The more things change, the more they stay the same. Or so it
seems as gay-rights opponents, in a desperate last-ditch effort to
win their cultural war against homosexuality, trot out arguments
that have been discredited for decades.
Many of these focus on the alleged harms of homosexuality.
Having failed to make a convincing moral case, gay-rights opponents
often shift to claims of "health risks" - including disease,
decreased life expectancy, higher suicide rates, and so on.
Such scientific-sounding concerns give these opponents a veneer
of objectivity. Indeed, their arguments sound almost compassionate
at times. Consider the following question posed by Marquette
University professor Christopher Wolfe:
"On the basis of health considerations alone, is it unreasonable
to ask if it is better not to be an active homosexual? At the very
least, don't the facts suggest that it is desirable to prevent the
formation of a homosexual orientation and to bring people out of it
when we can?"
The correct answer to Wolfe is, "It depends." For there are
three key questions we must first ask:
(1) Are the allegations of harm accurate?
This question seems obvious, but it's crucial. Many of the
studies cited by gay-rights opponents are abysmally bad.
Consider the oft-repeated claim that homosexual males face a
dramatic decrease in life expectancy. The claim is rooted in the
research of psychologist Paul Cameron, who argues that even apart
from AIDS, gay men on average die over thirty years sooner than
their straight counterparts.
How did he reach this startling conclusion? By comparing
obituaries in 16 gay publications with those in two mainstream
newspapers.
As Dave Barry says, I am not making this up. Cameron's
methodology is laughable even to those with no formal statistical
training. Newspaper obituaries are unscientific. Those that appear
in gay publications are far more apt to record the deaths of those
lost in their prime than of those who died elderly, especially
given the target demographic of such publications. There was no
control group (after all, gays have obituaries in mainstream
publications too). And so on.
It should thus come as no surprise that 1983 Cameron was
expelled from the American Psychological Association for ethical
violations. Yet his work continues to get cited by otherwise
respectable researchers like Wolfe.
But suppose, purely for the sake of argument, we were to grant
the allegations of harm cited by gay-rights opponents. We would
still have to ask a second question:
(2) Are the alleged harms caused by homosexuality itself, or
some external factor?
In particular, we would have to ask whether many of the alleged
harms result from anti-gay sentiment. In that case, there would be
a vicious circle: opponents of homosexuality would be basing their
opposition on factors caused by that very opposition - a classic
case of "blaming the victim."
In some cases these external factors are complex. Gays are, to a
considerable extent, a wounded people. Many experience ostracism
from their own families during formative years, with deep emotional
scars resulting.
To say this is not to say that gay life is miserable or that we
should not take responsibility for our own well-being. Rather, it
is to remind those who allege various problems in gay life that
they may share responsibility for those problems.
But suppose I'm wrong. Suppose - again for the sake of argument
- that the alleged problems result from homosexuality itself,
rather than social pressure. There is a third question that must be
asked:
(3) What follows?
This is the question most people miss. They assume that if a
practice is riskier than the alternatives, the practice must be
wrong. But that assumption is demonstrably false.
Driving is riskier than walking. Being a coal miner is riskier
than being a newspaper columnist. Football is riskier than chess.
Yet no one thinks that the former activity in each example is wrong
just because of the risks involved.
There are too many holes in the argument that links
homosexuality with risk and risk with wrongness. Consider how
Wolfe's argument would look if we applied it to football:
"On the basis of health considerations alone, is it unreasonable
to ask if it is better not to be [a football player]? At the very
least, don't the facts suggest that it is desirable to prevent the
formation of [an interest in football] and to bring people out of
it when we can?"
After all, there are safer hobbies, like chess!
Well, sure. But football players don't want to play chess; they
want to play football. The argument reminds me of an old joke:
Question: What's the best way to avoid spilling
your coffee while driving?
Answer: Drink tea.
Gays, like everyone else, can take steps to minimize risks in
their lives. They can start by confronting the pseudo-science and
invalid inferences of their opponents.