Chrissa and I went to a movie the other day, The Family Stone, which is a better version of Meet the Parents. Good cast, good acting. I'd give it a B+.
There was a gay couple in the movie who were trying to adopt a child. Their sexual preference was--I felt--well-represented and not offensive at all. The fact that they were trying to adopt, however, made me wonder if this was the director's/writer's attempt to make a veiled political statement.
Chrissa and I talked about the movie on the way home (in fact, we're still talking about it). Honestly, I have nothing against gay marriage. Whatever my moral views, I don't see why two people who love each other shouldn't be able to marry. Their love doesn't threaten me, my religion, or society. Furthermore, I don't have a problem with gay people adopting...as long as the birth parents don't have a problem with it and have a choice in the matter.
What I DO have a problem with is when people say that "homosexuality is not a choice" (which came up in the movie). My response is: how in the world could you possibly know that? The only way I can think of is if we had finished the entire Genome Project. Last time I knew, they had just finished mapping out the human genome. There still remains millions of man-hours of figuring out what gene does what. So when they say "homosexualiy is genetic" I can't help but wonder why no one has come on CNN with a DNA code and said: "Homosexuality is due to THIS gene. We can prove whether or not you are gay."
Of course not. They haven't done it. And I don't think they ever will. Can you imagine the political and social ramifications? You would have totally straight people being told they are genetically gay and gay people being told they're actually straight. And what about those bi-sexual and trans-gendered people: where are their bi-sexual and trans-gendered genes? And what about the fact that many sexual preditators who prey on same-sex children were preyed on when they were children?
I think homosexuality is identity confusion--reinforced by society. And the whole "nature versus nurture" debate, I feel, is an attempt to avoid the social stigma associated with being homosexual in a heterosexual culture.
I have more to say, but I'll wait for your comments.
7 years ago
12 comments:
My ideas about homosexuality are usually in a state of flux. I'm definitely not an expert on the subject, so everything that follows can be taken with a grain of salt. I agree with your reasoning vis a vis the genetics, Phee. I think that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy, like pedophilia, though admittedly that is a bad comparison. By way of clarification, I don't mean to say that both have the same moral ramifications, by any stretch of the imagination: Two consenting adults in a meaningful relationship is the complete opposite of somebody preying on a hapless child.
What I'm trying so poorly to say is, neither situation is natural, i.e. neither leads to the physical reproduction of a child. So it seems, from a purely biologial perspective, that something is out of sync with the natural order of things. But since everybody has their own sexual hangups, it seems hypocritical to gang up on this one, although it's easy to do because it's so externally obvious. In a certain sense, homosexuality could be viewed as mankind's ultimate triumph over evolution.
Biological considerations aside, that still leaves the whole moral debate. It seems wrong to me that the majority of society should be able to tell a minority population how to behave, morally speaking. Straights should not be able to tell gays their feelings are invalid. This is one example of how "majority rules" fails, if recent Utahan legislation is any indication. Like you said, Phee, where is the threat?
I'm interested in your further extrapolation of the next-to-last paragraph there, Phee. Could you explain what you mean by your "nature vs. nurture" comment?
Whenever I've heard people talk about homosexuality, it is usually a "Nature vs. Nurture" debate: that is, are homosexual people born homosexual (homosexual by nature)or were they raised/have an experience/decide to be gay (homosexual by nurture).
Nature vs. Nurture is a much bigger argument than homosexuality; and as you extrapolate it becomes almost an argument of "fate vs. free choice" (i.e. Can I blame my genes or my behavior?)
That argument, if answered, would impact everything from the judicial system to education...as well as views on homosexuality.
