The cause of homosexuality is irrelevant

By , , and


Recently there has been extensive debate about whether homosexuality has a biological or sociological cause. While the nature vs. nurture debate gives everyone the chance to argue for argument’s sake, it avoids the real issue of whether homosexuality should be accepted by society.

Assume that tomorrow biology student David Rackham finds the gay gene. So what? It is common knowledge that race is genetic, yet racism continues.

Nobody argues that whether people are male or female depends on how they are raised, but reports that for the same job a woman will be paid 76 percent as much as a man. Far from ending discrimination, isolating a biological cause of homosexuality could increase discrimination. Genetic screening and pharmaceutical research could be used to prevent and “cure” queer kids.

Finding a sociological cause can be equally problematic. If being a sexual minority is like being illiterate, some will try to teach the homosexuality out of people.

If having attraction to people of the same sex is like having post-traumatic stress disorder, LGBT individuals could be sent for psychological treatment. Others will argue that the f****** should get over their childhood tragedies and breed like everyone else.

Nature vs. nurture is a blame game that changes nothing. Moreover, it depends on the assumption that a non-hetero orientation is inferior.

If different is bad, identifying the causes of difference won’t make it good. If different forms of love are valuable, then it does not matter why different people love differently.

Science does not take hatred out of hearts. Those who justify discrimination by calling it a chosen behavior won’t open their minds when some guy in a lab coat says so.

William J. Carlson

Law Student