Gay as a Choice/Innate: Why does it matter?

Turin · Post by **Turin** » 2006-10-13 11:50am

Inspired by some of the idiocy by RM Shultz in the thread in the HoS, and somewhat inspired by some things going on in my own life, I was thinking a bit about the whole issue of whether homosexuality is a choice. It appears that the scientific evidence leans heavily to the idea that homosexuality has a very strong inherent component, probably genetics and/or related to hormones in utereo. And advocates for gay marriage or other issues related to equal rights for homosexuals will trot this evidence out as reasoning for their positions.

But from the standpoint of any valid moral system (that is, one not based on "do what the invisible sky pixie says or ye shall burn"), why should it make a difference whether or not homosexuality is innate or a choice? By way of analogy, would it be moral to deny heterosexual couples the right to marry because they prefer anal sex (a choice)? Of course not.

And whether or not homosexuality is a choice can't address the (false) concerns that gays will be bad parents, because according to the homophobes they would be bad parents whether it was a choice or not, right? It's like one Mike Wong's sig banners: if we say smokers are bad parents... does it matter whether or not smoking is a choice to the children's lungs damaged by second-hand smoke? Should we allow people to damage the lungs of children if they can't help smoking? Of course not, so that argument falls away.

I would say it's that they think they will placate the fundie retards by proving it's not a choice. But at the end of the day, despite what moderate Biblical apologists might try to argue, the Bible is pretty clear on homosexuality being a sin (of course, wearing cotton/poly blends should get you stoned to death according to the Bible, so I don't put any stock in that!). So you're not going to win any points that way.

So why the hell do gay advocates (sorry, can't think of a better description) bother going through all the trouble to provide evidence that it's innate and not a choice? It's certainly an interesting scientific question, because of how it can expand our understanding of human sexuality in general, but it doesn't seem like it's much of a moral question.

(**Just in case I'm not totally absolutely 100% clear above, I'm not arguing that homosexuality is a choice. I'm not even really interested in arguing about that, because there's been a million and one threads with evidence about that. I'm arguing that whether or not it's a choice is totally irrelevant.**)

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-10-13 12:13pm

For one thing, scientific evidence that it is biological might persuade the fence sitters.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2006-10-13 01:13pm

Because it makes racial analogies similar. Ethically it is very difficult in the modern world to sensibly deny rights to people on account of something they were born with.

Turin · Post by **Turin** » 2006-10-13 02:04pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Because it makes racial analogies similar. Ethically it is very difficult in the modern world to sensibly deny rights to people on account of something they were born with.

Sure, but it's also morally very difficult in the modern world to deny rights to people because they choose to do something that causes no harm to others, too. I guess I'm just seeing it as a really weak argument. If your whole tack is the choice/innate argument (as it seems gay rights advocates have done, including myself in my more politcally active and radical days), then if you can't convince someone of that point, you're screwed.

The racial analogy can really back you into a corner, because I've witnessed on more than one occasion that racial minorities who are homophobic will be turned off entirely to any other argument you make for gay rights if you compare the plight of gays to, say, the plight of Blacks.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-13 02:05pm

The ironic thing is that most of the people who rant about how homosexuality is a choice have an ironclad resistance to discrimination against people on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2006-10-13 04:48pm

There is definitely undue emphasis on the finding the determinant(s) of sexual orientation but there's no denying the fact that it provides a lot of political and social leverage.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-10-13 05:02pm

Fear of Conversion. If homosexuality is a lifestyle "choice", it means that all the Fundies' paranoid fears that their children can be converted to homosexuality are true. It means, potentially, they themselves might fall prey to temptation and stray from the True Way.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2006-10-13 05:10pm

Patrick Degan wrote:Fear of Conversion. If homosexuality is a lifestyle "choice", it means that all the Fundies' paranoid fears that their children can be converted to homosexuality are true. It means, potentially, they themselves might fall prey to temptation and stray from the True Way.

That doesn't really make sense. Fundies typically try to portray homosexuality as a lifestyle choice so that their ex-gay conversion programs have actual credibility. If sexual orientation was proven to be innate and biological, it would suggest that their core beliefs are somehow flawed, which would be more threatening to a fundie than the existence of the temptation to lead a stray lifestyle.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2006-10-13 05:18pm

You also use what weapons you have. The Bible makes it pretty clear that it doesn't have much of a problem at all with slavery, yet secular values means they have to find ways of shielding themselves from those passages within the Bible that deal with slavery not being morally suspect.

