One of the arguments advanced by the gay rights movement is that homosexuality is biologically pre-determined. This argument bothers me for a few reasons:
1. It implies that being homosexual is wrong. If it is right, then it does not matter whether or not it is biologically determined, since it would be as valid a choice as straightness.
2. This argument has an element of biological determinism in it: You are born attracted to member of the same sex, therefore you can not help but have sex with them. The fact is however, that people have freedom of choice and can overcome their biology. Sexual orientation is pre-determined, but sexual behavior is not: Both gay and straight men and women in the Catholic Church have chosen to lead lives of celibacy for religious reasons, and many, though not all, have succeeded. Their sexuality did not predetermine their actions.*
Recent studies show that pedophilia, like homo and heterosexuality, is a biologically predetermined sexual orientation. Yet we expect pedophiles to overcome their biologically instilled sexual desires, and to avoid tempting situations, because we value our children's safety over pedophiles' sexual happiness.
Of course, because sex is such a basic need, refraining from sex - no matter what one's orientation is - can be physically, psychologically, emotionally and socially destructive. This raises the question of whether or not it is fair that we as a society demmand such a sacrifice from pedophiles - I believe the answer is yes, because pedophilia can be so harmful to children, but I still think it is a question worth pondering.
3. The case of pedophilia is different, because it is (in my opinion and that of most of society) immoral, whereas homosexuality is not. Which brings me back to my first point. At the same time, the biological determinism makes this argument insulting to gay people on another level - it feeds into popular cultural motifs of gay people as being especially unable to control their sexual desires, which is why there was such a climate of fear about molestation surrounding the American Army's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
4. My issues with the bioligical determinism inherent in this argument are great, because I believe it is a slippery slope: As we discover that more and more of our behavior is influenced by genetics, I can envision a day in which a murderer gets away with it, because his lawyer shows results of a DNA test that verify the murderer was pre-disposed to murder (and indeed, some people are born more genetically predisposed to violence). This would be a world in which no individual is responsible for her or his actions - and it is why I advocate setting strict standards for which behavior is and is not acceptable based not on biology, but on morality. As I said previously, since I do not qualify homosexuality as immoral, I do not view this change in criteria as a threat to gay rights - the question is why the gay rights movement views it as such.
5. I do believe that sexual orientation is biologically pre-determined. But the question I would ask of the Torah regarding its ban on male anal sex is not why it mandates a biologically impossible behavior, but rather, why it mandates a behavior that, while possible, is extremely difficult, not only biologically, but also emotionally, socially, psychologically, and spirituality - a behavior that deprives people of a basic human need, a need that would not violate morality.
I do not have an answer to this question, and I believe it is an urgent question for millions of people. I am simply advocating for a reframing of the way the question is asked, one that focuses less on biology and more on morality, and the seeming immorality of asking people to give up on such an essential human pleasure.
*Yes, many within the clergy did fail, and many molested children. But the ones who succeeded are the ones who do not make the headlines - and they constitute the majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment