Homosexuality: The “Choice” Argument
Rejecting the “Choice” Argument
Every few months, scientists present evidence suggesting that homosexuality may not be a matter of choice. Immediately, this enters the public discussion, with those who defend gay rights claiming that the absence of a choice somehow supports their side of the argument.
It does not.. “Choice” does not matter.
First, even if we take it to be the case that homosexual desires are not a matter of choice, homosexual acts are. A person who performs the act of having sex with somebody of the same gender is performing an intentional, deliberate act - no different than that of a person who has sex with somebody of the opposite gender. The act itself is a matter of choice. Either that, or we must think of homosexuality as a compulsion that cannot be controlled.
Second, the ability to choose (or inability to choose in this case) is not the measure of moral worth. Imagine that scientists discover that a certain burst of hormones while the brain is forming caused an unusually dense mass of cells to form in a part of the brain, and those who had this dense mass of cells were disposed to favor violent rape. Would we argue that, since rape; is not a matter of choice, that we should repeal our laws against rape and allow rapists to do that which is in their nature to do?
I doubt it.
This is because, whether rape is hard wired or soft wired into the human brain, it is just as harmful. Our interest in controlling rape is our interest in controlling the harm that this desire causes. At best, such a discovery would that it is pointless to use condemnation and punishment as a way to control the desire to rape (and thus avoid its harmful consequences).
Rape would have to be moved into the category of “mental illness”, where we would seek other remedies. We may require confinement of those who have this affliction, while researchers sought ways to avoid the hormonal burst that caused the disposition to rape, and sought options such as surgery or drugs to treat those who had been afflicted.
“Harm to Others” vs. “Choice”
It is not the absence of choice, but the disposition to behave in ways that harm others or benefit, that determines the value of a desire.
However, on this criterion, there is no argument that can be brought against homosexuality. Homosexuality no more lends itself to a disposition to harm others than heterosexuality. The criterion of “harm to others” gives us no reason to recommend or condemn one of these desires any more than the other.
In fact, we can look at the desire as a desire to have sex with a male, or a female, and examine its merits. A great many women, and a few men, have a desire to have sex with men; and a great many men, and some women, have a desire to have sex with women. The desire itself causes no harm.
The desire must be tempered with a proper level of concern over whether one’s sexual partner gives informed consent. However, wrongs in this category hinge on whether the person lacks an appropriately strong level of concern for the consent of his or her partner, not with the desire to have sex.
Aversion to Homosexuality and the “Harm To Others” Test
We can now take this criterion of “harm to others” and apply it to the aversion people of the same gender having sex. Whereas the desire to have sex is not inherently desire-thwarting, the aversion of people of the same gender having sex is inherently desire thwarting. The aversion, like the desire to rape, drives those who have it to act in ways that deprive other (peaceful) citizens of what would have otherwise been a happier life.
At one level, these harms manifest themselves in gay bashing and, sometimes, even the outright murder of homosexuals. These are extreme cases where an aversion to murder and to private violence should weigh in to prevent the act, even among those who have learned these lessons in hate. Those who are the victims of these crimes have a right to be secure from them. This argues both for strengthening the aversion to murder and private violence. However, it also provides an argument for weakening the aversion to people engaging in homosexual acts. Both of these options aim to provide peaceful citizens with greater security that is their right.
Furthermore, evidence suggests that this aversion to homosexuality is a choice, in a way that homosexuality may not be. That is to say, the strength of this aversion is molded through praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment. Praise and reward those who have this aversion, and it grows stronger. Condemn and punish those who have it, and it grows weaker.
Moral Considerations of “Harm To Others”
Think back to the considerations given to rape a few paragraphs ago. Rape is a harmful desire. If the desires that are responsible for rape are susceptible to praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment, then we use those tools to combat the disposition to commit rape. That is to say, we condemn those who have such a desire, in the hopes that our condemnation will afflict people generally with aversions to this type of act. We call it “wrong”.
Moral condemnation is how we weaken desires that dispose people to harm others. Moral praise is how we strengthen desires that help others.
The disposition to harm others is a desire that disposes people to harm others. It is susceptible to the influences of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment. It should be treated like rape or any other disposition to harm others in our moral considerations.
Harm and the Power of the State
The greatest harms that humans have had to suffer throughout history have not been the results of private violence inflicted by one individual against another. Only with modern weapons of mass destruction has the outlaw even had the potential to inflict suffering on a grand scale; and even here, they have tended to need the support of a sympathetic state or two.
However, the state is a heavy weapon that has the power to reach across countries and even cross borders. This weapon, placed in the hands of those who hate, has the potential to do far more damage than a gun or a knife or a common club. It can destroy millions of lives in a single swing. The power of the state is a very dangerous weapon to put in the hands of a person with a desire that inflicts harm on others.
The state does not need to round citizens up in cattle cars and put them in death camps to harm them. The state can instead simply deny them powers and liberties that other, equally peaceful citizens possess. They may be denied the right to vote, the opportunity to hold many jobs. These include jobs in the military, which also produces benefits such as technical training and an opportunity to go to college. These also include jobs in private “faith based“ charities, which are financed by the government, also deny jobs, training, and opportunities to homosexuals.
The state can also do harm to peaceful citizens by denying them an opportunity to acquire benefits that are available to others - such as benefits made available only to married couples. This includes the right to visit a loved one in a hospital, joint custody of whatever children produced into such a relationship, the opportunity to adopt children,, among others.
Because of the extraordinary power of the state to harm its citizens, peaceful citizens need to be concerned with the moral character of their representatives. Those powers simply should not be given to those with desires that tend toward behavior and decisions that are harmful to others.
Some may be tempted to protest that the actions taken against homosexuals is their right, because it is their religion that tells them to do these things.
Yet, there is little good to be said about a religion that encourages its followers to engage in actions that are harmful to others, or to hijack the powers of the state for that purpose.
Those who consider gay rights to be a morals; issue are correct. They are incorrect, however, if they think that morality stands on the side of those with desires that are harmful to others. Morality is concerned, instead, with preventing citizens from harming those who do not harm themselves. Citizens have a right and a duty to ensure that those who wield the powers of the state are of good moral character. It is a power not to be put in the hands of those who would inflict harm on homosexuals.