Gay genetics, slash and the right to hate

[psychic_serpent <psychic_serpent@yahoo.com>]

meira_q <mb2910 at h...> said:
> > If being gay or straight or bi isn't about personal taste and 
> > preference, then what *is*? Be it genetics, personal choice 
> > or whatever you'd like to think  makes someone gay or 
> > straight or bi, it *is* what you prefer. It's who you are  
> > personally attracted to.

To which John responded:
 
> I am momentarily stunned at the lack of knowledge and 
> understanding that your words suggest. Sexual orientation is not 
> a "preference". It is determined before birth. It is genetic. 
> There is utterly incontrovertible scientific evidence for this. 
> I'm happy to provide links and verification, but I thought it was 
> clear.

[snip]

> Being gay is not a lifestyle. It's not a choice. It's genetic. I 
> probably sound very vehement about this. That's because when 
> people attempt to deny gay people the same human rights as 
> everybody else, they use words 
> like "lifestyle", "preference", "choice".

Thank you so much for that, John.  (I'd have said "thanks for 
setting the record straight" but I was already anticipating the 
groans from around the world <eg>...)

I find myself dealing with this issue all the time in my activism.  
Sometimes my husband and I have found it useful (since we're not 
doctors or biologists) to say to folks who naysay the genetics 
explanation, "Okay.  Say it IS a choice.  Why should this choice be 
any less protected than one's choice of religion?"  Because when it 
comes down to it, religion, which is a protected CHOICE in many (but 
not all) countries, is also the basis of a great deal of bigotry and 
oppression in this world.  Many people are attacked because of their 
choice of religion.  And yet, many people in the US, whose ancestors 
may have come here seeking religious freedom, fail to see the 
parallel.  

I firmly believe that scientists who have determined there is a 
genetic and/or biological basis to our orientations are correct, 
based in part on a great deal of anecdotal testimony available 
concerning the unchangeable nature of orientation (in addition to 
the more scientific studies).  I also believe, however, that those 
who claim orientation should not be protected under hate-crimes laws 
because they call it a "choice" should see the hypocrisy in their 
stand, when many of them are direct beneficiaries of their choice of 
religion being protected under law.

What it comes down to is that people hate people for many, many 
reasons, and if someone is attacked because they like ketchup, then 
the law should treat their attacker as someone who had a bias 
against people who like ketchup.  Whether or not liking ketchup is 
a "choice" should be of absolutely no consequence; only the fact 
that someone decided, based on THAT criteria, to target someone and 
create another crime victim.  Unfortunately, as long as the law 
isn't constructed this way, and as long as opponents of including 
sexual minorities in hate crime laws claim they shouldn't be 
protected because it is a "choice," people will continue to believe 
that they can attack sexual minorities with impunity, and they will 
end up receiving far milder penalties (if the police make any effort 
at all to apprehend them) than if they were attacking someone for 
their religion--which really IS a choice.


--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb