Ex-Gay Watch has a good post on the latest back-and-forth on the “genetics versus environment” debate regarding the root causes of homosexuality. Bottom line:
On a philosophical level, getting bogged down in the genetics debate will get us absolutely nowhere. Is homosexuality genetic? I believe it to be, but until someone proves (or disproves) it definitively the argument is a dead end. For now, who cares?
That conversation is fruitless because it’s simply hair-splitting about how we got here. I’m far more interested in the fact that we ARE here…and now that we are, what everyone is going to do about it. Let’s try to stay grounded in reality here.
I concur completely. From the perspective of the bigots, does it really matter whether being gay is genetic, prenatal, or postnatal? If it’s genetic, then “it’s a disease” that should be cured, treated, or even aborted.
If not, then families and schools should, the bigots will argue, be subsidized, or penalized, into raising children in a “non-gay” way, whatever that might mean (Mandatory Little League enrollment? Compulsory Britney Spears video marathons?).
Gays will never, ever win this debate, and politically it doesn’t really matter anyway. From the perspective of science, medicine and sociology, sure — let’s find out. But let’s always keep the legal, political and moral implications — or lack thereof — in the proper context.
Related Post:
On the “Gay Genes Discovery” — Movie Recommendation
1 response so far ↓
Link Tony // Apr 7, 2005 at 4:56 pm
I agree, it doesn't matter. It's important to pursue, if for no other reason than intellectual/scientific curiousity, but it's irrelevant for how we approach the question of rights and liberties. Waiting for the outcome is misdirected and useless.
Specifically, how should science go about proving that it's not genetic? If there is a gene that exists, it can be proven, but just because it hasn't been discovered doesn't mean it won't or can't exist. If we haven't found it, at what point do we say conclusively that it doesn't exist?
The important question is how does society deal with what is obvious and real, regardless of why it exists. Does it mean that assuming it's true is unacceptable for public policy until it can be proven? Ignore it (or legislate against it) just because specific proof hasn't been found? That's sort of like acknowledging God, I suspect. No proof there, but most still believe. Maybe we should make the bigots prove that God exists before we let them fight to save society. I wonder how they'd feel about that…
Whatever direction this goes, if Britney Spears videos become the indoctrination for heterosexuality, I'm skipping school that day.