Queer Logic
 
 

I have been very discouraged by the actions and arguments of the gay community over the last 10 years.  I think they've fallen into the trap arranged for them by the conservatives, and a movement which should have helped carry the banner for liberty in this country is now caught up in irrelevant arguments over whether homosexuality is genetically determined.

One thing that is clear to all concerned is that gays meet prejudice and violence every day - sometimes encouraged, more often ignored by authorities, civil leaders and  police in small-town America.  A prejudice which has the sanction of the local law officers and courts can be a frightening thing, and the gay leadership moved to the federal courts to try and halt this discrimination.  The argument used by the conservative elements to justify their inactivity in protecting gays was that there are no civil rights issues involved, since the victims have made a free choice to be gay.

In this argument they were dead wrong.  They were not wrong that gays made a choice to be gay, although the word choice is not necessarily accurate.  They were wrong that there are no civil rights issues involved in the matter.  Every law which abridges the rights of free people to make moral choices freely as a matter of their beliefs runs contrary to the constitution.  While it is true that conservative activists have co-opted control of our legal system and reinterpreted the constitution to fit with their views for more than 100 years, and pose a very real block to any who petition the courts for their constitutional freedoms, it is no less true that the constitutional guarantee stands.  To gain the prize requires a dogged determination and outspoken advocacy, alongside other groups whose liberty has been cut short by conservative activism on the courts.  It is not be an easy row to hoe, but it is consistent with our constitution, and thus can eventually succeed.

But the gay leadership was impatient, and took the caveat offered by the conservatives.  Gays did not make a free choice, they argued, they were born that way.

It is probable that the parties involved in concocting the reports claiming a genetic disposition behind homosexuality thought they were doing their cause a great favor.  If one is born gay, they reasoned, then discrimination against gays is akin to the discrimination against ethnic groups.  This was an easy argument, and a powerful one in the minds of those who made it.  They did not understand, and probably cannot even remember, that this is in fact the conservative's argument - a red herring if ever I've seen one.  And beyond the fact that it is irrelevant, it is indefensible.  Just like those who want to say that a few microscopic cells with no memory, experience, friendships or loved ones can be scientifically proven to be a constitutionally protected human being, those involved in the genetic defense of homosexuality have put the cart before the horse.  They 'found' an argument with which they thought they could win, then employed science to try to prove it.

But with this kind of science, the conclusion is always arguable - or did they believe they could settle the nature/nurture question in context of this extremely divisive debate?  And what happens when the other side in fact argues the position, as they did last week, pointing to 'reformed' gays as proof that genetics plays a lesser role than has been claimed?  You guessed it - the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.  The movement, not only the argument, becomes discredited.

The argument which should be played by the homosexual community and their defenders (among whom I would be counted) is that matters of belief cannot constitutionally be criminalized unless there are victims.  Those who practice it should not be discriminated against in ways that abridge their right to liberty.

Who thinks that sexual taste is genetic?  I prefer cunnilingus to fellatio - so what?  Do you believe I was born to prefer one or the other?  What about those who like both?  Who cares what I decide turns me on?  Sexual freedom between consenting adults needs to be defended, not weakened with specious arguments.  The other side wants to condone harassment of gays, as a practice which is opposed to their religious beliefs.  Does not religious freedom mean also freedom from religion?  Those who argue that the one doesn't follow from the other will always lose in a round of logic.  The argument is strong.  And playing it on this field allows everyone to see the naked prejudice involved in the issue.

Instead, we have two groups arguing over an issue that is as meaningless as it is irrelevant.  What if it could be proven that homosexuality is not at all genetically determined?  Would that weaken the right to liberty which homosexuals in this country ought to possess right now, by virtue of simply living as free citizens in this country?  By playing the cards that the homosexual leaders continue to play, the impression is given that prejudice in these terms would therefore be acceptable, even though the constitution of our United States says in no uncertain terms that it is not.

I wish the gay community would stand tall.  I wish I could count on their support in the fight against those who want to abridge our liberties, and I would gladly offer my support for this common cause.  Who gives anyone the right to persecute you for your beliefs or your tastes, the ones for which no one can produce a victim?  If that occurs - and it does - it needs to be argued on these grounds.  It needs to be fought on these grounds.  And it needs to be determined on these grounds.
 

May 14, 2001