As to Glasnost's point, it used to be that my main reason for opposing gay marriage was because it would lead to gay adoption. Otherwise, I had no problem with it. But recently I've decided that a child being raised by loving parents is more important than a child being raised in a broken home. And as long as the woman/couple giving their child up for adoption are aware and have a choice, then--once again--I don't see how this affects me or society in general except to say that the government has "condoned" their behavior. But that shouldn't be a factor since the government has no right to condemn or condone someone's sexuality if it's between consenting adults. So, to try and wrap this up: I feel that child protective services should continue to put abused or neglected children into traditional man-woman families wherever possible. However, when their is an agreement between an adopting gay couple and the person that puts the child up for adoption (and they have been properly screened) then the government has been removed from the equation.
One last thought: If we're trying to make it so the government only allows adoption by couples fitting the traditional view, then we'd be screening a lot more adoptions than we do presently--screening atheists, perhaps, or mixed race marriages...
I think I'm with Dan for the most part, in that I've come to no definite conclusions about the nature of homosexuality. I don't expect that I will, either. I'm not one to hold on to many absolutes. In any case, I agree with you both that their lives are no threat to mine, and also agree that I'd rather see a child raised by a loving homosexual couple than in a dysfunctional violent home.
Jared, I'm glad you made the point that nature vs. nurture is much bigger than homosexuality in your last comment. I was going to go into that when I finally got around to writing this post.
The one thing I do object to is this: I don't think pedophilic behavior has anything to do with this issue, and the two topics don't really belong in the same paragraph. Sexual abuse does not explain or neccessarily lead to sexual preference. Pedophiles prey both homosexually and heterosexually. Their victims may grow up with plenty of confusion about their sexuality whether they settle on same sex love or not. I would even agree that some women abused by men tend to grow up with a fear of them, and may thereby lean more toward homosexuality. However, all these repercussions are exceptions to the main issue for healthy homosexual adults, which seems to be the nature vs. nurture debate.
I think its probably a choice, and my lesbian roomate agrees. But, you never know...
I don't see how you can call homosexuality a biological "norm". I'm sorry. So I hope that your issue with Dan's comment is just that homosexuality was linked through juxtaposition to pedophilia. But there really are a lot of sexuality deviations in our world today--sexual deviation being sexual attraction or stimulation from anything other than an adult of the opposite sex.
Biology just doesn't support it.
Some of those deviations are criminal and others aren't. The legality (or social acceptance) of the issue doesn't change the biological argument.
wait a minute.... i never said i would call homosexuality a "biological norm." where are you getting that? in fact, my guesses are toward just the opposite (and so are my roomate's), that it is a chosen psychological thing. also, i agreed with pretty much everything dan said.
i took issue with your post jared, not dan's, for linking the variable of sexual abuse to the main issue in the first place, when it is an exception. i know plenty of gay people, and none of them have been abused sexually. its just a matter of preference for them...a matter of gender roles as well.
in any case, while i lean toward the conclusion that "homosexuality" is mostly a matter of nurture, i will not rule out biological possibilities just because there seems to be little evidence to support it NOW. we are constantly proving ourselves wrong. i'm not saying that one day scientists might discover a 'homosexual gene,' but that perhaps other things might be discovered in a person's physiological make-up that engender or incline a person more toward same-sex attraction, the same way many pscyhological factors often do.
anyway, taking it beyond the nature vs. nurture debate, do any of you think some of our "spirits" are more attracted to other spirits of the same sex? to spirits have genders? do spirits exist? could a more "manly" spirit in a female body be attracted to a more fem spirit in a female body? who knows. its a mystery. i know a few couples where the woman wears the pants in the family, and the man is more fem. its all about dah' gender roles.
to clarify, i just thought this statement took away from the issue a bit: "And what about the fact that many sexual preditators who prey on same-sex children were preyed on when they were children?"
I'll concede that those who have been preyed upon homosexually by sexual preditors might ultimately choose homosexuality based on some psychological hang-ups. And, as Dan mentioned, everybody has their hangups, homosexuality is just more obvious. However, I don't thing these people are numbered among the majority of homosexuals, and therefore are not really much of an argument for insinuating that homosexuality may be some kind of psychological disorder. Its all kind of fuzzy, but my roomate was a little hurt at being analyzed in the same category with sexual preds, and I felt the need to point that out.
also, jared, i wanted to let you know that i thought your post was very thought provoking and interesting, and that i can see where you were coming from even with the sexual pred thing...
