By Adam Dahmer–
While feedback from last month’s column on the abolition of marriage has been varied, one recurrent theme among both opponents and supporters of marital equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples, is the question as to whether homosexuality is an inborn trait, or a conscious decision. For many people, the answer to this question decides not only the legitimacy or illegitimacy of same sex marriage, but of same sex romantic relationships in general.
Those who contend that individuals consciously select their sexual orientation tend to look unfavorably on homosexuality, while those who believe that sexual orientation is biologically determined usually condone same sex attraction and the activities its expression entails. This debate is often framed as “nature vs. nurture,” and somehow, its adherents fail to grasp that it bears absolutely no relevance on any discussion of human sexuality. For various reasons, nature vs. nurture should be discarded as a logical framework for the consideration of LGBT rights.
In the first place, hinging the legitimacy of homosexuality on the presence or absence of its biological foundations presupposes that it is morally evil. Essentially, those who argue for the legal and social acceptance of same sex relationships based on the nature vs. nurture argument justify their position by admitting that homosexuality would be wrong if attempted as the result of mere human volition, but should be tolerated because it is a compulsion over which gays and lesbians have no control. It is akin to excusing the perpetual drunkenness of an alcoholic by explaining that he cannot help but desire excessive drink. The difference, of course, is that homosexuality and alcoholism are not analogous. Whereas the latter often proves utterly debilitating to those who experience it. The former is completely non-detrimental to those involved.
Refining the metaphor of the alcoholic, one could say that reasoning along the lines of nature vs. nurture establishes homosexuality as a psychological condition akin to nymphomania, a degree of sexual desire which is socially unconventional and morally incapacitating to the point of deviance.
This sort of thinking paves the way for well-meaning conservatives who disapprove of same-sex attraction to attempt to “cure” those people whom they perceive as afflicted with homosexual urges. They assume that, as with nymphomania, the natural inclinations of gays and lesbians to desire physical involvement with same-sex partners, while impossible to extinguish, can be consciously suppressed. The movement to orchestrate the uniform psychological suppression of same sex attraction to is not in the best interest of the LGBT community, and its members largely fail to realize the extent of the damage they continually inflict upon their public image by rhetorically adhering to the arguments from biological determinism that justify it.
More outrageously, claiming that homosexuality is justifiable only as a biological inclination makes engaging in same-sex romantic relations for reasons other than innate predisposition seem morally wrong. This inhibits the full expression of human sexuality, and means that people who are merely sexually curious cannot pursue orientational self-exploration without risking the condemnation of sexual traditionalists and gay-rights advocates alike.
A good example is the imbroglio into which pop singer Katy Perry plunged with the debut of her song, “I Kissed a Girl.” Gay rights activists railed against the piece, alleging that since Perry self-identified as “straight,” her song’s titular act undermined “serious” lesbianism. Ironically, the song invited equally harsh criticism from social conservatives, who alleged that Perry was a nefarious proponent of the lesbian lifestyle. The umbrage from both camps was completely irrational. Politically, it makes no sense whatsoever for proponents of gay rights or traditional values to alienate potential allies of their own movement. Especially in the case of lesbianism, it seems highly counterproductive for the leaders of the LGBT community to draw false dichotomies between “serious” and “non-serious” lesbians when the social acceptance of homoerotic sexual expression is highly instrumental in preventing the condemnation of members of the LGBT community by heterosexuals.
Ethically, the widespread criticism of the song is even less conscionable. If two adult women of sound mind have a mutual desire to kiss–whether their motivations are biological, socially conditioned, or personally contrived–then it ought to be their right to do so without evoking the self-righteous consternation of lesbian activists or anyone else. Similarly, if for some reason other than sexual fulfillment, a man decides to explore a sexual dimension in his relationship with a male friend, and that friend consents to his affections, then the two should not be made to feel guilt, even if both are predominantly or even exclusively attracted to women by biological inclination. In both cases, the involved individuals’s actions are the expression of their freewill, and should not be judged according to the origins of their motivational impeti.
Just as people who are biologically inclined to seek sexual partners of one sex but consciously choose to experiment with another should not be subject to the moral judgment of their peers, a person who feels attraction to members of one sex or another, or to both, should not be punished for failing to act on his or her desires. Whether this self restraint is in-and-of-itself more moral than its alternative, as some theologians and philosophers claim, is and should be subject to debate, but just as no one should be persecuted for the way in which they act upon their sexual desires, or for engaging in sexual relations for reasons other than the satisfaction of sexual desire, no one should be condemned for adopting an ethic of asceticism in matters of sex.
For me, the importance of this point was highlighted by an incident that I once witnessed in high school. While eating lunch one day, I overheard a conversation between two friends seated at an adjacent table. One was a confident and outspoken lesbian upperclassman, and the other was a freshman who had never considered his sexual orientation before coming to high school. The freshman had always lived a heterosexual lifestyle, and came from a family that condemned homosexuality. Nonetheless, he suspected that he might be gay or bisexual. After mulling over the question of his sexuality for some weeks, he had come to the conclusion that he was, in fact gay, and proudly announced this realization to his table mate by declaring, “I have decided I’m gay!”
However, instead of the approval he had probably expected his comment to elicit, he was met with a verbal attack. Rather than being happy that he had resolved a weighty existential quandary, his friend was incensed that he thought he could decide the nature of his sexuality, and berated him for several minutes before leaving the table and eating elsewhere. But what right did she have to condemn him?
If he avowed that he wanted to engage in sexual relations with men and not women, regardless of his motivations she should have offered him emotional support. Instead, she was so hung up on the politics of the biological argument for gay rights that she disconfirmed his resolution, and left him feeling uncertain about his decision and abandoned by his friend.
When it comes to the question of sexual legitimacy as it is perceived within the LGBT community, the very use of terms like “serious lesbianism” in public discourse highlight the increasing antiquity and inadequacy of the nomenclature our society applies to sexual orientation. Since the publication of the Kinsey reports in the mid-twentieth century, it has been generally accepted among sexual researchers that heterosexuality and homosexuality are no more than points demarcating the opposite ends of a broad spectrum. While there are probably some people who are completely “straight” and others who are purely “gay” or “lesbian,” it is increasingly evident that the vast majority of people, while favoring one end or the other, exhibit behavior or harbor desires that place them somewhere between the spectral poles.
In the face of so nuanced a sexuality, terms like “bi”, “straight” and “gay” ultimately do nothing but force people into ill-fitting proverbial boxes, confounding healthy notions of sexual identity and creating unnecessary and artificial divisions in society.
Ultimately, the selection of sexual or romantic partners ought to be a matter for consideration by no one but the desirer, the desiree, and the higher power—if any—to which they appeal for moral guidance. If an individual consensually engages another in a same sex romantic relationship, whether spurred by biological predisposition, an aspiration to deepen friendship, a yin for experimentation, a personal sense of obligation, or even a transient whim, it is no one’s right to pass judgment. In short, it should be socially acceptable for people to make love to whichever willing adults they so choose, regardless of why they want to make love to them. The presence of a biological predisposition to attraction, or lack thereof, is not relevant.
