Imagine it's the year 2020 and some researchers have called a press conference to announce a major finding: They have discovered the biological factors that determine sexual orientation in humans.
The LGBT community greets that news as vindication in the battle against those who consider their sexual orientation to be a "choice" or "optional lifestyle." But they are suddenly stopped cold when the researchers make a second announcement:
"We also know how to manipulate those factors in the womb."
That scenario was prompted by an essay from Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, where he writes:
In recent years, scientists have proposed various speculative biological bases for homosexuality but never settled on an answer. As researchers draw closer to uncovering an explanation, however, a new question has arisen: What if in some cases sexuality is caused by an identifiable chemical process in the womb? What if, in other words, homosexuality can potentially be prevented? That is one implication of one of the most widely accepted hypotheses thus far proposed. And if it’s true, it could turn out to be a blow for the gay rights movement.
As I've mentioned here before, two out of my five siblings are gay. Opposite sex mannerisms came naturally to them at a very early age, so early that I don't believe social factors played a role. For example, there were plenty of "boy" and "girl" toys around the house by the time both of them were born and they both instinctively defied gender expectations in the toys they chose. Even when feeling societal pressure to conform(it was the 60s after all). That continued through childhood. When they both reached adulthood and came out as gay I don't think anyone was surprised.
I realize that the above is not proof of a biological connection to sexual orientation, but it seems like strong(and not uncommon) anecdotal evidence to me. My brother and sister could no more choose their natural sexual orientation than their skin color.
That said, it can be much more complicated for many people, because I think sexual orientation is not one or the other, but a spectrum, and one that's not static for all people. After all, the biggest human sex organ is the brain, and brains can change over time. Most people have a strong natural inclination one way or the other, but some don't and with them social pressure and real choice can become factors.
That could be a whole other discussion, but I don't want to get bogged down in that. What I want to focus on is Stern's question: "What if, in other words, homosexuality can potentially be prevented?"
Given what I've written above I don't think that capability is likely anytime soon, but it's not out of the question. If it does arrive though, and you imagine yourself in the place of an expecting parent whose unborn baby has been identified as likely to be gay, what would you do? What are the implications of your choice?
I don't think of my brother and sister as broken, because God made them the way they are. There are times when I have questioned why, but I've decided that question is above my pay grade. My job in this regard is simply to love my brother and sister. But if faced with the decision, would I change my unborn baby's eventual sexual orientation from gay to straight?
My first inclination is to answer yes. But what does that say about me and my attitude towards my brother and sister, not to mention God's plan?
Stern uses something called the "maternal immunization hypothesis" to explain why he fears answers like mine:
According to Ray Blanchard of the University of Toronto, when a woman is pregnant with a male fetus, her body is exposed to a male-specific antigen, some molecule that normally turns the fetus heterosexual. The woman’s immune system produces antibodies to fight this foreign antigen. With enough antibodies, the antigen will be neutralized and no longer capable of making the fetus straight. These antibodies linger in the mother’s body long after pregnancy, and so when a woman has a second son, or a third or fourth, an army of antibodies is lying in wait to zap the chemicals that would normally make him heterosexual.
According to Stern, if true that makes homosexuality more like a birth defect. And that leads him to conclude:
If homosexuality is truly biological, discrimination against gay people is bigotry, plain and simple. But if it’s a birth defect, as Blanchard’s work tacitly suggests, then being gay is something that can—and presumably should—be fixed.
That’s a toxic view, and one that must be abandoned. We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but we will one day soon. And if, at that point, homosexuality is seen as a disorder, the next step will be a search for a cure. That would be a tragedy—for society and for science. There’s nothing wrong with being gay: You know it; I know it; the Supreme Court knows it. But so long as large swaths of the country believe otherwise—places where homophobic families still ostracize their gay sons and brothers—any research into its biological origins is fraught with peril for the cause of gay rights.
Though I appreciate how emotional this topic is and I understand Stern's fears, I'm not a fan of dealing with the moral repercussions of scientific advance by essentially telling science to close its eyes, cover its ears, and loudly go "LA LA LA LA LA." Not just because it's wrong, but also because it doesn't work. It's better to face such issues head-on when they arise or even in advance, such as now.
If the capability ever becomes real, would-be parents who believe homosexuality is a sin will want to use it if it assures them that their child will grow up to be heterosexual and if it is affordable. No, they will demand to use it. If it is banned here they'll go overseas if they have to.
It's important for the LGBT community to recognize that this group will not embrace the technology out of homophobia, a ridiculous word that's misapplied about 90% of the time, but out of love and compassion in their view. Outside of the Westboro assholes, there is no longer much room to preach hatred for homosexuals. All major Christian faiths have adopted a doctrine that says the faithful must abhor the sin, but they must not hate the sinner. Many people say that's still wrong too and that the doctrine is not fully embraced by the masses, but that's not the point.
Those won't be the only people either. I think there will be parents, perhaps a lot of parents, who will opt to use the capability simply because they want their children to be able to experience life the way they did, as a heterosexual couple. That doesn't have to be a negative judgment about homosexuality. In their mind it would basically be a neutral choice.
And before we render judgment, what if this capability cuts both ways? For example, if it's wrong for a couple to assure their baby grows up straight, would it be wrong for gay single or couple to make sure their baby would grow up gay?
Also, what if the discovery includes the ability to identify and eliminate the possibility of transsexualism? Would you knowingly allow your child to be born into a life where they are doomed to feel that they are in the wrong body, or perhaps undergo sex reassignment therapy or surgery? If you answer no, does that make you a bigot?
Perhaps this is one of those strings we shouldn't tug on unless we absolutely must, but for people of good will who currently disagree about issues around sexual orientation it could be an opportunity for generating more compassion and understanding all the way around. It certainly got me thinking.
Recent Comments