Shasta, I apologize for putting words in your mouth. You never said that homosexuality was a "biological norm"; and you DID say that you and your roommate felt that it was essentially a choice, but you seem hesitant to go so far as to call it a deviancy or a deviation...
Although that could be because - like you said - there is a lack of conclusive evidence either way and as I said, my opinion is only an opinion.
I am not trying to imply that all (or even a large percentage of) homosexuals were abused. What I am saying is that sexual abuse is one very apparent example of how life events can lead to gender/identity confusion for anyone. I think it also shows that in the case of those people, homosexuality was most likely not engendered in them from birth but came about because of psychological turmoil.
I do not mean to suggest that homosexuality is a syndrome or a malaise or abuse or antyhing else. What I am saying is that it is a deviation from biological normalcy. In fact, as homosexuality becomes more and more acceptable in society, it becomes one more "option" that a person can choose as part of their identity...especially in their teenage or college years.
First thing first: I apologize for the comparison of pedophilia with homosexuality. As Jared and Glasnost noted, the comparison was not made to denegrate homosexuality, but to cite another example of a non-biological situation. I tried to think of another example of a sexual relationship that is inherently incapable of producing offspring, but was unable to come up with anything else. However, pedophilia is a loaded, emotionally-charged term and I acknowledge that it was in poor taste to lump it with homosexuality. I sincerely regret making anyone feel bad, and, Shasta's roommate, I apologize in particular to you. Such was not my intent, honestly.
Phee, Glasnost, thanks for sticking up for me. You did get the idea of what I was trying to say, but Shasta did have a valid point.
Everyone is entitled to their own view of morality. I just think we need to make sure our morals don't cause us to treat others with hate or malice. "For all have sinned", right?
Until very recently, I viewed homosexuality as immoral, but among other things, I got to thinking: homosexuality essentially represents one person loving another person, and that is always a good thing.
Ok, I have arrived late on the scene and can't possibly hope to respond to all the comments as well as the entry itself, but I'll try to organize some thoughts here... I'm largely going to do this by way of examining the logical basis of the writing that belies some common ideas about sexuality in general and homosexuality specifically.
I take exception to your argument that homosexuality is a choice. First of all, something not being a choice does not necessarily equate to being encoded in our DNA. Genetics may be an influence, but they are by no means the law of the land. Take my affinity towards math, for example. Do I have a specific gene that made me get a mathematics degree? I doubt it, but who knows, I may. I certainly had many experiences in my life that led me in that direction and shaped my interests -- but the fact that it is not expressed in a sequence of nucleotide bases does not make it more of a choice.
[Basically, what I'm doing is pointing out the logical fallacy where (gene implies no choice) is true, but (no choice implies gene) is false).]
Besides, when it comes to the matter of finding the elusive "gay gene," the fact that it has not been found neither implies that it exists nor that it doesn't exist. Too many fall victim to the idea that absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence, and frankly Jared, you are not one of the people I would expect to buy into it.
I see another contradition: "deviancy" and "naturalness" have both found their way into this discussion, where homosexuality's "deviancy" is indicative of its "unnaturalness." Deviance is a socially constructed idea where something falls away from what a society has declared as normal... You're arguing that homosexuality is also a social "condition," so equating the two is logically ok. But then the next step is taken to show that it is unnatural, but "nature" is biological and not social in nature. That is a step that can't be taken. It's also completely disregarding the fact that homosexuality does occur in nature among animal populations. There is also the argument that homosexuality is unnatural because it cannot lead to reproduction, but neither can sex between infertile people (due to either age or medical condition). Should that also be made to carry a social stigma?
