Several people referred me to Huck on the Daily Show yesterday. Good stuff. But here's one thing that's been boggling my mind lately. The case for/against gay marriage is hung-up on this idea of choice--i.e. we should frown on gay marriage because it's a deviant lifestyle. Or we shouldn't frown on it because it isn't a lifestyle, it's a biological fact. This is where the comparisons with race come in. But I always hated this argument. Whenever people say, "You should not discriminate against people because they didn't chose to be black," I hear the mild tones of wild liberal condescension.
Implicit in that logic is a kind of judgment, the notion that if I could choose, I obviously would choose to be white. But what if I just like being black? What if I could choose and would still choose black? Ditto for homosexuality. So what if you do choose to be gay? I understand that a lot of the science says you don't, but why do we accept this implicit idea that heterosexuality is, necessarily, what everyone would chose?
I'm not trying to minimize the bias and trauma that must come from being out, but a basic extension of humanity, a belief that those who aren't like me actually are like me, says that to be gay has to be more than coping with living beneath the boot of the ignorant. It's always about more than getting your ass kicked, no? What if you actually love the "more than?" What if it is who you are and what you choose?
Anyway, here's Huck...
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
What makes me crazy about this guy and all the religious right is their rhetoric about how we are trying to change 5000 years of what marriage is. I thought Stewart did a good job of trying to point out that marriage has run the gamut from polygamy to a business contract to it's current incarnation. He was trying to get Huckabee to admit that the definition is constantly changing, but Huck just wouldn't bite.
"why do we accept this implicit idea that heterosexuality is, necessarily, what everyone would chose?"
I hope this is changing, but for people who are gay, before they come out, they do not want to be. The reasons, I've heard, have less to do with wanting a hetero relationship and more to do with dealing with society--close family and friends.
Thanks for making this point & making it eloquently. I agree absolutely - I understand the tactical value of the argument from biology, but in the long run, it's a dead end. If someone isn't going to respect your humanity based on the choices you make as well as the way you're born, their respect was never sincere to begin with.
And "What if it is who you are and what you choose?" Well, that could appliy to Obama to some extent, doesn't it? Obama is black, but he also chooses to be.
The lifestyle or choice argument is usually a loser in any issue because people who disapprove of that particular choice will use it as a cudgel - if it's merely something you "choose" to do, you can then "choose" not to do it, hence the stupid insistence that homosexuality can be "cured", or you can be gay as long as you "choose" not to act on your desires, etc etc.
So what if you do choose to be gay?
Indeed. Though the science and gay people themselves persuasively argue otherwise, what if it were a choice? You know what that changes? Nuthin'.
Either way, this pie chart remains the same.
(Repeal DADT early and cleanly and move on. Big bennies to Obama if he does.)
"Implicit in that logic is a kind of judgment, the notion that if I could chose, I obviously would chose to be white. But what If I just like being black? What if I I could chose and would still chose black? Ditto for homosexuality."
It's the choosing that's problematic. Choosing typically involves picking the better of two options. I think the point you're really making is that one isn't any better than the other.
P.S. You need to check you tense: choose vs chose.
Not a great comparison, I don't think. For those of us who believe in Darwin and evolution, I think there has to be acknowledgement of the mechanics of reproduction. So when talking about Darwin and survival versus homosexuality and inability to procreate, I think (like it or not) heterosexuality wins out in the evolutionary game. So choice based on societal blackballing is irrelevant. Choice based on evolution is clear: it's heterosexuality.
By acknowledging that heterosexuality is the evolutionary choice, therefore nobody, biologically chooses to be gay, you are not denigrating homosexuality or succumbing to "liberal condescension." You're simply stating a fact that Mike Huckabee's constituency fails to believe or understand: It's not a choice to be gay.
Stop complicating shit up, unnecessarily.
A side point, I think Huckabee did better in that debate than the weakness of the argument should have allowed him. I think that may be what Coates was getting at as to why he is scary. He manages to come off as nice while pushing a view that is discriminatory on its face.
More to the point raised here, I think given contentious issues like those surrounding homosexuality and abortion among others, there is a tendency to tacitly acknowledge that there are some issues that are unbridgeable because of where people are coming from, and so to look at alternate lines of argument that would get around them.
The reasons that gay marriage should be legal have nothing to do with whether homosexuality is a choice. But it is pretty clear that one is not going to win the day (at least in the short run) with the argument that gay marriage should be legal because there is simply nothing immoral about homosexual behavior. So instead people think they can get in through the back door by showing that the anti view is unreasonable because it is punishing people for something that is not a choice.
On the other side, the people opposed to gay marriage want to show that it is a choice simply because they are looking for anything to break the analogy between homosexuality and race with regards to civil rights. Press such a person on whether homosexuality should have the civil rights protection of religion, which is clearly more of a choice than orientation, and you may be amazed at how silly the attempts at providing a disanalogy become.
On the other hand, I do think that few people, particularly in the bible belt, would freely choose to be gay if they had a choice. Who wants to choose to be the object of hatred and ridicule? And unlike race and religion in which one usually takes pride in ones background and sees it as part of oneself, presumably most homosexuals are still born to heterosexual parents. So if homosexuality was actually a choice, homosexuals would not have been rejecting an essential part of themselves had they chosen to be straight in the fashion that someone with jewish parents who chooses to be christian or someone with black parents who opted to be white (if possible) would be doing.
"o when talking about Darwin and survival versus homosexuality and inability to procreate, I think (like it or not) heterosexuality wins out in the evolutionary game."
That doesn't really make sense. If a gay "gene" exists, then it's about an individual's genetic make-up. Heterosexual couples will/do produce gay children.
"before they come out, they do not want to be"
Um, true for some, not for others. Like so many generalizations. Including the choice thing. There actually aren't two separate biologically determined groups: gay and straight. There are many many people who fall between the groups, like pretty-gay-but-a-little-bit-straight folks and half-and-half folks and every other combo. And for us, there is definitely choice, sometimes many choices throughout our lives. So yeah, TNC, you got it right. I can do the boys but doing the girls works way better for me (psychologically, not physically), so there are many fabulous reasons for me to choose to be gay, despite ignorant boots.
My best arguement for why it isn't a choice is when these right wing ministers or politicians lay claim to saying they have been cured. Yet they end up in a rest stop or a gay bar. If it were a choice, these are people who have every motivation to simply choose the straight option.
To me, whether you are gay through a choice, a gene, a chemical reaction in utero, or because of a smothering mother, you should be entitled to the same rights I have as a straight guy. Also, I wish gay marriage were legal in Michigan, then I could blame it for my divorce.
I've spent the whole morning plotting ways to essentially beat Huckabee over the head with something, anything. He's such a nice guy! If gay people could just prove their worthiness, he'd be perfectly willing to give them a chance. And it's very, very important that we all acknowledge that he is in no way a homophobe. This is not about hate, this is about wanting what's best for children.
The whole thing reminds me of that Eisenhower line, "These are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown Negroes." I know that it's a mistake to constantly equate marriage equality and segregation, and I agree that it's an analogy that gets overused and isn't always useful....but lets just say when I see a good-hearted southerner sounding genteel and polite-as-can-be as he kicks a minority group in the face, that feels eerily familiar.
to be gay has to be more than coping with living beneath the boot of the ignorant. It's always about more than getting your ass kicked, no? What if you actually love the "more than?" What if it is who you are and what you choose?
Beautifully said. And so true.
I do wonder, though, how many folks who are not already on the same page would accept the argument. I think it would require a big paradigm shift.
I have a hard time theorizing this idea because I can't actually imagine being attracted to women. And I like being rebellious to some degree. I think I'd still be gay. Maybe it's because I'm in love with a guy and fear a Spider-Man/Mephisto thing where that gets erased like it never happened. I don't want to have never loved him.
I find the "choosing" argument though is really a balm to sooth the conscience of those who want to justify discrimination. Just like that dumbass saying on "The View" that the gays haven't had enough violent clashes to have earned equal rights, or however he phrased it. Excuses. Like there's some sort of mathematical equation of suffering that must be followed to achieve liberty.
I do find myself really thinking about the fears about gay marriage harming straight marriage. I think gay culture thinkers/pundits haven't done a really good job on dealing with this issue. I haven't in the past. But when you look at folks like Larry Craig, you can start seeing it as a literal issue rather than some broad cultural fear. Gay marriage does threaten particular marriages, of guys who have been living in the closet. The realization of where the true choice lies, in the ability to act on your desires, is where the subtext of the fight is. We really don't have a sense of what will really happen culturally when gay marriage eventually (inevitably) becomes legal throughout most of the U.S. There will be some significant culture changes, and we're not figuring out how to bridge that divide when ignore those concerns.
That doesn't really make sense. If a gay "gene" exists, then it's about an individual's genetic make-up. Heterosexual couples will/do produce gay children.
Not only that, but gay people do their fair share of reproducing.
Word.
To answer your question, it is. The way i see it, being gay IS a lifestyle choice and being homosexual is NOT. Coming from a gay Black guy, I didn't necessarily choose to be physically and emotional attracted to men, but I most certainly chose to accept that fact and live as an out gay man. This adds to the confusion we all feel about sexuality. In the end, we really don't have a good grasp of the relationship between our identity vs our biology vs our lifestyle.
I enjoyed Huck's interview with Jon Stewart. I genuinely like the guy and they argued in good faith. I mean I disagree with some of his points, but I don't believe he is a homophobe or some random bigot. He has a particular world view that is old school and not very modern.
This whole fight is more between the traditional vs the modern definitions of marriage. The traditional being for procreation, specific gender roles, etc. The modern being a contract (albeit through love) between two equal partners. It's hard to square same-sex marriage with that "traditional" definition. But it more than satisfies the modern definition. To leave gays out of this modern definition is what feels like discrimination. What these "traditionalists" have failed to accept is that marriage has already fundamentally changed. Now, they are trying to roll it back. In the entirety of human history, attempts to impede progress and modernity have rarely succeeded.
"Gay men love sucking cock."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttEJRqYrlNE
I think the reason we default to the "it's not their choice" argument is because two of the fundamental ideas behind America are that all people are created equal and that we shouldn't be judged/punished for things we did not choose or had no control over (even if those ideas aren't always borne out in our laws or people's actions). By consequence, we routinely judge and punish people for their actions if we as a society have decided that those actions are not acceptable.
So the point of the "it's not a choice" argument is that the question of whether being gay (or black, or female, or whatever) is unacceptable and worthy of judgment or punishment shouldn't even be up for debate in the first place. Because that's not how our ideal America is supposed to work. If it's a choice, we're implicitly (or perhaps not so implicitly) allowing a national referendum on whether it's ok to be gay.
The problem, of course, is that "it's not their choice" can be misinterpreted as "it's not their fault," especially if interpreters start with the (however latent) assumption that there is in fact something deviant or subpar about being gay. I don't think that's the intention of the argument, though. When I say "it's not a choice" as an argument for, say, gay marriage, what I mean is that all people are created equal, whereas all actions are not. Since being gay is a part of one's person and not an action one takes, it should be protected under that umbrella of equality regardless of whether Pat Robertson thinks it's icky or godless.
"The modern being a contract (albeit through love) between two equal partners. It's hard to square same-sex marriage with that "traditional" definition. But it more than satisfies the modern definition."
Also, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that there are religious v civil marriages. It's one thing for a church to deny marriage service, it's another for the state to deny that right.
Well said. I've often thought the same thing about the oft-stated need to be 'color-blind'. It's as though saying "well, yeah, being black is a problem, but we'll overlook that in the interests of... blah, blah blah". It's actually a ridiculous argument when you stop to think about it for more than two seconds... Same goes for 'don't ask, don't tell.'
