This is the second response to one of Orson Scott Card’s articles in his ongoing series on homosexual issues. The first response can be found here.

A few weeks ago, science fiction author Orson Scott Card wrote another essay on the subject of homosexuality, this time focusing on the science surrounding the causes of the behavior. Not being an expert on the subject, I’m a little hesitant to comment on his summary of current research. However, the conclusion of this article is something that is pretty flawed in its reasoning, so let’s take it one leg at a time:

But there can be no serious question that homosexuality, to the degree that it cannot be overcome or outlasted, is a reproductive dysfunction. A human body that has evolved with functional organs of sexual reproduction is redirected to sexual activities that are reproductive dead ends.

This is a completely fallacious understanding of what a reproductive dysfunction is. Homosexuality cannot be considered, in any real, scientific sense of the term, to be a reproductive dysfunction. A reproductive dysfunction occurs when the reproductive organs don’t work, not when people don’t want to use them. And even in the case of homosexuality, many gays and lesbians choose to have naturally born children and raise them with their partners or spouses (if marriage is legal in their jurisdiction). Besides, it’s not as though heterosexuals exclusively have sex in ways that maximize the potential for children–quite the contrary.

Even if we stipulate that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce, it’s not as though homosexuality is the only genetically predisposed behavior which has the potential to reduce the likelihood for procreation. For example, there is some recent biological research which suggests that some people have a genetic predisposition to be strongly religious. If those people grow up in religions that value celibacy or have celibate priesthoods, it stands to reason that this predisposition makes them less likely to have children. If that’s the case, would Orson Scott Card also argue against this behavior on the same grounds? Given his essays and writings praising the celibate priesthood of the Catholic Church, I doubt it.

Additionally, it’s worth mentioning that there’s some research out there which suggests that one of the causes of male homosexuality may be a gene complex which is related to increasing the fertility of the mother. In other words, if a woman has more children, the male children are disproportionately likely to be gay. If this research ends up bearing out, it would mean that homosexual males are caused by genes which improve fertility. This would be an ironic twist to Card’s argument, although his argument fails whether this research is true or not.

Later in the essay, Card goes further with his alignment of homosexuality as a “dysfunction” when he compares it to real disorders:

Wouldn’t we prevent dyslexia, if we could? Why, we would even prevent tone-deafness! We put braces on perfectly healthy children with buck teeth. But homosexuality? No — we must treat this as the dysfunction that we pretend is functional.

These are completely false analogies. Dyslexia, buck teeth, and even tone-deafness are things which actually hinder health or flourishing. Dyslexia hinders the ability to read and therefore hinders success in education. Buck teeth can cause increased susceptibility to various diseases of the teeth and gums. These are actual problems which hinder health and the ability to flourish to one’s highest potential.

By contrast, homosexuality does not affect health at all. And the only hindrance to homosexuals flourishing to their full potential are societies which have a taboo against homosexuality. Such taboos are hardly universal.

At the root of Card’s opposition to gay marriage is his vision of what the purpose of society is, which he in the essay he states is to “maximize the reproductive opportunities and security of the largest number of their members.” In Card’s view, this can only happen in a society that the family and conformity to community mores above all other things.

History, however, teaches us that the strongest cultures are those which maximize the individual freedom of its members. Those societies which embrace freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of entrepreneurship, and, above all, the freedom to love are those which become wealthy and strong. Cultures which allow such freedom are cultures which recognize and celebrate the individual happiness of its members.

Granted, this type of culture does not spring up overnight. The celebration of the individual began in Ancient Greece, but even there it wasn’t fully embraced. Individualism had its ups and downs but didn’t truly being to reach its potential until the Enlightenment in the 1700s and its cultivation in American and European life. Ever since, it’s been struggling, but mostly succeeding. It wasn’t too long ago that blacks and whites weren’t allowed to marry. That changed when the Supreme Court stood up to community conformity and, in the most appropriately named case ever, Loving v. Virginia, the Court struck down bans on interracial marriage.

As we now move closer to the era in which gay marriage is widely accepted, there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the “destruction of marriage” and the “deviancy” of homosexuality. Ultimately, though, the ideals of the Enlightenment will win out. After all, this is a sometimes cold, sometimes cruel world that we live in, and love is the bright, warm spot in it that keeps us going. Love is a beautiful thing that ought to be cherished and celebrated wherever it occurs and with whomever it occurs with.

Love is not a dysfunction.