You can't always go for the highest prize first. Sometimes you need to work your way up the ladder of acceptability. If the gay community paints it as something you cannot choose, it's far easier for moderates to have to simply find ways of ignoring that passage as they have with so many others.

When you have a good 70-80% of the population believing in a god that would smite homosexuals, you can't necessary fight it with weapons that deal exculsively rational and moral systems of thought. These aren't rational people, and the Bible's morality is more than suspect. But if you can nail moderates on the fact that homosexuality isn't something that can be helped or changed, it might sway them.

Overall I think you're looking at this from a humanistic set of moral values rather than the more traditional biblical set. If it's your choice, it's YOUR FAULT, thus you can be blamed and attacked. If it's biological, then more reasonable minds will be less likely to blame.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-13 05:19pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Fear of Conversion. If homosexuality is a lifestyle "choice", it means that all the Fundies' paranoid fears that their children can be converted to homosexuality are true. It means, potentially, they themselves might fall prey to temptation and stray from the True Way.
That doesn't really make sense. Fundies typically try to portray homosexuality as a lifestyle choice so that their ex-gay conversion programs have actual credibility. If sexual orientation was proven to be innate and biological, it would suggest that their core beliefs are somehow flawed, which would be more threatening to a fundie than the existence of the temptation to lead a stray lifestyle.

You've got it backwards. The fundies want homosexuals to be terrifying, so they can keep their flock living in fear of the Homosexual Conversion Horde. It's the same reason Republicans want their followers to live in a constant state of fear.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2006-10-13 05:30pm

Ah, I intepreted the post incorrectly. It makes much more sense now.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-10-13 06:05pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Fear of Conversion. If homosexuality is a lifestyle "choice", it means that all the Fundies' paranoid fears that their children can be converted to homosexuality are true. It means, potentially, they themselves might fall prey to temptation and stray from the True Way.
That doesn't really make sense. Fundies typically try to portray homosexuality as a lifestyle choice so that their ex-gay conversion programs have actual credibility. If sexual orientation was proven to be innate and biological, it would suggest that their core beliefs are somehow flawed, which would be more threatening to a fundie than the existence of the temptation to lead a stray lifestyle.

It may not "make sense", but we're talking about a mindset which is not amenable to logic, or rather of a strictly black/white "logic". If people can be converted one way, they can be converted the other way as well. Remember that these people essentially see the world in terms of a Battle for Souls and pursue their evangelism along those lines. Which opens the way for the converse: people of the Opposite Side trying to convert their children, friends, etc. No matter how they tout the success or legitimacy of of ex-gay "conversion", this fear is at the core of their hatred for the very idea of homosexuals teaching in the schools.

Turin · Post by **Turin** » 2006-10-14 01:29pm

CaptJodan wrote:You can't always go for the highest prize first. Sometimes you need to work your way up the ladder of acceptability. If the gay community paints it as something you cannot choose, it's far easier for moderates to have to simply find ways of ignoring that passage as they have with so many others.

Sure, I understand this, but it leaves me with the nagging doubt that if, somehow, the science were to lean the other way over time (psychology / sociology are a lot less "hard" sciences than, say, physics), this would obviously really backfire. And it's also pretty well demonstrated that the average member of the populace has a really poor grasp of science. No matter how many time you hammer into their head what the research shows, you'll still hear the "well, maybe that's true, but this one person I know..."

CaptJodan wrote:Overall I think you're looking at this from a humanistic set of moral values rather than the more traditional biblical set.

Well, yeah, obviously. At the end of the day, I'm not going to win over that certain percentage of ultra-religious maniacs, so fuck 'em. But I can hope to marginalize them; the group that needs to be argued with is that big chunk of non-critically-thinking sheep. So unless you can start to crack that influence that the fundies have over the sheep, it doesn't seem like you're going to make a lot of progress.