Peter Gomes, who is black AND gay, has been heard to say 'you're not chosen for the task because you are equipped for the task. You are equipped for task because you are chosen.' Words to live by...
I agree with Will above that it is indeed a lifestyle choice. We all have that choice. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals at some point make a decision to act on their feelings on a regular basis. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the option to not act on their feelings (celibacy). As for choosing to be gay or straight, however, is not their.
There may not be any genetic thing there (is there a "gene" for attraction to the same/opposite sex?) but the biological attraction is definitely there I think.
TNC,
Obviously it's not my place to tell you when and when not to feel condescended to, but I should note that - at least in its modern era - the law has placed a heavy emphasis on the presence of "immutable characteristics" in determining which level of judicial scrutiny a particular group ("classification") should be given under Equal Protection analysis. And, as Meg notes above, I don't think the reason for this is condescension, or the assumption that minorities would prefer to be white. Rather, in the spirit of fairness, it's the law's attempt to ensure that, if a government regulation makes distinctions based on immutable characteristics, that it only does so pursuant to a "compelling state interest." That is why government regulations which classify based on race, alienage, or ethnic origin almost always fail.
The simplistic evolutionary argument is bogus. Why don't women drop dead after menopause? Because there is an evolutionary advantage to having wise older adult women in the tribe. Scientific research shows that homosexual behavior is very common among other animals. If the trait was truly anti-adaptive it would have been weeded out.
And we all a little worse off because of this. "What's your problem? If you have nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." and the slow death of liberty by a thousand cuts. We've become a passive citizenry, convinced by both the left and the right that we have to "find" our rights in the Constitution; that we have to make our case, that "there's some sort of mathematical equation of suffering that must be followed to achieve liberty."
It's bullshit.
Not to make light of your extremely thoughtful post...but welcome to gay PRIDE, TNC!!
What we need to do is get you a place to hang at NYC Pride 2009 - calendar it for June.
I long ago realized that while I did not choose to be a homosexual, if there was a pill that would make me a heterosexual I would chose not to take it. So for me it is who I am and who I chose to be.
The thing that's always bothered me about the "not a choice" position on gay rights is that it implicitly concedes that it might be morally wrong to choose to be gay or to have homosexual relationships. As someone who's batted from both sides of the plate, I'm offended by this. More importantly, I think it's a flawed and dangerous argument.
The 'not a choice' argument is based on a premise that's attractive, which is that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on traits or characteristics that are not volitional. But that's beside the point. Anti-gay folks don't hate gays for being gay -- they hate them for doing gay things. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's the conduct, stupid. Saying, in essence, that you 'can't help it' isn't going to deprive these people of arguments in favor of penalizing or discouraging 'homosexual lifestyles.' After all, people don't choose mental illness either, and it hasn't been all that long since homosexuality was treated as a variety of mental illness. And while we don't hate people for being mentally ill, we try to cure them, and we try to control the behaviors that arise from their illness.
See the problem? Unless you argue directly for a protected right to engage in the conduct (as opposed a protected right in some kind of immutable status), it's very possible you're not going to get either.
TNC,
You make a good point that, even if homosexuality or skin color were choices (they're not), it's unfair to assume that people would choose to be straight and white because of some notion that those are superior traits. However, I disagree with your concern over liberal condescension. Gay and lesbian people have faced discrimination for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Same is true for the black community. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if gay people could choose a lifestyle that helps them avoid facing a lifetime discrimination and prejudice, they might do so. Let's face it: Who would want to wake up every day and be made to feel inferior to the rest of the world for something they never chose in the first place?
I don't think that viewpoint is condescending towards gay and lesbian couples, it's merely a belief that takes into account the history of bitter resentment towards homosexuality. In fact, many gay and lesbian individuals hide their sexuality from society and actively try to convince themselves that they are straight due to fear of being ostracized, and not necessarily because they believe that being straight = being a better person.
I'll grant that even if it were a choice, it shouldn't matter one way or the other, and ideally a person around them should never be made to feel ashamed of their racial or sexual identity. But society has to step up to the plate too.
So very, very true. And it's why both arguments are necessary.
If orientation is bourne out as innate, then most fair-minded people will come around to accepting that there's no more control over it than control over being born with a spleen.
But at the same time, sexual behavior is behavior, and to the extent that we can control our actions and overcome how we act on our instinctual drives, there will remain a belief that a choice to act on homosexual drives is a bad choice and should be punished accordingly, let alone have any place in civilized society. I question the effectiveness of starting with an argument couched in the more lofty notion of freedom of choice (much as I'm 100% on board with it), because that keeps it so . . . theoretical. It's easier to defend an idea than to confront the living result of it.
I think you might have to work your way up to it, since there's a lot more unpacking of raw emotions that don't like to get unpacked.
I went to high school with two girls who were identical twins. One was straight and one was gay. So, to whatever extent biology affects sexual orientation, it's not 100%. QED.
This is meant to support TNC's broader point: whether or not it's a choice shouldn't really matter. I support gay rights no less because some free will may or may not be involved.
Worth mentioning (again) that it was only five (5!) years ago that it was finally conceded that the US Constitution protected the right same-sex couples to have sex.
What Tony said.
Choice vs biology should be irrelevant. Religion is a choice, yet people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. Stewart tried to make this point, but Huck rebuffed him.
That being said, if John Stewart, who is far more eloquent than me, cannot make him see the simplicity of this argument, then I fail to see how someone like Huckabee is ever to be swayed.
"The reasons, I've heard, have less to do with wanting a hetero relationship and more to do with dealing with society--close family and friends. "
Certainly that was my experience. I was married , had the hetero relationship - the self-lubricating feature is nice but absolutely nowhere even close to making up for the aggravation.
"Not only that, but gay people do their fair share of reproducing. "
Heh. "Been there, done that, got the kid."
" So when talking about Darwin and survival versus homosexuality and inability to procreate, I think (like it or not) heterosexuality wins out in the evolutionary game."
Only if you are talking to someone who is completely ignorant of biology and specifically human evolution. Evolution has selected for non-procreation in humans - the most obvious and uncontrovertible example is menopause, as mentioend above - for a very simple reason. The human reproductiver strategy is for a few extremely survivable offspring, and that requires long childhoods. The lower the ratio of adults to young, the better the chances. So non-breeding grandmothers, uncles and aunts and so on improve a family's reproductive chances. They can be gay or maiden aunts or monks or nuns or whatever as long as they don't have kids of their own. It's counter-intuitive only if you are of another species.
When it comes to tolerance for variant or deviant lifestyles, the obvious anlogy is religion, not ethnicity, and that will settle it, because we are queer for religion in this country; it's the ultimate sacred cow. The analogy even furnishes some sensible boundaries, so polygamy is unacceptable in this society even for Muslims and Mormons, while communes are acceptable for Hutterites and everyone else.
" convinced by both the left and the right that we have to "find" our rights in the Constitution; that we have to make our case, that "there's some sort of mathematical equation of suffering that must be followed to achieve liberty."
AMEN, Tony. This comes out of the tactics that became necessary during the CRM, the invocation of past sufferings and tallying of injustices. It was perfectly reasonable in that context, but it has dropped weed seeds everywhere.
I do wish that people had a little more informed take on what "traditional marriagge" actually entailed. Dowries were a great idea - it kept people to marrying people on their own social and economic level, so there were no gold-digging divorce settlements, and both parties went into the marriage as social and economic equals - feminist heaven.
"And it's very, very important that we all acknowledge that he is in no way a homophobe. This is not about hate, this is about wanting what's best for children.
.........a good-hearted southerner sounding genteel...."
The good of the children. What irony - that was exactly the rationale behind funding at great cost in a poor, poor community an entire school separate system alongside the public school system - to keep young and impressionable children away from Protestant teachers and mandatory readings of the King James Bible in schools duting their most vulnerable years.
If I had my druthers, I'd be black, gay, and a little person. It would make it much, much easier to succeed in Hollywood.
Tony,
You raise good points, of course. The extension of what I was saying before is that this framework is outrageously unfair to homosexuals. Historically homosexuals have not been deemed a "suspect class," despite being a discrete an insular minority with relatively limited political power and a history of discrimination. This judgment probably relies largely on the belief that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic, and further upon the belief that homosexuality is inherently immoral. With these beliefs as baseline, it has always been easy for the government to say we can regulate gay marriage, because preventing it is rationally related to the legitimate state objective of protecting public morality (whatever that means).
It's bullshit, of course, but there is inherent evil in the Constitutional interpretation due to our racist/homophobic past.
Nolo,
The "conduct" of homosexual sex is protected under Lawrence v. Texas, provided its between consenting adults. That said, I think you're right that marriage rights - if ever acheived in the court - would likely rely on Due Process challenges (in that there is fundamental right to marriage, not extended to homosexuals yet) as opposed to Equal Protection (although that's the argument that won in MA), due to the current scrutiny framework.
My earlier bloviating wasn't a defense of the system as a whole (particularly as it currently relates to homosexuals) as much as saying that consideration of immutable characteristics doesn't necessarily have to be seen as condescending.
*snort*
I have, under the strain of aggravation, wondered if I wouldn't be happier being gay, but it just doesn't tickle my pickle, or at least not yet. The self-lubricating is good, but Eros makes it better!
My uncle's long-time companion has children and grandchildren. I don't know if people who don't know gay people would be more surprised by that, or by the fact that he was a battle-decorated Marine Corp NCO.
@CJH
You are aware that the California Supreme Court is, in considering homosexuality as a "suspect class", drawing comparisons to religion, not race, or gender.
I mean at this point in time why is the debate still of the order of well I think, and what if this, and my gut tells me that... I mean there should be some science to either strongly confirm or refute the nature vs. nurture argument on this. I mean if the argument is going to hinge on the idea that it is genetic, well youve got to be able to prove it convincingly so that you can smack the Huckkabees of the world down. I mean the reason why the Global Warming movement is moving forward at the pace that is is because even though there are plenty of deniers and even though it is frankly not in the economic interests of many people to be true, the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
I just keep hearing this debate and thinking we have to come harder.
"What if you actually love the "more than?" What if it is who you are and what you choose?"
Reading this again, I don't think this makes good sense. Isn't this really all about how individuals accepting themselves? If someone gave me the choice today to switch my sex, I wouldn't. Because I identify myself as female, which pretty much means I love being female. Period. I'd probably end up committing suicide if I was somehow forced into being male. I mean, you are your identity. Who you are (your identity) chooses you, not the other way around. What-if scenarios don't apply.
Being gay or straight is like being right or left-handed. There is no gene, but you are definitely born one way or the other. And some people's parents try to pray their kids into heterosexuality just like parents used to tie their kids left hand behind their back while they ate cereal.
Last year I made a film about a woman who never considered the possibility of loving a woman, until she met the "right" woman. She didn't think it was physically possible, she didn't think it was emotionally possible.
Was she born left handed, or right handed?
Re: the evolution argument
I read an article recently about a study which inferred that the genetic component of homosexuality worked in something of a dominant/recessive fashion. It found that close relatives of homosexuals tended to have higher rates of fertility. This would tend to imply that having part of the genetic traits (being heterozygous) which express as homosexuality confer real benefits in terms of evolutionary fitness. Obviously this is something that needs more study, but it offers a rather compelling reason for why homosexuality is a trait that has been carried through human history instead of being weeded out, as would likely be the case if it conferred no other benefits.
With all that said, I agree that the nature vs. nurture debate is once again pretty meaningless here. To begin with, it's likely a variety of traits that come together. This would explain why humans tend to fall somewhere on a spectrum of homo vs. hetero attraction instead of it being either/or. Secondly, there are compelling arguments for supporting homosexual rights (marriage, discrimination, etc.) whether it's choice, inbuilt or somewhere in between. Religion is definitely a choice (thank goodness for no longer having state religion) and the ability to choose religion (or none for that matter) is one of our most carefully guarded rights. Race (in all its complexity) is protected in all sorts of different ways (albeit with differing degrees of success). Why it's even a question in civil society has yet to make any kind of sense to me.
