We’ve come a long way, baby???

by John Hales in Living in QUtah | 0 comments

In today’s debate over equal rights, it’s important that the right questions be asked.

That’s why I was dismayed when I heard former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain say in an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan in October that homosexuality is “a choice.”

With Cain having now suspended his campaign, perhaps I’m a bit late bringing this up. But on the other hand, Cain was a little late, himself. Let’s face it: The “gay is a choice” thing is soooo last century.

Seriously? Are we still fighting that battle?

With the likes of Cain, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum making significant runs for the Republican nomination, it seems that what should have been put to rest long ago hasn’t been.

Cain’s statement on CNN was this: “I happen to think that it [homosexuality] is a choice.”

No, no, no! Inappropriate sexual advances and 13-year extra-marital affairs are choices; the gender you are attracted to in those choices is not.

Cain went on to say, “You show me evidence, other than opinion, and you might cause me to reconsider that.”

Mr. Cain (et al), reconsider. There is plenty of evidence.

Gene studies in fruit flies (in 1995) and mice (in 2010) have indicated strong genetic links to sexual orientation and behavior. Sure, that doesn’t prove anything for humans, but it does raise an intriguing suggestion.

Studies in humans (twins studies, most notably) have found correlations of homosexuality that go beyond mere environmental and psychological explanations.

Other studies have found correlations of biological traits with homosexuality (for instance, brain size and the number of fingertip ridges). True, these are correlative, not causative, but the fact that certain physical correlates are developed in the womb should at least cause one to wonder if sexual orientation, too, has its beginnings there.

But the best evidence is from homosexuals themselves. Mr. Cain, you “happen to think” it is a choice. I, however, happen to know it is not. For me, being gay sure as heck (I’d say “hell,” but this is Utah) is not an opinion.

Put another way (as long as we’re talking about being in Utah): I bear my testimony that I know beyond a shadow of doubt and with every fiber of my being that I did not “choose” to be gay. Amen.

C’mon, opponents of homosexuality. If we’re going to have a debate, let’s at least talk about something debatable.

Hell Heck, even a top LDS church leader, Dallin H. Oaks, (as far back as 1995) accepted there were biological components to homosexuality (though he rejected them as determinative and refuted the “born that way” theory).

In 2006, Oaks said the church had no position on the “nature” vs. “nurture” argument. “These are scientific questions,” he said, later implying that the question should not be about the cause of homosexuality, but whether acting on it is permissible regardless of the cause.

Given that he and I stand on opposite sides of that question, he’s right —something that both gay advocates and their opponents would do well to remember. By arguing between “it’s a choice” or “born that way,” both sides miss the boat.

Quite simply, we don’t know what causes homosexuality. And fundamentally it doesn’t matter.

Here’s why.

Opponents cry “it’s a choice” because they have to defend the idea that homosexuality is not “normal.”

It’s time for us to admit they are right — but with a caveat.

Being homosexual isn’t normal, but only in the same way as being albino.

Albinism is not normal, but it is natural. It happens through naturally occurring means.

Regardless of whether homosexuality is “caused” by biology, or by environment, or by a mix of the two that might be different for each person, it happens naturally — not by choice.

Once we get off the “choice” issue, society can explore, debate, and make progress on more meaningful — and, quite frankly, interesting — questions.

You want to debate about whether acting on one’s homosexuality is morally and/or socially tolerable? Fine.

You want to talk about whether or not it can be changed? Great (even though that question, too, should be moot. After all, with medical advances, one’s gender is easily changeable. So should we abolish civil-rights protections based on gender, since gender can be changed?).

You want to argue about marriage equality and other equal rights? Bring it on.

Those are legitimate areas of discussion.

But let’s at least start the debate from an intellectually honest position — a position that all rationally thinking persons should have reached long ago.