A couple of days ago I read Virtually Normal by Andrew Sullivan. Brilliant. I’d heard him propound his thesis at UVA a few years ago, and I’d taken issue with some of what he said at the time. But with his argument laid out in front of me in a book, I could take time to reflect upon his ideas. They make sense, and he’s a beautiful writer; the book contains such crisp, elegant sentences.
And now, today, we have A Defense of Lawrence, which appears in the latest New Republic and which Sullivan has reprinted on his website. He addresses a reservation I’d had about Lawrence, a reservation that had been nagging me in the weeks since the decision was announced, but which I hadn’t gotten around to discussing here: the possibility that the Court had overstepped its bounds. Sullivan explains why the Court did not.
I really need to get cracking on my writing. I’m tired of letting my political thoughts go unsaid.
HMMM. Sullivan loses me in the first paragrpah – the phrase – “that, as long as you acknowledge that gay people are human beings with no choice over their orientation…” – it’s a premise that he doesn’t bother trying to prove. And it is a premise that many people, including scientists involved in Human Sexuality, aren’t ready to conclude. MORE IMPORTANTLY, it is a premise that is unnecessary, and even hurtful to “the cause”. Human Sexuality is so much more complex than merely nuture v nature, and the “I was born that way” inevitably leads to the “it’s not my fault” which still means something is wrong with homosexuality. And, there isn’t, in my humble opinion. So the question of whether it is innate shouldn’t be part of the argument. Choice or not, it’s ok. Most people accept the notion that we don’t ought not discriminate against people of different faiths, which is a choice; so it shouldn’t be a stretch to argue that whether or not homosexuality is a choice, it is a trait that ought not be used AGAINST anyone.
I find it somewhat funny that amazon shows the DVD for The Fluffer as a ‘recommended for those that like this,’ given the whole barebacking scandal. I’m still not sure how to take Mr Sullivan, sometimes he’s too much of a conservative.
You’re right, bj. Sullivan did drop the ball on the “choice” idea. It’s true that it doesn’t matter whether it’s a choice or not.
But… how can someone conclude that being gay is not a choice? I certainly didn’t choose to be gay. I think I’d know more about this than a non-gay scientist. How can people still believe that it’s a choice when there are so many gay people — real live gay people — who say otherwise? Are we supposedly lying?
LYING is such a strong word! At most I could say WRONG; but I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to know the answer to the big question – my belief is that its very complicated, and that different factors help determine different people if one is gay, str8, or egads!!, that annoying little complication, bisexual. If one day we were to discover that elusive GAY GENE, and all along we’ve been saying “it’s not a choice, born that way, not my fault” then why not just genetically alter fetuses so as never to have that icky little problem any more? Seriously, some people who have feelings in “both directions” actually DO make a choice, and the point is, it’s valid and okay, and should have nothing to do with how the government, employers, etc treat you. So I just wish we could stop using that argument.