Obviously I realize that despite this, gays have made progress towards equal rights. But it seems from my (perhaps historically limited) viewpoint, that the remaining battles are made that much more difficult by the fundamentalist backlash.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2006-10-14 03:56pm

If you establish that sexual orientation is not a choice, it becomes much easier to make anti-gay assholes look like the bigoted fuckwads they are. In public.

If bigots are too ashamed to admit their views in public for fear of ridicule and/or booing and hissing, that helps keep the bigotry from propagating and minimizes the damage it can do.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2006-10-14 05:06pm

Turin wrote: Sure, I understand this, but it leaves me with the nagging doubt that if, somehow, the science were to lean the other way over time (psychology / sociology are a lot less "hard" sciences than, say, physics), this would obviously really backfire. And it's also pretty well demonstrated that the average member of the populace has a really poor grasp of science. No matter how many time you hammer into their head what the research shows, you'll still hear the "well, maybe that's true, but this one person I know..."

That is the "danger" if you will, of calling it something we can't prove is true or not. Without the "gay gene" of sorts, it's a harder case to prove biology over....choice I guess.

Here's the thing. I don't think overall that moderates have come far enough to accept it as a choice. You can argue that it's a choice and, humanistically you can even justify it, but remember that still a huge portion of this country is at least somewhat God fearing, and it is pounded into them at church that to be gay is to be a sinner. It's not hard, it couldn't be clearer in the Bible, after all. So you have even moderates who go to church who hear this and who, like it or not, believe it.

Progress is being made, but I think it would likely be slower if the proof right now was showing it as a choice. You almost have to shame them into it. Take a murderer and say he murdered out of choice and he gets a far longer or more uncomfortable sentence than a murderer who is proven to be psychologycally damaged in some way. One is choice, the other is biology. There's more empathy for the person who had something biologically "wrong" with them (i use that term loosely with regard to homosexuality, though there is something "wrong" with a murderer, clearly).

So unless you can start to crack that influence that the fundies have over the sheep, it doesn't seem like you're going to make a lot of progress.

Eh. I think there's been some. If you were to say to a moderate who believed being gay was a sin "Oh yeah sure, that's right. Let me tell you it was my life's dream to be thought of as evil, dirty, sinful and a terrible person by all of society. That's exactly what I said the moment I hit puberty. Please, God, make me gay!", you can put a chink in their armor (I've had personal experience with this one, so it does work). That chink can grow into a greater sense of empathy if properly watered and fed.

Obviously I realize that despite this, gays have made progress towards equal rights. But it seems from my (perhaps historically limited) viewpoint, that the remaining battles are made that much more difficult by the fundamentalist backlash.

I think John Stewart said it best a while back, though of course I will fuck it up because I don't remember precisely how he said it. Basically, he said that you can't stop it. Society has slowly been getting more open and more progressive over time. The conservatives continue to try and stop it, but they keep being overrun. This is really uncharacteristically hopeful of me, but I do think there's a slow progression towards accepting gays within society (The latest republican issues and how they accept them privately being a start). It'll take time, but I'm sure the fundies will be marginalized in this issue as well.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-10-15 03:08pm

Fools like R.M. Shultz make me especially mad, since I know first hand what homophobic twats are like: homophobes are among the most vile, sociopathic, reactionary and retarded wastes of carbon particles I ever had the misfortune to come across in my entire life. Why hate somebody for something they were born with?! How do gay couples pose a threat to society at large?!

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-10-16 10:17pm

sketerpot wrote:If you establish that sexual orientation is not a choice, it becomes much easier to make anti-gay assholes look like the bigoted fuckwads they are. In public.

If bigots are too ashamed to admit their views in public for fear of ridicule and/or booing and hissing, that helps keep the bigotry from propagating and minimizes the damage it can do.

Or, it could just lead to the bigots saying "it's a disorder, let's give them 'therapy' to fix it!"

Turin · Post by **Turin** » 2006-10-17 10:17am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Or, it could just lead to the bigots saying "it's a disorder, let's give them 'therapy' to fix it!"

Thank you DPDP, I think you hit upon exactly what I was trying (but maybe not succeeding) at getting at.

