Lately I find myself dwelling overly much on a particular topic, which is a clear indication I need a creative outlet for it. To be specific, I've been wrestling with the issue of homosexuality. I remain confused as to what position I should take on the matter, but I've lately had a break through of sorts in guiding me.
For a few weeks now I've been participating in discussions on the subject and finding myself assailed on the idea that homosexuality is sin. There have been prevalent, and eloquent, arguments that homosexuality is not a choice anymore than I choose to be aroused by breasts. At first glance, this argument seemed strong and formidable against my own. The scriptural uncertainty certainly didn't help my confidence.
This is not to say that I have been deliberately attempting to fortify a position against homosexuality, but rather in attempting to understand my own feelings as to the subject I continually have felt that there was something "off" about it that leads me to remain uncertain.
However, I did note a certain epiphany on the matter, and it is something I am glad to have thought of.
After some deep thinking on the matter I was reminded of a french film my mother owned, Les Visiteurs. It opens with a french lord visiting some noblemen's daughter in a clearly sexual rendezvous. In a small room, the lord is aroused by the woman revealing her ankles to him.
That's the important part there. Ankles? Arousal? What prudishness is this?
It occurred to me that over the course of ages, what visual cues arouse men have not been static. Though breasts seem to be the order of the day in this time, different cultures and times past had different ideas. What of the tribes where women run around topless and without concern? What of the medieval lords and their ankle-lusting? What of now and restaurants such as "Twin Peaks" and "Hooters"? Obviously, there is a cultural component to the sexual cues for men.
How large that component is a matter for debate, but it seems irrefutable to me that to some extent our sexual desires are not shaped by our genome or nature, but by our culture or nurture.
On the flip side, we have the studies that show homosexuality runs in families, showing a clear genetic link to the end result of homosexuality, but I began to wonder how direct that link was. Purely hypothetical, but isn't it entirely possible that instead of a gene that determines homosexuality versus heterosexuality, there was a gene that inclined its bearers to reject typical modes of arousal? Without going into detail, such a gene seems far more likely to survive natural selection than one expressly dedicated to not reproducing.
That's where I stand at the moment. I'd encourage any of you who happen to peruse this place that sees updates but rarely to share your views as well. It would be deeply appreciated.