Forty years ago, the gay rights lobby just wanted to be
recognized for its existence and its lifestyle. A quarter century back, the gay
community just wanted acceptance for its sexual preference. Then fifteen years
ago, it sought legitimacy for a biological orientation.
My question is, which is it? The gay rights lobby could not
seem to settle on whether it wanted to argue a lifestyle, a preference, or a
biological orientation. When it did not win recognition for its existence and
lifestyle, the ante was upped to a sexual preference. When preference failed to
gain acceptance, then it embraced the notion of a biological orientation.
This latest argument has undeniably been its most
successful, because now the lobby can claim legal status based upon something that
just is. Kind of like the way a person cannot help the color of his or her skin
and his or her ethnicity. Gender, however, has become a condition that is
changed with an operation, or series of them. Just ask Bruce—er, I mean Caitlin—Jenner.
Gay rights had a tough sell for legal status back when
homosexuality was a lifestyle or a physiological preference, because it was
still viewed as a choice, oftentimes made from environmental influences.
But now, all bets are off. The instant some scientist
claimed to have isolated a possible “gay gene,” the lobby has jumped on this
band wagon and ridden it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Homosexuality, under the genetic theory, then is a
biological orientation that cannot be helped or changed. It is what it is.
Really?
Funny how no one in the gay community argued that back when
it was just a lifestyle, or when it became a preference. It was then what it
was, too.
But a genetic explanation is more politically expedient, and
a convenient way to garner sympathy amidst popular culture. They can’t help it,
after all.
Can’t help it? Where is your pride? A quarter century ago,
gay pride was taking a stand for one’s personal sexual preference. No shame.
But to claim now that homosexuality is a biological force
that cannot be helped sort of neutralizes the whole pride thing, doesn’t it? If
a gay person is proud to be gay, then why would he or she want to lean on an argument
that says their homosexuality is something that cannot be changed. If one is
proud, then why would one want to argue they cannot change? Would they even want
to if they could?
Furthermore, the gay gene theory seems to violate the laws
of nature as it is, and the theory of evolution. No other creature in the
animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior for the sake of sexual activity. Some
animals, like canines and other pack animals, may “hump” others in their group in
order to establish superiority and their place in the hierarchy of the pack.
But they don’t do this for sexual gratification or because
they are romantically attracted to a member of the opposite sex. Human beings,
it seems, are the only creatures in the entire animal kingdom who exhibit
homosexual behavior for this purpose.
If homosexuality is indeed biological, then how could it be
isolated only to humans? Where is the research on other animals in the kingdom,
and why aren’t other creatures found to have the same traits?
In my opinion, the gay rights movement had it right the
first time. Homosexuality is a preference and a lifestyle, influenced
significantly by environment. There is as much or more evidence of this as
there is of a genetic explanation for homosexuality.
But popular culture, in its zeal to embrace yet another
oppressed segment of the population, chooses to ignore other explanations for
homosexuality. It has blindly accepted the gay gene theory, which is still just
a theory. Nothing conclusive has been found over the past two decades of
research. Not any more than the research on environmental factors of gayness.
And yet, here we are, on the cusp of social upheaval over
gay rights and its blatant intrusion into the sacred religious social
institution of marriage, with the full backing of the nation’s highest court.
All based on a scientific theory that still has more questions attached to it
than it has been able to provide answers for.
Near as I can tell, no “law” of nature has been written yet
concerning homosexuality. The questions of how it develops still remain, and
the debate continues. But we are content to award legal status to the gay
community and give it the full might of the U.S. Supreme Court based on some
theory, a scientific notion that homosexuality is like ethnicity. It is
biological and cannot be helped or changed.
What in the world are we coming to? What other institutions
will be infiltrated and, indeed, invaded by the lobby now that it has marriage ruled
in its favor? And if public officials can be jailed, dismissed, disbarred or
de-licensed for refusing to perform their duties on religious grounds, then can
the religious community expect further violations if it refuses to admit gay
members into its folds? Where will the social and legal assaults stop? Or, will
they?
No comments:
Post a Comment