Let's talk about nature and nurture vs homophobia, shall we?
Gay people can get married in California as of this week. One of the hottest songs on the radio is a Katy Perry song titled “I Kissed a Girl.”
boomp3.com
If people are happy together and good to each other, good for them. That includes gay marriage and gay parenting. I’m still trying to figure out what damage was done to the institution of my heterosexual marriage since gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts.
Frankly (pardon the pun) I don’t think the world has changed that much at all since gay marriage became legal here. Did you know it’s been almost 5 years since the Goodridge decision?!?! I’m proud that my home state is looked upon favorably by the gay community and frowned upon by some of the intolerants.
The intolerants, by the way, often come from states with much higher rates of divorce than the liberal states which they say contribute to the moral decay of our society. “…born-again Christians have among the highest divorce rates.” Maybe too much church is bad for the institution of marriage. Sorry Jesus.
A study was just released that found the brains of gay men to be similar in some ways to straight women and the brains of gay women to be similar in some ways to straight men. The article cited claims many scientists believe homosexuality is the result of both nature and nurture.
Interesting. I wonder how gay men and women feel about the nature v nurture thing. The nature argument—that people are born gay, they do not choose to be gay—seems to cut out opposition from people who think the behavior is simply deviant and can be stopped. Does it lead to greater acceptance? I dunno. Churchy folks haven’t really responded well to even the best scientific arguments against their far fetched beliefs. (see Darwin, Charles; Galilei, Galileo; and Copernicus, Nicolaus)
The nurture angle—that people choose to engage in homosexual activity—at first seems to hurt acceptance. But I think it may actually help, too. When people “dabble” in homosexuality and songs like Katy Perry’s are popular, it seems a clear sign that homosexuality is not as big a deal as it used to be.
Consider the other “I Kissed a Girl” song, the differently-lyriced 1995 release by Jill Sobule (video embeded below). It was a controversial topic and one that was handled in a campy way, to minimize the uproar, I’d guess. Sobule, as compared to Perry, is more in line with what might be characterized as a “traditional” lesbian. She “looks” like a lesbian, not a “normal” girl that could easily get herself a man, not a girl who has no reason to “do that.” I’d guess Sobule would be easier for intolerants to ridicule and dismiss as a deviant than Perry. No? Perry video here.
Anyway, both “I Kissed a Girl” songs have catchy beats. And though they share a title and themes, they probably couldn’t be more different. Things have changed a lot in the 13 year period between their releases. Good good, I say.
When the "I Kissed a Boy" songs start hitting the charts, we'll really be making progress.
2 comments:
This is a great post and I wish others shared your view...Some people just can't see beyond their biases!
Great question and post.
First, I believe the question should be: is sexual orientation a nature or nurture issue? It's like asking are blue eyes from nature than nurture as opposed to is eye color from nature or nurture.
Back to the subject at hand:
As a gay man, I have given some thought (but not much recently) to the subject of whether sexual orientation is nature, nurture, or a combination thereof.
I do think that there are a combination of genes that when combined in one fashion or another makes you more "straight" or more "gay" in orientation.
I also think that those same (or similar) genes address sexual identity as well (i.e. male, female, or a mix thereof).
I read one article several years ago from a prominent journal that I have of course forgotten that outlines that a fetus in utero receives various "hormone baths" at specific times in pregnancy. If a "bath" happens a little earlier or later, the resulting child may be more inclined to be gay, straight, etc. In a very exacting sense, that is "environmental" rather than genetic.
The nurture argument falls flat for me. Perhaps because I have always been monosexual (always attracted to one sex) (which happens to be the same sex) rather than bisexual. If someone "becomes gay" or "becomes straight," after being the other, I have a hard time thinking that is because of truly changing one's orientation. One may discover that they were always gay (or theoretically straight), but did their environment change those feelings? I doubt it. I would posit that a more forgiving environment would allow someone to have self-discovery, but I don't call that "nurture."
I also only have my own male perspective. This may not be true for women or for transgender folk.
Who knows? But I am glad you asked the question.
Post a Comment