CJH, you're right, but it's a narrow protection. The "conduct" (i.e., consensual adult homosexual sex) protected under Lawrence is that the government can't criminalize consensual adult homosexual sex just because it's homosexual. Put another way, Lawrence keeps the government from treating consensual adult sex acts as illegal only when those acts are engaged in by same-sex partners. It's unclear whether Lawrence keeps your state or local government from passing laws that criminalize "sodomy" as long as they apply to everybody.
That being said, Lawrence was a good start, and the fact that the Supremes could go from Bowers v. Hardwick to Lawrence within my adult lifetime bodes well, I think, for the viability of arguments against making certain conduct (like marriage and adoption) illegal for some adult people and not others.
The "lifestyle choice" argument for opponents of gay rights won't change even if it's proven that homosexuality is purely biological.
You see - in their worldview, "choosing" to live a lie in a sham marriage is vastly superior morally to living as a gay man or woman. They are big, big fans of the closet; in fact, before the modern gay rights movement, we didn't see nearly as much polemic discussion about homosexuality even while it plainly existed and was practiced almost as widely as it is now.
In fact, in New York City, the urban homosexual lived with a man but simply paid lip service to the idea that they were "bachelor roommates". It was a dog whistle of sorts. These individuals kept their private lives private, and the "gay lifestyle" that so many bigots deride was nearly non-existent.
It took a couple of drag queens and street fairies (as they were called by the police), who couldn't "pass" as straight and were therefor subject to the most depraved abuse, to rise up in the Stonewall Riots and invent concepts like "gay", "lesbian", "closet", and "Gay Rights".
So you are completely right TNC, that it doesn't matter if it's biological or social or a choice or not - those who hate will justify their hate, regardless of quibbling things like facts and human rights.
"Was she born left handed, or right handed?"
She was ambidextrous. She had just never been challenged to use her other hand. That's an easy one.
NEXT!!!
As the person who started this let me clarify.
My point was that the Anti-Gay argument only works if being Gay is a Choice. I agree that it shouldn't matter, but we aren't going to get the Huckabees of the world to grasp that. But if being Black or Gay or Left-Handed, etc is the way you are born then there is absolutely no justification for denying full equal rights to someone for those reasons.
I was going to mention the same thing. SCOTUS went out of it way to avoid addressing heterosexual cocksucking, pussyeating and assfucking in Bowers (which was a gender nonspecific anti-sodomy law.) That's right my breeder brothers and sisters, our right enjoy oral and anal sex may or may not be protected by the Constiutiton. (Hell, for that matter Scalia specifically says he thinks the state has the power to stop you from wanking.)
And apologies to those of you who don't like the crude language, but from where I'm sitting, the "Ick Factor" is as much about collective "ick factor" with sex in general, especially the idea of sex for pleasure. Sex to make babies? Well okay, I guess it's not our fault we have to have sex to make babes. But sex to feel good? About ourselves and our lover? Naw, you can choose not to do that.
Sort of related, last week I discovered that when Google's SafeSearch is on you get 33 million returns for a SafeSearch for "penis" , but not a single SafeSearch return for 'clitoris'. The discovery made a minor internet sensation among people who care about these sorts of things.
And it all makes sense if you think about it as being about what you can't help doing verse what you can choose not to do. After all, no one really needs a clitoris. You can certainly make babies without one. I hear some places they're even regarded as troublesome, and just like at Google, the answer is simple. They cut them out.
Hmmm. Maybe it's because of my background, but I'm sort of a firm believer that either you can prove it, or its religion. Nothing wrong with religion, but if you want people to accept something without any scientific evidence to back your claim, you are asking for essentially a leap of faith.
Left
handed gene.
Or regarding homosexuality, stuff like this.
If it's innate, it's in the code, somewhere. Even absent the actual genetic marker, which could be hard to find and/or some complicated combination of markers that make it difficult to connect the dots there should be other scientific evidence. Genetics is relatively new and certainly is not the only branch of science. I just think that the scientific case needs to either be better communicated if it exists, or if it doesn't, there's work to be done.
@Green
There is some fear amongst the homosexual community that if a "gay gene" is ever found, a prenatal test will be developed to allow parents to abort potentially homosexual children. Hence why there was something a kerfluffle surrounding the research done here at OHSU about homosexuality in sheep.
I do wonder, if somehow this did end up being the case, which side people who are both anti-gay and anti-abortion would come down on.
As for this homo:
1.-) TNC is right in feeling certain condescension. This is even stronger with gays: "poor thing, he can't help it". Also, kind of unrelated to the post but I have taken stoically this crap more than once: "I didn't stop being your friend when I found out you were gay" (No, I don't take a stand every minute of my life)
2.-) I did not want to be gay growing up (70s and 80s) It caused me so much pain that I always thought I would kill myself if people would know my "secret." I used to fantasize about getting an injection and becoming straight. Of course as soon as I fell in love with a guy who fell for me that suicidal crap disappeared of my mind. It was too much fucking fun!
3.-) But then now, 44 years old, I wouldn't choose to be straight if they invented a "vaccine" to "cure" me. I love who I am know. Caetano Veloso, the Brazilian singer said it this way: "Cada um sabe a dor e a delícia de ser o que é" loosely translated as "Everyone knows the pain and the pleasure of being who they are"
Let everyone be.
Green,
There have been studies done. Most of them find trends, but no on/off gay/straight switch. There's significant evidence for something inborn, but some of it points towards genetics (such as identical twin studies) and some of it points towards conditions in the womb (women are more likely to have a gay son the more previous male pregnancies they've had).
Expecting something as complex as human attraction to be as easily scientifically explainable as brown eyes/blue eyes is kind of unrealistic, though. Don't you think?
Behold the power of love! :-)
Cheers Eduardo!
Eduardo,
I see your point, I guess I'm seeing it this way: the way to counter the Huckabees of the world who call it sin is to say it can't be because it is natural.
Yay Eduardo!!! And Tony -- I agree that a lot of the problem that traditionalists have with homosexuality is just a version of the problem they have with sex in general. Gays just have the misfortune of getting to serve as the embodied signifiers of what they're most scared of, which is sex for fun and pleasure.
@Tony:
Indeed! :-)
@Erik:
Well, it is true that it is natural and that it is not a choice. But I agree with TNC in that it shouldn't matter. And that when you say gay people should have the same rights as heterosexuals it should be because we are all humans and it really doesn't matter who you love. When you say gay people should have the same rights because they can't help to be who they are there's a hint of condescension. Like, they can't be heterosexuals (the preferred way) but poor things, they can't help it. Yeah, I didn't want to be gay but that's because Cuban society was terribly homophobic back then. In reality you are born gay, that's who you are and you most likely will like it just fine. It comes with a lot of good things too, believe me. As Caetano Veloso says, everyone one knows the pain and the pleasure of being who they are.
Kerry,
I don't expect it to be easily scientifically explainable, but I do expect it to be scientifically explainable. And I don't think easily should be a prereq.
And I guess if you scuttle the science because it's too hard to prove, what exactly is the argument to be made to those who don't already believe you?
The only one I see is to concede that it may or may not be a choice but that it shouldn't matter- i.e. what TNC said.
Eduardo,
Again I'm with you fully, but what I'm talking about is how we get people like Huckabee to agree that you should have the same rights
Although anecdote isn't proof, here goes...
I know one guy who felt that he was always gay, wanted to be straight, TRIED to turn straight, couldn't and eventually accepted that he was gay. Thats a vote for once gay, always gay.
OTOH, I know of one woman who started out straight, married, lived as wife for several years, had children, divorced, lived in a lesbian relationship for several years-and is now living with a guy. Last time I heard, she was pregnant.
I know of another woman who was straight, had a live-in boyfriend- and now has two girlfriends. She says that whether she is gay or straight depends on who she falls in love with.
From what I have observed, it seems that men are either gay or straight, whereas women can much more easily go back and forth-making it more or a lifestyle choice for them.
A scientist I admire says that we just don't know whether being gay is a preference, a weakness be guarded against, or simply part of normal human variation. I think he is exactly correct about that, with the proviso that it may be all three things , based on the individual- hardwired, an inclination , or free choice.
Whether or not homosexuality actually is genetic is really largely irrelevant to the debate. Race and gender are genetic and that information hasn't done anything to halt discrimination in those avenues. In fact, it's been the justification for other types of discrimination.
To focus on whether it's biological or not is to let the opposition dictate the terms of the argument. They've already got their arguments worked out if it is. It can be suppressed -- they claim. They've got organizations that try (and fail miserably) to do it now. For that matter, people will still believe it's a choice regardless of what science says. How many years have psychologists declared it's not a mental illness and some people still act like it is?
That's how we get to the "so what?" argument. Why should somebody want to be like this or like that.
So, if so many of us gays and gay-friendly folks agree that 'biology' is a weak or even counter-productive line of argument, then how can we start promoting more effective ways of arguing? Or perhaps its a different audience/demographic that we should be trying to persuade? For example, assuming there's a difference between the type of Christian who can cite and understand the historical context of Leviticus and the one who listens to a Joel Osteen sermon every Sunday, which arguments are going to get us further mileage? The argument about gay practice being the same as a religious freedom sounds like a good one, but can it catch on as a popular meme? Perhaps the simple exegesis may be more effective(e.g. God also outlawed not using more than 1 type of cloth, etc.). Or maybe we just need to wait...
eric k, just to be contrarian (or maybe not), I have to ask -- why is it that adult people have to justify to the Huckabees of the world who they choose to be in love with, have sex with, raise children with, or spend their lives with? I think it's incumbent on the Huckabees of the world to come up with a frikkin' coherent, comprehensible justification for believing *they* have the right to tell people who they can sleep with, marry, or raise children with. And the answer can't be "because my religion says so," because, as they say, that's weak sauce indeed. It also can't be "because it's always been that way." "Ick" isn't a good reason either.
Anybody who wants to stop other people from doing stuff that has nothing to do with them should, in any rational world, bear the burden of justifying their position. It shouldn't have to be up to gays and their allies to come up with a defense.
It doesn't matter. A lifestyle choice is a lifestyle choice. Whether that choice is influenced by genetics or not is a moot point. We shouldn't discriminate. And yet people do. That's human nature. The only thing we can do is try to make sure that discrimination doesn't make it into law.
I thank this blog for changing my opinion on this one. I used to believe that gay rights grew out of a biological determinism. I think it was a comment Tony made on an earlier section regarding prop 8 that began to open my eyes. I don't think it matters so much. I have seen too many well meaning people destroy the pride and self respect of others with comments such as "you can't help it your_______(fill in the blank)" to think that any amount of biological determinism holds weight.
Anyhow, dare I say it? I've been thinking for a long time that we might seriously need a spokesperson for the gays, too. Someone who can tell the world that we've changed our minds and we want to use a different argument from now on.
I nominate Ace and Gary.
nolo,
in a perfect world you'r right, but in this world the Huckabees vote, I think the courts should declare Gay Marriage legal based on the reasoning you state, but even if they did as witnessed in CA it can still be overturned by the voters.
@erick,
Left work. Now I am home. I think nolo says what I would basically would say at 5:53.
