Response from Richard Heck on November 13, 2005

There is very good evidence now that "sexual orientation" has a large genetic component. Whether it is genetically determined (or better, to what extent) is not clear, but most "gay" people report having known of their "orientation" at a fairly young age. So even if there are also strong environmental components, that certainly does not imply that one's "sexual orientation" is chosen nor, for that matter, that it could be changed. There is also very good evidence that "sexual orientation" lies on a continuum, and that "gay" and "straight" are just the two ends of that continuum, with most people falling somewhere along it. I therefore doubt very much that people who lie at the "gay" end choose their "orientation" any more than do the people at the "straight" end. And honestly: Do those of us who are "straight" have any sense at all that we chose so to be? If not, why should "gay" folk be any different?

As you'll gather from the scare-quotes, I have a problem with the terminology I've been using. Let me explain why.

People who fall somewhere along the continuum sometimes do have a choice to make about whether to be involved with a person of the same sex or a person of the opposite sex. I've known several such people during my life, and I've seen several of them in relationships of both kinds. Typically, they conceive of their choice not as "With which sex person should I be invovled?" but rather as: With which person should I be involved? One woman I know, for example, has had several more or less serious relationships with men, but only one with a woman. She never thought of herself as gay or even as bisexual before meeting this woman, but she fell deeply in love with her, and they became seriously involved. "Sally" spent a long time coming to terms with her newfound relationship, and she broke up with "Suzy" for a period while she worked out for herself whether she could live as a lesbian, since society was sure to identify her that way, even if she did not identify herself that way. Eventually, Sally returned to Suzy, not because she'd decided to be a lesbian but, quite simply, because she loved her. The two of them are now married (as they can be here in Massachusetts), have two children, and are very happy.

The simple thing people do not seem to understand is that being "gay" and "straight" isn't about SEX. The question whether someone is gay is not the question with which sorts of people he or she wishes to have SEX. The question is to whom he or she is romantically attacted, that is, attracted in the way that leads one to pursue and hope ardently for an intimate, romantic relationship with the object of one's attraction. The term "sexual orientation" is therefore deeply misleading. So-called "sexual orientation" is not about sex but about love, companionship, and whatever else it is we all seek in a life-partner. For most of us, though not for all of us, that sort of relationship finds profound and very beautiful expression in sexual intimacy, and that is no different for gay people than it is for straight people. To think otherwise is simply to be a bigot.

I'm sure there are some people—perhaps there are far too many people—for whom the very idea of a romantic relationship revolves primarily around sex, but those are sad people, in my book. Frankly, I find the very idea that my marriage is primarily a sexual arrangement offensive. And for that reason, I find the term "hetero-sexual" inappropriate in the present context. I'd much prefer to be called "hetero-amorous": I'm the sort of person who is romantically attracted to, and inclined to fall in love with, members of the opposite sex. It should seem very puzzling what could be meant by "choosing to be homo-amorous". None of us chooses with whom to fall in love, and I don't myself think it very plausible that we choose what kind of person to whom to be romantically attracted, either.

Being hetero-sexual is different from being hetero-amorous. Niether form of "preference"—another word that is not obvious appropriate—is likely to be "either-or", but it seems likely to me that amorosity is more either-or than is sexuality: I've known several people who'd describe themselves as "bi-sexual" but who wouldn't be inclined towards a relationship with members of both sexes.