Time.com currently has an article (actually it’s a series of 5 short segments that you have to click through) that explains the basic principles behind the relatively new scientific field of epigenetics. Epigenetics shows that a person’s genetic makeup does not determine their characteristics alone, but instead that there is effectively a process in which certain parts of the DNA are switched on or off in each person. Really fascinating stuff.
Although it is not mentioned anywhere in this article, epigenetics is also the latest and most promising theory about what determines a person’s sexuality. The theory goes that a given set of DNA (perhaps all sets of DNA) has the ability to make the individual to which it belongs both straight and gay. It is the hormones and other chemicals and interactions that take place during fetal development, along with a possible but less certain effect from family history, that determines whether the epigenetic “switch” that determines sexual orientation is flipped to a straight or gay setting.
Studies done with sets of identical twins, who have both the exact same DNA and the exact same living environment, but where one is gay and the other is straight have come a long way in advancing this theory.
The idea that one’s sexual orientation could one day be artificially determined by the parents of an unborn child may scare some gay people and excite some of those who are anti-gay, but the ability to actually do that is still probably pretty far off in the future. It would also likely raise a massive ethical debate about playing with human life, possibly on the scale of that of abortion. That is probably gay rights advocates’ best asset for this debate.
Any Christian who would argue that a parent should intervene to make sure their child’s epigenetics determines they will be straight would rightfully be called a hypocrite. According to their own beliefs, mankind should not play God, for it is God himself who is the only one who should be deciding how life is formed and what the characteristics of that life should be. Mankind is not supposed to interfere with God’s will and what he creates. This person’s hypocrisy would be even more blatant if they were pro-life in the abortion debate. How can you be against interfering with nature and life when the issue is abortion, but in favor of interfering with it if the issue is (homo)sexuality? That’s just not logical. It doesn’t make any sense.
Come to think of it, if said person were to argue in favor of manipulating a fetus’s development process in an attempt to change its sexual orientation, that would require the abandonment of the belief that being gay is a choice. That alone would conflict with whatever outmoded, traditional belief system they are still clinging on to. But maybe that would strangely be a good thing. The act of an anti-gay person latching onto a gay-friendly position, even if it is just a vain attempt to reinforce their own ideas, is sort of like a mini-win for science and understanding. It’s not really the told-you-so win we are looking for, but it could be a sign of progress. At the very least, it’s a
Whatever the arguments may be, the key thing to remember is that they will always exist. Regardless of whether it is nature or nurture or a little of both, there will always be homophobic people trying to figure out how to rid the world of homosexuality and using any explanation at all to argue their case. No one theorized cause of homosexuality is any “better” than any other. None are necessarily more advantageous or easier to debate in favor of. It is always going to boil down to the underlying principles of fairness and tolerance of different kinds of people, and whether we embrace them or push them away. Which will you choose?
