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

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the impact if doctors and scientists were able to prove conclusively that homosexuality is a trait you are born with. Therefore, if you're going to post in this thread, please address the issue in that light, and not bring up issues of homosexuality being a choice. There are other threads for that.

One thing to keep in mind. Since I'm not really sure the mechanism by which homosexuality is caused, I am hesitant to say we should discuss situations where homosexuality is "treated" with one or more types of medical procedures(gene therapy, etc etc). I don't want to add too much to my hypothetical as far as the nitty gritty specifics of how homosexuality actually works genetically and biologically(because I don't have enough background in either field to even know if I was being accurate), I'd rather the focus be more on the social impact that this discovery would have. If this topic does end up getting discussed, maybe I'll make another thread that focuses on what part of human physiology homosexuality would be a part of.

Some things to consider.

Would this change laws banning same-sex marriage? Would it change the attitudes towards it?
Would this make a better case for crimes committed against homosexuals just because they are homosexual? Would those crimes be hate crimes?
Would this change attitudes towards homosexual adoption?
Would this change attitudes towards so called "straight camps" that make claims of being able to "cure" homosexuality?

Now that I've lain out the purpose of this thread, here is my contribution.

This discovery would not change my attitudes towards homosexuality at all. My personal belief is that it is genetic, and I base that on a number of things. I am already a supporter of same-sex marriage equality so this wouldn't change my stance on that issue at all. As far as hate crimes go, I don't know how I feel about that, that one crime against a person isn't as "heinous" as a crime against someone else(assuming it's the same crime). I am also a supporter of same-sex adoption rights. Studies show there is no measurable difference between children in homosexual families and children in heterosexual ones, and honestly, children are going to benefit from a two parent household, especially one in which they are loved(not to say that same-sex couples would automatically love a child, but generally speaking, they are at least going to be much more committed to the idea since it would have to be something they've planned for, and pursued for several months, if not years).

And, straight camps are repulsive. The idea that a fictional deity can "fix" you is ludicrous, in my opinion, especially when I don't consider homosexuality to be something that means you are "broken".

 

I'm not convinced it would make much difference. Most people address the question on the basis that homosexuality is some form of intrinsic trait rather than a choice. Those determined to object to homosexuality on principal are perfectly capable of twisting, dismissing or simply ignoring even conclusive proof that goes against they're preconceptions.

 

It might help things in the minds of some individuals, but the status of something as a choice or immutable characteristic is largely irrelevant in legal cases. Just because something is immutable or in-born, does not mean it can't be treated differently (like a cripple applying for the military, a woman demanding the right to get a prostate exam). Conversely, just because something is a choice does not mean it does not deserve the same protections (like the government having no basis deciding who you can or can't marry based on the fact that you like coke better than pepsi). Be it a choice or immutable characteristic, the only question is if there is a rational and legitimate basis for treating people differently.

It's possible this could strengthen the case for evaluating many legal cases involving sexuality in heightened scrutiny, making it more difficult for discriminatory measures to be held against homosexuals. Under normal levels of scrutiny, homosexuals must prove that discrimination against them is doen so on an irrational or irrelevant bases, but on heightened scrutiny the state must prove that there is a compelling state interest in the discrimination... it shifts the burden of proof. Depending on the rational basis for some laws, this could have little impact on them or profound impact.

I guess that depends on what you think the purpose of hate crime legislation is. There are protections against hate crimes motivated by religion, another choice. So do hate-crimes have the be motivated ONLY by things that are immutable? If a crime is a crime, what's the point of them? It will help, but the basis for hate crime legislation is contested to begin with, and much of the same reasoning to uphold them could still apply even if its a choice.

The decision to allow or deny addoption is largely left up to what's best for the child. Choice or not, homosexuals adopting kids should be held to the same standard... i.e. what's best for the child. I could have an in-born predisposition for violence, but that doesn't mean that me (as a person convicted of a violent crime) should be able to adopt. What matters is what's best for the child, not what is chosen or immutable or predisposed in the adopters.