Coates is right, it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. Yes, I understand the argument about equality and preexisting conditions, but hear me out. Say that causal determinism is correct, and everyone does what they do because they cannot, by definition, do anything else. In that case, every action is based on a preexisting condition. If that was all that mattered, that would imply a murderer could claim to have the same right to do what it is he is genetically/environmentally predisposed to do (murder) because his murderous nature is no more a choice than my homosexuality. I happen to think this is in fact the case. However, there are conflicting rights with murder, whereas there just aren't any with gay marriage. The real reason why gay marriage should be legal is precisely that, it curtails no one's rights (predetermined or not), and even enhances the rights of others (gays). To say it's a matter of whether or not homosexuality is a choice completely misses the point. As Coates says, it implies that if it were a choice, then, and presumably only then, would it be OK to ban gay marriage. How non sequitor.
Hmmm...it's interesting to read all of these comments. I agree, it shouldn't matter for the determination of civil rights whether it is a choice or not. As many have stated, religion is a choice, and freedom of religion is protected. However, as a female who just had an extremely painful friendship with a guy in his late 20s who can't deal with being gay (in los angeles, in the entertainment industry, so not a traditionally homophobic environment) I can't help feeling like he was bogged down with the "Is it me? Is it a choice? And if it's a choice, is it the wrong one? Can I fight it?" I spent a year trying to help him with this, and he eventually just stopped speaking to me - cold turkey - I assume because he couldn't deal. The fact that so many people in society do seem to think it's a choice- and that it's an immoral one and that you can prevent yourself from acting on feelings - has got to wreak havoc on the minds of people trying to accept themselves. I think that choice or not, the message needs to be that it's okay to be who you are. I don't know quite how you do that.
That's one reason I'm so in support of gay marriage. Can you imagine how much difference it will make in the lives of young gays and lesbians if they grow up in a society in which they have the same possibilities as anyone else? THAT'S the way that it will change our culture, and that's 100% a good thing.
California, Prop 8: 52% for, 48% against.
Huckabee, 1:16 in the clip above:
"30 states have had it on the ballot, and in all 30 states it's passed, even in states like Californa that nobody would suggest are social conservatives..."
CNN poll, 8/29-8/31/08:
Pro choice 53%, pro-life 44% (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm)
So, shouldn't Huckabee be saying: "People have been polled, and throughout the country 53% are pro-choice..."
Oh... wait...
How easily they fool us, these politicians and preachers who present a veneer of cordiality. "He's such a nice guy!" we plebes exclaim, as they pretend to embrace Liberty, and then knife her in the back.
Sometimes evil says, "please," and "thank you."
@ eric k:
QUOTE: the way to counter the Huckabees of the world who call it sin is to say it can't be because it is natural.
I'm afraid that would be a nonstarter for the Huckabees of the world. There are lots of natural things (heterosexual sexual desire, for example) that can be sins based on the context. Even thoughts can be sins: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
I don't think you have to persuade these folks, for one thing. They will be, very soon, the minority. If they must be persuaded, I think the best line of reasoning is that it doesn't have to be a religious issue. After all, their objections are religious. Something like: It's a civil issue about rights afforded to couples by the state; it has nothing to do with anyone's church or their children.
Well said, TNC. A parallel argument that I've heard (more from black people than white) is that black people can't hide their skin color in the way homosexuals can hide their orientation. This is true, but also messed up - as if the same people who say this should or would choose to hide their blackness if they could.
@E
I'm sorry about your friend and that he lost you because of what you described. As for his case I believe that:
- He knows it is not a choice. If it were a choice he had made it long time ago.
- What is tormenting your friend --I think but you are never sure-- is that he has internalized that being gay is a bad thing.
- The reason he has internalized than being gay is wrong is because he has heard that in a thousand different ways since he was a boy.
- Whether it is a choice or not it is generally a proxy for whether gay people should be treated well or not. People in the side of the gays --and the gays themselves-- try to kind of justify our gayness by affirming "he can't help it". As someone said while commenting how well we received "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" you can forgive us for preferring condescendence to scorn. But when the discussion is whether is a choice or not we are talking whether our "original sin" can be pardoned or not. Once people stop thinking there is something wrong with being gay all the discussion about choice will be kind of interesting but not consequential at all
A while ago I asked a black dude here if he perceived his attraction to others to be choice or a given? He told me that he was attracted to white girls but has chosen not to.. live out that lifestyle. I do not know much about him but I am sure he would support a bill in favor of interracial marriage. Same with any white guy who is not into black chicks himself (for whatever reasons). Why? What does this mean? How did we get here?
Why can we not translate this to the public this time when it comes to gay marriage? Something is different. Some people claim that it is not the same Civil Rights issue as with race - cause one cannot choose race. When one brings up choice - it is not about choice but life style. The whole thing of course is circular - our base fears are not.
John was spot on with his finishing remark:
I would exchange hate with fear tough. We do not hate gays. We fear them - and, at this point, it is definitely not condescending anymore. Any social cause follows the same path - so Gandhi claimed. First you are belittled, then fought, then you win. Gays are not being belittled anymore.
What we are truly afraid of, I believe, is what the founder of the Black Panthers has expressed in his letter to the black community. Not that we might be "like" gays aka gay per se - all "reduced" to the same level . But that it might be "bad" to be gay. As long as being gay is bad - it does not matter if it is genetic or not.
i can understand all the religious argument against gay marriage tough. it says that we should multiply and gays cannot do so. It does not matter to the Christian mind set that we have by now accepted other religions as equal who do not make such claims. you are virtually a sinner if you cannot.. eh correction.. do not want to reproduce. It also does not matter to the Christian mind set that gays adopting could be socially beneficial for children left alone. The same with "sex". Obviously gays do not do it merely to reproduce. A sin in itself. The list goes on.. but there is hope. The scripture told "us" that it is ok to have slaves.. and look what we've got.
Mike Huckabee is a great example of why this issue is so problematic.
The guy really is not a d-wad in general, and he believes his position is rational and consistent with his view of himself as a moral and just man, despite the fact that being against gay marriage is completely untenable on logical grounds. It's just plain wrong and a six year old can see it's totally inconsistent with all of the 'american' values that make this country a potentially awesome place to live.
But the most important question is why he is so blindly foolish on this question given how obviously ridiculous his position is. Ultimately, I see no easy answer to this, but a lot of it has to do with his religious views which he will never challenge because religious education is founded so strongly on the value, sometimes reverence, of NOT THINKING.
"You just gotta believe, man". If the devil exists (which is maybe a 1 in a billion shot), then he is clearly behind this kind of psychological mechanism because NOT THINKING allows evil to continue by cloaking it in perceived good.
If Huckabee did think, he would realize that we happily grant the privilege of marriage to murderes, rapists, child molesters, child abusers, and a million other d-wads , but we can't find the justice to offer it to that nice gay couple down the street because them b-f-ing makes us a little squeamish. I really can't believe he would entertain that reality in his mind that has been trained to reject such true thoughts.
Remmeber that the brain works in service of our goals and logic only wins out if logic winning out is a goal. For mick Huckabee and 100 million americans, their brain's goal is NOT to be fair and not be logical, their brain's goal is to feel good by believing in the christian santa claus, so they are not going to be swayed by logic because logic is just not that important.
I don't know how this change from willful ignorance to actual truth seeking occurs unless you dismantle the current versions of religion (which ain't happening for a long time given it's calming effect on man-children like Huckabee that have the world view of a child who wants Daddy God to protect him and make everything better).
eric k, I know what you're saying. But I like to hope Matt B in LA is right, and I feel guardedly optimistic.
@Glog
"black people can't hide their skin color in the way homosexuals can hide their orientation"
Never heard that put on such blunt terms and it shocked me how cruel it sounds. It is as if being black or gay would be something shameful to be hidden. And of course this is really the extreme corollary of the "choice vs nature" discussion.
One more thing. In a society relatively liberal as ours racism and homophobia hurt less because of what it is done to their objects than to what their objects do to themselves once they internalize their supposed inferiority, evil nature or what have you. Hence, a black guy can say something so horrible about himself or E's friend can't come to terms with who he is.
RE: Procreation (and apologies in advance if this is too long a post)
It's Not About Procreation
“It’s not about procreation. It’ll never be about procreation. Neither one of us is getting pregnant anytime soon. So we have to be a little more honest. This is about pleasure, this about getting off, and doing it together.” — Damon Demarco, from Damon and Hunter: Doing it Together
Duh. We get it Tony. Damon and Hunter are gay.
Among the various outrages I’ve been accused of, subtlety is not one of them. I’m a ham-fisted sentimentalist, and proud of it. But today’s blog post “The War on Contraception is a War on Sex” on Violet Blue’s TinyNibbles.com has helped me finally the words to my own personal subtext to the opening of D&H.
I am a breeder. Not just a breeder, but a breeder who has bred. More than once I have impregnated my wife, and then watch as her belly grew larger and larger, until they day when finally it could grow no more, and a baby, a new life emerged from her body, driving her nearly mad with hours of agonizing pain in the process. I treasure my children, and regard them as the greatest among many gifts my union with my wife has brought me. I know as well as anyone else that conceiving children can be one of the great joys of having sex.
But I deeply resent the suggestion, the assertion that by taking steps to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, or engaging in intimate acts that could never result in pregnancy that we have somehow degraded our love for one another, or debased the intimate time we spend together. I resent it when someone says that about my wearing a condom or my wife using contraceptives, and I resent it when someone says that about two men loving one another or two women loving one another. However it’s said, it’s an outright assault on the most precious, personal aspect of the relationship between me and my wife.
I didn’t demand my wife prove her fertility before we were wed, nor did she ask the same of me. We became lovers, and then became husband and wife in large measure because of the sexual desire we felt for one another. And I deeply resent the assertion that the way I feel about my wife – the need for her I feel, the hunger for her I feel, the way I adore looking at her naked body and the way that fills me with desire – can only be justified by the possibility of conception.
I love our children. I am profoundly moved by the knowledge that their fleshly existence is a product of my and my wife’s fleshy union; and I cannot imagine my life with out them. But our children do not sanctify our marriage, they do not consecrate our lovemaking. They do not excuse the carnal desire I feel for my wife, or the pleasure I take from reveling in her flesh. And I wonder just what goes on inside the mind of a person who would seek to heap these unwarranted burdens of justification, consecration and excuse upon my children or their own. It seems cruel and sad and perverse to insist any child must carry such burdens.
And fortunately ours do not.
Because it’s not about procreation for us either. Not all the time. Not even most of the time. It’s about pleasure; my pleasure, my wife’s pleasure. It’s about getting off – and doing it together!
----
(Sullivan published this on his blog a couple of months after I wrote it. No link love though. Google juice is precious!)
As I say at www.itsbetterleftsaid.blogspot.com:
What pisses me off the most about the Right Wing opposition to gay marriage is the utter inconsistency with Right Wing arguments made in the 1980s about the perceived rampant sexual promiscuousness of gays. Now, when gays are saying they want the legal and social sexual limitations inherent in a marriage license, the Right Wing is saying no. So according to the Right, gays are too promiscuous, but when they want to put legal restrictions on the number of permissible sexual partners, they are trying to destroy our society. I say to the Right Wing - pick a side, dammit.
Eduardo,
Thank you for your kind words. It is a very depressing situation...
I agree; he knows it is not a choice, although he has been completely repressing it in a variety of ways for years (this is not something he's acted on). However, all of those voices in society telling him that he can continue to repress it because it is a choice, that it is bad,"love the sinner not the sin," those types of things are the things that are dangerous. That's why it's hard for me to see how it's condescending to say "That's just who he is." When Jon Stewart says, "It's not a choice," it doesn't seem to me that he's saying "It would be bad if it were a choice." What he's trying to say is, "What difference does it make? This is who they are - don't you want your children to be comfortable with who they are?"
My poor former friend has had such trouble himself, but, man, has he abused the people in his life because of it. I guess that has little to do with this discussion, but it's something that always gets me. Let people be who they are and love who they love, and SO many other problems will be avoided.
