I. Introduction
The following has been asserted:
[P1] Being homosexual is much less fulfilling than being heterosexual.
[P2] It is possible to choose whether one is homosexual or heterosexual.
[P3] It is the responsibility of government and/or civil society to direct people towards leading as fulfilling lives as possible.
[C] Therefore, it is the responsibility of government and/or civil society to direct people towards being heterosexual rather than homosexual.
Refer to this as the wavering argument. In this essay, it is my purpose to take a closer look at the three premises and the conclusion. I will show that this argument is not valid, as there are severe problems with the premises. Instead, I will claim that being homosexual can be just as fulfilling as being heterosexual, that most people do not choose their sexual orientation, that government should not interfere with basic decisions about identity and the structure of life, and that civil society should try to facilitate the lives of homosexuals.
II. On premise one
[P1] Being homosexual is much less fulfilling than being heterosexual.
Let me begin with a terminological comment. I will interpret "being homosexual" as saying "identifying oneself as a homosexual and engaging in erotic and/or amorous relationships only with persons of the same sex", and I will interpret "being heterosexual" as saying "identifying oneself as a heterosexual and engaging in erotic and/or amorous relationships only with persons of the opposite sex." For the sake of argument, at the time being, I will assume that these alternatives are exhaustive and that each person can be categorized as being either homosexual or heterosexual, as defined.
With this in mind, the question is if the premise should be interpreted as saying that it is a logical necessity that being homosexual is less fulfilling than being heterosexual, or if it merely states that, as a matter of fact, being homosexual is on average less fulfilling than being heterosexual. The first alternative is clearly false, since it would imply, were it to hold, that no homosexual could lead a more fulfilling life than any heterosexual. The second alternative is, then, what is referred to.
But there are severe measurement problems involved here, since we are now dealing with an empirical issue which can only be settled by means of real-world investigation. First, how does one measure fulfillment on an individual level? It seems to me that this is a highly fluctuating and subjective variable, which cannot easily be ascertained by any one individual in his or her own case, and even less so by a researcher. The latter may try to approximate fulfillment by looking at aggregate, average numbers, e.g., on education, income, life expectancy, etc., and although these factors may be positively correlated to fulfillment, this is by no means certain (wealth may not entail happiness, a long education can lead people to rack their brains over, and a short life can be of very high quality). Another approach would be to interview people who are homosexual and heterosexual, but how does one get representative samples, when fulfillment is a variable which varies immensely between individuals (and for a given individual, over time), and how can one ascertain that people are telling the truth? In fact, many could be expected to have rather strong incentives to present their lives as more fulfilling than they, in fact, are, especially if they know that someone is studying the degree of fulfillment of people of their sexual orientation.
The problem with representative samples is, in fact, serious not only because fulfillment is a tricky variable to measure but also because it is hard to measure sexual orientation. Thus far, we have treated this as a binary variable when it, in fact, is continuous. There are, in other words, bisexuals of various kinds, and since most of them can plausibly be expected to be categorized as heterosexuals, since most of them have (plausibly) chosen to live with persons of the opposite sex, this would produce incorrect sampling. Also, due to fears of stigmatization, many homosexuals could also be expected to report being heterosexuals.
On the (highly questionable) view that my criticism is not convincing, a few arguments seem to recur as a basis for believing premise one. It has been alleged that homosexuals lead less fulfilling lives because they are said to lead shorter lives, that they are subjected to hate crimes and stigmatization, and because they suffer from more diseases (not the least AIDS). As for shorter lives, this is not known. Some claim to know, but since their basis for claiming this is the shady "research" of one Paul Cameron, this cannot be trusted. For an exposition of Cameron's "research" methods, see an analysis by Dr. Gregory M. Herek at the University of California at Davis. Dr. Herek concludes: "The Cameron group's gay obituary study reports many numbers and statistics. However, they are absolutely worthless for estimating the life expectancy of gay men and lesbians." As for hate crimes and stigmatization, it is true that some open homosexuals suffer from these, but one problem here is that those who say that homosexual lives are less fulfilling for this reason most often actively contribute to the disapprobation of homosexuality that leads to hate crimes and stigmatization. And most homosexuals handle these things rather well: in fact, the "coming-out" process is often seen as strengthening, ex post, even though negative reactions can be hard to face when they are delivered. As for AIDS, a majority of gay men do not suffer from it, and a homosexual (or heterosexual) who does not want to take risks that can lead to an HIV infection certainly knows how to avoid being infected. Furthermore, lesbians report lower AIDS rates than heterosexuals. And as for other venereal diseases, it seems to be the case that gay men are overrepresented, but this cannot be taken to mean that being homosexual implies that your life is less fulfilling. First, most gay men do not get venereal diseases, and second, those who do may have attracted those diseases while engaging in very fulfilling sexual behavior which, on net, means, that their fulfillment levels may be quite high.
What about the higher suicide rates among homosexual teenagers? E.g., according to a 1989 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, up to 30 percent of successful teen suicides are by gay or lesbian youths, and gay teens are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than are other youth. Does not this imply that being homosexual is less fulfilling than being heterosexual? Yes and no. Yes, from the point of view of many young people, who begin to detect that they are different from their peers, it can be very painful to realize that they are part of a shunned minority. Most of all homosexuals have gone through this phase. But the key points to note is that this dissatisfaction comes about because one feels lonely and odd in a world (including one's family, school, friends, and church) which affirms heterosexuality as the norm and that this is a passing phase for almost all. The American Psychological Association states: "Much objective scientific research over the past 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is not associated with emotional of social problems." And the American Psychiatric Association concurs: "The Board recognized that a significant portion of gay and lesbian people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation and showed no signs of psychopathology. It was also found that homosexuals were able to function effectively in society, and those who sought treatment most often did so for reasons other than their homosexuality."
