Firstly, that one of the oft-used arguments for the eradication of discrimination regarding homosexuality is that it, like race and sex, is not a 'preference' it's a hardwired part of a persons being. This is supported by the discovery of a genetic sequence with a seeming relation to male homosexuality - the "Gay Gene".
Secondly, that there has been a recent(ish) discovery (by the same fellow) of a "God Gene".
If you're talking about Dean Hamer's work, both 'discoveries' have been challenged on grounds of dodgy methodology, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Secondly, it's worth pointing out that "hard-wired" does not necessarily map directly onto "genes". In the case of homosexuality, there's a wealth of birth-order studies which suggest that pre-natal hormones may have a more formative influence in terms of foetal brain development; specifically, in males, there's a well-replicated association between likelihood of homosexual orientation and number of older brothers.
Point being, it ain't simply a case of genetics versus environment. In the case of homosexuality, there's evidence of other types of "hard-wiring". As far as I'm aware (and I'm not as well up on the God Gene research as I am on the gay stuff), this is not the case with religiosity.
Thirdly, that is seems reasonable to equate the practice of religion and the practice of homosexuality under these circumstances, in regards to the level of "choice" involved. Sure, one doesn't have to choose to join a religion (and nor do they have to choose any specific religious persuasion) but it would seem that there's probably a compulsion towards religious activity.
I'd argue that homosexuality and religiosity are not as readily equated as you suggest, partly because of the birth-order/pre-natal hormone stuff, and partly because there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that, contrary to the claims of the 'ex-gay' movement, sexual orientation is relatively immutable. I've no idea whether there's research on the number of people who, in the course of their lives, change religion - but, anecdotally, I know a great many more people who've successfully altered or abandoned their faith-based belief system than have altered their sexuality.
This suggests to me that there is more 'wiggle room' in religiosity than in homosexuality (or heterosexuality) - even accepting your point that religiosity might not be tied to a specific religion.
Which would potentially lead down a path of suggesting religion and sexuality would enjoy similar levels of respect and protection. Certainly amongst my social group, religion is the focus of contempt while sexuality enjoys a somewhat sacred-cow status. I'm not extending that to anyone elses social sphere, but does it suggest an element of hypocrisy there, or is it rather that there is no reasonable comparison between the two.
In addition to the above, one big difference, as has been mentioned already, is that religious orthodoxies tend, on the whole, to enshrine prejudices against specific subgroups (women, gay people, members of other religious orthodoxies, etc.) and, not infrequently, work to restrict the freedoms of those subgroups. Homosexuality has no centralised orthodoxy and is (usually) non-proselytising. |