Hahahahahaha, Tony -- I am laughing in solidarity. Once upon a time I was dating a nice Italian Catholic boy who had the gall to tell me that sex was primarily about procreation, to which I said, "When's the last time you f**ked to make a baby?" Having been there at the time for the last year's worth of his f**king, I knew the answer . . . Dork.
I'm not sure how what I'm going to say next is going to be received so bear with me.
I would like to point out the hypocrisy of those who criticize Huckabee for being blinded by his religion. The flip side of what TNC said in this post is that we have to support the rights of those we disagree with to have opinions we disagree with. Saying that Mike Huckabee doesn't think or is ignorant because he expresses himself in religious terms is just as patronizing as what Huckabee is doing in refusing to acknowledge the other side. Understanding, and empathy do not equate to acceptance. One can understand that Huckabee sees the "traditional" family in terms that are bound up with his religion and his identity without accepting those beliefs to be true. In order to have a civic society with a modicum of civic discourse it is necessary that we listen and attempt to understand those with which we disagree without insulting them.
E,
Generally people that are very unhappy make other people life miserable. May your friend learn to be kinder to himself and everybody who loves him.
I agree with you in that "let him be; he was born that way" beats the hell out of "love the sinner hate the sin". Hey, I used to make that argument, who has the beauty of being both convincing to people that are already sympathetic to gays and true. And believe me, I love Steward and I actually loved how he cleaned the clock with the Huck. I watched it twice in the computer and then on the 7 pm re-run yesterday.
But "there is nothing wrong with being way" is, I think, the right answer. If you stop at "they are born that way" it implies there is something wrong with it. What was eating me in my self-hating times wasn't whether I thought it was a choice; it was that I have accepted that it was wrong, very very wrong. In that case being born that way is even worse: I knew I won't ever be able to love women and that I will always will be attracted to men. Doesn't make things easier.
Sorn, I support the rights of people to have whatever religious views and convictions they want. But my ability to sympathize with Huckabee's views (and those of other sexual, religious, and gender role conservatives) ends when *they* decide that it is necessary to their world view to control how the hell I live my most personal, intimate life. That's the problem.
Eduardo, you are so totally cool.
I agree with you. Conservatives have no right to control personal behavior. However, just because they believe things that are wrong doesn't mean that they are ignorant or less informed than those of us who have the opposite viewpoint. (Sometimes it does but not in every case there are degrees of difference after all.) All I meant to say is that we can't convince other people of the justness of our cause if we insult them for having opinions that we believe are wrong.
Thanks, nolo
The choice v. science argument is a bit silly. The fact is, the science doesn't say people are born gay. Beyond the anecdotal, there's no real compelling evidence that this is the case. But you do get to the point where the anecdotal should be enough, I think.
It's such a foolish trap to get sucked into, really. Why are people gay? Must there be only one reason? If a so-called gay gene were discovered, would that mean only those who verifiably carried the gene would be considered bona fide as homosexuals? What of those who didn't carry the gene? What of the identical twins of different sexual orientations? Is the straight one in the closet? Is the gay one just looking for attention? Nobody should fool themselves into thinking these questions would not be asked. Once you take the element of choice, or at least unconscious choice, off the table you welcome the distinction between real and fake homosexuality.
For so many people, causation is the point, because if you can prove causation, or at least get people to accept genetic or developmental causation as a plausible premise, then you're at the doorway of social and, in many cases, self acceptance. The truth is that causation, in this case, should be besides the point.
The far more compelling argument is the one that speaks most directly about love and equality. These are existential arguments that appeal emotional levels, which, when dealing with the socially conservative thinkers, are always going to be more persuasive than arguments founded on rationality and science. Besides, arguments that focus solely on biology are not only cold, they are oftentimes misleading. Because, regardless of what people say, biology doesn't really offer the answers people are seeking. Not yet, anyway. And the last thing you want to do is put all of your eggs in a basket that's not really there.
So I have a personal story that I would like to share. Before graduated from high school I will admit growing up in a rural place where things were a bit isolated amid the worst sort of rural poverty I thought that being gay was deviant behavior. Over the course of time I have gradually changed my opinion, part of it was simply growing up. Another part of was encountering people who followed a different lifestyle and actually getting the chance to understand them. I found that, big surprise, gay people were people too with the same fears I had and the same types of interests. The only difference was that they were romantically involved with people of the same sex. My opinion wasn't changed by insults, hatred, but by soft answers and open discussions. I think we need more of that.
Thanks, TNC. It shouldn't mean so much for me (I'm a lesbian) to have straight people stand up for me -- and so eloquently -- but it does.
Barb
ta-nehisi,
on this subject, a gay conservative evangelical's response to Daniel Larison and Joe Carter's reaction to the newsweek article is here:
http://culture11.com/diary/33979
Race and gender are genetic
Race is not genetic. The genetic variation within the group of people called "white" or "black" is enormous.
Skin pigmentation is heritable to a reasonable degree. But then again, so are poverty, accents, and a creative streak.
"Yet they end up in a rest stop or a gay bar."
TR: The ones we hear about do, but I doubt that's universal. I'm attracted to men, and women too, but I've remained celibate.
Granted I have a disability that causes brittle bones, but it's not unusual for adult OIs to have sex lives. The preacher-types who go to gay bars or have sex in public bathrooms do so because their desire to do so outweighs the desire to avoid it. Being gay, or bi or straight, doesn't force you to do anything. In fact I would guess that there are probably sexually active gay men who prefer to meet guys at bookstores or gyms or the mall or something instead of bars.
In a way it could be analogous to being deaf, although I know some gays don't like that kind of analogy. The point I'm making on it is in times past deaf people were sometimes discouraged from using sign language. They were supposed to speak and read lips. Using sign language is generally more effective, and likely feels more natural, but in some respects it is still a choice. Demanding homosexuality not exist is similar to maye demanding all deafness be cured. Demanding homosexuals be celibate is perhaps analogous to the idea of demanding the deaf speak rather than sign.
I am okay with having Osteogenesis Imperfecta and can't imagine being born any other way. At the same time if an OI said they do wish they'd been born another way I would understand that. It's kind of a personal choice thing rather than some larger issue with me. So on the same count I do not express my homosexual desires, but this is a personal choice thing to me and not a part of a larger social goal.
Same-sex marriage advocates really have no idea what they're implying with the "I'm gay by birth the way that you're Black by birth" argument. You're conflating racial categories with genetic traits, and implicitly endorsing the biological reductionism of scientific racists. On the other hand, given the venom that many same-sex marriage supporters direct towards Black folks, maybe they are implying exactly what they intend to imply. Appealing to the example of the civil rights movement on the hand, and implicitly endorsing the biological reductionism that undergirded the ideology of segregation on the other, is not only hypocritical, it's cynically exploitative, and judging from the comments in this thread, same-sex marriage supporters damn well know it. Stop pimping the Black freedom struggle, and have the integrity to let your argument stand on its own merits.
@ Sorn - a couple of years ago I went along to a soldout Melbourne Underground Film Festival screening of Tony Comstock's Damon and Hunter:Doing It Together, an erotic documentary that features a real life gay couple - the film was very well received by the audience many of whom were gay couples themselves, but perhaps more interesting were the kinds of conversations I had with straight folks who found the film not only moving but a bit of a revelation.
Most common in responses was the observation that gay people and straight people have more in common than they have in difference and that love is love no matter the sex of your partner - it sounds so simple and obvious but these kinds of thoughts are usually anything but obvious until you actually have a shift in perception - I like to think that the film helped in a gentle way to shift perception. Maybe what we need is more exposure to accurate depictions or documentation of love.
All this talk about genetics, nature vs. nurture, etc., is a red herring. The issue of precisely what causes a person to have a certain sexual orientation is not relevant to this conversation. What is relevant is the fact that sexual orientation is determined outside the scope of the individual's free will--that it is not, in precisely this respect, a "choice". We come to know this empirically, albeit from our own experiences and from what other people say--not from science, which offers a low-level, materialistic explanation that rules out relevant concepts such as free will.
rb - If we put aside for a moment that race is not a scientific classification, to suggest that ethnicity, which is all race is, is not a genetic inheritence is sort of silly. Consider for a moment the degree to which your genetic code is owed to your ethnic background, which is a far more complicated concept than 'skin pigmentation.'
david - I think your point on causation is well stated, but I think you run the danger of falling into the same hole by shutting the door entirely on choice, be it conscious or unconscious. By stating that causation is not relevant, but then stating that some element of causation (i.e. free will or the lack thereof) is entirely relevant, you inevitably narrow the path by which homosexuals may walk in order to be considered genuine and therefore worthy of acceptance. Your argument becomes less an issue of genetics (which is a good thing) and more an issue of biological and social development, which while probably more accurate in the grand scheme of things, still comes off as a soft-scientific argument on causation, which you've already, and rightly in my mind, deemed to be irrelevant.
Several points:
To tessa: yes, straight people produce gay children, but the point is they are able to reproduce in the first place. and to the later poster: yes gay people reproduce, but NOT with each other!!
to people offended: i think people have to stop jumping on the Offended bandwagon so easily. a lot of people are curious, want to engage in discussion, maybe ignorant by your standards or not by others...the fact is that a lot of people don't understand homosexuality, are curious about it, suspicious, skeptical, and yes afraid of it. to malign them, dismiss them, call them bigots without acknowledging what it might mean for someone who has NO exposure to homosexuality is not only counterproductive, but hubris. it won't change anything, it won't bridge understanding.
and finally, some people up here need to acknowledge that not everybody treads in the linguistic morass of phrases like "biological determinism" etc. and not everybody knows the latest greatest arguments against this or that. or what's hip to believe or not hip to believe...and in these discussions, I sense a whole lot of ego attached to the argument without a genuine interest or openness to understanding.
(I'm not trying to exempt anyone from bigotry. There's no room for that. There's no humanity in that. What I'm trying to add here is some conversation that real people have, real people who aren't trying to bludgeon others with their race-to-be-most progressive argument.
And sorn, I'm so totally with you.
ja - I get your point about reproduction. I just find it to be wrongheaded. Regardless of how people may want to frame the situation, marriage is not inherently about reproduction. If it were, there would be a reproduction requirement to marriage, one that would inevitably end in the annulment of all kinds of unions entered into by couples who for one reason or another could not or simply did not have children. Marriage is quite literally about two becoming one. It is not about two becoming three.
ja - I'm sorry if I missed the initial context of your reproduction discussion. I'm not sure I totally agree with your evolutionary line of thought, but I think we generally agree on the larger idea making my reproduction retort unnecessary. Sorry.
1. If being gay is a genetic trait, then we would expect there to be a range of gayness. Just as people don't divide into "tall" and "short," but rather range from taller to shorter, there will surely be a bell curve of sexuality.
2. There's nothing about evolution and the procreative imperative that inconsistent with a gene for homosexuality. From an evolutionary perspective, and for a social animal (like humans), the only consideration is the reproductive success of the species. So for a social animal such as ourselves, there is significant value in having a number of adults who form pair bonds but who do not necessarily procreate: not having children of my own, I can lend a hand with my sister's children, thus helping to ensure they survive to adulthood.
3. Anyway, we're humans, not mole rats: isn't the advantage of having such a large brain the fact that we can control our destinies a little more? If we're really going to make public policy based on what evolution would dictate a lot of people will be in for some unpleasant surprises.
4. And I'll never understand why my own experience of whether I've chosen to be homosexual gets such short shrift. When I say that, to me, it's like handedness, that should carry significant weight in the conversation. And like handedness, who knows why I'm right-handed? And sure, I could choose to act as a left-handed person, but why should I have to? And in any event, people would get hurt for sure.
