I have some problems understanding why the idea that people are "born gay" has achieved such currency in our culture. First, because it just seems to fly in the face of many facts known to everyone. Second, because I just don't understand how saying homosexuality is biological changes any arguments about homosexuality.

First, let us ask if homosexuality really seems biological. Something biological is, expresses itself at a definite point in life, and exists continuously from that point onward. For example, blue eyes, which become apparent a year or two after birth (when the eyes fail to develop another coloration) and then persists for the rest of one's life, or male pattern baldness, which expresses much later, but then exists as a definite trait for the rest of one's life. It is quite an unusual trait which is only "partly expressed" or which appears and disappears throughout one's life.

But that is the perfect description of homosexuality. Many people "discover" they are gay after a long heterosexual life. Other "go straight" after being gay. Many are only gay to some degree, carrying on one or more heterosexual affairs at various points in their lives. And there is also the phenomenon of "situational homosexuality" among isolated male groups, such as prisoners.

All of which suggest that homosexuality is much more in the realm of psychology than biology. It is not conclusive, but the many gradations of sexual preferences, and the fact that people can move into and out of homosexual behavior sound much more like the shadings of human choice than the absolutes of biology.

There is also the fact that prevalence of homosexuality seems to vary much more with cultural groups than biological/racial groups. Among groups in which homosexuality is accepted, or even encouraged, the behavior seems to be more prevalent. Of course, that could also simply mean that homosexuals are more open in tolerant communities, so it is not conclusive. Still, the number of homosexuals found in places such as ancient Sparta, modern arts communities, or the 80's "club scene" suggest that homosexuality is actually a behavioral , not a biological, outcome which is encouraged by a gay friendly environment.

And, if that is not convincing, I have to ask: Given evolutionary theory, how would homosexuality possibly be a n inherited condition? Given that the primary attribute of homosexuality is to discourage procreation, would it not a prime candidate for a behavior to be bred out of mankind if it were biological? I know that homosexuals can have children, but, according to most evolutionary theories, those behaviors which encourage more offspring (or allow longer survival, thus allowing more offspring) become more common, while those which produce fewer offspring tend to become less common. So, how could a behavior which clearly encourages fewer offspring come to exist in a supposed 10%* of the population?

But even assuming that homosexuality is biological, not behavioral, why should that matter?

I understand that homosexual activists want the biological pedigree to put gay rights on a footing with civil rights for minorities, but their thinking is faulty. Just because something is biological does not mean it should be accepted.

Yes, it was wrong to discriminate based on race, as there are no behaviors which are proven to be the result of race. On the other hand, homosexuality is nothing BUT a behavior. So to judge homosexuals based upon the fact that they are attracted to the same sex is not prejudice, but simple common sense. For example, those who oppose placing young boys in the custody of a gay men are not discriminating, they are simply applying the same logic that would hesitate to place young girls in the same situation with a heterosexual man. This is not discrimination, biological or not, but judging a person by their own professions at to their  behavior.

So it just does not follow that a biological origin would automatically mean one should accord a group "civil rights" protections. Let us take an extreme example to see why.

Suppose we discover a genetic marker for child molestation at some point. Or perhaps for serial killers.** Even if they have a biological origin, does that mean that we could never again arrest or jail those who kill or molest children? Would it mean that we would have to grant civil rights legislation to molesters? That we could no longer object to them being placed in positions of trust with children?

Or, to make a comparison slightly less likely to offend, suppose that those who claim alcoholism is biological finally prove their case. Should we be forced to let alcoholics drive cars, care for children, serve as sharpshooters, and pilot oil tankers because it is biological? Should we just ignore the fact that they cannot stop drinking because it has a biological origin?

Of course not.  And the same applies to homosexuality.  Just because a behavior is biological does not make it any less of a behavior, nor does it change the results of that behavior.  Simply having a biological origin means nothing.

Now, I am not saying homosexuals should be made into pariahs. I believe that for the most part the government should be neutral towards its citizens whatever their sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

On the other hand, there are some areas in which homosexuality may be an issue. Just as there were valid questions about female soldiers*** there are also valid questions about the impact of open homosexuals on group morale, as well as the possibilities of relationships between soldiers/sailors/marines causing problems.**** There is also a problem placing homosexual men in positions of trust with boys, just as there are with placing heterosexual men in similar positions with young girls. It is not because, as many activists wrongly assume, anyone thinks homosexuals are more prone to child molestation, but because they are just the same as heterosexuals, and some may be tempted, just as a heterosexual watching young girls may be. And, of course, the list can be extended.

But my main point is this: Whether or not homosexuality is biological, what does that mean? Whether something originates in choice, unconscious forces, or genetics, we still must deal with the person and their behaviors. Whatever the origins of homosexuality, it really makes no difference. The fact that a homosexual is a homosexual is what matters, and whether it comes form genes or the brain, the way we deal with it will be the same.

-----------------------------------------------------------
* I am not convinced of the 10% figure which is so often thrown about. I use it here only to emphasize how silly it is to assume an anti-procreation trait could come to exist in a large percentage of the population via biological means.

** No, I am not comparing homosexuals to either molesters or killers.

*** I know everyone thinks it is settled that women should serve in the military, but I still think there are many problems. Even without women in combat, there are a number of readiness problems, as women become pregnant, especially at the ages in which they serve int he military, making women unavailable for duty for long periods of time, while men would not be so encumbered. Also, there is the problem with additional costs for segregated barracks, etc, and the problems of relationships forming in the ranks, impacting morale and discipline, as well as creating new legal problems for the military to handle. Lastly, there is the problem that male soldiers are often inclined to try to "protect" women, whether consciously or not, and that may have a negative impact on any given mission. I know I will be torn apart by some for brining up these "reactionary" ideas, but I still think these issues are very real, and, whatever the conventional wisdom, I think they remain problems.

**** Yes, relationships can form between heterosexuals in the military as well, but if you read my comment above, you will see I am just as opposed to females in the military as I am to homosexuals.

-----------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED 02/13/2008

One other silly argument I have seen is that, were homosexuality biological in origin, it would require religions to rethink their stance on gay priests, rabbis, etc.

This is just absurd. I am heterosexual, which means that, if gays have a biological urge to have sex with men, I have an equal urge to have sex with women. Yet my religion tells me to abstain from premarital and extramarital sex, regardless of my urges.

So why would religions not just tell gays, whatever the cause of their homosexuality, that it is their religious duty to abstain from homosexual sex? If Catholic priests can abstain from all sex, whatever their predisposition, then why would their doctrine change just because homosexuality is biological?

Of course, this is a silly argument, and I doubt many people of any political persuasion would agree with it. Normally I would not have wasted time with such a lightweight theory, but I have heard it enough times that I felt the need to point out the inherent fallacy of the idea.