End the Homosexual Genetics Debate Liberals like to complain about a lot of things. Especially liberals here at Swarthmore. But I don't think it is just an inherent desire to whine, I think there's a lot of stuff that's just plain wrong. I'm going to talk about something today that I think is just plain wrong. In a nutshell, I want to discuss why straight people make me mad. Not all of them, of course - my boyfriend's straight and that makes me happy - but a lot of them. Specifically, those who think it is their God-given right to think of homosexuals as less moral, less religious, less qualified, or my personal favorite, less "natural." Even more specifically, I hate the way they have tried to frame the issues surrounding the homosexual rights movement. I find the argument "it might be genetic" fairly insulting. By itself, it certainly is an interesting question, as I think almost any question about inheritable traits is. But outside of a scientific inquiry, the question of inheritable traits could lead to an answer with serious political and moral consequences. Standing firmly behind the idea that genetic issues do not belong in the political or moral realm, I would go so far as to say that no good at all can come from the current murmurs of "is it genetic?" The most obvious evidence of this comes directly from those who ask the question, the ways in which it is asked and the connotations it carries. Rarely is a group of people sitting around discussing the latest advances in genetics, wondering if our personalities, our emotions our sexual orientation are genetically inheritable. More likely, it is an excuse. "Well maybe it's in their genes." As if they really meant "Maybe it isn't their fault." And this is where I have a big problem. Because the issue of fault should never be considered. Fault, by definition, implies bad. I would agree that these questions are probably asked by some of the more liberal of the straight population, those at least willing to lend an ear to the issue. And they are even asked by members of the homosexual population. The problem comes when this assumption begins to frame the political movement, as I fear it has. I love my boyfriend. I'll call him "Jay" for the rest of this article, because well, that's his name. So here I am, loving Jay, and I don't have to be ashamed to say that in a published newsletter. I don't have to be afraid to be seen with him in public. I doubt that there is a "Jay" gene somewhere in the double helix of nucleotides that makes me who I am. And yet, this should come as a shock to those who ask the genetic question about homosexuals, I'm still allowed to go out with him! Fascinating isn't it, what a liberal world we inhabit? Some of us, that is....The homosexual movement will go nowhere arguing "it's not their fault, it's genetic." An author in the latest issue of Common Sense makes this clear by arguing that our freedom to choose to get an abortion combined with our knowledge of genetics might someday lead people to abort homosexual children. A fine argument, but a misguided conclusion. That isn't an anti-abortion argument, it's an argument in favor of the acceptance of homosexuals. In a world where homosexuals were accepted, this wouldn't be an issue; the baby would be the child of proud parents. Going on the assumption that aborting children because they are homosexual is not a good thing, a reader of that article must conclude that homosexuals must be accepted in our society. We cannot accept a society that accepts homosexuals simply because it is "not their fault" - regardless of whether a gene is found or not. Not only does this belief have horrid implications for a world with increasing capabilities of genetic engineering, but it has severe consequences in terms of the ways in which these people are treated in everyday society. Can you imagine if the African-American rights movement of the 1960's had phrased its ideology in the terms "it's not their fault, it's genetic"? The stalled progress, the misunderstandings, and the misguided attempts to ameliorate racism would have set race relations back twenty years. Maybe I'm afraid. Afraid of a world where, in order to be Jay's girlfriend I'd have to (a) sequence my DNA for the elusive "Jay" gene, or (b) give up my job, friends, and life. One option sounds impossible, the other ridiculous. And vice-versa. If you think the above situation sounds ridiculous, you are right. But it's happening. The fact that it wouldn't happen to me does not mean I am morally good, religious, or have particularly superior DNA. It means I'm lucky. Lucky to be accepted in a society that likes to pick on random groups of people that it deems worth picking on. From a moral standpoint, I don't intend to use my luck to the advantage of others. From a selfish standpoint, I don't want to set a precedent for Uncle Sam in the bedroom. He seems to get enough of this as it is. |
Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback