Is the Congenital Congenial?
Nov 2nd, 2009 by Micah Tillman | 10 Comments |
(I don’t know if that means anything or not, but it sounds good.)
A couple posts back, Adam commented that it seemed wrong to identify homosexuality, an “intrinsic orientation” (his words), as a sin.
If sexuality comes “built in,” we might say, how can you blame anyone for it, gay or straight?
____
With such ideas we come to the heart of the current debate about whether homosexuality is “genetic” or not.
Evidently, the idea on both sides is that if homosexuality is genetic, then it’s okay.
Allow me to repeat that again.
Both sides share the same assumption: If homosexuality is congenital, if it’s genetic, if you are born with it, then it’s okay.
____
So, the conservative side has to argue that it’s not genetic — since they’ve already decided that it’s wrong — while the liberal side has to argue that it is genetic — since they’ve already decided it’s okay.
Therefore, conservatives have to argue that homosexuals choose their orientation, while liberals have to claim that homosexuals have no choice.
(I.e., conservatives have claim that homosexuals have libertarian free will, while liberals have to argue that homosexuals don’t. I think we should find this ironic.)
____
In a challenge to both sides, I’d like to argue that whether something is genetic, congenital, intrinsic, etc., or not, is irrelevant.
Take the following examples, in which I will list a number of things that are congenital. Some will be good. Some will be bad. Some we want to change, others we want to encourage.
For example:
Heart disease, depression, breast cancer, schizophrenia, and (purportedly) racism (oh the irony of the very idea!), are genetic.
But people have no problem fighting those conditions with medication, education, surgery, support groups, lifestyle changes, etc.
____
On the other hand, height, musical talent, mathematical skill and mechanical acumen, hair color, and so forth, are genetic.
But people have to learn how to use, employ, actuate, work with, each of those qualities. Talents have to be cultivated, hair colors have to be matched with clothes colors, heights have to be put to good use, etc.
____
And on the third hand, other things seem to be “congenital,” whether or not they’re passed down genetically from generation.
Some people are born with sanguine personalities. Others are born with choleric personalities. Some people are born leaders, others are born helpers.
But that doesn’t mean that sanguine people don’t have to learn how to tone it down when other people are sad, nor does it mean that choleric people don’t have to train themselves how to not step on other people’s toes.
The leaderly types have to learn how and when to follow, and the helpers have to learn how and when to let other people learn and grow for themselves.
____
And on the fourth hand, there are those congenital conditions we all share, but have to learn to keep in check.
We’re all born with the tendency to get angry and violent more than we should. Some people have this worse than others, but we were all born with it, and we all have to learn to control it.
We’re all born with the tendency to be self-centered more than we should. Some people have this worse than others, but we were all born with it, and we all have to learn to control it.
We’re all born with the tendency to want sexual and comestible pleasure from places we shouldn’t. Some people have this worse than others (some people have raging libidos, while others have almost none at all; some people have a sweet tooth like nobody’s business, while other people would rather eat carrots), but we were all born with it, and we all have to learn to control it.
____
The fact of schools, churches, and PSA’s — and the endless efforts of parents, pastors, and politicians — show that how you are when you exit the womb says nothing, necessarily, about how we think you should stay.
____
In other words, the fact that we come “preinstalled” with some orientation, tendency, or disposition, tells us nothing about what we should do about that orientation, tendency, or disposition.
Some orientations, tendencies, and dispositions have to be eliminated. Others have to be cultivated. Still others have to be tempered.
The question isn’t whether sexuality is intrinsic or genetic, chosen or predetermined. The question is what we should do about and with it.
____
Whether homosexuality is something that should be “fixed” or not, therefore, is not a question of whether you’re “born with it,” on the one hand, or “choose it” on the other.
And whether homosexual activity is something that should be engaged in or not, is not a question of whether you’re born homosexual or not.
Therefore, it’s no defense of homosexuality to say it’s “genetic” or “intrinsic” or “congenital,” and it’s no critique of homosexuality to say it’s “chosen” or “acquired” or “imposed” (after birth).
