Originally published on Dreamwidth MAR. 17TH, 2006 03:38 PM

Part of the argument that we continue to hear is that:

(pro)Homosexuality is genetic, and therefore it is gratuitously violent to legislate against a …hm, situation? that is not within the individual’s control.
(con)Homosexuality is a choice, not genetic, and therefore a different choice can and should be made.

While I am all for the scientific exploration of the function of our physical natures upon our societies, I have to say: Back the Truck Up. *beepbeepbeep*

Whether there is a genetic or biological component to a specific behavior is wholly irrelevant to whether or not a behavior should be illegal, deemed immoral, tolerated, legal, or recognized.

There are biological components, do not forget, to child molestation, serial rape, murderous cannibalism, and torture. They have all been found in many animal societies outside of our own. The fact that homosexual attraction and bonding have also been found in many animal societies outside of our own does not, therefore, in itself dictate that it should have protected status.

Contrariwise, the lack of a biological component is also wholly irrelevant to social legality. There has never, for example, been offered one shred of evidence that either religious or political affiliation has any biological, genetic, or indeed (much to the dismay of parents everywhere) even environmental components – though all do, of course, play a part in the interpretation of such affiliations.

And yet, both the religious and political freedom of the individual, the most choice-ridden situations available, are enshrined within our Constitution as inviolate.

The choice of which behaviors to protect legally and which to punish legally have historically rested on one and only one basis: danger to the social body. I will leave the proof of that to your own devices, but if you pare away the outer hulls, that is what you will find. The thing that changes over time, leading to changes in the law, is the understanding of what damages the social body and what does not.

I propose that homosexual behavior, identification, and affection be legalized to precisely the same degrees that heterosexual behavior, identification, and affection are legalized, and to the same end: the protection of the young, the unwilling, and the defenseless; the provision for stable relationships; and the promotion of the general mental health that is possible only when people can be honest about who they are in the gaze of the larger society. And that would be mental health for all concerned.

Who you are cannot be dictated by society and your parents: not political beliefs, not religion (Judaism and Catholicism notwithstanding: people do both come in and go out), and not affectional orientation. Regardless of, and wholly separate from, genetics.