Justice Should Not Require a Born-This-Way Argument
Marriage Equality, Housing and Workplace and Health Insurance Equality ought never to have required and should not now require a born-this-way argument even if we are as to gender biologically who we are at birth. I hold with the consensus that we do not choose sexual orientation however complex; I find it a somewhat surprising and good reflection of Justice that Western European and American majorities seem to get it.
Still, I’ve a question: Were there still, today, among the majority here and in Western Europe, a more than simply lingering conviction that sexual orientation is chosen, wouldn’t marriage equality remain a mandate for a just society?
If we rely wholly or primarily on the born-this-way argument for the recognition of marriage rights, if we signally anchor our demand for equality in that argument, are we not, at least in a small way, suggesting that our LGBT friends, relatives, colleagues, aren’t fully deserving of equality under law simply by virtue of the fact that they are, as we are, adult citizens?
I’m for equality under law. It’s irrelevant to me and should be to you and to the law whether or not our LGBT citizens ever chose to be who they are.
07/25/2019 @ 11:39 am
Yes. Religion should be irrelevant. The problem is that religious voters vote, and those who view homosexuality as intrinsically sinful often vote on that basis.
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it concerns itself with Should Be rather than with Is. The same case can be made about any kind of bigotry but making the case doesn’t sufficiently affect bigots. When we simply tell the opposition that they’re wrong, even though they are, we get Trump for President.
07/25/2019 @ 11:42 am
We told a redneck Senate Majority Leader that civil rights was a necessity when the Senate was filled w segregationists. Johnson did the right thing and convinced enough to see the future’s requirements (moral and political) as he had come to see it.
07/25/2019 @ 12:20 pm
This is such a great point. What are the factors that account for the differences in result, if there are any? Is it possible that there is a greater resistance to allowing LGBTQ marriage than there was to ending segregation? Could it be that it was easier to achieve compromise in legislatures 50 years ago than it is today?
07/25/2019 @ 2:19 pm
I could make the case that there is greater resistance to allowing LGBTQ marriage. There are two reasons for this. The first is that you can’t choose your race, but a whole lot of people who oppose LGBTQ marriage believe you can change your preference, leading them to the conclusion that a same-sex preference is intrinsically perverse. I do not mean perverted, though they think that too, I specifically mean perverse. In other words, they’re doing it specifically to be rebellious and prove a point. Incidentally, this one point is something I’ve managed to talk a couple of churchgoing conservatives out of. The second reason is that some sects within some religions believe that homosexual congress is divinely forbidden. Anyone making the case for integration to be divinely forbidden has a more uphill battle. So overall I’d say a case can be made that the resistance to LGBTQ marriage is heavier.
But the opposite conclusion could also be reached because there’s one aspect to opposition to integration that is there is not to opposition to LGBTQ marriage: fear of violence. I’ve known a lot of White people who are/were afraid of Black people but no one who is/was afraid of gay people. And there’s a second factor opposing integration only: performance in the classroom. There are all sorts of myths about Black intellectual inferiority (they tend to be a bit more underground now but they’re still there) that there are not about gay intellectual inferiority, and that matters to White parents who think this way when considering the education of their children.
But, back the other way, there’s also a myth about gay kids that Black kids don’t have an analog to: fear of conversion. Will my straight kids be seduced and turned? Or, in a related context, will my kids be exposed to sin?
A more complex question than I realized when I started to write this comment.
07/25/2019 @ 4:10 pm
And then again, the apples to apples comparisons may not be relevant. I can’t say that I know.
Black people don’t exist on a continuum to the left of…whatever. Black people vary in every conceivable way, just like everyone else. There are black people out there who believe, for some reason, that LGBTQ are not valid for the same reasons that many others do not, regrettably.
Trying to teach the public about social justice, and to act on what they know would probably take about a week longer than forever. I am persuaded that “is” is much more powerful than “should.”
07/25/2019 @ 11:52 pm
Another reason apples to apples comparisons don’t work when looking at persecution/bigotry is that the major forms are remarkably dissimilar to each other. AntiSemitism (in current form) doesn’t look like racism and neither look like homophobia. As I began to discuss above, they manifest very differently.
07/25/2019 @ 11:44 am
I also think that the Born-This-Way argument can feed prejudice as much as it may move some to reconsider their bigotry.
07/25/2019 @ 12:08 pm
This is so interesting. JW, and KS have two competing theories, both of which I like. The interesting thing for me is that I thoughtI preferred JW’s theory, and I set about making a model to demonstrate why his is a superior theory. Once I had the model constructed, it demonstrated that KS’s theory is superior. It went like this.
Once upon a time, there were moral reasons for restricting the marketplace from women. Presumably these restrictions came from practical concerns for the safety of women. What surprised me about this practice was how wide and how recent these concerns and practices were. I discovered this recently when I was reading about the invention of department stores. This invention was to get around the prohibitions of women in marketplaces.
So, the practical approach to getting women into the marketplace preceded the general acceptance of women in the marketplace. Eventually the notion evolved out of general use. My preference then, and my preference now would be to educate on the egalitarian principle of allowing women to chose as they wish, but the social engineering, if you will, was the factor which allowed the archaic, restrictive notion to fade away. Teaching on the principle may have accomplished it also, but there is no evidence that it did. So, that leaves the choice between attempting to do it for the right reasons, or succeeding at doing it by the most direct means. I am swayed by “is.”
07/25/2019 @ 12:57 pm
errrmmm… Y’all are trying to cram an elephant into a shoe box.
Human sexuality is VERY complex. When you add in same-gender attraction it becomes even more so. What that means is that no simple dynamic will fit.
Are SOME LGBTQ people “born that way”? Oh, hell yeah! I certain was. You don’t “decide” you are a lesbian when still a pre-pubescent pre-teen because it is something you find “interesting” (and you sure as hell didn’t in my family!) There is also a LOT of scientific evidence backing up “born that way”.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/giant-study-links-dna-variants-same-sex-behavior
THAT said, there are also a minority of LGBTQ people who, for whatever reason, “choose” to have same-sex experiences/relationships. For example, I have met that ranged from women who simply enjoyed playing “I kissed a girl for the 4,692nd time” and then went back at told their boyfriend AGAIN to heterosexual women who were abused/raped/assaulted and wanted absolutely nothing to do with men EVER again, but still desired human touch and intimacy. I also went to school with several LUGs and BUGs.
Here’s the bottom line though… If I want to marry another woman that is NOBODY’s business but our own. Same applies to marrying someone of a different race, culture, religion, hair color, etc.
Other than EQUITABLY administrating the legal contract regarding asset disposition (which is all a marriage contract SHOULD be for) government, religion and busy ass bigots shouldn’t get a say. The only time government, representing the rule of law, should get involved is if there is an issue regard equity or discrimination. the rest is bigotry, hatred and attempts to subjugate and that is wrong if you are “born that way” or not!
07/25/2019 @ 2:01 pm
I agree with you about Shouldn’t, but agreeing with you doesn’t make Shouldn’t into the accepted norm. The question becomes what we do about the fact that there are so many people who don’t agree with Shouldn’t, but vote and set policy.
07/25/2019 @ 2:58 pm
I wholly agree, Amy that this piece is not comprehensive as to the gamut of genders, sexualities. The object of the post lies in one primary point, as you no doubt are aware.
07/25/2019 @ 11:11 pm
I think you guys may be over-reading my post. I don’t think this is a matter of persuasion v. force (or what have you…tho if it is, the Court chose force several Junes back obviating the need for activists to persuade, state legislature by state legislature…my point is far more limited and has nil to do w methods to get more adherents to my POV.
My argument is that all (non-incarcerated, etc.) adult citizens enjoy the same rights under law, so choosing to be one or more genders…choosing or not choosing…choosing or born-this-way’ is irrelevant to rights under law.