Good As You

Before I get into the biological argument, I think one thing should be pointed out. Reproduction - a biological process - has nothing to do with marriage, which is a social phenomenon. If it did, het couples past child-bearing age or the infertile would not be allowed to marry.

That said, my main argument with Mr. Sanchez' Letter to the Editor is this. While it may be true that:

"From a strict biological perspective, the primary purpose of reproduction is the survival of the species. Human beings, who admittedly cannot be understood fully from the biological perspective, recognize the importance of ensuring the survival of the human species.

This is elementary human biology. Only people who want to ignore objective reality argue against these basic facts."

First, "primary purpose" does not mean "sole purpose," and from a human biological perspective, evolution does a damn fine job weeding out negative traits. Since LGBT folks have been around for many thousands of years (check out some of the Egyptian hieroglyphs and early human writings for proof of this) it seems unlikely it is a negative trait in terms of the survival of the species. Certainly there are negative traits that still exist today - Tays-Sachs, Porphyria, Hemophilia, Sickle Cell anemia, et al., but those folks are a small minority and often do not live long enough to reproduce, suggesting that less desirable traits are naturally lost over time.

Logically, it then follows that being born LGBT is either 1) beneficial to the species, or 2) a neutral trait that does neither harm nor good as it relates to the survival of the species. Other examples of neutral traits include blonde hair, blue eyes, freckles, and left-handedness, among others. Since the LGBT population of the earth is estimated at around 15% (maybe more, maybe less) it seems more in line with neutral or positive traits like left-handedness.

Left-handers also make up approximately 15% of the world population, and for a while being born left-handed was looked down on as the left hand was considered "the devil's hand." Like the LGBT population, left-handers in the U.S. were at one time supposedly "cured" of their left-hand dominance by being forced to write with their right hand. Again, like the LGBT group, this "cure" did not change the subjects. It simply forced them to use their right hand when writing. Eventually most people figured out that prejudice against left-handed writing was a rather silly and outmoded taboo that said nothing about the person's character after all. See where I'm going with this?

The crux of my argument is that since the overall human population continues to grow despite a statistically significant LGBT population, it can't be a negative trait or either humans or the trait would have died out. Well, here we are, 6 billion-plus strong and growing every day. I challenge Mr. Sanchez to face the basic biological reality of diversity adding to the robustness of a species and give up his outmoded taboos.

Julie Carneiro

If we are to have a discussion of things that are natural and biological, then we must first acknowledge the evidence we have today that actually supports the premise that homosexuality is biologically natural.

We know, for example, that so far -- and research is ongoing -- homosexuality has been recorded in over 1,500 different animal species (The Economist, Oct 28, 2006, "All Creatures Great and Small"). I seriously doubt these animals have chosen to fly in the face of the biological urges that inspire their reproductive activities.

Add to this the findings two years ago of the National Academy of Sciences in which a study demonstrated that the hypothalamus in human male homosexuals responded sexually only to male pheromones, and most powerfully to those of other gay men (NY Times, May 10, 2005, "For Gay Men, an Attraction to a Different Kind of Scent", and London Times, May 10, 2005, "On the scent of a sexual match"), and you have a natural, biological phenomenon occurring where we once thought a few perverts were expressing perverted preferences. Boy, were "we" wrong. And so is Benjamin Sanchez.

I have two simple questions for Mr Sanchez. They are simple, yet personal, so I would not expect an answer from him...

1) Are you a virgin?
2) Are you a parent?

If the answer to both is "no" (as it is with the vast majority of university aged people), then you have hereby demonstrated that human sexuality is not solely for reproduction.

If you know *anyone* who answers "no" to both questions who you don't condemn, you have also demonstrated that you do not consider sexuality to be purely for reproduction.

Once you have accepted other possible uses for human sexuality, the rest of your argument falls flat on the ground.

Sex feels good. And since sex feels good much more often than it produces offspring, couldn't we also say that the real primary reason for sex is feeling pleasure, and that producing offspring is only one by-product of that?

While the functions of modern day sexualities are certainly no longer based solely on the survival of the species, I wonder why it is that we continue to seek equal status under the law by showing that our gay relationships deserve the same respect as straight relationships (that have as a basis the idea of reproduction)?

While acheiving equality of recognition is certainly a fundamental issue for the gay rights movement, perhaps we might be better served not by advocating equality based on the legal recognition of our relationships, but rather on recognition of our merit as individual participants in society.

Why is it that we seek to gain equality based on a union with another person?
Why do we allow the government to privilege relationships of any type regarding the distribution of civil rights?

I don't mean to criticize the idea of being equal citizens under the law, but I do want to question the prevailing idea that two people should be allowed a civic advantage over any one (single) person in our society.

Why do we distribute rights on the basis of a shared relationship with another person rather than on each individual's relationship with the state?

It seems to me that rather than advocating equal status as couples, we should question the idea of privileging couples in the first place.

What if there were no advantages to being married over just being?