That way of framing the debate misses the point, and therefore won’t be able to help the debate reach the right conclusion.
You have many hands, Micah. ;)
I agree with you.
I’m of the mind that we are all born sinners, so of course a homosexual person would be born already gay. Does that make sense?
That’s how come I can do so many things at once. I usually keep my extra hands in storage, though, so I don’t freak people out.
Anyway, what you’re saying is that we’re all born with something “wrong with us,” and therefore to be born with something doesn’t necessarily mean that that something is “okay.” And that seems logical to me. (It doesn’t mean whatever you’re born with is wrong, it just means you can’t decide, based simply on the fact that you were born with it, whether it is right or wrong.)
One thing this implies, whether or not you think homosexuality is a problem, is that if we can be born with things “wrong with us,” then we can’t believe that God makes us. If God makes us, and we’re born with things wrong with us, then God made us wrong. But God doesn’t make anything wrong. Therefore, God didn’t make us.
God made the first humans, but it’s been human reproduction — not divine production — ever since.
Very interesting points. I’ve been wrestling with this issue for years. I tried to settle on “we are who we choose to be” but I have a congenital heart condition that I didn’t choose to have. Maybe it’s more accurate to say, “we are how we choose to react.” Anyway, thanks for giving me something new to consider.
On a side note, I used to date a girl who thought that homosexuality was nature’s way of controlling population. I doubt she’s right, but it’s certainly an interesting hypothesis.
The difference I’ve seen in how Conservatives and Liberals define gay; Act vs. State.
Conservatives define homosexuality as a physical act, whereas Liberals define it as the feeling of same-sex attraction.
Jeff:
Thanks!
I’ve heard the population control theory too, and . . . well, I don’t know. First, there’s something ad hoc about it. Second, evolution purposefully producing beings that can’t reproduce seems directly counter to the “survival of the fittest and natural selection” schema.
And I know, it helps “the species” survive, supposedly. But what in world does evolution know about “the species”? I find it very hard to believe that evolution cares about abstractions.
Furthermore, the idea seems to reduce homosexuals to the role of duped pawn in the cosmic breeding scheme. The idea seems to be that evolution was sitting around, thinking, “Wow, I sure made these humans horny. Can’t really get rid of that. But if they breed like bunnies, they’ll overrun the earth. So, I need to trick some of them into breeding with things in such a way that they won’t actually get pregnant. But how?! Ah hah! I’ve got it! I’ll make a tenth of them only want to breed with members of their own sex!” That idea just seems utterly silly — and insulting — to me.
Mr. Salk:
That is an excellent distinction, and one that I find myself blurring too often. Thanks for the reminder!
Micah’s clear thinking as usual on the post. He’s fuzzy on one reply, with bad data, however. The “10%” myth needs to die, based as it was on Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 very non-random sample (prison population, which therefore may have had an inflated amount of opportunistic homosexual expression). Best current data: 2.4% of men, and about half that of women. Data from Battelle Research Institute, IIRC.
Gays can’t win. They are by almost unanimous theological interpretation going to hell for existing.
They have to work backwards to find a religion; choosing primarily on the basis of NOT damning their lifestyle.
“Who among you will not define my actions as sin?”
Heterosexuals have legal resource against Living in Sin; marriage.
“They have to work backwards to find a religion; choosing primarily on the basis of NOT damning their lifestyle.”
Doesn’t that trivialize religion though? I thought the purpose was to seek truth, not validation. If you pick the religion to fit the behavior, then why not take the next step and admit that it’s all a fabrication to make us feel good about ourselves?
@Jeff. Yes, it trivializes religion. Yes, some of the brightest minds of our best academic institutions already take the next step, to wit finding faith to be a fabrication for feeling fine. Morality determines belief much more frequently than belief determining morality. As the old saying goes, “An atheist can’t find God for the same reason that a robber can’t find a policeman.”
Dr. Chase:
Thanks for the update on the percentages. I knew that 10% thing came from Kinsey, and that Kinsey was not to be trusted. But I was too lazy to do any scouting around for myself, and thus decided to cite the “urban myth” instead. *grin*