It is at this point that we hear the inevitable "born this way" argument as the secular progressives attempt to justify the psychological feasibility of homosexuality. It is their contention that people are born with a pre-determined sexual instinct aimed at those of the same gender. There is plenty of room to doubt such a contention. First off, research shows that homosexuality is really much more a combination of nature and nurture than pure nature. A man, for instance, usually turns out homosexual because he is born with some personality traits which are considered more feminine - such as sensitivity and spontaneity - and then either told that he is gay by society and eventually buckles under social pressure or he sexualizes his relationship with men to make up for some past relationship with a male mentor that went terribly wrong.
Furthermore, the "born this way" argument simply cannot be harmonized with the point I have made so many times before; that physiology and psychology are inextricably linked. Now, someone who is "born gay" is born a male simply by reference; by calling him “gay”, we say he is a man who is sexually attracted to other men. But the body of the male is sexually cooperative only with a female's body; in the case of two men, to put it abstractly, “the parts don’t fit”. This brings us to the rather bizarre conclusion that one can be born with a physiology that is sexually cooperative with women yet a psychology that is sexually cooperative with men. The person is, in essence, born a walking contradiction. How can this be? How can one be born with a psychology that contradicts their physiology? More to the point, how does this play out in practice, example by example? Does testosterone magically have a different psychological effect in the homosexual man as opposed to the heterosexual man? The fact that secular progressive scientists are looking for a "gay gene" shows that they acknowledge this irresolvable tension between body and mind; the fact that they haven't found the gene shows that the tension is still unresolved; and the fact that there have been so many "gay gene scares", where a false publication had been made that the gay gene had been found, makes me suspect that no such gene will ever be found. The logical problem here remains ever unresolved.
Yet to pursue the point a skeptic might say, "But people are born with defective psychologies and physiology all the time; faulty brains, intestines that self-defeat, etc. Why an exception here? Why is homosexuality impossible as an inborn contradiction?" Very well, skeptic. I concede that there is nothing intrinsically impossible with homosexuality as an inborn contradiction. But if that is how the secular progressives opt out of their conundrum - if they escape the problem of proposing an inborn contradiction between physiology and psychology by acknowledging the contradiction and appealing to the fact that people are born flawed all the time (which, from what I can see, is a perfectly tenable position) - then they simultaneously reveal that their posture towards homosexuality is all wrong. It is the goal of secular progressives to defend homosexuality as a legitimate and healthy relationship. But if they defend the idea that one can be born a homosexual by appealing to the fact that people can be born flawed, then they simultaneously concede that homosexuality is itself a flaw and therefore an illegitimate relationship. Now, we do not simply let autistic children run amok; we value them enough to give them all the tools we can to help them function in a world full of people who do not understand them. If homosexuality is to be lumped in with autism as a patent, inborn flaw, why not, to the best of our ability, help them to reverse the problem rather than letting them run amok? If anything, we, at least, had better not be enabling them to "go on in their ways".
I realize that this idea of "rehabilitating homosexuals" might be startling to some, but try to focus merely on what I am saying. If the secular progressive is going to justify the "born this way" argument by acknowledging homosexuality as a flaw, then he must treat it as a flaw and as something that needs rehabilitating. Those are simply the hardcore facts. I say "if the secular progressive wishes to say this" because I do not believe that homosexuality can be inborn at all. But I do not insist on this. The reader has two conclusions in front of him: either homosexuality is a mixture of nature and nurture, and therefore more or less of a conscious choice on the homosexual’s part, or else homosexuality is inborn but as a problem which needs correcting. And at every point, he is vehemently prevented by physiological concerns to honestly conclude that homosexuality is a fitting and healthy relationship for two individuals.
And yet some of you may remain unconvinced. Some of you continue to insist, “I’ll not be told what I must and mustn't do by my physical attributes!” This is, I think, the very center of the issue: the body and its relationship to personal identity. I’ll need to consider this very carefully.
No comments:
Post a Comment