5. I totally agree that the choice/not choice argument has an aftertaste of racism: the essence of it is that if one could avoid being black (for example), one would, but since one can't, there shouldn't be discrimination against black people.
6. No one's still reading at this point, and this argument is hard to make in condensed online form, but consider this: in its most important, most valuable, most cherished aspects, race is a choice. All of the cultural, social, and historical aspects of having a racial identity that sometimes confound and more often sustain people of color are ultimately learned behaviors. I think no person of color would willingly give them up. Why? Not because they are somehow innate in having skin of a certain color, but because they represent the beautiful and complex "more than" of being a person of color. And embracing them is a choice.
This has been a subject of concern for some time in legal circles in connection with making equal protection arguments. Take a look at Janet Halley, "Sexual Orientation and the Politics of Biology: A Critique of the Argument from Immutability," Stanford Law Review 46:3 (February 1994): 503-568, and subsequent work citing Halley.
Steven - I wish people would stop conflating genetic with developmental. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait. If anything, there is compelling evidence to the contrary. If homosexuality were solely the result of a genetic variance, then identical twins (genetic copies) would always share the same sexual orientation. This not being the case takes a lot of the air out of the genetic argument, and therefore people who put too much (or any, really) weight into the genetic argument, are destined to come up short.
I do think your hand preference analogy is pretty apt, though. It's another trait people mischaracterize as genetic--since it is observable in the womb--when it is demonstrably developmental.
And while I believe that I understand your point on 'race' being fundamentally an issue of choice, I think I disagree--but mainly on semantic grounds that I won't get into.
"Understanding, and empathy do not equate to acceptance. "
Well yeah, Sorn. It's called "thinking red" in the Army - empathizing with the enemy so you can discern strengths and weaknesses, so you can neutralize or attack them. There's nothing new or radical or disturbing about it. In fact it's classical:
知彼知己，百戰不殆
Know opponent know self
Hundred battles not dangerous
"Understanding, and empathy do not equate to acceptance. "
Well yeah, Sorn. It's called "thinking red" in the Army - empathizing with the enemy so you can discern strengths and weaknesses, so you can neutralize or attack them. There's nothing new or radical or disturbing about it. In fact it's classical:
知彼知己，百戰不殆
Know opponent know self
Hundred battles not dangerous
"My opinion wasn't changed by insults, hatred, but by soft answers and open discussions. I think we need more of that. "
Elsewhere Sun Zi also says a good commander chooses his battles and never accepts battle unless he is certain of winning - fair fights are for idiots. Applying that to this issue, approach those with soft answers whom 1) it is safe to approach and 2) it is likely to succeed with. However, never assume anyone is rational or fair-minded until they prove it. That is just common sense. You may try the approach as a tactic, but not because you blindly hope it will find a receptive hearing. But be prepared to have to use brutal means.
Malik says gay rights activists should stop trying to piggy-back off the CRM and strictly speaking that is a good point, but broadly speaking it fails to admit that the CRM appealed to the same expectation of equality and respect for individual rights as the gay rights movement and for that matter feminism appealed to. The civil rights vocabulary is going to sound pretty similar in all three cases. Unfortunately in this country that vocabulary is often, wrongly, seen as the sole property of black people. "Check your privelege" etc.
Kudos to the author. What concerns me most about this issue and should concern more than just gay americans is that those opposed to gay marriage represent an attempt to apply extreme christian doctring to all americans. Obviously this is anti-american.
You are aware of the traditional suspicion of lefthandedness, aren't you? The word "sinister" is derived from the word for lefty in French or Latin or some such. Up until only a generation ago it was considered quite normal to train left-handed children to be right-handed; for their own good, of course.
to suggest that ethnicity, which is all race is, is not a genetic inheritence is sort of silly...
I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean, but a question being posed here is whether there is a 'gay gene,' i.e. whether homosexuals and heterosexuals are genetically distinct. Race emphatically does not provide an analogy, because it has been conclusively shown that the races are *not* genetically distinct.
Meanwhile, conflating race and ethnicity just confuses things.
Consider for a moment the degree to which your genetic code is owed to your ethnic background
My genetic code is owed to my familial background.
If I had a genetic trait that was common among those living in southern Europe, one might reasonably conclude that I acquired it because part of my family emigrated from Italy. That's a far cry from looking at my 'genetic code' and declaring "That's Italian!"
But enlighten me: I am curious to hear what sorts of genes are 'white genes' and which sort are 'Hispanic genes.'
I'm so late with this comment everyone's probably moved on, but it brings up a few responses. Whatever part choice plays in me being gay is irrelevant. It is an honorable choice. Also, religion is most certainly a choice, yet it is the oldest protected class in this country. Christianity is a lifestyle. Being same-sex attracted is not. That said, 'being gay' is only fundamentally about sexual orientation. Once one accepts it and moves forward into 'gay' as more of an identity, it becomes very layered. Homophobes, anti-gay Christians and the lot, are obsessed with sex. To us it is about love - creating a home with a partner, doing the dishes, watching television, holding hands. To them it is about blowjobs and ass-fucks (if only). To us we are opening presents beneath a Chrstmas tree. To them we are plotting to molest their children. To be gay is to navigate the very different dynamics of man/man or woman/woman (or other variations thereof) relationships. We are modern, with identities that did not exist a hundred years ago. To them we are citizens of Sodom, choosing something wicked. I don't think the bridge can be crossed for many people, but having accepted my sexuality as a child, I am now a 50 year old man who most certainly does choose to be gay in all its richness and its vibration, to live my life with another man, and to look forward to spending the rest of my years with him. It's a glorious choice. I'm as tired of hearing gay people say 'I was born this way! (kind of like saying I can't help it I'm retarded) as I am of hearing others say I was not.
people who put too much (or any, really) weight into the genetic argument, are destined to come up short.
Especially when their opponents shift the goal posts within just a paragraph from some genetic influence to 100% genetically determined.
Twin studies PROVE some genetic component.
rb,
And your familiar background alines pretty well with you ethnic background, but I certainly didn't mean to offend. I tried, apparently clumsily to make the point with regard to race that there's really no such thing as race. That's what I meant by saying that it wasn't a scientific classification. It's a social one, oftentimes implemented by oppressors, and most anthropologists reject the term outright.
I suppose a more accurate attempt at what I was trying to say would be that the combination of ethic and cultural background is what we refer to as race, but really that wasn't the greater point I was trying to make, either. I found, and find, your characterization of race as being synonymous with skin pigmentation to be flawed.
Obviously, there's no singular Anglo Saxon gene, or Slavic gene, or Arab gene, or sub Saharan African gene, etc., but because of the genetic variation that has continued as these peoples lived and to some small degree evolved separate of one another, you have genetic similarities that are shared based upon a group's ethnic heritage. I don't understand how I offended you, but if I did, I apologize.
I think the point I was trying to make was that ethnicity can be charted by genetics, and while it's a fruitful science from that perspective, the same doesn't hold true with regard to sexual orientation or preference (to be read as one would read 'hand preference'). That, in fact, genetics may in fact do more harm than good for the cause of equal rights for homosexuals. I may have made that point elsewhere though.
Anyway, again, it certainly wasn't my intention to offend.
I don't think choice is the hang up here; I used to but now I believe it is whether one considers homosexuality a sexual orientation like heterosexuality or one does not. I am more and more convinced that the religious right believes everyone is heterosexual. They believe people refered to as homosexual are actually just heterosexuals who have given in to their "same sex desires" rather than struggling against them. All the gay issues from their opposition to repealing DADT to gay marriage are driven by their fear that someday homosexuality will be seen in the same light as heterosexuality; as part of the human condition; like being male or female or blonde or brunette. That is their true fear and that is what fuels their postions on all these issues.
Oh puleeze. I didn't get into this whole "heterosexuality" thing so I could open some goddamn Christmas presents. I got into it for the pussy. You really want us to believe you put up with all the shit a gay guy's got to put up with so you can open Christmas presents?
Yes, you are right but there is a context to the choice argument. It is a response to the accusation of sin.
If it's not a choice then it cannot be a sin. That's why it remains essential to press the point with religiously motivated opponents of marriage equality and gays.
I would love to say it better. May be, you can figure it out.
Okay, genetics lesson.
FIRST, very few complex traits show a simple on-off effect associated with a single marker with simple dominant/recessive transmission of two alleles. Even the simple blue/brown meme of eye color that we all learn in school does not account for green or hazel or other variation in shades. Indeed turns out there are multiple genes affecting eye color; it's just in a predominantly Northern European population such as the school test was invented for, there isn't as much variation in some of those other genes. Thus, the eye color meme is a lot harder to pull off in an ethnically diverse classroom, where other variants are present.
Similarly, there is unlikely to be a single gay gene. More likely is that there will be a number of genes probably, each with multiple different alleles that interact with one another in different ways--and with the environment too. Polygenic traits are very hard to identify and characterize.
Second, controlled twin studies show up to a 50% correlation of gay-ness, which is WAY above random. As a geneticist, I don't expect 100% correlation for anything but really simple traits (like whether you can roll your tongue in a cylinder. Turns out that's a really simple dominant/recessive--a much better meme than the eye color in a modern classroom!).
Third, there is stochastic variation in the expression of traits; phenomena such as imprinting and other examples of epigenetics can influence the penetrance or expressivity of traits. It is certainly well documented that traits between identical twins can vary, at least in part because of these effects.
Genetics is not an absolute; it merely provides a palette of possibilities. The rigid deterministic view of genetics is characteristic of conservatives who take a black-white view of everything. But any geneticist is more likely to think of our genes as giving us a range of results. You won't be tall, even if your genes tell you to be, unless you are well fed.
Of some interest is a recent model of handedness that suggests that the dominant is right-handed (R), but in the absence of (R), you aren't necessarily left handed. Instead, the choice is randomized. That is, rr people will be either right OR left, by chance. If that's the case, then absolutely you could ahve identical twins, one right handed and one left handed. Another example, not epigenetic.
Finally, let us consider the hunt for "cancer" genes for an example of how fraught this all is. Cancer is a disease that starts with aberrant gene function and clearly runs in families. Yet efforts to identify the associated cancer genes such as BRCA1 or BRCA2 in breast cancer explain only a small fraction of familial disease, and do not explain the random disease occuring in the population. It is very likely that complex behaviors such as sexuality will also have multiple components; even if we find one link, it's unlikely to be either absolute or singular.
Oh, and by the way, sexuality DOES run on a continuum!
There. Professional pedagogy OFF.
By the way, the conservatives aren't going to buy it if it's "natural" either. They'll say it's like a tendency towards alcoholism, an inherited sickness.
I don't know why they are so terrified at variation. But remember religious conservatives also used to be terrified by left-handedness.
Ta-Nehisi wrote:
"Whenever people say, "You should not discriminate against people because they didn't chose to be black," I hear the mild tones of wild liberal condescension."
Wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong.
When I say something like that, trying to explain gay rights, it's NOT condescension, it's empathy.
When I see someone being discriminated against because they're gay or poor or a woman or they were born in the third world, I think of the words my mother would often say:
"There but for the grace of God ... "
THAT is what separates a lot of modern conservative thoughts & actions from those of liberal thoughts & actions.
So many times I see conservatives, and especially conservative Americans look at a situation and say, in so many words, "Well, glad it ain't me!"
The point is, is that it just as easily COULD HAVE been you.
None of us have the luxury of choosing when and where and how we are born.
THAT is one of the basic tenants of America and The Enlightenment; ALL men are created equal.
It does not matter if you are rich or poor or black or white or straight or gay. All of us, every last one of us, has to be treated with fairness and equality, or we all fail as a nation.
Ironically, Harvey Milk summed it up best:
"In the Declaration of Independence it is written: ‘All men are created equal and they are endowed with certain inalienable rights.’
