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.
