Why the Nature vs. Nurture Debate Doesn't Matter

I once had a debate with a psychologist about the “nature vs. nurture” argument. I told her that my mother smothered me and my father wanted nothing to do with me. She asked me how I could be sure that my parents didn't sense that there was something “off” about me, and that my father kept his distance because of it, while my mother tried to protect me. She believed that homosexuality was probably the result of both genetic and environmental factors. They say the same thing about mental illness and alcoholism. Some are more genetically prone to these things than others, but whether or not they manifest depends on many factors.

In August, the American Psychological Association released a statement encouraging psychologists to steer their patients away from “ex-gay therapy,” without discounting their religious beliefs. In other words, being gay is not a psychological disorder that can be overcome, but if your religion forbids it's expression, and your religion is more important to you than sexuality, therapists are now encouraged to help you cope with whatever you decide is best for you.

This made a lot of people on both sides of the debate very happy. It's not every day that Pat Robertson and I support the same statement on homosexuality. Which is why some people on both sides of the debate are unhappy. With them it's all or nothing. It's a cop out that panders to both sides. I disagree. You can't win an argument unless you are willing to meet people half way. We all criticize politicians for making compromises, but in a free country, both sides of any debate have to be satisfied. That's democracy.

The “nature vs. nurture” debate will never be settled until there is indisputable scientific evidence to back it up. Maybe not even then. Many Creationists insist that dinosaurs were created only a few thousand years ago to fit their belief that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, as scientists have estimated. People believe what they want to believe and fit the facts to suit them.

So, just for fun, let's give the Christian Right it's argument that being LGBT is unnatural. Let's assume for a moment that homosexuality is created by one's experiences, and that one chooses to express it. Why does that suddenly negate the struggle for Gay Rights? If I choose a lifestyle that is incompatible with someone else's religion, does that mean I should be fired from my job? kicked out of my apartment? kicked out of the military? No, because we are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this country.

The stickiest subject is of course marriage. Many argue that it is a religious institution. God blessing the union of a man and a woman. Nobody is denying the right of churches to decide which unions to bless. But everyone who gets married in a church, also has their union recognized by the state. They file joint tax returns, they cover each other on insurance policies, they can visit each other in the emergency room and they inherit each others property upon death. That's all the LGBT community wants. Two women, together for twenty years in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, has none of those rights, while a man and a woman, who met in Vegas a week ago and got married on a whim, enjoys all of the privileges offered by the state.

I could go on, but the point is that the gay community cannot compete with thousands of years of religious teachings simply by arguing that they were “born that way.” Better to stick with the argument that church and state are separate institutions and can remain that way. You can't tell religious leaders what to preach, if you don't want them imposing their beliefs on lawmakers.

Can't We All Just Get Along

I'm writing this on December 25th and I feel a little wierd about it. I truly believe it is in the spirit of Christmas to write an article about religious tolerance, but because I'm defending all religious beliefs, I will probably be accused of trying to sway people away from faith in Jesus on his holiday. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus himself said to "judge not, lest ye be judged." [Matthew 7:1]

The subject of separation of church and state comes up every Christmas when Liberals complain about the placing of Nativities on Government property, while Conservatives complain about retail stores wanting their money but refusing to promote their faith. Non-Christian faiths, Agnostics and Atheists argue that Americans are supposed to have the freedom to believe what they choose, and that Church and State are separate. Christians are afraid that if we allow ourselves to move away from promoting Christianity, it will be the downfall of Western Civilization.

Somehow, a debate on Atheism got started on my Facebook page this Christmas season, and I made the mistake of siding with Religious Freedom. I wasn't siding against Christianity, or even for Atheism, but suddenly I'm a closed-minded, ignorant bigot that people feel sorry for. It seems that when you ask people to tolerate you, they call you intolerant of them. I guess the old adage that you don't discuss religion and politics applies, but I disagree. When a small minority is afraid to debate it's viewpoint, it can't overcome the prejudice against it.

One point I made was that Atheists are the most distrusted minority in America. I backed it up with a 2006 study by the University of Minnesota. Americans trust Muslims more than Atheists. I've since looked up another study showing that the percentage of Atheists in prison is much smaller than in the general population. In fact, of the eight largest industrial nations, Japan has the most Atheists and the lowest murder rate, while America has the fewest Atheists and the highest murder rate. Does that mean if we were all Atheists, there would be less violence in the world? No. It simply supports the position that Atheists are not immoral people who can't be trusted. Show me some evidence that Atheism hurts anyone.

Of course, I already know what a Christian would say to that. Atheists will not go to Heaven and anyone they "convert" will not go there either. But, God gave us free will, and that includes the ability to doubt Him. It's the same argument people use against homosexuality. If it's accepted, it will spread, and society will crumble. In fact, I've been debating the issue of Atheism entirely with gays and I've come to the conclusion that it's a sore subject because of the misconception that gays are Godless. I think I also pushed a button when I suggested that Atheists faced more "discrimination" than gays. I apologize for that one. A better word would be "prejudice." I believe they face more prejudice than gays.

It's the same way that African Americans don't want their "civil rights struggle" compared to that of homosexuals. They are discriminated against for the color of their skin, and gays for their lifestyle. In a way, that's correct. It's not exactly the same, unless you believe that being gay is 100% genetic. Most gays do, while only 34% of the general population does. But, in another way, everyone simply wants the right to equal treatment, whether you are discriminated against for your appearance or your beliefs.

If you removed everyone from the country that wasn't a white Christian heterosexual male, you would be left with something like 25% of the population. Exact figures are of course impossible, but if everyone, that was part of a minority in some way, banded together and demanded equal treatment for all Americans, we could stop fighting amongst ourselves and start worrying about more important things like war, poverty and disease.

But it all starts with yourself. You can't force other people to respect you and your beliefs, but you can treat others and their beliefs with respect. The best way to lead is by example. The best way to affect change is to by talking about our differences and showing each other that we are not all that different.