A lot of folks in the gay rights crowd base their arguments as to why gays deserve the rights social privileges that straight folks have (which they do) on the argument that being gay is in-born, that it’s a genetic, or perhaps congenital, condition, and so they should be allowed to marry (which, I believe, they should).
But it’s not a convincing argument — at least as far as the folks go who are least willing to be convinced. As, for example, Mike Huckabee demonstrates:
Huckabee says he doesn’t know if homosexuality is inborn, but he believes you can control the behavior. He compares homosexuality to obesity or alcoholism: “Some people have a predisposition to alcoholism. Does that mean they’re not responsible for getting drunk? No.”
I give him the liberal line: Being gay is so integral to a person’s identity that it’s not a choice, that it’s like being African-American.
“I’m especially offended by that,” he answers immediately. “Because blackness is an inescapable quality. Black is not a behavior. There’s no behavior to black. What you can say is that whatever disposition, it’s a choice. A lot of people are celibate. When people enter the priesthood, they make a choice to subjugate certain behaviors and/or feelings. It’s not that they don’t have them; it’s that they choose not to act on them.”
I’m charmed that Huckabee is able to be offended on behalf of African-Americans — but his answer demonstrates the downside to this line of attack, i.e., people don’t automatically get a pass for genetic influence. Because dispositions to certain behaviors or actions can be, in fact, usually suppressed or controlled.
The question that should be asked, is why (in this case) they should be, and what harm those behaviors actually cause to individuals or society, and why, based on that, they should be deprived of the social, emotional, and civil rights that the rest of us get to enjoy? What are the societal ills stemming from that “choice” (which, as we all know, is an evil word in some quarters)? Provide a justification, a reason, other than “it’s icky” (so are raw tomatoes, if you ask me, but you won’t see me telling people they can’t eat ’em) or that “Reverend Frim down at the Third Baptist says the Bible says so” (because, with all due respect, Reverend Frim would also rather I didn’t occasionally skip church on Sundays, and we’d both probably that weren’t made the law of the land, either, at least not when the Big Game is on.)
“Blaming” (or “standing on”) genetics will not win this battle for the hearts, minds (and laws) of the nation. That’s because the folks who who are most likely to still be swayed aren’t much thinking about how gays feel, or how fundamentally they are so inclined (if they were, it would be a moot point). I’m not sure that reason (if not compassion) will win fight, either, but I suspect it has a better chance.
(via Right Wing Watch)