To the Editor:
I want to commend Steven Lulich '02 (May 22, "On Homosexual Rights") for his grasp of "common-sense biology" in arguing against homosexual rights by way of analogy to race and ethnicity. Monkeys do indeed reproduce monkeys. However, I find his assertion that "white people do not produce black people, and black people do not produce white people" problematic and inaccurate.
In attacking the very notion of homosexual rights because he believes that homosexuality is not a true "genetic identity similar to race or ethnicity," he seems to miss the central point -- that race and ethnicity are not truly genetic identities either. Race and ethnicity are social constructions supported by a historical and cultural history of superficial phenotypic differences among groups of people. To attack the concept of homosexual rights by appealing to the idea that sexuality is somehow less permanent and biologically intrinsic to human beings than race or ethnicity is a dubious strategy at best, and dangerously misguided at worst.
It seems to me that Mr. Lulich can only make a religious appeal in his argument, and though I will graduate from this fine institution in a few weeks, I doubt I have the credentials to challenge the word of God. However, as a biology major, I would be remiss to allow such a construction of human genetics, race and ethnicity to pass without comment. Kind may reproduce kind, but in the context of human biology, race and ethnicity must stand beside sexuality as social constructions. Otherwise, how can one explain the existence of Tiger Woods?
