Many opponents of same-sex marriage, hate crimes and anti-discrimination legislation assert that homosexuality is not something people are born with, but rather something they “choose” later in life. To them, homosexuals — and by extension bisexuals and possibly trans-gender people — neither deserve nor require “special rights” for their so-called “lifestyle”. Whereas, since “race” is an immutable biological trait that people are born with, certain protections should be provided to prevent the dominant group from persecuting minority “races.”

I see an underlying assumption to this argument, that there are only limited rights to go around, and since there are a scarcity of rights available, we must divide them among people on the basis of biology. This “scarcity” theory results in marginalized groups competing for what they see as the crumbs of a small and limited pie, rather than joining together to work for a larger and more equitable pie.

In truth, all social identities are socially constructed. For example, looking over the historical emergence of the concept of “race,” critical race theorists remind us that this notion arose concurrently with the advent of European exploration as a justification and rationale for conquest and domination of the globe, beginning in the 15th century of the Common Era (CE) and reaching its apex in the early 20th century CE. Geneticists tell us that there is often more biological variability within a given so-called “race” than between “races,” and that there are no essential genetic markers linked specifically to “race.” They assert, therefore, that though the notion of “race” holds enormous social significance in the lived experiences of individuals stemming from a hierarchy, as it has been established, of privilege, domination, subordination, and subjugation, the concept of “race,” nonetheless, is a historical, “scientific,” cultural, and biological myth, an idea, and that any supposed physical “racial” markers are socially conceived and are not concordant with what is beyond or below the surface of the body.

Researchers have conducted numerous scientific studies, some still currently underway, to “discover” the true genesis of same-sex attractions, as well as transgressive gender expressions. Researchers have spent — literally — millions of dollars in their attempts to unlock the answer to the perennial question: “What causes homosexuality?” though we virtually never ask the question: “What causes heterosexuality?” I actually would rather researchers investigate the question: “What causes homophobia?,” for then we might discover a cure for this form of oppression.

Without getting caught in the “nature v. nurture” debate, for the jury is still out — no pun intended — on this question, let us presume for the sake of argument that sexuality and gender identity and expression are choices. If this is the case, LGBT people should be accorded rights and protections from discrimination as those who choose their religious (or non-religious) affiliations and expressions. Religion is, in fact, a choice, as reemphasized in a Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life (2009) study, which found that 44 percent of U.S.-Americans change religious affiliation at least once during their lives. The First Amendment guarantees constitutional protections on the basis of one’s choice of religious affiliation and expression.

On the other side of the coin, if sexuality and gender identity and expression are genetically predetermined, LGBT people should be accorded rights and protections from discrimination as are minoritized racial groups.

In the final analysis, however, these are issues of human rights and human dignity, not questions of science.

— Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld is an assistant professor of multicultural and international curriculum studies at Iowa State University