I hear often the argument that homosexuality is a choice, which is plainly absurd. Who would choose in our anti-gay culture to be gay? The choice argument is important to the survival of rightist intolerance because the difference between being gay and choosing to be gay is that if you choose to be gay, you're violating some moral code, you're acting immorally. Whereas if you are "naturally" gay, if it's just the way you've turned because of your genetics or your environment or a combination of the two, if it is not a choice, the idea of homosexuality as a moral issue is lost. Because if homosexuality is simply the natural state of ten percent of the population, then it wouldn't be a moral issue, and campaigning against homosexual rights would be like campaigning against the rights of other groups who shared characteristics they couldn't control - like, say, skin color.
I'm astounded by conservatives and religious rightists who talk about homosexuality as being unnatural. This is really not even a debate anymore. Somehow they've managed to keep the debate alive, much the same way that they - the religious rightists, the exact same people - have been allowed to keep the debate over evolution alive. We know homosexuality is natural because we've studied it and found it in wild animals and in all human populations. It expresses itself in around ten percent of a given human population. The only variance in that is the extent to which homosexuals are allowed to admit their homosexuality. So in Iran, for example, we don't have any real way to challenge the notion that homosexuality doesn't exist because if an Iranian admitted their homosexuality, they'd be promptly carted off and killed, tortured, or imprisoned for the rest of their life. What I find so astounding is that these people who say homosexuality is unnatural almost always say that it is also a choice. That is a very poorly thought out position.
Sexuality is of course a spectrum that stretches from the absolute heterosexual to the absolute homosexual. Most of us find ourselves in the middle somewhere. Every day in the fields of behavioral science and genetics, we're discovering more evidence that people are actually not solely a product of genetics or of environment, but a combination of the two. To illustrate, I was reading the other day that scientist have discovered that physical exercise can actually activate and deactivate certain genes controlling things like a genetic propensity toward cancer.
So when I hear people say that homosexuality is a choice, I wonder if they really believe that gay people are just the same as straight people except for that choice. Because if we're all the same and gays are only different because they choose to be, then the corollary is that all straight people choose to be straight and could choose to be gay, and the only difference between the two groups is that straight people have taken the moral high road while gays have simply succumb to a universally human temptation. But there's a problem with that, isn't there? If homosexuality is a choice, then it suggests that we are all bisexuals deep down and that the homosexual urge exists naturally within each of us just as the heterosexual urge does. It's just a matter of choosing the right path. So homosexuality can plainly not be a choice and unnatural.
Posts
5 comments:
Another argument is whether or not the idea of homosexuality being a "choice" actually matters.
In a pseudo-laiseez-faire market, nobody is told what they should do or how they should do it. Everybody is left to their own devices to decide the best courses of action for themselves. After all, who better to know what an individual wants than the individual themselves?
Nobody is criticized for purchasing apples at a market or for watching television or for painting as a hobby, yet all of those were choices. Why, then, should an individual be restricted in romantic pursuits if both parties consent?
That's not to say that it was a choice anyway.
That's right. I'm tidying up an entry on that very point for later this week. Thanks for the feedback Sean - Keep it coming!
So, here's how I understand homosexuality which may be a little different than the line that you are drawing. Behavioral studies have shown that there are 3 stages of homosexuality. The first is homosexual urges or thoughts. The second stage is acting on these urges or thoughts; partaking in homosexual activity. The third stage is an acceptance of identity stage. This is when an individual goes from doing homosexual acts to actually accepting what they are doing and include it as part of their identity. So is homosexuality a choice? Well, I would say yes because one is acting on impulses one receives. And since I believe in libertarian free will then I believe that partaking in homosexual acts or being gay are choices.
Where do these impulses come from and are they natural? Natural could mean many things so it would depend on what you mean by "natural". If you mean they happen naturally like a burp or a reflex then that may be. Do you mean natural like God's original intent then, no. Remember, sin is natural to all humans because we are sinful creatures but that doesn't mean that God's intent was for us to sin or that it's ok to sin. It isn't always ok to do what's natural, in this sense.
If we don't know where these impulses come from, than can we still "blame" people for acting homosexually? Well, what if we were to look at the same reasoning behind another case. Consider murderers. They may have anger temperment issues or psychological stances that are very different from the "normal" person's. However, there may be an abundance of people (10%) that have these stances, whether they come via nature or nurture. This psychological stance may make them more likely to commit murder than another person because they may be more strongly inclined to it than another. In similar respect some people have stronger homosexual tendencies than others. We still blame murderers when they kill people. So, gays can still be blamed for committing homosexual acts. Sure, when we find out that a murderer grew up in a rough neighborhood (or his parents were divorced or abusive, or he didn't have many friends when he was a kid or he has a psychological disorder) we see these as reasons why he may be more inclined to act the way he did, but these circumstances don't excuse him from what he's done. NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO EQUATE GAYS WITH MURDERERS. THIS ANALOGY IS MEANT TO POINT OUT THE SIMILARITY ON ACTING ON IMPULSES, STRONG OR WEAK, NATURAL OR UNNATURAL AS THEY MAY BE.
So here, acting homosexually and being gay are choices, the impulses or tendencies are not. There is no blame to be held for having impulses beyond our control, but there is blame for acting on such because to do so would be wrong. Acting on any other sinful impulse makes one blameworthy of sin but to me homosexuality is no different. If I've told a lie or stolen something or had sex with another guy or had sex before marriage then I have sinned. And no matter how severe or light we may think one sin may be versus another, in every case there is forgiveness.
This is an excellent response. I've been running out of new approaches and this issue of vocabulary is so important. I'm going to add a new section defining what I mean with the words I use. Thanks so much!
I understand completely your analogy between murderous urges and homosexual urges. Urges in general I think are out of our control - whereas actions are generally not.
Obviously you and I part paths on the issue of religion. Your approach looks at the satiating of the murderous urge as sinful, just as the satiating of the homosexual urge is sinful. The importance to you is not in the origin of the urge itself, but in the action that satisfies the urge – what you call the “sin”. But if we step back from theology and look at the urges from a blander and more broadly human perspective, it seems reasonable to me that we hold an expectation of others that they not act on their murderous impulses. Control of murderous impulses is important to all our survival, regardless of religion. Murder is dangerous regardless of faith. Unlike murder, homosexuality is dangerous only to the survival of a very specific brand of religious morality. But our country is a place where people are supposed to be allowed the freedom to choose their brand of religious morality. I also think it unfair and inhuman to ask that consenting homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter) resist acting on their sexual urges when the only reason to do so is the survival of a religious morality they don't subscribe to.
That reasoning extends to gay marriage because banning it is a way of forcing free individuals to live by a specific brand of religious morality.
In America, we cannot tolerate such a violation of our religious freedom. I think you and I agree on that, and I think we agree on allowing homosexual marriage, so I won't challenge your theological hypothesis that the urges are not natural in the religious/divine sense.
Thanks so much for the comment - I hope you’ll keep them coming!
Re: murder and homosexuality, most of American laws are founded on the basis of property.
The individual who steals from another person is violating the other person's property. The individual who murders another violates the other person's property (because, arguably, the other person owns their own body).
Homosexuality, on the other hand, does not conform to any property laws, so it should not be illegal.
The question of religious faith is another issue entirely. However, according to the very nature of American laws, I would argue that homosexuality should not be curbed because it violates no basic principals that the law was intended to protect or provide.
Post a Comment