“For…all the bigots out there: That’s what America is. No matter how hard you try, you cannot erase those words from the Declaration of Independence.
“That’s what America is. Love it or leave it.”
Andrew, no offense taken! I was just trying to illustrate (with a pointed question) that the concept of genetically-determined race/ethnicity is nonsensical.
And your familiar background alines pretty well with you ethnic background
It does! My family and I have similar genes, and we consider ourselves Italian (mutt, really, but who's counting).
And yet even though I have 3 Italian grandparents, I am genetically *much* closer to my cousin, who has 3 Irish grandparents, than I am to a randomly chosen Italian person.
In fact, my cousin and I are genetically more similar to each other than are any two super-Italian Italians who aren't at least cousins.
Even though those two hypothetical Italians are both totally Italian and my cousin is 'almost totally' Irish, they are different from each other where my cousin and I are the same.
This is why I say that my genes are determined by family, not ethnicity, and why I think it's misleading to think of ethnicity as having a genetic basis.
(This is beside the point on the larger question of policy and tactics around the issue of homosexuality, on which we largely agree).
sorry TNC... i have a real problem with this argument. while i do understand and respect the idea of choice - or lack thereof - with regard to race and sexuality, simply put - the two are nothing alike. just as many black people seem to hate the argument that marriage rights for gays is civil rights issue similar in nature to the 60 civil rights movement, i think many gays would have a problem with your comparison (i am both black and gay so there is no need for other readers to jump on my case about being ill informed on either perspective).
gay people don't choose to be gay, that much is true but they have consistently had to defend this notion - blacks never have to make the case that indeed their skin color is darker by nature, not by choice. being gay is a "lifestyle" or a "preference". imagine for a moment having to convince people something as obvious to you as your color is indeed how you perceive yourself. better yet, imagine trying to explain to people when you "chose" to be heterosexual. you might see this type of argument as a dead end - but when it comes to your own identity it can be rather frustrating to be told that you "chose" to be straight or black.
the revelation of ones sexuality is very different than the awareness of ones color. i grew up in a black family. my parents were black. my brothers were black. most friends were black. they are all straight. my emerging sexuality at the age of 11 or 12 was terrifying. i was entirely isolated. i would have made a deal with the devil to change that. on the other hand when i was 8 and a white kid called me a n****r i went home and my parents were there to talk me through it. it was clear from day one that as a black boy i was part of a community that was there to support me, that had a sense of pride in itself, that wouldn't try to change me despite what the world at large might say or do. it wasn't until i was in college with gay friends that i was finally able to find a gay "family" to engage with me on the level, to help me become a part of a community, to find a sense of pride in who i was.
while i agree that the choice issue can smell of liberal condescension, it is not an argument waged against blackness in the same way it is consistently wielded against gays. it's condescending to say one "can't help being black" but it's totally infuriating to be told i have made the choice to be gay (which is something i hear a hell of a lot more often.) seriously, how often have you been told that your not really black, you just choose to be black, you could be something else if you really wanted, if you prayed hard enough? wouldn't that piss you off a little?
it is not a dead end argument when talking to religious bigots like huckabee - people who refuse to examine a world outside of the twisted parameters of their religious zealotry. as long as these people believe i woke up one day and decided that being gay was a better idea than reading the bible or, more often, that i am somehow in legion with the devil himself, they will never be able to understand (much less come to respect) my "lifestyle". rather, they will continue to try to pray my gay away.... when was the last time someone told you they wanted to pray the black off you?
IT,
Thanks for the lesson. It is helpful. I myself am basically a layman, and do enjoy when my general knowledge becomes informed by that of somebody who clearly knows more on a topic. A lot of times, even when we know something about these subjects, we can have a tendency to speak of them clumsily, as in using the shorthand of a single gene as if complex characteristics are usually dependant upon single genes. At any rate, it's always helpful to have somebody come along and tell you that you don't know what you're talking about.
Of course, my argument about the genetic aspect of this is more along the lines of it being interesting, though not persuasive to those people are trying to persuade--partly due to the inconclusive nature of the science, partly due to the aversion many people who would need to be persuaded have towards the sciences, and partly due to the example you gave with regard to alcholism (although they would more than likely draw the line toward more taudry mental illness, e.g. sociopathy or pedophilia).
I was under the impression that current views on the subject of handedness, or hand preference, were to the idea that it were a developmental trait and not a genetic one. Hmm.
Here's the issue on the gay marriage choice question visa vie a biological or social foundation of heterosexuality: if being gay is a choice, then it's just as reasonable to reject the choice. So if people who choose to be gay want to be married, I can't fault anyone who chooses not to oppose them. I don't think I have a responsibility to respect all choices equally. Indeed, the very idea of culture implies valuing some choices more than others.
Tony, gosh did you miss my point. The comment about opening Christmas presents was about the normality of our lives and how we perceive the totality of them - in which sex is a very small part, if a part at all. We are no different from those who think we are - it's just a set of genitals. I stand by my assertion that we are perceived almost soly from a sexual perspective by people who find us 'repugnant' (the same silly fools who laugh at a male-male kiss on a movie screen). If my points went over your heard, I can't help that.
As to Mike's comment, of course - it's called heteronormity, and it's why very few (straight) people ever consider the absurdity of considering sexual orientation a choice. They don't ask themselves when they chose to be straight because they think nothing else exists, except by choice (though nature is full of examples of 'sexual exuberance').
In the end it's all circular babble. Choice/not choice, black/gay, nature/nuture. Considering the miniscule genetic difference in all humans, I wouldn't be surprised if an impartial alien scientist discovered that sexual orientation was much more immutable than skin color. After all, cut us and we all bleed red.
Craig,
Thank you for that perspective.
As someone said above, it's amazing that more people don't listen to people actual experience with being gay, and instead cling to their ideas about what it is.
I have a friend who voted for Prop 8 for religious reasons. I think the "choice" idea WAS a sticking point. Yes, it's that her religion tells her homosexuality is bad, but it also seems to be the idea that it may have been caused by bad things happening when the person is young. If it can either be caused by something or something you can fight against, and someone is convinced it's a sin because of the bible, than I think it's very hard to convince someone otherwise. "Well, I don't think homosexuality is entirely natural; I'm not judging people for their choices, I just think it's immoral if they get married" she said. I asked her, then, if she found that she were attracted to women, would she deny that attraction? She said, "well, humans are sexual creatures..." So I said, "Okay, well, if you were ONLY attracted to women and ONLY wanted to be with women, woudl you fight it and marry a man anyway?" Her response: "I don't know. I'm not in that situation."
Umm, exactly. Of course, I guess we would have the same problem if she thought it was not a choice, but I think the rationalization that it is a "choice" makes it easier to say that it's "wrong" even though homosexuality has no ill effects on anyone - except for the ill effects caused by society saying it's bad.
That being said, I still agree that if it were a choice, it still shouldn't matter. But in that sense, even if a man were to choose to allow himself the possibility of falling in love with another man, could he really ultimately choose if he actually DID fall in love with another man? I mean, I certainly can't help who I fall for. And I truly wish I could.
Lastly, to Tony, who wrote: "You really want us to believe you put up with all the shit a gay guy's got to put up with so you can open Christmas presents?"
What is it you think I put up with? Daily condemnations by idiots lost in bibilical texts? Fag jokes at the water cooler? Whatever I put up with I decided to put up with decades ago because my spirit would not be crushed, nor will it ever be. And yes, frankly, I do put up with it so I can buy a Christmas tree next weekend from a tree farm with the man I will end my life with. Hell yes! If the tree farm man or the kid who cuts it down rolls his eyes at us, fuck 'em. That's exactly why I put up with it, because I decided to be free a long time ago and it won't be taken from me. If you don't get it, it ain't my problem.
IT
I do not think that one should confuse the "choice" argument with genetics (but your genetics was good).
It is much better to look at oneself and to ask oneself, yourself, if you feel it is choice or not. Do you choose who you are attracted to or not? If you do not feel it is your choice and it does not hurt anybody else... why should we ask a straight guy to do it with gays and why would we want gays to sleep with women? this is absurd on all levels. this is more than forcing people to change their life-styles.
Does Huckabee feel as if he has chosen to be attracted to his wife instead of some bearded man (not talking about the Mrs Huckabee gene)? How would he feel if he had to spend the rest of his life living together with a man - could he imagine choosing to love him?
what it also boils down to. if you can choose to be gay then you can only act gay but not truly be it.
i am with mike, helmutt, and of course with craig on this. this whole thing will eventually back-fire for the "religious" community. they are resisting change necessary for them, not gays, to survive. long after the last christians has walked the earth - there will be gays.
@mademark,
I regret that my comment to you did not land with the affection and solidarity with which it was intended, and offer my apologies.
My point was simply that sexual attraction is about sex; and no one, not you, and not me, should feel compelled to prevaricate or apologize for that.
Peace.
Yup
"Love - creating a home with a partner, doing the dishes, watching television, holding hands." is not what they focus on because it's not what they consider wrong.
Traditionally if two guys want to share a house and watch TV together religious conservatives don't mind. Even if they wanted to be affectionate they could think "well maybe they're European or related somehow." Besides which what is a monastery? It is a group of men living together and caring for each other. Some Protestants might see that as gay, but others respect it and besides which a great deal of "Yes on Prop 8" types are Catholic.
So the sex is what they focus on because it's the part they deem a sin. Many of the anti-gay Christian sites I've seen believe that men should be more affectionate to each other and that they should "love each other." If you go to many a Pentecostal Church there's men hugging each other like at some Progressive Men's group. I believe some even think male homosexuality is because certain men are starved for human connection to other men and end up turning the desire for acceptance into something sexual. (And personally I think that is where my homosexual attractions may have started, which might be why I never totally "crossed-over" to just being gay)
I like what TNC is trying to do. The "you have a right to differ" is not fully spoken by the business about "it is unjust to wall people off from happiness for who they are by nature". If you have a right to differ, you have a right to differ deliberately.
Look, I do believe, and agree with evidence, that what people want, and how people react, is in this respect inborn. TNC does too.
But there are a lot of things that we do because of what we want, things that are choices, that are deliberate, that we think out and decide on and come to terms with. And, as far as our right to do those things, to explore our own lives and seek our own sense and happiness, it does not matter where the original desires or reactions or interests come from. For all I know, a stamp collector's delight may be inborn or may be a chosen development - and I don't mean to trivialize anything by the comparison: I don't know or care whether his or her stamp collecting is deep or shallow. It does not matter. Just, does this person have the right to seek out and have the life and the place in the world that suits him or her? Or, can the people around him wall him or her away into miserableness, faking, deprivation, or furtiveness? For reasons for dislike or disapproval alone?
Nolo mentioned Lawrence v. Texas. I was overjoyed by the decision - and I always disliked the narrowness with which it was subsequently interpreted, and, much more than that, I disliked the spectacle of what amounted to a lot of gays who loved Lawrence v. Texas very nearly denying that a general right of privacy was involved in the decision! "No, X or Y or Z type of disapproved-of consensual sexual activity wouldn't fall into such a zone of protection; that alleged logic is just ridiculous, and is an attack on homosexuals. No, it wasn't saying that pure disapproval is insufficient justification for a punitive law. No, the decision was just about us and applies only to us, because we're okay, because we're acceptable, because we were born just like you only with the equivalent of different eye color. (And of course we believe in normal moral bounds, being normal and acceptable...)"
If arguments for equality, and inborn-ness arguments, are all there are, the plaintive sound (or even the angry sound!) of "it's not our fault!" will always be in this, and will always be real, and will always, deep down in it, sound scared. (And perhaps not so deep down. I have seen bisexuals treated horribly, and called liars and mentally ill, by gays who thought that bisexuals meant that gays were bisexuals and therefore that gay was a choice and apparently therefore that the whole ground of their being okay and not to blame was in danger. That is fear, right there, and nothing else.)
