The gay gene: more political straw man than scientific reality

It has now become conventional wisdom to view homosexuality as being primarily genetically determined, but the enshrinement of this idea has far more to do with politics than with science.

In general, the correlation between one's political views regarding homosexuality and one's beliefs about its causes goes something like this: the socially conservative, who monolithically oppose homosexuality for its alleged corrosive effects on society, view homosexuality as a choice. They view homosexuality as a "lifestyle" which is within one's ability to change, if the gay or lesbian just tries hard enough. Thus, because one's gayness is within one's control, and because these conservatives view homosexuality as a sin, then it follows that conservatives are justified in their vilification of homosexuals who choose to follow a sinful lifestyle.

(Conservatives love to trot out the hackneyed adage, "Love the sinner; hate the sin," but in their usage, it's a distinction without a difference. In their Calvinistic worldview suffused with emphasis on utter depavity of the individual, humans become not the pinnacle of God's creation, but rather a problem in need of a solution, an obstacle to the effecting of God's salvation for this world.)

On the other hand, the left tend to view homosexuality as genetically determined. They view homosexuality not as a "lifestyle" but as an "orientation," implicitly present ab initio. By viewing homosexuality as geneticially determined, it is per se an immutable characteristic, like height or eye color. And because it is immutable, it is completely outside of one's ability to control.

However, there are two problems with placing so much importance on whether homosexuality is genetically determined. The first is the equating of genetically-determined with immutability. Implicit in this is the belief that the converse is true (an error of logic, but one many make regardless), that if homosexuality is not genetically determined, it's not immutable, but there's no reason to believe this is true; we are also constituted of, I believe, any number of character traits acquired through environment which are every bit as immutable as those contained within our DNA.

Secondly, why must homosexuality be immutable to be acceptable? So what if it's a choice, isn't it a choice people are allowed to make? By pushing the genetically-determined view of homosexulity, its proponents are trying to get members of the general public to bypass an evaluation of homosexuality's morality, but that's a fight they really shouldn't be so reluctant to duck. While people are certainly free to hold different positions regarding the morality of homosexuality, the freedom of individuals to share their bedrooms with whomever they choose, without subjecting themselves to opprobrium, seems irrefutable.

I'm not saying homosexuality isn't genetically determined. It may be. Or, more likely, there may be a genetic component or predisposition but genes are merely one factor among many, not the sine qua non. And it's not so much that I'm endorsing an "anything goes" or "live and let live" philosophy, so much as I believe in respecting the free will that God has given as a gift to each of us.