have found it extremely difficult.

However, similar

genetic arguments can be made for many behaviors including drug addiction,

pedophilia, and compulsive gambling. All of these issues have some evidence

of genetic links and people find that they are driven to pursue these

behaviors even when they want to change. Yet most people would not argue

that because drug addicts, for example, may be genetically predisposed

to pursue their drug of choice that the behavior is acceptable.

Gay and lesbian

advocates argue that as children reach pubescence, their sexual awakenings

should not be stifled. They should be free to pursue their sexual orientation

as it develops. Therefore, if a 13-year-old female feels sexual attraction

to girls, rather than boys, homosexual advocates argue that the responsible

counselor will encourage the child not to suppress her inner drives. Cultural

oppression of such drives only makes these children feel bad about who

they are and it creates internal confusion.

Yet children

have many sexual urges in adolescence. Pursuing these urges just because

they exist, especially during a time of emotional and cognitive development

where one is incapable of making fully rational decisions, does not seem

prudent. Most teenagers have powerful heterosexual drives, yet we do not

advocate promiscuity. In this case it is apparently acceptable to suppress

their drives based on cultural ethics.

Homosexual

advocates argue that the taboo against homosexual relationships has its

root in the Judeo-Christian ethic. This ethic, they claim, is a man-created

view that has been unquestioned for centuries. They point to similar issues

in history where religious institutions oppressed whole groups of people.

The mentally ill, for example, were once thought to be possessed by demons.

Mental illness today is recognized for what it is and it was not until

someone pointed out how the church had demonized people just because they

were different that any progress was made.

On the other

hand, even though a long religious history doesn't automatically make

something correct (i.e. the Judeo-Christian ethic), neither does having

a long religious history automatically make something incorrect. Religious

writings in Judaism, Catholicism, and protestant faiths forbid homosexuality

and religious individuals believe that these words are the words of God,

not of men. Just as homosexuals have the right to practice their sexual

orientation, religious individuals also have a right to practice their

religious beliefs.

While adults

are free to practice homosexuality if they choose, adolescents are too

young to make decisions about their sexuality, who they will sleep with,

and who they will marry. Just as it is not uncommon for pubescent children

to experiment with pornography, masturbation, or sexual contact, it is

not atypical for children to have brief homosexual thoughts or encounters.

It seems contradictory that one would suppose children are capable of

making decisions about homosexuality at thirteen or fourteen and yet not

also allow them to make decisions about marriage, sleeping with classmates,

or engaging in sexual behavior with adults.

One's sexual

orientation does not justify disrespect. The powerful emotions that drive

arguments on both sides of the issue inhibit one's ability to see that

a person exists beyond the argument. Any parent who has a child who struggles

with homosexuality can confirm that it is much harder to take an anti-homosexual

stance when the homosexual is one's own child.

Only through

objective discourse can one arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to the

cause of homosexuality, its meaning, and one's response to it. It is the

parent's obligation to decide what to do with the information that exists

on both sides of this debate and to make up one's mind based on that information

rather than one's emotional response to it.

Back

to Healthwise Home Page |