What TNC and a couple of other people here are pointing to is something else: just plain the right to be different, and to be different actively, and to choose differently. What, in this light, does it matter why anyone wants to do anything, or loves someone or something? It isn't central to anything. What is central is that people own their own lives because they are their own lives, and their own selves. Gays don't have to be pulling out their innermost deterministic IDs with shaking hands to answer questions... and they definitely don't have to be claiming "this isn't chosen" about their whole navigated waking lives (every footstep?). People have the right to be different.
An interesting discussion, and although I'm coming late to it, feel compelled to make a few comments.
IT: Thanks for pointing out the genetic component, I always get frustrated at the superficial understanding of genetics that most have when trying to speak about a "gay gene" and absence of proof thereof.
It seems quite obvious (as well as proven, empirically, and for all of us, anecdotally) that sexuality falls on a continuum. And early on, where you fall on that continuum, appears relatively fixed. And it's some type of an inverse, lopsided bell curve. Nearly all fall towards heterosexuality, some small percentage fall toward homosexuality . . . some number are in the middle -- and perhaps that leads to confusion where there are some individuals who are sexually more fluid in being able to choose (both for sex, and emotionally) between partners of both the same and opposite sex. It's at least somewhat infuriating that some point to that as evidence of a "choice", when I think the reality is that those individual's orientation was simply "fixed" somewhere in the middle of the distribution curve.
I also think it's a mistake to move away from arguing "choice". It is important, if for no other reason than the legal framework we have emphasizes this is how we construct laws/remedies to assure fair and equal treatment for all, and secondarily, the evidence is overwhelming that there is very little "choice" involved in the question of sexual orientation. The failure of ex-gay/reform programs, the prevalence of homosexuality in spite of heavy social opprobrium, the suicide of young gays fighting internalized homophobia, the substance abuse among gays, etc. -- all point to just how incredibly difficult it is in the face of society that favors being heterosexual it is to try and "choose" to be what you quite simply are not. Look how difficult it is for E's friend - and I too faced it -- was raised a conservative Catholic, fought it for years until I was 30 and on the verge of committing suicide. It undercut everything I had been taught and conditioned to believe that I was expected to be to be successful, respected and happy in my life. And it was bullshit. And we continue to inflict this pain on young gays and lesbians. I do thank god for the Internet, it's a godsend -- how different my life would have been if as a teenager I had the same access to information and other viewpoints as many young people do now. And of course, that's why we see so many coming "out" at a much younger age and dealing more successfully with their orientation, as well as nothing less than a tsunami of support/understanding by younger people of this issue (just look at the poll data on those voting no on Prop 8 in CA, totally consistent with age - younger you were, the more likely you voted no).
@Craig -- your post is excellent.
@mademark -- I think sex is a sticking point -- again, societal conditioning to be repelled by homosexual acts. Tony C's reductionism of the whole thing to sex (and I think his posts on here lack an empathy and understanding) really feels to me as belittling, and denigrating that other huge part of who we are -- the emotionally bonding with another human being. Sex is not the only part, nor necessarily the most important part, of my relationship with another man. I feel closer to him, more empathetic, entwined, happy just sharing our life. And so this villification by the right, by the religious, is an attack not just on sex, but on my very essence and happiness. We live in a prudish, sexually repressed society. The sex act itself, the label deviant, the fear of molestation, recruiting of children and all that crap is used to misdirect and obscure, to whip up hate and bigotry -- and disguise that behind this culture war over SSM and the rights of gays, really are just people who want to live their lives together as any straight couple, be treated equally and avail themselves of the same rights, responsibilities and support as any straight couple and be happy.
It's much easier to make it about the "sex", and strip it of the deeper core of our being, our emotions and love. And if anything, that's what makes the whole position of the religious fundamental right/Catholics, et al, just so unbelievably ugly, vile, hateful and most importantly, hypocritical.
My apologies. The last thing I would want is to make anyone feel belittled because of who or how they wanted to make love.
And that's my point. All the rest of it --the sharing of a life together, the entwined, happy life -- is born in sexual attraction, and nourished by the act of making love.
I won't presume to speak for you, but I would guess that most people would say "not necessarily the most important part of my relationship with my wife/husband/partner, but a without sex/sexual attraction, it's not the same kind of relationship". Without acknowledging sexual attraction as a necessary condition, gays/lesbians who wanted to avail themselves of the benefits of marriage couple simply marry a will person of the opposite sex.
We have a word for a marriage without sexual attraction - a sham. And in fact, in circumstances where the state has a reason to care (immigration for example) a marriage without sexual attraction is not recognized as legally binding.
Conversely, when a couple marries, the state puts it's certification on their sexuality. There have never been laws against two men living together chastely, and intertwining their lives however they wish (save, of course, physically.)
But there have been laws against having sex out of marriage. Marriage is the ultimate state and social blessing of the sex act. It is the ultimate way for society to say "what these two people do in bed together is just fine."
I'm sorry you think I'm being reductionist, and I offer my apologies. But to me, to dismiss sex as a minor part of sexual attraction, or sexual attraction as a minor part of marriage seems to be the very essence of why it's belittling to tell people they can't marry the person of their choosing.
This for me is essential. When we put people who are different in the position of having to "prove" the depth to which they are different in order have the right to have their difference tolerated, we're moving onto shaky ground. As Jim said, the CRM has dropped weed seeds everywhere. It's taught us that rights must be earn; through sincerity, or suffering, or both.
And the next round will have a gay blogger wondering why the gays forgot their history and voted to strip rights from whoever is up next. As TNC pointed out in an early post, the Irish were quick to put their history behind them...
Re: We have a word for a marriage without sexual attraction - a sham.
That's too categorically harsh. I would agree that immigration "marriages" deserve the fraud quotes, and that deceptive gold-digging deserves moral opprobrium. But the classic marriage of convenience in which both parties are completely honest with each other about their reasons for marrying is not a "sham" and by long social tradition is perfectly honorable.
Its not that choosing to be gay is choosing wrong vs choosing right, people make the argument about choice because being gay comes with nothing but ridicule, especially in the public sphere. No one would choose to be publicly debased on television, the internet, radio and everywhere else gaybashers choose to spray their hate. Thats why many people who are gay have such a hard time coming out. I assure you that if being black was something that couldnt be seen by the naked eye then many people would've tried to hide the fact that they were black back when being black was looked down upon in public.
BrianH,
You make a great point. Homosexuality is still something bad for many and all problems stem from this. (sorry for my length).
Maybe not because of the sexual act itself which can be a turn-off for straights. but because of the religious argument that gays cannot reproduce and have sex for other reasons than reproduction. Reproduction is more important than love and bliss when it comes to marriage and a more important reason for sex for religious people? Sad but true?
How religious people view gay sex today is this:
I am married to my wife and have to reproduce with her. But I really fancy my sexy co-worker as well. It would be sinful if I chose to sleep with her to fulfill mere desire and non-reproductive fun. ALL gays are doing this all the time - from a Christian point of view.
Christians who see gayness as choice - automatically think of themselves in this way. That is why the black dude that I confronted told me first that he was attracted to white chicks but chose not to act on it. They are mentally challenged to see that being gay is something utterly different than what they are associating regarding their own private issues.
We have to clear up that obvious misunderstanding once and for all. We also have to address that we should value love more than reproduction when it comes to marriage. Else - we should legally prohibit infertile people from ever marrying.
Gays in relation-ships too can feel attracted to somebody outside their current relationship and have to "choose" in this case if they want to follow that desire or not. The Christian thing to to do for a Christian gay would be to stay faithful. In case he has promised loyalty - it would also the humane thing to do.
(one rarely needs religion for good ethics - if anything religion only makes it more difficult to act ethically and not dogmatically).
Yes - there probably are some 16 year old or younger girls that I would be attracted to under certain circumstances. I cannot choose this. But I know that I would not want to act on it - that is a choice I have made in advance. But I can still sleep and have relationships with other women who are not underaged and who I am also genuinely attracted to.
I am not a social outcast for loving my same-age partner and for having a stable relationship with her and our dogs. Life is hard enough as it is like that. A gay in my position would still be a sinner for most Christians?
Christians are insecure about their own sexuality and relationships. They seem to depend on old scriptures and punishment and not love and trust and relationship-work for their marriage to feel real.
I think what Christians are most afraid of in the context of gays and how they mistakenly see them is:
If it is legally ok for society to live out ones desires like gays do - what about me. Should I not also follow my desires more? Would the fear of punishment and sin that I have grown up with not become meaningless to most except me? Shit - I am not that much into my current wife/husband and do not know how to feel about it... it was so much easier post-the-gay-thing. one just follows order and does not have to worry about one's own feelings which are all automatically sinful.
Dear gays - please imagine that supporting prop 8 for many Christians is as fearful as coming out is for young gays. That Christians are afraid of gays is in this context understandable - and I would say - not their choice given the dogma.
Choosing to reduce marriage to reproduction above love however is a choice - a stupid one for everybody. the government will now sooner than later get out of the marriage business all together (look at young voter trends). then the dogmatic fears of life will have self-destructed.
Again - the whole Prop 8 thing will backfire big time for Christians. Pointing out how insecure they are about where they come from, who they are and where they are going.
Nicely done Hugo -- I think you're absolutely right that the need to control other people's sexuality is rooted in a struggle to maintain one's own monogamy.
Thanks, Mason. But I shouldn't feel so mad with Christians regarding all this. After all - we all want stability and trust. It can act as powerful insurance to know that your spouse believes in concepts such as sin and punishment. even if you trust yourself - what about your spouse? These are powerful root-fears.
And to be fair. The Taliban and al qaeda are extremists who fear that islamic men will lose their grip on women. they attack highly religious places like Pakistan for it. Christians in the US are not that kind of enemy - at least when it comes to gays.
There has been good progress regarding homosexual acceptance in the US, also among Christians, and it is clear that the marriage thing will not wait long.
I apologize to Christians for having implicitly and explicitly ridiculed your believes and.. fears. I just hope that you will discover that the idea of marriage gets even stronger and purer when one is aware where it stems from and what it tries to fulfill. A false sense of security is sometime better than non - but why bother when genuine security is within reach?
One problem with many of these posts is the implicit acceptance of a false dichotomy; specifically, if genetic than natural and if not genetic than 'potentially' unnatural. Sexual variation is the RULE in all vertebrates. Whether a choice or not, we see it in nature and thus it IS natural. There are reports of homosexual behavior in all human cultures dating back to the beginning of recorded history. Given these facts, how can we accept that this is not part of the natural human condition. This is truly denial on a grand scale. The major difference between human vertebrates and most other vertebrates is that human have social institutions that discriminate against natural variation, whereas most other vertebrates are much more tolerant of variation. It is the hypocrisy of humans being viewed as the enlightened species, yet being the species that has 'perfected' hate, discrimination and genocide, that has always rankled me. Are we really so enlightened? This quote from Ruskin suggests that we may not be: 'No human being was ever so free as a fish'
Matthew
I agree with you "naturally". But fish are not free. Compared to most animals on the planet - the most oppressed humans today live in 5-star hotels. Our "poor" are fat - this is not bad because of health or esthetics but because it confirms our numbness. One cannot even speak of ignorance anymore - that implies some brains and the ability to distract oneself actively... no no - we have past the age of ignorance and have entered the new age of numbness... and we are not even high.
I hope, by the way that, gays do not partake in needless oppression and torture themselves - ie prohibit others, who are innocent and potentially straight from having families or sex. I'd be the least they can do.. to make their own case genuinely?