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.