Section 1. Orientation or lifestyle?

Homosexuality is, despite being neatly encapsulated in one word, a rather broad subject. It gets broader too from the way it leads to an examination of how we construct social norms, our ideas of morality, and how we (mis)read history. When we go deep enough, we may come to a point where we may realise that homosexuality is not in fact the subject under consideration at all, but homophobia, just as in discussing a different race, our prejudices and stereotypical ideas -- our racism -- are often revealed and cry out for scrutiny.

The dispute over definition

At this time, the most widely accepted definition is that a homosexual person is one who, through his life, finds that the people he or she is attracted to, are of the same sex as himself/herself.

Immediately, we enter into controversy, for some people do not accept this definition of homosexuality. The above definition hinges upon attraction. Those who oppose this definition (often, those who consider homosexuality offensive) prefer a definition based on the homosexual sex act and the "lifestyle" that is said to go with it. We will discuss the implications of this later, but first some minor details need to be clarified before proceeding.

Difference between homosexual and transgender

The first detail to take note of is what is meant by "same sex as himself/herself". What sex is the homosexual person? In many communities that have retained a pre-modern understanding of sexuality, it is still commonly believed that a homosexual male feels and acts like a woman, perhaps he feels himself to be a woman, trapped in a man's body; vice versa for a homosexual female.

Indeed such persons exist - and we have to remember they are human too - but in today's understanding, they are not considered homosexual. Generally, they are a different category, termed "transgender".

For ages, in most societies, transgenders were the only visible sexual minority, and people got the idea that anything other than "normal" must be "that kind". In popular usage, the word "homosexual" was then frequently applied to them and became associated with effeminate or butch mannerisms, cross-dressing, sex change and the idea that "those people" felt trapped in the wrong bodies.

Not seeing homosexuality through the lens of heterosexuality

One of the most important developments in understanding sexuality in the last few decades has been a profound change in analytical approach. Where it used to be largely based on how heterosexual persons saw homosexuality, how they rationalised or condemned it (much like how for ages, "Asian studies" mainly involved how Westerneners saw "Asia", not what "Asians" themselves thought), more recently, a lot more attention has been given to how homosexual persons saw themselves and the world around them.

Related to this has been a gradual willingness to use scientific methods, whether in sociology, neurobiology or other fields, to fathom the subject, rather than rely on religious or cultural constructions. In other words, a move towards a more objective, value-free approach

One early result of paying attention to how homosexual persons thought and felt has been the debunking of the idea that homosexual persons were people trapped in the wrong bodies. It is now well known that male homosexual persons identify as male; they feel male. Some have effeminate mannerisms, but the great majority of them are indistinguishable from, and thus invisible to, heterosexual men. Likewise for homosexual women; they identify as female. And they are both very separate groups from transgenders.

Not confusing homosexuality with bisexuality

The second detail to note is that homosexuality should be clearly distinguished from bisexuality. Bisexual persons find that sometimes the object of their attraction is male, sometimes female. Just as we don't conflate bisexuality with heterosexuality when discussing the latter, we should not conflate bisexuality with homosexuality either. This is a common pitfall whenever we discuss whether homosexuality is fixed or something that can be "overcome". Many people who dispute the immutability of homosexual orientation like to point out examples of "gay" persons who, at one time or another, have had an opposite-sex relationship, as proof that "homosexuals can change". There are serious weaknesses in such anecdotal examples. Not only should one bear in mind the possibility of sham relationships, even sham marriages, used by a homosexual person for disguise, but these persons could well have been bisexual anyway. To use the example of a bisexual person to make a point about homosexuality is way off the mark.

We tend to forget this because there is no clear line between bisexuality and homosexuality, but then there is no clear line between bisexuality and heterosexuality either. Sexuality is a continuum. At one end are persons who are exclusively heterosexual - they have absolutely never felt any erotic or romantic interest in anyone of the same sex; it just doesn't occur to them. At the other end are persons who are exclusively homosexual, and they have absolutely no interest in anyone of the opposite sex. But many people lie somewhere along the continuum. Some are nearer the heterosexual end, but on occasion can respond to same-sex, some are nearer the homosexual end, and on occasion can respond to opposite-sex. Others are midway.

For the purpose of clarity, in these articles, "homosexuality" is used narrowly to mean exclusive homosexuality; it does not include bisexuality (partial homosexuality, or equally true, partial heterosexuality), in order not to confuse the issues.

Here, homosexuality is also used interchangeably with "homosexual orientation", and this is where we come back to the definition of homosexuality and why some people dispute it.

