Public debate about homosexuality is dominated by the question of choice. “Clinics” that aim for “cures” presuppose that it is, while the Web sites of groups like the Human Rights Campaign and Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays prominently display arguments that sexuality is not a choice. Indeed, it seems that most people take the question to be the key to determining whether discrimination is permissible.
Both sides are wrong, but my concern today is with those who defend gay rights on the grounds that sexuality is not a choice.
First, as the anti-gay community is quick to point out, that something is genetically determined does not make it okay. Some seem to be born predisposed to sexual attraction to young children or with an overwhelming desire to kill or rape, and yet these actions should not be allowed.
Second, if the genetic hypothesis turns out to be true, one natural reaction will be to seek a genetic “cure.” Already, there are researchers looking for genetic markers of same-sex attraction in breeding stock. Their goal is not to engender love and respect for gay rams.
Third, I see no evidence that the genetic hypothesis is true. It may be that there are a small number of people who are genetically wired for exclusive sexual attraction to members of the same biological sex. Given the context of homophobia in which we live, this is likely true of many who identify as gay. (If one had a choice, why choose to be abused?) But I see no reason to believe that any particular orientation is genetically programmed into the majority of us. Historical and social variation in sexual expression is enormous. In upper class, 20th century Britain, it was quite common and “normal” for boys to have sex with one another in their school days but then to turn to women after graduation. In upper-class Athenian society, most men had sex with young men or boys for pleasure and women for procreation. Such examples suggest that most people are capable of enjoying sexual relations with a wide variety of partners, with biology settling little more than what bits of our body enjoy friction. The rest is social conditioning, practice and our own creativity.
ost importantly, focus on the alleged genetic basis of homosexuality gives the bulk of the game away to the anti-gay position. One turns to an “I can’t help it” defense, only when one has agreed that something is inherently wrong – or at least morally problematic. In the face of anti-Semites, one does not defend one’s Judaism by claiming that one was born Jewish. The problem with racism is not that people have no choice about their national origin.
In each of these cases, to defend the orientation in question on the basis of necessity would be indecent. Since there is nothing wrong with being Jewish or black, the question of whether one has a choice is irrelevant. Someone who can “pass” is under no more obligation to do so than someone who can’t.
The simple fact is that same-sex behavior is not, in itself, immoral – or morally problematic in any way. Some homosexual activity is wrong – having sex with this person, under these circumstances, in this way – but the same is true of any sex and of many other human interactions. (Of course I haven’t argued for this and couldn’t go through the many specious anti-gay arguments in this space. For those interested in serious scholarly dispute, a good place to start is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which has a very good bibliography. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/ )
If I am right about this, our purpose should not be grudging tolerance, not acceptance because gays can’t help it, not the condescending “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” (Imagine “Love the Christian, hate the Christianity.”) What we should demand is embrace, celebration, love. No one asks that you tolerate a heterosexual couple’s marriage, that you accept their having a child as a sad biological inevitability. Decent humans celebrate, share in the joy, when someone finds love, happiness and stability with another person. And I am prepared to accept no less for anyone.
When my daughter asks me, as she recently did, why people don’t want her to have a chance at a family, don’t want her to even hope for happiness, I wish I had a better answer than “because they are afraid.” I wish I didn’t have to answer at all. The pain of gay folks is part of why I write this, but I urge the celebration of life and love from a selfish perspective as well. We grow with an endless barrage of influences pushing us toward a particular sexuality – everything from constant positive depictions of “acceptable” sexuality to abuse, threats and violence against those who transgress. And the pressure does not stop with the gender you are supposed to be attracted to. You are taught what it means to be a man, or a woman, what sorts of men or women you are supposed to be attracted to, what sorts of behaviors you are meant to engage in and meant to find attractive in others and how you are meant to express this love if you are lucky enough to find it.
ost such social rules are arbitrary at best and deeply damaging at worst. At minimum, they limit self-creation, limit freedom, limit possibilities, experiences and potential lives, all in ways that are arbitrary and oppressive. And they do this as much for “straight” folks as for gay. When we learn to celebrate all consensual, non-damaging sexual relations, we learn new possibilities for our own lives – ones that could make a profound difference if we can face them bravely and lovingly.
Whether sexuality is or is not a choice now, our job is to build a world in which it is.
ark Lance is a professor in the philosophy department and a professor and program director in the Program on Justice and Peace. He can be reached at lancethehoya.com. COGNITIVE DISSIDENT appears every other Friday.
“
