Is homosexuality a choice or a biological imperative? The debate rages as science looks for an explanation, and many gay people applaud each new study that points to a biological cause. But it shouldn’t matter. There’s nothing fundamentally immoral about homosexual behavior, so even if it were chosen by the individual (which clearly it is not), this should not make it any less acceptable or “moral.”
Gay men and lesbians have long maintained that we don’t choose our sexual orientation; it chose us. But those who oppose homosexual rights insist that it is a choice, a choice to behave immorally that shouldn’t be supported by society. And so we try to answer their argument by looking for proof that homosexuality is genetic or a combination of genetic and environmental factors, but certainly not a choice. But we need to repudiate the choice argument altogether, because it is fundamentally ludicrous. We need to stop letting our opponents set the terms of the debate and not even entertain the notion that we choose our sexual orientation. What’s more, the genetic argument will not serve us well in the long run. Genes do not make immoral behavior okay. For example, if scientists were to determine that serial killers have no choice in the matter because of a genetic predisposition, society would not simply decide to leave serial killers alone or embrace their alternative “lifestyle.” They might be treated differently, institutionalized or “medicalized” instead of criminalized, but they would still need to be separated from society in some way—or perhaps “cured” at some very enlightened future date. The notion of a cure suggests a second, more insidious reason for caution when we evoke the genetic argument: there’s the possibility that homosexuality could be defined as a defect, a disability, or an illness, as it was several decades ago by most psychologists. As a thirteen-year-old boy who recognized my attraction to men, all I could find in the library under Homosexuality were books by psychiatrists and psychologists about homosexuality as a tragic illness. They were full of case studies of patients who were lonely, dysfunctional, alcoholic, and sometimes suicidal. I was also well aware of the biblical and religious injunctions against homosexuality. But in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association changed the rules and declared that homosexuality was not an illness. Apparent symptoms—the loneliness, the alcoholism, the high rate of suicide—were now seen as the result of rejection, the consequent self-hatred, and the constant need for secrecy. Despite the official reclassification of homosexuality, it’s probably true that many people harbor the conviction that there must be something wrong with us: humans were meant to couple with the opposite sex to reproduce and perpetuate the species, they might insist. Unfortunately, the genetic argument doesn’t help us much here either. Even though it might make some people more sympathetic to our plea for equality, I don’t think most of us want to be viewed as a mistake. And, of course, we must be concerned that if it turns out that homosexuality is connected to genes or the ratio of testosterone to estrogen in the womb, or some other environmental factor, science may offer a solution to parents who think homosexuality is immoral or undesirable. Perhaps there’s a simple way to measure and adjust the sex hormone balance in the womb, for example, or spot the “gay” genetic combination in the egg or sperm before conception. We can’t and shouldn’t stop the research into the causes of sexual behavior. What we can do is to advance the argument that homosexuality is neither immoral nor undesirable. The argument that “we just can’t help it” is a bit of a cop-out designed to avoid the more difficult arguments about defects, illness, morality, and basic human rights. What if it were a choice? Shouldn’t people be able to choose homosexuality if they want? Finally, we must cultivate the idea that homosexuality is more than just acceptable; it is part of the normal distribution of human behavior, honed by eons of evolution and no more or less desirable than other forms of sexuality. It is neither moral nor immoral, and those who claim otherwise have no rational basis for doing so. It doesn’t matter whether people choose it or not. Art Cohen is an independent television producer based in Boston.
