FRUIT FLIES
Science, genetics and homosexual marriage

By Dara Purvis | RAW STORY COLUMNIST

At the end of last week, a scientific journal called “Cell” ran a cover story titled “Genetic and neural control of Drosophilia sexual behavior.” Fascinating stuff, right?

Well, in point of fact, yes. This is one scientific study whose results are easy to summarize: as explained in the International Herald Tribune last week, switching one single gene in a female fruit fly (the common name for Drosophilia) turned her gay. A previously heterosexual fruit fly suddenly began performing the mating ritual as if she were a male.

Evidence of biological gender-bending in homosexuals is not new: another recent study from last month demonstrated that when a homosexual man smells a component of testosterone, his brain activity is the same as one finds in the brain of a heterosexual woman smelling the testosterone, rather than that of a heterosexual man. But the main problem with such studies, either of activity or of actual size and components as discovered through autopsies, is that they’re performed on people who are already gay—while I think it’s clear that the scientific record demonstrates that sexual orientation is a biological trait, such studies are open to the criticism that correlation doesn’t equal causation. In other words, some people argue that the different brain activity is caused by a man’s choice to be homosexual, rather than the different brain activity causing a man to be homosexual. The new fruit fly study, therefore, demonstrates unequivocally that there is a causal link between the gene and the sexual identity of the fruit fly.

It seems pretty clear that a demonstrable biological cause for homosexuality would have huge ramifications in the political world. The bigoted rhetoric about homosexuality being a “lifestyle choice” that we need to discourage and protect our children from would be dealt a rather mortal blow, one would hope. (Although Creationism/Intelligent Design shows that science need not have any effect on political attitudes, if people are determined enough to be ignorant.) Large chunks of the homophobic repertoire, characterizing homosexuals as tempting and converting previously virtuous children, and insisting that American society at large must persecute homosexuals lest the impressionable youth of America think that it’s an acceptable choice for them to become homosexuals, would have to be abandoned.

I do wonder, however, whether the objections raised by some within the gay community might also be valid. If, after all, we identify a gay gene in humans, does that mean that society strikes out on a mission to eliminate homosexuality? Would it mean that homosexuality would just be characterized as a disability, or a negative inherited trait like alcoholism or higher chances of cancer?

Part of why I’ve been wondering this is because this week I turn in my master’s dissertation, which I’ve written on same-sex marriage. One of my main points of inquiry is the comparison to interracial marriage, notably argued by such legal theorists as Andrew Koppelman and Cass Sunstein. Within the last fifty years, marriages between white and black persons were prohibited in most states, justified by many of the same sorts of arguments now presented against homosexual marriage: marriage had traditionally been conceived of as a white institution, allowing interracial marriage would lead to the degradation of American society, and my personal favorite, that the laws couldn’t possibly be racist, since they treated both white and black Americans the same way. After all, they simply said to everyone, “you must marry someone of the same race as you.”

In that same way, the current mania to define marriage as only occurring between a man and a woman treats both homosexuals and heterosexuals, men and women, the same: the law says “you must marry someone of the opposite gender as you.” If it’s your choice to prefer marrying someone of your own gender, well, that’s your problem and your choice to opt out of marriage, not us discriminating against you! I suppose it would be pointless to point out that such an argument was the exact rebuttal to charges that prohibiting interracial marriage was racist: “You’re not prevented from marrying by me being discriminatory, you’re prevented from marrying by your own choice of the wrong partner! What next, marrying a dog?”

But it was in my research for my dissertation that I found what I think is the most compelling comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage: it negates the importance of whether homosexuality is a natural or chosen trait. After all, has anyone ever argued that wanting to marry someone of a different race a biological trait?

That isn’t by any means the end of the argument, and I haven’t even touched upon the historical research that fills out the rest of those 20,000 words. But I will say that my past year’s work has tempered my reaction to studies such as that appearing in “Cell.” To be sure, I celebrate each new piece of scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is a born trait. I despair more and more, however, of the far right political wing accepting any evidence that contradicts their reactionary and intolerant worldview, so I don’t know how much even such persuasive evidence would change the political debate.

But whether you accept that homosexuality is a biological trait or not, the legal reasoning should remain the same. Certain human behaviors are harmful; the rule of law recognizes that society must be able to ameliorate them by sanctions designed to deter or punish. But identifying “harm” must be done carefully, because like so many human institutions, the law can easily be abused and become an instrument of oppression. It was once regarded as harmful in America to teach blacks to read, or to allow women to attend school. I’m sure plenty of Americans think my not attending church is harmful to me. But what we have come to believe, in the name of tolerance and a pluralistic society, is that the government cannot define harm based upon personal beliefs that not everyone in society shares. We can all agree that murder is a harm that government should rightly prevent. We don’t all agree on scores of other things, and if there isn’t a neutral (ie, not “Well my God says so,”) reasoning behind it, it should be left to personal choice.

Where is the harm, then, in granting homosexual men and women equal rights with their heterosexual counterparts? Because it would be a sin? Go ahead and believe that, if you choose. But legislation based on religion, without a showing of harm, is theocracy. Because homosexuality is a genetically-coded disability? Will you then prohibit deaf people from marrying, and blind people, and others whose genetic structure is not “normal?” We already decided decades ago that preventing such people from marrying, or even from bearing children, is improper.

Can science overcome bigotry? I have to believe that is possible. But in the meantime, we should learn more from the history of our past mistakes and stop continuing to make the same intolerant arguments against different groups. Blacks or homosexuals, preventing a loving couple from receiving the same public recognition as anyone else is still bigotry.

Dara Purvis can be read each Monday, here at Raw Story. You can also visit her online at www.darapurvis.com.