What about not having children? First, homosexuals can have children - although by non-conventional means such as insemination and adoption. Interestingly, those who state that homosexuals do not lead fulfilling lives because they do not have children oftentimes try to prevent homosexuals from having children the most. And second, life can be fulfilling also without children, partly because homosexuals can interact with, say, the children of siblings and because there are other projects in life which one can engage in which can be highly meaningful.
Lastly, if one looks at income and education, it is commonplace for critics of homosexuality and homosexuals to claim that homosexuals earn much more and have higher education, on average, than heterosexuals (this is often taken as a reason for the government not to offer certain benefits to homosexuals, "since they are so well off anyway"). Such statistics must, of course, also be taken into account, if one thinks that such statistics are meaningful and reliable.
So, in all, it seems more or less impossible to know how sexual orientation relates to fulfillment. But if one, despite my criticism, still thinks that these things can be measured in a meaningful way, it is certainly not wise to be too confident that it will turn out that homosexuals lead less fulfilling lives than heterosexuals. Clearly, premise one is highly incredulous.
III. On premise two
[P2] It is possible to choose whether one is homosexual or heterosexual.
First, it is essential to understand the concept of sexual orientation properly. As the American Psychological Association clarifies, sexual orientation is a continuous variable with three subcategories: homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual, and the category to which any person belongs is not chosen. An exclusive homosexual is only sexually and emotionally attracted to persons of the same sex, an exclusive heterosexual is only sexually and emotionally attracted to persons of the opposite sex, and a bisexual is sexually and emotionally attracted to persons of both sexes. (See my essay "Does Homosexuality Pose a Threat to Society" for the basis of these facts.) Hence, the wavering argument simply does not apply to those who are more or less exclusively homosexual, as they cannot choose to be heterosexual. And attempts by government and/or civil society to direct them to become heterosexual can only make their lives less fulfilling, for no good purpose at all. This significantly weakens the argument.
However, even though exclusive homosexuals may not be able to choose to be heterosexual, it can still be argued that bisexuals are true waverers, who can make genuine choices on what sex the people they engage in erotic and/or amorous relationships with belong to. This, I grant, is true.
But, of course, there are two problems involved here. First, as we found above that there is no firm indication that being heterosexual is more fulfilling than being homosexual, there is no reason to bother about whether a bisexual chooses to restrict himself to a certain sex or not. Second, since most studies indicate that the share of bisexuals is quite small, making the lives of all homosexuals less fulfilling through deliberate government and/or civil-society methods in order to influence a few bisexuals is ethically questionable. An additional "cost" which must be taken into account is the effect the direction of bisexuals and quite a few homosexuals into heterosexual unions has on their families. Is it ethically right to marry a woman if one, as a man, really does not love her erotically and amorously - largely because this is the easiest way to live? Is it right to the (possible) children?
IV. On premise three
[P3] It is the responsibility of government and/or civil society to direct people towards leading as fulfilling lives as possible.
This is a normative issue, which is not the primary focus of this essay. My personal view is that this premise should be rejected. If a person (who can choose) would like to lead his life as part of group A rather than as part of group B, then, by invoking the principle of revealed preference, he does so on the calculus that group A offers him or her a more fulfilling life. And it turns out that this was a mistake, it is possible, then, for such a person to change groups later. These choices should be left to this person and be no business of society at large. Welcome to read more on my page "In Defense of Freedom."
V. On the conclusion
[C] Therefore, it is the responsibility of government and/or civil society to direct people towards being heterosexual rather than homosexual.
Let us see whether the conclusion of the wavering argument holds. In order for it to hold, premises one, two, and three must be true. We saw that there is no basis for thinking [P1] true; we saw that [P2] only holds for bisexuals; we rejected [P3] on philosophical grounds; and we are left with our conclusion: [C] cannot be established.
VI. Some final remarks
Consider the following argument:
[P1'] Being black is much less fulfilling than being white.
[P2'] It is possible to choose whether one is black or white.
[P3'] It is the responsibility of government and/or civil society to direct people towards leading as fulfilling lives as possible.
[C'] Therefore, it is the responsibility of government and/or civil society to direct people towards being white rather than black.
Do you think this is a valid argument? I claim that to be logically consistent, if a person agrees finds the wavering argument valid, then he or she must also find this argument valid, and vice versa. Remember: if one thinks it meaningful to compare how fulfilling a certain group's lives are, on average, then surely, most indicators imply that blacks lead less fulfilling lives than whites (blacks have lower incomes, lower education, shorter life expectancy, they suffer more from crime and discrimination, etc). And as for [P2'], I advise you to consider mulattos (the equivalent of bisexuals). The ethical issue: Should government and/or civil society make life less fulfilling for all blacks (homosexuals) simply for mulattos (bisexuals) to choose to lead their lives, to the highest extent possible, in the white (heterosexual) world?
I think the answer is "No."
Lastly, if one believes that the lives of homosexuals on average are less fulfilling than those of heterosexuals, then what conclusion should one draw from that belief? If one's goal is for people to lead fulfilling lives (as the wavering argument supposes), then it seems to me to follow that one should strive to help homosexuals lead more fulfilling lives instead of consciously making their lives less fulfilling in order to deter a few bisexuals. This would, of course, give homosexuals an improved quality of life, but, notably, it would also make a choice of a bisexual to lead a homosexual life less detrimental for him, from the point of view of the paternalistic government and/or civil society. This much more humane and compassionate avenue seems, for some reason, to have escaped those who invoke the faulty wavering argument.
For a related argument by Dr. Andrew Sullivan, click here.