Thread: *Hypothetical* Science confirms you are born homosexual. Does this change things?

I used to be anti-gay, when I was in middle school. Granted, I was a young teenager, about 12 or 13 years old, and my experience with homosexuality was kids on the school bus talking about two guys kissing. At the time, that sounded yucky to me, and so I opposed it(in the ways that a 13 year old can), basically by calling people who would do that(I didn't actually know anyone that was gay) (*)(*)(*)(*), and disgusting, and generally saying that "gay is wrong". This wasn't a thought I had arrived at completely on my own, in fact, it was mostly based on the social view of it by the other kids in my environment that I was exposed to. Also keep in mind that this would have been around 1996 or so.

One day, when I was at a friend's house, we were chatting on America Online(hahahaha, so archaic) in one of the "Teen" chatrooms. The whole concept of chatting on the internet at the time was pretty darn new to us, so we were sort of mystified by the fact that there were who knows how many other people in the same chatroom as us talking about all manner of things, with no shortage of obnoxious trolling going on. I would join in, saying things in chat like "(*)(*)(*)(*) are evil", "being gay is just disgusting", and other statements to the same effect. I'm not even sure why I did it, maybe just to fit in, or maybe just because I've always tended to be someone who likes to make my opinions known to people(whether you've asked or not! ).

One day while doing this, I got an instant message from someone with a girly screename. I don't remember the exact wording of the message, but it was basically along the lines of, why are you getting so worked up about what other people do, if that's what makes them happy and they aren't hurting anyone, why do you feel the need to say such rude and hurtful things about them.

Seems like a no-brainer, right? Well, I was floored. I had simply not considered that angle of the issue before. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I was instantly not homophobic anymore, or that I instantly became a supporter for homosexual rights, but I never went into a chatroom saying those things again, and I've never called another person a (*)(*)(*) or a similar hateful term for being gay. It also made me realize that I'd never actually felt "right" saying those things to begin with. It was almost like that person shone a light on my behavior and opened my eyes to my own ignorance and my own lack of true belief in the things I was even saying.

That simple message was the catalyst for the birth of empathy in my thinking, and the realization that people's pursuit of happiness is not mine to judge when it's not harming others.

Originally Posted by Junkieturtle

I used to be anti-gay, when I was in middle school...

You said what needs to be said to everyone, in a most effective way.

Thanks!!

Originally Posted by Junkieturtle

That simple message was the catalyst for the birth of empathy in my thinking, and the realization that people's pursuit of happiness is not mine to judge when it's not harming others.

Thank you for sharing. I often hear kids, or even adults tossing around words like "(*)(*)(*)" or other hurtful language, but for the most part it does not make me angry or offended. I've dealt with and understand that the culture and stigma is what's speaking. Getting mad or offended doesn't get us anywhere.

I feel I've had the most profound impact on others by just being myself. From my school mates to co-workers, family and friends... few recognize that I'm gay unless and until I've told them. They get to know ME first before they judge me for anything else. When they find out, it's difficult for them to judge me with a stereotype or any other form of negativity because they already know me. Slowly but surely this will effectively weaken the stereotype itself, and the stigma will go with it. Gay people need to come out, and not just the crazy ones putting on a show during the San Francisco PRIDE festivals... the "normal" ones that you'd never identify unless they told you.

Which highlights the point of the thread, as I take it. It doesn't matter of it's proven genetic or otherwise... it's the culture that has to change. No amount of science will change the fact that a part of the culture feels it is wrong and needs to be cured. It might change the language and appearance of the game, but the game will be the same unless the culture changes.

Just curious. Has anyone ever met a homophobe who cites religion and the bible as the basis for his bigotry who admits that, were it not for the bible, he would have no problem with gays? Sort of a "it seems fine to me but God clearly knows more about this than I do so I'm going to have go with his views"?

I haven't. I find that religious people, no matter how reasonable or rabid, always seem to worship a god whose views are precisely the same as their own.

Fine then if they are born that way we can find the gene defect and abort the fetuses until we come up with a cure.
Problem solved.

Personally I don't think it matters either way.

IF it is a choice, then so is heterosexuality.

IF it is genetic, then so is heterosexuality.

Originally Posted by Slyhunter

Fine then if they are born that way we can find the gene defect and abort the fetuses until we come up with a cure.
Problem solved.

