One unqualified success of the gay movement in the last dozen
years is that of portraying homosexuality as a congenital
condition. We no longer hear about sexual preference, but only of
sexual orientation. A few poorly designed and wretchedly executed
studies convinced most gay people and much of the heterosexual
population that homosexuality is genetically determined or a result
of differences in brain structure or caused by intrauterine hormone
imbalances or something else equally limiting and final.
None of these conclusions is sufficiently supported by evidence,
and for some of them nothing that deserves to be called evidence
exists. The reasons for the popularity of the various conclusions
are not scientific, but are psychological and political. A fair
understanding of the psychological and political utility of these
conclusions can be had by considering James and John.
Neither James nor John likes broccoli. James just does not like
broccoli, and his reason for not liking broccoli is simply "Because
I hate it." John, on the other hand, claims not to like broccoli
because he lacks an enzyme that is necessary for the proper
appreciation of broccoli, and he has a stack of photocopied
articles from learned journals that seem to indicate that a small
part of the population does lack a certain enzyme, and thus some
people cannot like broccoli however much they try. Anyone can see
that John is more likely to be allowed to have his dessert even if
he does not finish his broccoli.
The strategy of the gay liberation movement since the early
Eighties has been the same as John's. And like John's, it has met
with apparent success. An unfortunate success, I call it, mostly
because we do not know if it is based on truth or not, but also
because of the unintended consequences of the premises upon which
it is based.
Where the movement once claimed the right to sexual preference,
it now claims to be the victim of sexual orientation. I very often
hear the argument given in this form: "Of course sexual orientation
is not a choice. No one would choose to be gay." This is what
replaced "Glad to be gay." And what is gay pride—what is
there to be proud of—if being gay is an accident of birth.
Whichever congenital difference a particular spokesperson
endorses as the source of homosexuality, the difference is
hardly distinguishable from a defect.
Disabled rights activists eschew the self-pitying attitude and
play-for-sympathy strategy that the gay rights movement has now
adopted. What is wrong with making the gay rights movement a
variation on the disabled rights movement is this: in the best of
all possible worlds no disabled rights movement would exist because
a remedy would have been found for every disability. Would there be
no gay people in the best of all possible worlds?
Unfortunately, this last seems to be what the gay movement is
saying. Its most recent demands—to serve in the military, to
marry, to adopt children—seem to be demands aimed at
achieving as nearly a "normal" (i.e. heterosexual) life as best we
can in spite of our congenital difference. Certainly, gay
rights will not be won until gay people have the dubious honor of
serving in the military and until some form of same-sex unions are
recognized and gay people can adopt on approximately the same
criteria that prospective heterosexual adoptive parents are judged
by, but in making these the salient demands of the gay movement our
message is that the best we can hope for is to be accepted as
honorary heterosexuals. Everything about the present strategy
affirms heterosexuality as the normal state of humanity and
encourages gay people to see themselves as the victims of forces
over which they have no control.
Naturally, an alternative strategy exists. Nothing in the
alternative strategy is new; it has its roots in the original
direction of the modern gay liberation movement. The outline of
this strategy is really rather simple:
First, assert that the right to choose one's consenting sexual
partners is a fundamental human liberty. If that is so, then how or
why one chooses is immaterial, as is whether the choice is
consciously made or is predestined.
Second, assert that homosexuality is a normal variation of human
sexuality. This has the advantage of being accepted by most of the
scientific community.
Third, fight the fundamental battles first. While sodomy laws
exist in many states, the demand for gays in the military is more
than a little hollow. Military service was an important factor in
the black civil rights struggle, but the gay movement may have to
develop differently. The present state of heterosexual marriage
does not suggest that marriage is anything for gay people to
desire, and this seems a rather silly demand in places where
discrimination in housing and employment is still legal. Focusing
on demands that tend to idealize heterosexual ways of life can only
be counterproductive.
If we envision living our whole lives as Mother stands over us
with the threat of no dessert, perhaps our best strategy would be
to claim that we do not like broccoli because we cannot like
broccoli. But if we are grownups, "I don't care for broccoli, thank
you," should be enough.
