Use Your Right Hand or I'll Beat the Shit Out of You

From time to time, for reasons that are vague and probably just the product of a mind naturally prone to wandering, I wonder about the whole argument about homosexuality and heterosexuality, and how we get to become one or the other. If we were to find an answer to that question, it would have profound consequences on our world.


It is one of the issues at the crux of a problem that psychology has been wrestling with for decades, that of the "Nature vs. Nurture" argument. The Nature argument says that we are a product of our genes and biology. All behavior is a consequence of the construction of our bodies. The Nurture argument says that we are born tabula rasa (or as Rush Limbaugh would put it, little skulls full of mush) and we are taught to be everything we are. Without experience, we are no better than animals.

Of course, every psychologist worth their diplomas will admit that it's not an either/or question. We are a subtle, exquisite blend of our genes and our experiences. A third argument suggests that we are a perfect blend or balance of both. Our behavior is equal parts Nature and Nurture, that a traumatic event can strongly influence our subsequent behavior, even if our genetics lean against it, but such an event cannot ultimately make us go totally against our nature.

Some traits of ours are more Nature than Nurture, and others are vice versa. The third argument is just as unreasonable as the first two because, as Carl Sagan once said, "real life is lumpy".

When these ideas collide with axioms from other sources, we have the makings for a fiercely combustible situation. No topic tests this more severely than sexuality. We can see examples where learned behavior goes to an extreme to counteract natural tendencies. In Islam, the Koran teaches that women are responsible for inflaming the sexual passions of men, and therefore must be isolated in society and covered up so that men can lead with a clear head. Women and men are taught this, and accept it for the most part, in a large part of the Muslim world. Part of the beliefs of Western decadence comes from the fact that our women aren't forced to do that. In Western society, of course, we view this belief as ludicrous. Men are responsible for tempering their own passions, and women aren't obliged to hide themselves just because men aren't strong enough to deal with it. The flip side of the Muslim view of women is that Muslim men are so weak-willed that only by arranging their entire society to essentially enslave or imprison half their population can they deal with their lives without becoming uncontrollable sexual ogres.

Our challenge in the Western world, especially the United States, has to do with homosexuality. Here again, Nature and Nurture collide head on. Ask any devout, or at least conservative, Christian about homosexuality, and they will tell you that it is evil and disgusting, a violation of the sanctity of God. Christians are burning up non-trivial amounts of money to counter efforts to allow gay people to marry, because it's an attack on marriage. *How* this is an attack on marriage they're never quite clear about except that letting gay people do anything is apparently an attack on something.

Why do we expend such effort? Because Christianity dictates that it is wrong, and it is unacceptable to them for society to tolerate it. It's not just that they object to society saying it's not wrong, but they object to society not saying it's wrong. In other words, silence on the topic isn't enough. To be a society they're willing to participate in, the law must actively work against homosexuality.

They do attempt to trot out any number of "societal ills" to justify this bigotry -- including that by accepting it we're telling our children that homosexuality is okay. This is a pure Nurture argument. The argument goes something like this: In order to be gay, you have to choose to do so. You have to choose actions that are despicable to society, and therefore you must be evil if you would actually *want* to do that. And since people don't like to be alone, they have to "recruit" new gay people, since nobody would ever naturally be gay.

There's just one problem with this argument. It's been proven that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. How can this be?!? After all, how would gay people pass on their gay genes? It makes no logical sense. Well see, that's where the influence of nurture comes along. For centuries, gay people repressed their preference. They married. They had children. They passed along the genetic tendency for homosexuality. Oh, and they had gay affairs when they thought it was safe. Only in rare moments in world history has homosexuality been considered not unacceptable -- ancient Greece, imperial Rome, occasional enlightened enclaves of Renaissance and Industrial Europe, and in some Modern American and European communities. Famous people in history have turned out to be gay -- some secretly, a precious few out. I personally have heard gay people discuss over and over and over again, that they did not choose to be gay. They simply were. The only decision was in whether to do something about it or not.

Sexual impulses are stronger than we give them credit for. Throughout history, gay men have fled to the Catholic priesthood in the hopes of escaping their sexuality. In modern times we are seeing how effective that has been. A boy who is straight and is molested by a gay man may be emotionally damaged by the encounter, but will it make the child gay? It is unlikely, anymore than a girl who is molested by a straight man becomes straight from the experience. In fact, an argument could be made that it would have the opposite effect, if it in fact could have an effect on sexuality at all. A young gay man will no sooner become straight by being bedded by a perfect female specimen than a young straight man will become gay by the ministrations of a skilled gay lover. There's basic nature at work here.

