Why argue that homosexuality isn't a choice?

Great Debates
1

One of the major arguments that gay-rights advocates present is that homosexuality isn’t a “choice”, but a hereditary characteristic akin to hair or skin color. This is, as I understand the current scientific consensus, probably correct. However, it appears that gay rights groups place a lot of weight on this point. I may well be mistaken, but if this is so - why bother?

It seems entirely beside the point to expend resources trying to convince people that homosexuality isn’t a choice. The reason that gay people should have the same rights as straight ones, and be protected from discrimination, isn’t that it’s an inborn condition. The reason is that there is nothing wrong with being gay - and since there’s nothing wrong with being gay, it simply doesn’t matter whether it’s choice or genetic or what have you. No one would ascribe any moral weight to the color of my hair, and no one cares whether my hair color is the result of genes or dye - why don’t gay rights groups focus on driving that point home? Why take on the additional, and needlessly distracting, scientific fight?

2

IIRC it is because one of the legal protections afforded is the application of “Strict Scrutiny” or “Intermediate Scrutiny”. One of the components of this legal protection is that your status is inherent and unchangeable (although religion gets in there despite it being a choice).

If gay rights advocates can say to the court that being gay is as unchangeable as being black or male/female they stand a better chance for the higher levels of scrutiny to apply.

So far the courts have been reluctant to grant sexual orientation this more powerful tool and so far want to opt for the absurdly easy (as a bar the state needs to overcome) rational basis test. There seems to be some notion of a “rational basis with teeth” or “rational basis plus” test which would sit somewhere between rational basis and intermediate scrutiny that the courts might opt to adopt for sexual orientation.

IANAL

3

I dont think its so much the pro gay side making a big deal about it not being a choice as the fact that they HAVE to counter the anti gay side that thinks it is.

Because if they (the anti-gay crowd) think it is a choice and that its also morally wrong, thats a pretty damn strong combination to fight against. You really HAVE to IMO fight both of those.

4

A lot of gay rights advocacy has historically been reactive. We argue against models of sexual orientation that our opponents have put forward. One of the more popular of those models in the past has been the “choice” model, that we choose to be homosexual.

To our opponents, that is important, because it means that a greater acceptance of homosexuality will lead to more young people “choosing” to be gay. And to those people who oppose gay rights, being gay is NOT okay. Period. They believe that the only way to prevent their children and grandchildren (and sometimes their husbands or wives) from abandoning stuffy old heterosexuality and jumping the fence to the FUN side of the street is to prevent homosexuality from being accepted.

That’s more or less become ingrained in the gay rights movement now. And it IS pretty important to the acceptance of sexual orientation as a “suspect class” in jurisprudence, which is also a goal of the movement.

5

Related to this, a former coworker tried to argue that homosexuality is based on what you do, not what you want to do. This allowed him to neatly side step the arguement as to why God made homosexuals line of debate. Once you define it as only the act, it became choice and therefore not subject to protection.

I didn’t share his perspective.

6

Because the point you assert as a given- “The reason is that there is nothing wrong with being gay - and since there’s nothing wrong with being gay, it simply doesn’t matter whether it’s choice or genetic or what have you.”- is in fact what conservatives dispute. If sexual orientation is truly determined at a biological level, then discussions about it are on a different level than discussions about any other sexual behavior, such as whether you’re into bondage porn or not.

7

Because there are groups out there like Exodus and NARTH who push the conversion agenda.

Because innate qualities, such as sex or race, tend to be protectable statuses.

Because there’s just a lot of ignorance out there on sexuality.

Because the Torah/Bible/Quran/Dianetics et al state that homosexuality is immoral.

Sometimes science needs to step in when emotions and irrationality are involved.

8

The idea that it is a choice is absurd. One of the strongest drives animals have is to have children and pass their DNA on to the future. It is a matter of life and death in many species. Do people think someone just decides not to do that casually.
Then there is the bonus of being discriminated against in employment and most social interactions. You can get beat up and killed and rejected off hand by many. You are the butt of jokes and hated by people who have never met you. Then of course you are hated by “religious people” who publicly assail you.
That is not much of a choice to make.

9

I think you are correct in saying that one of the largest anti-gay reasons is that it’s an immoral choice, but by arguing that it isn’t immoral or that it isn’t a chocie, you’ve essentially conceded that it is okay to legislate based on morality. The argument shouldn’t be whether or not homosexuality is a choice or whether or not it’s immoral, you cannot win those arguments.

So my suggestion would be not to say that it isn’t a choice, but rather more of a response of, even if it is, why does it matter? It doesn’t hurt anyone, why does it matter? And as long as we’re going to legislate morality, why are we focusing on homosexuality and not on more moral rules that aren’t legislated that affect significantly more people, like lying?

10

Religious people claim the bible says gays are evil. Since they believe god wrote the bible it can not be wrong. That leaves them in a tough spot. If people are born gay, then god makes evil people. They have to reject that gays are born that way. they have to reject young people being and feeling different from childhood. They have to reject any and all evidence in order to keep their faith which is a huge contradiction with the obvious proof that life and science offer. I think it is sad they have to live such a lie to keep a wrong and distorted faith.

11

Sigh…The drive is to have SEX, not to pass on DNA. Producing children is the potential RESULT of our sex drive. This is akin to saying it is absurd to have sex with someone who is infertile.

