Ready for this? The Real World (yeah, the MTV show) actually taught me something about life.
I know – crazy.
I don’t remember what season of the show it was, but there was a gay guy and a black guy (both of those things are relevant, I promise) on the show, and they were always at odds. The black guy was super-conservative, and wasn’t a fan of the gay guy (I think his name was Davis)’s choice of lifestyle.
At one point, they came face-to-face and started yelling at each other about it. They were in each other’s face, and Davis was told “I think there’s something wrong with you for being gay.” Davis looked him in the eye and said, “that’s exactly like me telling you there’s something wrong with you for being black.”
That’s a fascinating, and surely controversial, statement for him to make. But it’s a valid one, if you ask me. If, as seems more and more clear, sexual orientation isn’t a choice, why is it something on which a person should be judged?
Let’s ignore the fact that it’s, to many people, a moral issue. If something is forced on me, and is what it is not by my choice, can I logically be blamed for it? The color of my eyes, or my skin; my height; my gender, even. None of those things are my choice – if you happen to hate people with blue eyes for some reason, you can’t exactly blame me for having blue eyes.
Why is sexual orientation any different? There are a ton of different studies out there on the origins of sexual orientation, with widely differing results. One thing everyone seems to agree upon, though, is that it’s not a matter of waking up one day and saying “Hey, you know what? I’m going to be gay now.” It’s much more complicated than that.
Here’s a piece from a study I thought was interesting:
Scientists have studied twins to try and learn if being gay is biologically determined. Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest that there is a genetic influence on sexual orientation. If being gay were strictly genetic, then in identical twins, there would be a 100% concordance rate for sexual orientation. But one study in 1995 found a 52% correlation for male identical twins and 22% for male fraternal twins. A study on females came up with similar results. If one identical twin was a lesbian, in 48% of cases, the other twin was also a lesbian. For fraternal twins, the concordance was 16%. (source Simon LeVay)
These studies show that people with the same genetic make up (identical twins) are more likely to share sexual orientation than those with different genetic make up (fraternal twins.) Genetics alone cannot cause sexual orientation, but they do play a part.
So certainly, the jury’s out. But one thing no one seems to argue is that it’s a conscious choice that can be changed and repealed at any time.
So then who am I to tell you that what you’re doing is wrong, if you don’t control it in the first place? And if we don’t know what determines sexual orientation, shouldn’t we operate with the “innocent until proven guilty” mindset?
Homosexuality? Not for me. But fine by me.
Photo: See-ming Lee
Thanks for posting about this, I would like to read more about this topic.
I understand why people feel like this is a valid argument. I once myself thought it was too, but now I’m leary of making that comparison.
The reason why homosexuality is such a controversial issue is because the origins ARE uncertain. “Science says this and it says that.” Science is NOT a unflawed and objective instrument. “Science” also validated slavery by saying that blacks weren’t fully human. This ideology was extended further to other races as well, evidenced by the treatment from those of European descent to those of Asian, African, Indian, Hispanic, and Native American descent.
What I find interesting is that this comparison between sexuality and race seems to only parallel the alleged wrongness of homosexuality and black people. Not once have I heard “saying that homosexuality is wrong is like me telling you it’s wrong to be white.” The absence of that happening, to me, almost implies a continuation of the idea of black being ‘wrong’.
What defines homosexuality? Behavior alone? Psychology alone? Behavior plus psychology? There is absolutely no choice involved in race. Ever. One cannot truthfully make this claim about homosexuality, or homosexual activity.
However flawed I find the parallel, I’m glad you had an “aha” moment.
You make a good point, and it’s the most common counter-argument I get to this kind of logic. But I think it’s misguided.
I’m not saying that the science is conclusive, or even pretends to be; but the simple fact is, we don’t know. So then, isn’t the proper response to be agnostic, or to withhold judgment, rather than assume a particular outcome? And also, if a gay person is telling me that they didn’t choose to be gay, why wouldn’t I believe them? There might be environmental factors, or genetic ones, or what have you – either way, it’s still not your decision.
As for the race issue, I don’t think it matters. The scenario is exactly the same as it would be if the quote was “that’s like telling me being white is wrong.” Black is a simpler parallel, because it’s been subject to more controversy, but the meat of the issue doesn’t change with the race.
Also, you say “one cannot truthfully make” the claim that there’s no choice in homosexuality. But how do we know that? We don’t. And if we don’t, how can we make judgments of other people?