I've argued on here a few years ago that apologetically insisting "I was born this way" (i.e. "I can't help it!") is no basis for arguing for one's right to live as one pleases, regardless of others' religious hangups, but it's taken the recent statements by Cynthia Nixon to bring the issue to the fore where it belongs. As Frank Bruni points out, no such argument from genetics has ever been required to justify freedom to worship as one pleases, and yet this is a principle which is universally* accepted in the Western world today. Why then should a "born this way" argument be necessary for gay rights?
On the other hand, just because an aspect of a person is accepted as being genetic in origin doesn't mean prejudice automatically goes away, as the black experience testifies: on the contrary, 4 centuries of slavery, segregation and discrimination in all aspects of life have actually been justified on the basis of the supposedly innate - and therefore irremediable - inferiority of people of African descent. Similarly, more than 1000 years of European antisemitism wasn't helped in the least by the reclassification of Jewishness as an "innate" attribute in 20th century Germany; again, the conclusion drawn was that being Jewish was a congenital flaw which would only taint and undermine German health without the taking of strong measures ....
Finally, I think it's worth noting that the "born this way" rhetoric, apart from being cravenly apologetic in implying that those who make it would indeed be willing to change their sexual orientation if they could, doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Just because a trait is unchangeable doesn't mean it's congenital (just ask Heather Mills), while there are many congenital traits which can indeed be rectified through treatment (e.g. astigmatism). The real issue shouldn't be whether homosexuality is due to nature or nurture, but why anyone should even have a say in whether or not others chose it. I say that what others get up to in private is neither my business nor the government's, as long as no one is being forced into anything.
I can certainly appreciate that many gay people will find Cynthia Nixon's statements absurd: I personally can't imagine any circumstances under which I could be persuaded to give up women for men, so it's easy enough for me to see why someone of a different orientation would feel the same way I do. That Nixon's statements don't apply to me doesn't mean that the actress' words have no validity for her, however, and in any case her personal experiences should have no real bearing on what is in reality a matter of individual liberty in the face of religious tyranny.
*The likes of Hungary excepted.
The argument is a trojan horse actually. BTW arguments basically give leeway to the slippery slope of race hygiene style eugenics. The same slope that the activist branch of the race realist industry is currently sliding down on.
Posted by: Chuckles | January 30, 2012 at 02:33 PM
I agree that the "born this way" argument has pragmatic rather than logical value. But sometimes political movements prefer influential arguments over correct arguments, "ends justify the means", etc. - and despite your historical counterexamples, experience suggests that for whatever reason, homophobic people usually are positively influenced by the "born this way" argument.
As for the specific case of Cynthia Nixon, my understanding is that female sexuality is often more fluid than male sexuality, so I'm not surprised that she feels free to choose while you or I don't.
Posted by: Andrew | January 30, 2012 at 06:02 PM
I do understand that as a pragmatic matter, the "Born this way" line of argument has had a certain amount of success, at least in the United States; my problem with it is that beyond the goal of getting families and friends to accept that their loved ones aren't going to be changed by schoolyard bullying or being sent to Marcus Bachmann's School for Naughty Barbarians, it's a flimsy basis on which to build the case for fundamental rights like gay marriage.
As effective as such rhetoric has been to date, and even supposing the gay-bashers on the right were to cede completely the notion that it's entirely a matter of genes the political environment could very easily change: need I remind you of the infamous Daily Mail headline "Abortion Hope after Gay Genes Finding"? Had Dean Hamer's work been replicated, I am utterly certain that the only effect on the religious right would have been to provide them with a circumstance under which abortion is indeed considered acceptable ...
Finally, it's not as if the "It's all in the genes" argument hasn't been used to negative purposes in our time, either: remember Arthur Jensen, the Pioneer Fund, Murray and Herrnstein, etc., and for the most part it's the same bunch of people arguing for the innate inferiority of black people who are at the forefront of decrying any attempt at using government to alleviate these supposedly unalterable racial deficiencies. Much the same was true with all of the right-wingers leaping to defend Larry Summers' ruminations about the possible intellectual limitations of women; agreeing with the idea didn't bring a single opponent of women's equality around to changing their views.
Posted by: Abiola | January 30, 2012 at 08:10 PM