During the presidential debates, one of the most telling moments came when the moderator approached the question of gay rights in a new way: He asked President Bush if homosexuality was a choice. Bush said that he just did not know. Kerry, asked the same thing, said he thought it was not. But why should that have been the question?
For many years, gay-rights groups have spent time and money claiming that homosexuality is something that people are born with. The Human Rights Campaign's Resource Guide to Coming Out continually casts homosexuality as something that people "discover" about themselves, and says, "The first person you have to reveal [your orientation] to is yourself." Every choice of words tries to frame homosexuality as something that is not a conscious choice, but rather something innate.
Conservative Christianity and its so-called "pro-family" groups, of course, believe it is not. The Family Research Council even published a book titled "An Ounce of Prevention: Preventing the Homosexual Condition in Today's Youth." In a piece titled "Homosexuality and Children," the council writes that "by placing children under the influence of homosexual teachers, mentors, and even adoptive parents, society ... increases the chances that children will end up adopting the destructive homosexual lifestyle themselves."
What's important in the quote is not merely the sentiments expressed, disgusting as they are. Rather, it's the assumptions that underline them. In this piece and others, conservative Christians come at the debate from the perspective that homosexuality is the choice of those who practice it. Meanwhile, gay-rights groups expend significant resources attacking the notion that homosexuality is a choice. And I must ask, as a citizen and a supporter of gay rights: Why are we having this debate?
The current response by gay-rights groups - "homosexuality is not a choice, but is inborn" - is exactly the wrong response. It legitimizes homophobia. The correct response is, "Maybe it is a choice. Why is this a big deal?"
Gay-rights groups use the "it's inborn" defense as a way of legitimizing their desire for basic civil rights. It's clearly wrong to deny a person a job or a marriage license just because he or she is acting out something he or she has no control over. This defense worked for blacks - it's essentially the basis for most of the civil-rights reforms in this country - and gay groups reasoned it would work for them.
However, there's a much better defense available. Instead of being drawn into the debate over whether homosexuality is a choice, these groups should attack the very foundations of their opponents. Why are conservative Christians so interested in proving homosexuality to be a choice? Because, they reason, there's something wrong about being a homosexual - and thus, making a choice to be so is inherently evil. But why accept this proposition?
The next time anti-gay groups raise this issue, gay-rights groups should simply smile and walk away. Maybe being gay is a choice, and maybe it's not. For that matter, I prefer Chipotle to the Popeye's next door. That's a choice too. What's the point? Even participating in the "Is it a choice?" debate implies that the debate has a legitimate point. I don't believe it does. What if homosexuality is a choice? Does that mean that it's a wrong choice, any worse than choosing Chipotle over Popeye's, or redheads over blondes? Gay-rights groups need to realize that, choice or not, homosexual is a fine thing to be.
Dan Miller is a junior in the School of Public Affairs.