How can homosexuality persist when, in theory, it works against procreation? First it helps to state the obvious, that humans have more uses for sexuality than reproduction. It's not common in the animal world, but there are a handful of species that use sex for social purposes. Actually, they tend to be the most intelligent: chimpanzees and dolphins have both been observed using sex as part of socialization and not a response to a reproductive instinct. But since sexuality is viewed overwhelmingly in our religious belief systems as an animalistic, and therefore not of God, and since Judeo-Christian belief claims we are made in God's image, sexuality is viewed, at best, as a necessary evil, and at worst, a surrender to animal behavior and thus estrangement from God. It's primarily for this reason that there are celibate religious orders, especially in Christianity. (quick note: Yes, there are celibate Buddhists but they tend to be celibate for totally different and unrelated reasons.) But the discovery of chimps and dolphins getting it on just to say "I'm sorry" (apparently humans didn't invent the "sympathy fuck") just blew the basis for that belief into smithereens.

What about arguing it from the other way, that homosexuality is not normal? We tend to use the word "normal" in an abstract sense rather than a literal one. We equate "normal" with "typical". Homosexuality persists in the human population at a rate of somewhere in the span of 2 to 10 percent, depending on how we define "homosexuality", so the numbers alone say that homosexuality is atypical. But there are all sorts of atypical traits, from immense IQ to athletic ability to penis size, to which we attribute high value. We attribute high IQ to high achievement, which we value. We attribute high athletic ability to achievement (in modern times) or military might (in ancient ones), which we value. We have mixed feelings about penis size, since it's sexual, but since every straight male seems to equate penis size with the ability to provide pleasure to a woman (direct evidence from women to the contrary), we value it. Nobody ever gets penis reduction surgery, at least that I've ever heard.

Psychologist have a somewhat different view of "normal", or at least of "abnormal". A trait is undesirable if it interferes with a person's effective execution of life. We characterize "the blues" as normal but clinical depression as abnormal by this definition. Is homosexuality abnormal? Up until the 1950's, the psychological and psychiatric community thought it was. One of the more controversial decisions they made was to rescind that judgment. Why? Because homosexuality in fact did not interfere with a person's life in and of itself, though other people's behaviors in response to it could.

So if homosexuality occurs naturally in humans, and doesn't directly interfere with a person's existence, it can't be "abnormal" per se. And if it's a small portion of the population, it can't be "normal" by that definition. So where does that leave us? Is there something in our human condition that can be said to occupy a similar position, something that is psychologically normal, statistically atypical, and tends to not be learned? As a matter of fact we do.

People have also been left-handed for millienia. The origin of hand preference in humanity, and its impact on society, is the closest analogy we have, and once straight people get past their incredulous initial reaction, I think you'll see it makes perfect sense. We have only recently decided to not view left-handedness as abnormal, though in the past it was also considered "evil" and parents went to great effort to try to make their children right-handed. Left-handed people can operate in a right-handed mode for short periods of time, but once given the chance, will go back to being left-handed with nary a thought. Nobody decides to be left-handed. I know this because when I was a kid, I resolved to be left-handed. I tried for weeks. It simply didn't work. True, left-handed people have a greater tendency toward ambidexterity, but only because it's a right-handed world, and some right-hand skill is necessary to get by from time to time. Measure this against the fairly pitiful performance right-handed people display when presented with the rare left-hand-only situation.

So why are there no nationwide movements against left-handedness? Why no state laws banning left-handed paraphernalia? No religious movements against the evil influence of left-handed people? Oh sure, there are vestiges of such prejudice -- most device are still arranged for righties, and we have expressions like "left-handed compliment". (Neo-Pagans refer to Satanism sometimes as the "left-handed path".) Because being left-handed is not related to sexuality. Well maybe in the case of masturbation, but I'm pretty sure that's not what we mean.

We would not tolerate someone being beaten to death for picking up a bottle with the wrong hand, and yet there are people out there who, if not outwardly then in secret corners of their mind, think that gay people who get the snot kicked out of them that they somehow had it coming. Perhaps by seeing gay people as left-handed in a different sense, maybe the world can become just a little less vicious.