It was only somewhat recently that homosexuality was de-classified as a mental disorder. But by saying, "well, the research shows that's its not a choice but innate," don't we really end up in the same position? Obviously, there's a scientific difference between "this is aberrant psychology" and "this is the result of genetics", but that's an awfully subtle difference for the average Joe.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 2006-10-19 08:17pm

Turin wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:Or, it could just lead to the bigots saying "it's a disorder, let's give them 'therapy' to fix it!"
Thank you DPDP, I think you hit upon exactly what I was trying (but maybe not succeeding) at getting at.

It was only somewhat recently that homosexuality was de-classified as a mental disorder. But by saying, "well, the research shows that's its not a choice but innate," don't we really end up in the same position? Obviously, there's a scientific difference between "this is aberrant psychology" and "this is the result of genetics", but that's an awfully subtle difference for the average Joe.

Well if it's biological and not pyschological, wouldn't treating it be akin to treating the pigment of one's skin?

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2006-10-19 08:44pm

If it's biological, then that means there intelligent designer, aka GOD, made people that way on purpose, and it's not wrong. Therefore, they've been wrong, and there faith is called into question. The bible is called into question for it's homophobic statements. If it was wrong about this, what else is it wrong about?

If it's a choice, it's clearly stated in the bible gay = against God, so there hatemongering is morally and religiously justified.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-10-19 09:21pm

Solauren wrote:If it's biological, then that means there intelligent designer, aka GOD, made people that way on purpose, and it's not wrong.

Sin entered the world, blah blah blah...

Alternatively.... predestination.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2006-10-19 09:35pm

Turin wrote: It was only somewhat recently that homosexuality was de-classified as a mental disorder. But by saying, "well, the research shows that's its not a choice but innate," don't we really end up in the same position? Obviously, there's a scientific difference between "this is aberrant psychology" and "this is the result of genetics", but that's an awfully subtle difference for the average Joe.

The following elements are of particular importance for the definition of a mental disorder:

* Personal harm and suffering
* Abnormality (statistical, social, individual)
* Limitations or disabilities in what a person can perform
* Danger for others or the individual him/herself

In most instances more than one of these elements have to occur at the same time.

The bottom line is, if you call homosexuality a biological factor, you still can't pin it as a mental disorder due to the above listings. There is no innate personal harm or suffering save for what society itself places on it. It sure as hell isn't statistically or socially abnormal, it doesn't limit a person, and a person isn't more of a danger to themselves or others because of it.

What it comes down to is what Solauren said. The hate of homosexuality is rooted in religion as it is. A biological reason for it shatters the number one reason they hold to it being wrong (besides conditioned fear). The biological stance is the more effective one.

Look at it from the worst case scenario. If fundies could prove that homosexuality is a choice, then their beliefs would call for the extermination of said homosexuals. The Bible, while not saying so directly, heavily implies (and fundies certainly believe) that it is a choice. Thus if choice=death. If it's biological, then the key becomes to "save" them by trying to "fix" them. Exterminating them becomes about as moral, even to a fundie, as murdering all people with mental disorders. Neither is good, I'll grant you, but one has a level of empathy that the other doesn't have.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-20 12:18pm

CaptJodan wrote:What it comes down to is what Solauren said. The hate of homosexuality is rooted in religion as it is. A biological reason for it shatters the number one reason they hold to it being wrong (besides conditioned fear). The biological stance is the more effective one.

Not necessarily. Calvinists believe that free will is an illusion and that God pre-ordained the kind of things you would do in life and whether you would go to Heaven or Hell before you were even born. Yet that never stopped Calvinists from advocating harsh treatment of people they deemed "sinners". It's all "God's will".

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2006-10-20 04:42pm

IF someday science was able to find a "Gay Gene" and it WAS shown that being Homosexual was indeed something you where born with, I doubt the fundies would change their tune much at all.

Indeed like other inate things they don't like, they would most likely adopt a "It's yet another test of God!" and argue that 'God made you gay, so you could prove your worth by resisting homosexual urges!"

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-10-20 04:45pm

Crossroads Inc. wrote:IF someday science was able to find a "Gay Gene" and it WAS shown that being Homosexual was indeed something you where born with, I doubt the fundies would change their tune much at all.

Indeed. As we saw with R.M. Schultz, the fundies would simply change their tune (and, in my experience, most conservative Christians already are changing it) to, "The desire to do it is innate, but the choice to do it is conscious, so there's no reason they should be permitted that choice."