This post is to ask a question I have been thinking about for a while, but after reading the commentary on Brett’s recent post on homosexuality, I thought my question might provide further grounds for discussion. I suspect it was answered, at least obliquely, in the commboxes, but I think there is some value in making it explicit. The genesis of this is a discussion I was part of some years ago. In it, one of my colleagues defended homosexual behavior by saying that it was natural, just like being left-handed. I recall reading it in various places shortly thereafter. This comparison still pops up from time to time, though a Google search on “gay” and “left-handed” instead brought up articles debating a genetic link between being left-handed and homosexuality.
Though I didn’t said it out loud in the original discussion, at the time and since then I have wondered if a more apt comparison might be between homosexuality and alcoholism. It is “natural” to be an alcoholic, but society does not approve of people acting on these impulses. So my question is this: are either of these analogies legitimate ones? Do they provide useful grounds for understanding homosexuality and explaining Catholic teaching on this subject? I have not been able to answer this question to my own satisfaction, whence this post. But the following are some of my preliminary thoughts on the matter.
All three—lefthandedness, alcoholism, and homosexuality—are “natural” in some sense of the word. The science on all three is mixed, but there is evidence that all three depend on a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors: there does not appear to be a single “cause” and none of them can be reduced to a simple choice or preference. (Of the three, lefthandedness seems to have the strongest genetic component, but the case is not conclusive.) All three are also a combination of inclination and action: we distinguish between a “same sex orientation” or “same sex attraction” and “homosexual acts”; a person can be an alcoholic yet not drink alcohol (sometimes referred to as being a “recovering alcoholic”). And, while a person might be “naturally” left-handed, he or she may act in a right-handed fashion: a choice caused by the righthandedness of many ordinary objects or a behavior forced upon him or her when young. For example, my sister is left-handed in that when she was a child her natural tendency was to do things with her left hand dominant. But the teachers in her grade school forced her to write with her right hand. Superficially she is now righthanded, though she claims her clumsiness is a direct consequence of this enforced change. Finally, all three are surrounded by a number of cultural constructs which have varied depending on time and place. With homosexuality and alcoholism we have seen pronounced shifts in the 20th century: alcoholism passed from a moral failing to a disease (perhaps mental illness is a better term), homosexuality on the other hand was once considered a mental disorder, but no longer. Currently, lefthandedness is considered neutral, but has had both positive and negative associations (cf. the word “sinister”).
The argument that being gay is “like” being lefthanded trades upon the morally neutral status of the latter. If it is “okay” to be lefthanded, even though most people are righthanded, and to reasonably expect certain societal concessions to acknowledge this fact (such as lefthanded desks and scissors for lefthanded students), then one should treat homosexuality in the same way. This argument also draws upon the fact that for lefthandedness there is little or no distinction made between inclination or tendency and action: to “be” lefthanded is to “act” lefthanded. In the same way, it is implicit in this argument that no meaningful distinction exists between being gay and engaging in homosexual acts.
I like the comparison with alcoholism because it makes clear—and so calls into question—the assumptions and elisions in the analogy with lefthandedness. The fact that alcoholism is also regarded as “natural” shows that there are other facets of humanity that in and of themselves are not “evil” but (can) have negative moral consequences. This suggests that being “natural” is not, in and of itself sufficient grounds for making moral judgments. Or, at the very least, we need a more nuanced definition of “natural.” Alcoholism is also a widely accepted example of the distinction between inclination/orientation and acts that Catholic teaching makes about homosexuality. Though I do not know much about the organization, I have always had the sense that Courage was organized in a fashion similar to Alcoholics Anonymous. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
On the other hand, the comparison with alcoholism is also not perfect. First, of course, is the fact that the categorization of alcoholism as a disease is not uncontested: for an interesting range of views from a conservative Catholic perspective, see this discussion at Catholic Answers from 2004. Second, there are strong utilitarian reasons for condemning alcohol abuse—it can kill you, and in the process destroy everything and everyone you care about. Similar arguments do not exist for homosexual behavior or are much more subtle: metaphysical rather than physical consequences. Third, to pursue this analogy further, we would need to deal with the question of whether alcoholism is “intrinsically disordered,” a concept I have never seen applied to anything except homosexuality. In some discussions I have seen something described as intrinsically disordered, but only in a discussion of homosexuality, never independently. I would be interested in seeing such an example. Finally, while alcoholism relates to a very specific act (albeit one with a large social penumbra), homosexuality cannot be reduced to specific sexual acts: the whole psycho-social construct of attractions, feelings and relationships must be considered.
Is this a good analogy? How far can it be carried? Though there are still stigmas attached to alcoholism, it is generally acceptable for a person to say “I am a recovering alcoholic” and to demur on an offered drink or even to refuse to attend social functions where alcohol is served. Should we in a similar vein expect people to identify themselves by saying “I am a recovering homosexual”? In doing so would we both be acknowledging their identity but at the same time supporting their decision to live chastely? Could such a designation coexist with the homophobia still rampant in large sectors of society and the Church?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In