Nowadays, most of these "camps" generally focus on helping the person cope with their sexuality and focus on celibacy, not necessarily converting the homosexual into heterosexuality. So the practical effect would be minimal, although it would further marginalize or silence those who promote psychological therapy and behavioral training methods to convert homosexuals. It wouldn't necessarily get rid of the efforts, but more might be done to try and "cure" homosexuality biologically.

That said, in the field of psychology, mental illnesses that have physiological and biochemical symptoms and a genetic predisposition can still be largely impacted by psychology and the environment... a determination of a genetic or biologica bases for homosexuality does not eliminate the possibility that psychology and the environment still plays a large role in how those genes are EXPRESSED. Indeed, the lack of common genes found among homosexuals implies that, if it is genetic at all, other biological and environmental factors impact how those genes express themselves. This does not make it a choice, just as having a birthmark is not genetic and is nevertheless not a choice. Psychological treatment for mental illnesses can also be shown to have an impact on biochemicals and physiology, suggesting that just because something may be genetically predisposed, that does not mean it's outside the realm of psychology.

Long story short, in each of the cases it may hurt the "anti-homosexual side" some, but it doesn't necessarily change anything. Especially in the face of those motivated by religion, where they have already come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong and should be cured, so the only question is how to do it.

 

Since when it evidence and facts make any difference in the minds of bigots?

 

Certainly it would not for some, but for others who may base their dislike of homosexuality at least partially off the idea that those people are choosing to be that way, it could make a difference.

Honestly though, I just don't know. The idea for this thread occurred to me on my way to work this morning because I'd never seen a conversation on here about these circumstances. I've seen arguments about whether it's really a choice or not, but never about what it would mean if it was a fact that it is not a choice.

 

It might strengthen the case for striking down those laws, but would not assure success in the attempt to do so.

Not significantly, in my opinion. Proof that people have an innate orientation acting as a driver of most instances of homosexual behavior would make little to no difference to those who oppose it on the grounds that it is a destructive behavior. I would guess (based on my personal experience) that the majority opposing do so on these grounds.

Hate crime law isn't based on a characteristic being innate, so this discovery would have no effect on this issue.

I very seriously doubt it. Reference my answer to the question of changing attitudes more generally.

Perhaps, but I think the change would be minor. Many of the people who believe in so-called "reparative" therapy to "cure" homosexuality tie it to religious beliefs about their God having the power to "cure" anyone who submits to his authority, repents their "sin" and ceases their "sinful" behavior. So we're back to the behavioral model I spoke of earlier. They would maintain that inborn or not, God has the power to change it. Moreover, they would continue to view it as a form of mental illness; that there is some underlying physical cause would perhaps make them more sympathetic to the person's "plight", but it would not change the core idea that it can be treated.

I hope I haven't strayed too far into specifics with my answer to the last question. It is not my aim to steer us in the direction of talking about specific hypothetical causes for homosexuality, but to explain why finding it innate would make little difference to opponents who would in fact likely view it as a "disease".

Point being, bias in favor of one's own viewpoint will strongly oppose allowing the facts to get in the way of maintaining the established views.

 

Science could prove that people are born gay, but religious buts still wouldn't believe it. The Catholic Church would come up with their own 'evidence' that gay is a choice and that it can be cured.
It would change the minds of some, but the Church would still be stuck in the past.

 

Science, truth, and morality have never been an issues for bigots. The willfully hateful are to blinded by their of delusions to give up their beliefs.

Even if there was no doubt what so ever that homosexuality was genetic, they still wouldn't give up their crusade to demonize and belittle gays.

 

Bigots are not only touched via the mind, but through their hearts primarily. This is why many who are bigoted, are often fearful separatists. Once they are touched by humanity in the ways that truly matter, even they can or will change.

 

Exactly, it is a matter of the heart (at the core of their humanity) where they are affected. Once life CRACKS the SHELL which many bigots have erected around their hearts, THEN they can begin to 'feel' (properly empathize) and be accepted.

 

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.

 

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

Thanks!!

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

And a consenting relationship between ADULTS is not the same as raping a child.

 

It's still genetic, so they can't be blamed right.

 

Ok penut gallery

 

How about we not abort a gay fetus and just let gay people be themselves and show a little respect to them?

 

I agree. One cannot be genetic without the other also being genetic.