12

I agree with the OP. There are bad choices and there are bad things that people are simply born with. The question of whether or not homosexuality is “bad” or not to me is independent of whether it is nature vs. nurture.

13

One additional reason is that not that long ago a standard bigot’s position was that gays should not be allowed to teach, since they might infect the kids. If gayness is genetically (or determined in utero) this isn’t an issue. I haven’t heard this position explicitly expressed much anymore, but I suspect it is still out there.

14

A nitpick, but “not a choice” does not necessarily imply “genetic”. It could be influenced by the hormonal environment of the womb, for instance, or by external environmental pressures after birth, and still not be a choice. And it’s certainly not entirely determined by pre-natal conditions: Identical twins aren’t always the same orientation.

15

This is true - one of the requirements for heightened scrutiny under equal protection analysis is that the characteristic is immutable.

You need…

  1. To be a distinct or insular minority
  2. Possession of an immutable trait
  3. Have a history of discrimination
  4. Be powerless to protect oneself through the democratic process.

The choice argument definitely impacts 2 here. 4 is probably where the battle will be fought, IMHO.

What is fascinating about anti-gay legislation and government action is that it really hasn’t proven possible to define “gay” in a manner which holds a great degree of water. It’s easy to say “no gay marriage” because you are actually saying “no same sex marriage.” Similarly it has been possible to criminalize gay sex. But when it comes to immigration restrictions, you get into a big problem as to what “gay” actually is. Then again, racist legislation had a similar problem in the past.

16

While I heartily approve of any argument that might advance the cause of sexual equality, the “genetic” argument carries some awkwardness. If we advance the notion that sexuality is inborn, then we are stuck with the probability that its a genetic error.

Reproduction is the Prime Directive, its hard-wired from the git-go. Has to be, otherwise, wouldn’t happen. There is little if any advantage to the individual organism, reproducing is frequently a disadvantage for the individual organism: it is dangerous, time consuming, etc. If we were not genetically impelled to do it, we probably wouldn’t. It appears to be a peculiarity of our species that reproduction carries a “pleasure bonding” component, so that sex may be somewhat divorced from reproduction, it has its own inherent reward: it feels good.

But then it follows that homosexuality is a mistake, homosexuals are mutants who had no choice in their mutation. We cannot blame them just as we cannot blame someone for being hemophiliac, or colorblind. But then we can’t quite go all the way to the “there’s nothing wrong with being gay” argument, because we’ve already tacitly admitted that there is.

And then there’s the fact that, sometimes, homosexual behavior is sort of a choice, there being no other available outlets. Cabin boys and prison bitches, for two instances.

And it also opens us to the wretched comparison with pedophilia, which, likely, is equally inborn and non-voluntary. We are not ever, ever going to permit baby-fuckers to pursue their inclinations, why then should we permit homosexuals to do so. (Like I said, a wretched argument, but it will and has been used…)

Of course, the trump card for that is that homosexuality takes place between consenting adults, and its nobody else’s beeswax so long as they don’t scare the horses. And I think that is the best argument. Whether inborn or no, voluntary or no, its nobody else business so long as no one is harmed.

Stick to your best argument, and don’t get distracted. So long as someone is not actively malicious or criminal, they deserve the dignity and freedom we afford each other.

17

Actually there people are studying this and it seems there may be a biological advantage to being gay. Or rather being gay itself is not a biological advantage for the species but something that the genetics help in reproduction up to a point. Some few tip over the line and become gay but not too many and those who don’t have a reproductive advantage.

This would explain why a trait that you would think should be recessive and bred out of the population remains. A trait other species share as well.

And…

18

A nitpick, but identical twins usually are somewhat different epigenetically. Different methylation patterns can produce different outcomes. And, behavioral differences can influence epigenetic patterns. This could explain sexual differences between identical twins.

19

Well, there’s the obvious one of “it’s true”. :wink:

Really, any unpleasing (or pleasing) act is made more intense by to what extent the actor does it of their own free will. For those who dislike gay people or any of the implications or results of homosexuality in society, it is far more likely to evolve into a stronger position if it’s considered that it’s not a choice; if gay people don’t have any choice in the matter, then it’s an unfortunate necessity to deal with, but if they do, then it’s a deliberate selection. So arguing the point can be defended on the idea that hopfully it’ll lead to less dislike. And leading on from this on the same level is the idea that if they are choosing to do this, what could their motivation be? A question which might itself end up with bad asribed positions.

Other than that, i’d agree of the perception of the danger of conversion, and add the flipside of that; if being gay is a choice, then by not “selecting” it a person can feel morally or ethically superior in themselves.

20

Bear in mind that there are traits that definitely do negatively affect reproduction and that we don’t know what compensating advantages might keep them in the gene pool. Schizophrenia is an example. We definitely don’t know everything there is to know about what can keep a trait around in the gene pool even though that trait makes an individual reproduce less than those without it. There could be some still-undiscovered mechanism that keeps homosexuality in the gene pool.

The counter-argument here is that so are certain skin and eye colors, in particular environments. Dark skin in an environment where there’s not a lot of sunlight means you’re more likely to suffer from vitamin D deficiency. Light skin, eyes, and hair in a sunny environment makes you more vulnerable to sunburning and skin cancer (as probably everybody knows by now).

There’s also the “so what” argument. If being gay is a genetic mistake, why not treat a gay person the same way you’d treat anybody else who is infertile? It’s not as if being gay is the only possible reason why someone might not be able to reproduce.