Being Gay Probably Isn’t Natural (but it doesn’t matter)
I’m enthralled by clinical psychologist Oliver James’ They Fuck You Up (named after one of my favourite poems, Larkin’s morose “This Be the Verse”). With examples both entertaining and scientific, James is basically trying to posit an answer to the classic “nature vs. nurture” debate, arguing that it is almost never genes that shape our personality, nor is it a ‘bit of both’ - instead, we are almost entirely the products of our environment.
I posted a quote earlier here from the book. concerning the idea that those of a right-wing persuasion generally fall on the ‘nature’ side of the ropes to preserve classism where left-wing adherents supporting social change would generally think most things develop from ‘nurture’. I believe this is true, with one exception - socially left people, and almost everyone supportive of gay rights, thinks homosexuals are born gay.
The western world is is on the verge of universally recognising the right to same-sex marriage; it’s happening in many states and countries worldwide as I write this. The Labor party here in Australia is in the midst of re-formalising their stance on the issue. I’ve breathed in the atmosphere of thousands campaigning for this change and you can feel it, no matter where you look you cannot shake the thought, “here we are, on the brink of change, and we are shaping it.” I don’t think I’m naive to say this - I’m well aware that the situation is incredibly backward in much of the world, and even in the best of places discrimination exists for gay people.
But it’s sad that so many cling so steadfastly to the view that its something people are born with. The Human Genome has been mapped, and it makes no sense for any of them to be a so-called ‘gay gene’ when there are in fact so fewer genes than we might think. It almost strikes me as trying to cast aside ‘gayness’ as a birth defect - which is odd, since its generally the view of the LGBT community and its supporters. I can understand the reasoning for presenting such a view; if one is born gay, then it is not a ‘choice’ that could be reversed (those “straightenising” camps and sessions are abhorrent). But just because one is not born with something does not mean they choose it - to go back to James’ book and many, many studies, our personality is shaped most in our earliest years of life; why would sexuality necessarily be so different? Claims from many gay people that “they knew when they were young” would support this moreso than the whole birth thing. Whether present or not, you can’t just ‘reverse’ someone’s sexuality.
That’s not to say that if you catch your little boy playing with dolls that you should be worried he’ll be gay. Firstly, because you shouldn’t be worried they’d be gay since you should love them anyway. Secondly, because I’m sure its a lot more subtle and complex than obvious cliches. Imagine for a second - and I don’t for a second think it is - that homosexuality was a choice; would that make it necessarily wrong? Does it being something that someone doesn’t choose make it more acceptable? Maybe from a religious perspective, but the church should be separate from the state.
Gay marriage shouldn’t be legal because it is the die that someone is cast at birth. Gay marriage should be legal because love is love, and beautiful in all forms. Gay marriage should be legal because discrimination in all forms is wrong. Gay marriage should be legal, because, regardless of your personal beliefs, if someone wants to do something that doesn’t harm anyone, they should be legally able to do it.
Returning to the title I started this post with - and I admit, calling it unnatural is liable to gut-reactions and as such is a bit cheap. But sex, in its most basic biological function is to extend the species - obviously, gay sex doesn’t do this, hence why it would be ‘unnatural’ in comparison to heterosexuality. Society will likely always be fairly hetero-normative; what can change is whether it’s discriminatory. Contraception is unnatural too, but it shouldn’t be opposed. Even straight perceptions of love deviate from a truly natural existence.
You might still disagree with me completely and that’s fine. When it comes down to it, these are not the important issues at stake - but I think defending it as “natural” and something that gay people are born with - while they are a matter of opinion, by allowing these to be key issues we slow down the progress of the movement by allowing those against LGBT rights to use them as arguments against deserved freedoms. Bigots are bigots, regardless of their reasoning - and gay rights should be furthered not because it something unchosen, or natural. Gay marriage should be legal for a very simple reason - because no one has the right to tell you who you can love.
