Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans' Definitions of Family

5. Accounting for Sexuality: God, Genes, and Gays

103 Chapter 5 Accounting for Sexuality: God, Genes, and Gays with Danielle Fettes U p until this point we have identified ways in which Americans define family—and in particular, the extent to which same-sex couples are counted in or counted out of these definitions—and have articulated how such definitions are shaped by location in the social structure, among these factors being gender, age, and education.1 But the boundaries that Americans make between families and nonfamilies tell us even more. As described in the previous chapter, a large segment of the American population is equivocal about or opposed to the inclusion of same-sex couples in the definition of family. This ambivalence or resistance corresponds to a heteronormative vision of family that privileges legal marriage, parenthood, and heterosexuality. The concept of heteronormativity, however, goes beyond the disapproval, discomfort, or antipathy that may be evoked by same-sex relations. It also speaks to other attitudes regarding how families operate, as well as to even broader ideologies regarding gender and sexuality. In the next three chapters, we examine how definitions of family are intertwined with these attitudes and ideologies. We discuss Americans’ views on gender, as indicated by their opinions about the unique or overlapping roles of fathers and of mothers in children’s lives (chapter 6), and their opinions on the importance of women sharing the same name as their husband (chapter 7). In this chapter, we explore how family definitions tie into beliefs regarding sexuality—more specifically , the genesis of sexual preference. In our interviews, we listed several traits or behaviors (for example, intelligence, personality, weight, aggressive behavior, mental health, alcohol use, drug use, and sexual preference) and asked Americans 104    Counted Out whether they believed that these were due mostly to genetic factors, parenting, peer influence, outside environment, or “God’s will.” Given our interest in family definitions and same-sex relationships, we focus primarily on adults’ attributions of sexual preference, although we also briefly touch on their etiological accounts of intelligence and weight. Our mission here is surely not to solve the ongoing and fierce dispute often described as the “nature-versus-nurture” debate, but rather to see whether the views held by the general public about the origins of behavior and traits—especially sexual preference—resemble scientific thinking on this topic and, more importantly, whether these views are implicated in the types of living arrangements they include in their definitions of family. Thus, one of our goals is to identify the extent to which individuals subscribe to particular explanations of sexual preference , as well as the sociodemographic correlates of these views. More fundamentally, however, we explore how these beliefs—especially those regarding sexual preference—figure into whether people have a more expansive or more restrictive definition of family. We consider whether knowing someone’s etiological explanations of human characteristics and behavior affords us greater analytical leverage in understanding, or even predicting, his or her views on what constitutes a family. In exploring these patterns, a final goal of this chapter is to persuade sociologists and other social and behavioral scientists to reconsider some of their own assumptions—in particular, the sociological wisdom regarding the presumed conservative nature of genetic attributions and the meaning of religious frames. Nature, Nurture, Science, Omniscience Although it has been described as “simplistic,” “old-fashioned,” “tired,” “old,” and “reductionist,” the nature-nurture debate thrives. Most college students who take introductory sociology, anthropology, or psychology classes are taught about the putative nature-nurture divide, which would have us consider whether human traits and behaviors (such as intelligence and mental health) can best be understood in the context of biological-genetic or social-environmental inputs. This debate is not confined, however, to classrooms: it signifies the larger chasm separating scholars who privilege social explanations and their counterparts who favor biological ones for a broad array of topics, including child development, poverty, gender differences, and racial inequality . Such partisanship should come as no surprise given the great implications of determining which factors matter the most. Social scientists who advocate wholly environmental accounts run the risk of criticism Accounting for Sexuality    105 from the nature faction for being naive, biophobic, ignorant of scientific advances, overly politicized, and unremittingly insular in their views (Ellis 1996; Lopreato and Crippen 1999; Pinker 2002; Udry 1995). Conversely , advocates of primarily biological or evolutionary (nature) explanations of human behavior often are accused of purposefully or inadvertently advancing...