There are many different objections to homosexuality, springing from different cultural contexts, but one common objection, frequently found in the West, and therefore frequently encountered when we read and write in the English language, goes to the very definition of homosexuality.

The homosexual "lifestyle"

This objection is phrased in various ways, but it tends to come back to the notion of homosexuality as a "lifestyle". By this is meant the social company the person keeps, the fact that he or she does not "settle down" and produce babies, the politics, and above all, the sex he or she "indulges" in. Implicit in this characterisation of homosexuality as a "lifestyle" is that it is a pattern of behaviour that some people more or less consciously choose, and central to that behaviour is the sexual relationship(s) he or she has with others of the same sex.

Is this "lifestyle" pure fiction? Well, no. Describe any lifestyle and if one looks hard enough, one will find real folks fitting the description. This is true of the "materialistic fashion-conscious" lifestyle, as for the "financially profligate" lifestyle, the "golfing lifestyle" or the "overly pious, ascetic" lifestyle.

But any discussion about lifestyles is ultimately a discussion about the balance between individual freedom and social responsibility, about the permissible boundaries within which choices and decisions are made. Very often it comes with a tone of disapproval and more than a subtle hint that the persons with such and such a lifestyle should see the error of their ways and choose another path.

The problem with using the lifestyle definition of homosexuality is that it presumes that the persons involved have any meaningful choice in the matter. It presumes that people can take a deep breath and decide to "abandon" that "lifestyle" and presto, they will be "normal", i.e. heterosexual. If indeed, people can do that, then it may be meaningful to ask what incentives or pressures will work to get people to change, even as the more lucidly introspective among us might ask, what are our motives for wanting people to act differently? But if the presumption of choice is false, then the rest of the discussion becomes futile, and all that is left are 2 questions: why we ignore reality by going on about "lifestyle choice" and why we are so hung up about getting people to conform?

Do people choose to be homosexual?

The question of choice is an empirical one, meaning it can be answered by relying on practical observation and experiment rather than being derived from theory alone without reference to experience. There is more discussion of this in Section 2, but even without going into the complexities of science, there is really one resounding fact that cannot be ignored: people who identify as homosexual consistently report that they never chose their sexuality, any more than they chose the colour of their skin, or the mix of talents that they have. It just came about that way. And try as they might, there is nothing, no spark of interest at all, for anyone of the opposite sex. They are virtually unanimous in their report that their orientation was never chosen nor is it changeable.

They find themselves willy-nilly attracted to certain persons, who, in their case, happen to be of the same sex as themselves. In a way, this is quite consistent with what we know of heterosexual attraction. The guys among us find themselves falling head over heals for a certain girl in class, but not for that other girl. Why this girl, why not that girl? Do we choose who we fall for? Why is it that we fall for girls? Why is it we don't fall for other boys? Can we make ourselves to fall in love with, to get the hots for, the boy over there on the other side of the soccer pitch? If we can't make ourselves sexually attracted to someone however much willpower we bring to bear, can we expect others to be able to make themselves sexually attracted to certain persons by choice?

The human tendency to assume that others are just like us

Yet most people find it difficult to follow the above logic. The reason is that in matters intangible, such as emotions, perception and instinctive feelings, humans tend to assume that others feel the same way as they themselves feel. It takes considerable imagination and empathy to really put oneself in another's place. The more basal the emotion - and the sex drive is as basal as any - the harder it is for one's conscious to override it and imagine some other instinctive feeling.

How can that scruffy boy on the other side of the soccer pitch be sexually attractive, you may ask. What kind of weirdo will fall for him? That's seeing it from your point of view. But is it so hard to imagine that first of all, perhaps more than a handful of girls in your class would fall for him? And for good measure, a handful of boys too?

The biggest stumbling block to understanding homosexuality is the inability to step out of our personal instincts.

It is a similar weakness that underlies the view that homosexuality is primarily one of "lifestyle choice". It suggests that everybody's instincts are universally the same; we are all naturally attracted to the opposite sex; only that a few people choose to flout their instincts and adopt a set of behaviour to the contrary.

Is that assumption true? Are we all universally the same in our instincts? If it is not, if homosexual persons are behaving in ways natural to themselves (meaning heterosexuality is not naturally universal), what is the ethical justification then of imposing restrictions in the hope of securing change? Is it ethically different from a situation where dark-complexioned people (in a world where no particular skin colour is universal) are discriminated against? Is it ethically different from a situation where people brought up in one religion are compelled to accept another?

Section 1: Orientation or lifestyle?
Section 2: The science to date
Section 3: Norms, censorship and history
Section 4: Homophobia