Like I said, the culture has to change... The fact that it is genetic or not makes no difference, as the above poster has demonstrated. People will still see it as wrong regardless. The only thing that changes is the language and tactics of the fight. We will have talks of aborting fetuses, or of using medication to repress the gene or otherwise compensate for the physiological differences.

What about legally? Would the continued legal discrimination be able to continue if this was an undeniable genetic trait. It's not like alcoholism where you have to drink alcohol to fulfill whatever predisposition you may have to alcoholism. You're a homosexual whether you have sex with people of the same gender as yourself or not. It's not the sex that makes you gay, it's actually a byproduct, just like heterosexual sex is a byproduct(unless it's forced) of the two people of different genders having a sexual attraction to one another.

I guess what I'm saying is, do you think the basis for discrimination in the law would be more or less if this was a confirmed thing? Would it have any effect at all?

Originally Posted by Junkieturtle

What about legally? Would the continued legal discrimination be able to continue if this was an undeniable genetic trait. It's not like alcoholism where you have to drink alcohol to fulfill whatever predisposition you may have to alcoholism. You're a homosexual whether you have sex with people of the same gender as yourself or not. It's not the sex that makes you gay, it's actually a byproduct, just like heterosexual sex is a byproduct(unless it's forced) of the two people of different genders having a sexual attraction to one another.

One might say if you're genetically predisposed to alcoholism, then you're always an alcoholic... even though you don't know it until you start drinking alcohol.

It might have some impact on legalities. Take alcoholism for example... you can't fire someone for being an alcoholic because it's a disease. Diseased people have protected statuses. But you CAN fire an alcoholic for being drunk on the job. In other words, if homosexuality is considered a genetic disease, then we may be in a situation where you can't be fired for BEING homosexual, but you might be able to be fired for ACTING on that homosexuality... particularly if it's on the job. As for what constitutes "Acting" homosexual on the job, I don't know if it could be interpreted broadly or narrowly... perhaps you can only be fired if you have sex while on the job, which would not really be discriminatory as anyone can be fired for having sex on the job. On the other hand, perhaps you can be fired for having a picture of you and your family on the desk, including your homosexual partner, or for even just mentioning your homosexuality in any sort of passive way.... like a coworker asking, "what are you doing this weekend?.... ", "Oh, my boyfriend and I are going to the see the new Terminator movie"... bam, fired.

Marriage and civil unions? Even a genetic link to homosexuality doesn't mean you should have them. That depends on the PURPOSE of the law, and even protected, in-born traits such as race and gender can be a basis for legitimate discrimination if there is a rational link between that trait and the purpose of the law being executed. For example, imagine that a new disease breaks loose that is fatal to people of White decent, but only gives the symptoms of a cold to Black people... there is a rational and legitimate basis for the government to discriminate by providing vaccinations to White people with priority over Black people. Similarly, if there is a rational basis for promoting marriage and the corresponding rights strictly to heterosexual couples, then even a genetic link to homosexuality would not mean that they would automatically qualify for those rights. It requires an evaluation for the PURPOSE of marriage laws to determine if the law is intended to fulfill a legitimate purpose, that it's effect is narrow enough not to have too broad of an impact, that it is sufficient enough to be executing its stated purpose, and finally that there is no rational basis for discriminating when fulfilling that purpose.

That said (and as I mentioned before), one advantage that might be given if it's proven genetic is that homosexuality (as a disease or inborn trait) might help qualify them as a protected class, meaning that certain civil rights cases like marriage might evaluate them under strict scrutiny, where the state must PROVE that there is a rational and compelling basis for their discrimination. Currently civil rights cases are usually being decided under normal scrutiny, the burden of proof is shifted, and there is a higher standard for us to prove that there is no rational basis for the government to be discriminating. It's up to the courts to decide if a case warrants review under strict scrutiny, often based on the frequency with which they view the suspect class as having been discriminated against in the past, and on the relevance (or lack there of) of the class distinction in the case at hand.

Just as many psychological disorders have genetic causes, this does not mean society has to promote it in any way... certain protections are in place where any disease must be tolerated to a certain extend, but these protections only go so far, especially when the person in question is not receiving treatment and continually acts on their disorder. It doesn't mean we can open "Gay Youth Groups" in schools and college campuses, unless the purpose is as a support group wishing to recover from their disorder or cope with it, rather than embrace it and act on it. In other words, a genetic link still doesn't eliminate the question of "right and wrong", which can still have profound impacts on how the laws are executed.

Same thing can be said about pedophiles, that's genetic too.