What if I were born gay?
By Dr Emmanuel Phiri
Today, let us take a step back and engage in a thought experiment.
In this experiment, we shall assume and imagine a world wherein you and I are born gay. In our assumptions, let us leave aside the issue of gay intimacy and focus instead on what kind of society would we choose to live under. Assuming you and I were born gay, what kind of society would we want to live under? Would we want to live in a homophobic society that discriminates and constitutionally criminalises against gay persons? Or would we want to live in a society which does not do so?
To help us think about and answer this question, let us adopt and adapt an idea known as the Veil of Ignorance given by John Rawls (considered the most important political philosopher of the 20th century).
The basic idea behind the veil of ignorance is that it is one way in which we can endeavour to make decisions which are just and fair, not only for ourselves, but for everyone in society. The veil of ignorance entails that we deliberately blind ourselves from certain facts about us and the world around us. Facts which may influence the outcome of the decision making process. In this regard, the veil of ignorance blinds us from information pertaining to such things as our race, age, religious affiliation or lack of it thereof, level of education, sex, gender, you name it.
Just think about it for a moment… when it comes to matters of homosexuality, most of the decisions coupled with attitudes we have towards persons that identify as homosexual, are largely influenced by our background circumstances, knowledge and information which we have. For instance, most of us identify as heterosexual and religious. We know these facts about ourselves. Because of this, we may easily make judgments and carry discriminatory attitudes against persons who do not identify as heterosexual, seeing that doing so does not negatively affect us. However, it would be a different thing altogether if we instead imagine ourselves under a position of ignorance, wherein we do not know whether we identify as religious, heterosexual or homosexual, among others. In such a position, would we still make anti-gay judgments and carry discriminatory attitudes towards persons that identify as homosexual?
The obvious answer is that most persons wouldn’t want to make decisions or carry attitudes which would disadvantage them when the veil of ignorance is lifted off them. The forgoing would be the case seeing that persons within that position simply do not know whether they identify as heterosexual or homosexual. The underlying assumption behind persons under the veil of ignorance is that they are characteristically self-interested, implying that they typically make decisions which advantage them, while at the same time avoid those which disadvantage them.
At this point, one may argue by saying that even if persons under the veil of ignorance do not know whether they identify as homosexual or heterosexual, they would still want to live in a society which discriminates and criminalises against homosexuality; for the reason that homosexuality is a bad thing for human society, comparable to vices such as theft, gender based violence, and rape among others. However, when one looks closely at such reasoning, one notices that there are fundamental differences between homosexuality and vices such as theft, gender-based violence, and rape.
One obvious difference may be seen in light of the difference which nineteenth century philosopher John Stuart Mill makes between Self-Regarding and Other Regarding activities. Self-regarding activities are those that when one does them, they do not affect other persons. For instance, if one is listening to music at low volume using earphones in their privacy, this does not in any way affect other persons. On the other hand, Other-Regarding activities are those that affect other persons when one does them. For example, if one is playing loud music in a densely packed residential area. Mill reasons that persons must be completely free to engage in self-regarding activities, seeing that these do not affect anyone except the persons doing the said activities. In this regard, restrictions in the form of legal legislation should only apply when it comes to Other-Regarding activities, primarily for the reason of protecting other persons from potential harms which may be resultant of actors engaging in Other-Regarding activities. For instance, it is justifiable to criminalise theft for the reason that the act of thieving negatively affects persons who are victims of the aforesaid theft.
However, the same thing cannot be said about homosexual acts that are done between consenting adults in the context of their privacy. Just think about it for a moment… How does it negatively affect you and I if two consenting adults are having an intimate moment in their privacy? Of course, the sober answer would be that it doesn’t. Needless to say, it would be a different thing altogether if homosexual activities involve non-consenting adults, or indeed young children below the age of consent. This would be unjustifiable and ought to be condemned in the strongest terms possible. The forgoing also applies to sexual activities within the context of heterosexuality (sexual activities involving persons of the opposite sex). Having said all this, we ask for your indulgence and leave you to reflect on the questions we started with. What if you and I were born gay? Would we want to live in a homophobic society which discriminates and criminalises gay persons? Would we choose to live in a society which discriminates and criminalises homosexuality, assuming that we didn’t know whether we would end up being homosexual or heterosexual after the veil of ignorance?
Th author holds a PhD in Applied Ethics. He is interested in African Studies and issues of Sexuality. He is currently serving as researcher and lecturer at the University of Zambia. You may reach him for comments at emmanuelphiriphd@gmail.com.