Furthermore, I think that it's rather arrogant to assume that heterosexuals didn't choose our sexuality and we happen to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex that it implies that anyone who be attracted to anything different made that choice. I didn't choose my sexuality, so I am certainly not going to assume that anyone else did -- even if their choice differs from mine. And I am certainly not going to make judgments about the inherent morality of my choice over theirs.
Some of my closet and most wonderful friends in my life have been gay. It's horrible to watch the pain some of them have gone through at the hands of their families that could not accept the way their children simply are. Many of my friends have lamented the fact that they could not be straight so they wouldn't have to go through all of the pain, turmoil, discrimination, and hate associated with being gay -- but they can't, because they didn't make that choice.
Basically one of my big problems is that people are taking something that is little understood -- especially from a genetic or biological point of view -- and making assumptions and using it is a justification to say "well, you obviously chose this, so we can deny certain things to you." I recommend to everyone that they sit down and think -- really think -- hard and long about the mystery of their own sexualities and how that strange thing within us seems to point us towards another trait in another person.
Stacey
Stacey, the whole issue is whether or not we define ourselves or are defined by anything not ourself. We're surrounded by external influences from the moment we are born and - of course - these influence us. We are also influenced by our genes. How much? We're still not sure.
There's a branch of psychology called behavioral psychology. Some behavioral psychologists were a bit more liberal in their views than other psychologists. Some even went so far as to say that we have no ability to choose anything: that we are defined from the moment of birth (I think Adler was the lead proponent of this) and, therefore, he was undeserving of any fame he achieved as a psychologist. If you take that the opposite way, then Hitler was not "responsible" for the deaths of millions of people.
I'm not one to buy into the my-parents-made-me-who-I-am-and-that's-why-I-am-a-serial-killer plea.
Sexuality could be compared with taste preferences in food, I think. If I have an aversion to tomatoes but really like beets, and you hate beets, are you going to ask me if I CHOSE not to like tomatoes or if I have a gene that makes me like tomatoes? I probably never had a moment in my life where I had an epiphany and decided: I no longer like tomatoes. It was probably more likely a life-long development of that aversion.
It doesn't change the fact that I wasn't born not liking tomatoes most likely. It was probably a combination of surroundings/events/etc. Maybe I ate a tomatoe and had the flu and threw up and that's one reason for not liking them.
So I agree with what you're saying about the absence of a gene not meaning immediately that it was a conscious choice. But it doesn't change my argument.
Besides, if you read my initial blog post, my argument was that the REASON people are looking for the magical gene is because we feel that if something IS encoded in our genes that it takes away the responsibility of choice.
You are correct that the absense of evidence doesn't mean the evidence of absence. But that's not what I was arguing.
I'm not saying that I am a super-genius scientist that knows the answer. What I'm saying is that I think it's gender- and identity-confusion reinforced by society. That makes sense. Ockham's razor.
Finally, when I said "deviancy" I didn't mean deviancy from social norms. I meant deviancy from physical norms. I don't think that society's definition of what's normal and not normal has any bearing on the fact that nature has provided male and female counterparts to reproduce and that our entire biological structure is built around that. OUr psychological structure turning out opposite seems contradictory to me.
I'd like to hear from you where homosexuality occurs naturally in nature throughout the course of an animal's or species' life. All I've ever heard about is an animal getting confused or - in some amphibians - animals being able to switch sexuality....physically...and turn from females into males. That has nothing to do with humans.
I've had a number of close friends who were gay and I have no problem telling them my opinion. Normally our conversations never got around to it, though. In my opinion they're confused. That's just my opinion. That doesn't mean I dislike them. I have plenty of friends who are agnostic and feel that I'm confused for believing in God. Does that mean they don't like me?
My last point here is this: I completely agree with your opinion about people talking about something that is so little understood. But I also think it's a cop-out answer. Let's just pretend the issue isn't there until we have irrefutable fact, right?
Your post itself seems to feel that you've taken a stand. How'd you do that without evidence?
good points, stacey!
Post a Comment