We will examine our own conceptions of sexuality first, before we move on to those of the Greeks. The language we employ says a lot more about our mental universe than we think, but interestingly enough, our language with regard to sexual orientation does not accurately reflect our conceptions. I’m not sure how this ambiguity developed (perhaps the topic of some future post?), but I hope to help clear some of the fog. Consider the language we employ when talking about persons and their sexual orientation: “Bob is gay.” “John is straight.” “Mary is a lesbian.” The first two statements are structured: Noun (Bob/John) + Verb (is) + Adjective (gay/straight). The third statement is similar but with two nouns: Noun (Mary) + Verb (is) + Indefinite Article (a) + Noun (lesbian). Most of us probably use these types of statements without ever pausing to think about their grammar.

Let’s look at another example of these sentence structures: “Bob is warm.” “John is angry.” “Mary is a fool.” The first two (using adjectives) describe temporary states. The statement that Bob is warm tells us nothing about his identity. But when we say that Mary is a fool, we are making a statement about Mary’s identity, about who Mary is. “Mary is a fool” tells me something about Mary’s identity in way that “John is angry” does not. John may be angry one day, calm the next. Mary is a fool, no matter what day it is.
Now back to our original examples. The statements “Bob is gay” and “Bob is warm” are identical grammatically, but very different conceptually. When someone says that Bob is gay, they are not talking about the current state he happens to be in (eg. warm/cool), they are talking about his identity. Likewise, the average Bob perceives his gayness as having to do with his identity. When he turns down a girl’s proposed date this coming Friday with, “Sorry, I’m gay,” the message he gives and she gets is profoundly different from that which would be given and gotten if he said, “Sorry, I’m busy.” Though the statements are grammatically identical, both the speaker and the hearer instinctively (even if not consciously) know that the first refers to who he is and the second refers to him only in relation to this coming Friday. Perhaps the point becomes clearer if we imagine that she should reply in the following manner: “Okay, what about next Friday?” Such a reply would be entirely logical in response to: “Sorry, I’m busy,” which says nothing about him or her, but only refers to one particular Friday night. On the other hand, such a response to: “Sorry, I’m gay,” would probably result in some confusion. “If I’m gay, I’m gay! This Friday, and next Friday, and every Friday after that!” “Sorry, I’m gay,” doesn’t refer to Friday at all, it refers to him. It refers to him in a way that excludes her from any of his Fridays. It refers to who he is. All this is to say that our conception of sexual orientation has everything to do with identity. Although we, in reference to sexuality, use Noun-Verb-Adjective statements and Noun-Verb-Noun statements without differentiation, the second form of expression is much closer to our actual conception.
Should any doubt remain concerning what I have said so far, consider the following contemporary scenario: One night a normally straight young man has gay sex with another man. In the morning, when he rises do you think his thoughts will be something like: “Well, I’ve always been completely heterosexual in thought and action. Last night I was suddenly attracted to another man and ended up in bed with him. Oh well.”? Not likely. A far more believable thought process would be this: “I can’t believe that happened. Does this mean I’m gay?” The number of novels, movies and television shows that revolve around this very struggle are a testament to its reality. It is a question of identity. In our culture, sexual orientation has everything to do with who we are existentially. It is much deeper than other aspects of our perceived identities. A person’s job could be legitimately construed as part of their identity, but not existentially. Nobody wakes up the morning after a career-change wondering, “Does this make me a banker?” Of course it does! The fact that nobody struggles with this shows that however much we perceive our occupations as being part of identity, we see them as changeable parts in way in which we do not see our sexualities. Nobody is a banker existentially.