Some believe homosexuality is biologically determined. If they are right, what does this say about the morality of it?
The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, recently penned an article that has both fellow evangelicals and homosexual activists feeling none too gay. Mohler raised the ire of the former group by stating that science may very well prove there is a biological basis for homosexuality. Then he sent the latter group into a tizzy by reasserting that homosexual behavior is sinful and that modern science may offer prenatal remedies for it.…
Article comments
26 - nugget
Brandon Riley you miss the point entirely. Quit thinking with your emotions.
You quote Leonrad Pitts Jr., "As in, a gut-level objection to people of the same sex engaging in physical or emotional intimacy."
no one said physical OR emotional. I think Selwyn refers to the physical manifestation of homosexuality and nothing else. The behavior, the action, the anal sex to be blunt.
Question Dr: do you think that homosexuality is NOT a product of our biology? After all, that would be very un-doctor of you.
The author's primary point seeks to clear the misconception that biology is a viable moral excuse one can use in life. It's a lesson in logic, not a lesson in the differences of peadophilia and homosexuality.
Homosexuality behavior is something that could and should be avoided somehow. This may not mean clinical treatment or cures. (because it's not a disorder, right?)
Saying "I was born that way" doesn't give anyone a free moral pass.
27 - Michael J. West
Homosexuality behavior is something that could and should be avoided somehow.
Why?
28 - B. Riley, Ph.D.
Well, Nugget, I think homosexual behavior is a combined product of a) biology (a predisposition toward same-sex attraction), b) free will (to acknowledge and act on these feelings), and c) mature social interest (the need to love and be loved).
To be blunt, you seem to think we're all about anal sex. (Why is it always about the sex with you people?) You do realize that we have feelings too, right?
You might be surprised to learn that most gay men, in fact, prefer oral sex and mutual masturbation to anal sex. Or that some straight people even engage in anal antics now and then! (Heavens, what will the neighbors think??)
You are correct that biology is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for morality. But Duke's piece goes far beyond that; his illustrations and characterizations of homosexuality as "disordered" are based on flawed evidence, while his assertion that homosexuality is "unjustifiable" lacks any rational basis whatsoever.
I do not have to prove that homosexuality is moral; rather, you need to prove that it is not. What harm have I done? Please demonstrate exactly how and why I am guilty of some wrongdoing, Mr. Prosecutor.
And no, "Because the old Jewish ghost in the sky says so" doesn't count. Let's be grown-ups.
29 - jaz
excuse me...but how exactly is homosexual behavior.."immoral"??
if you want to go Leviticus on us..i do have some salient points on that, but if we are speaking in the pure secular sense...how is someone being gay, or having a gay relationship immoral?
if we are speaking only about consenting adults...then who is harmed by them?
a clip about the fallacy of the Leviticus argument.
30 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dr. Riley says, "And no, 'because the old Jewish ghost in the sky says so' doesn't count. Let's be grown-ups."
GonzoJaz posits the opinions of the writers of West Wing as received wisdom [we've fallen that low that this is where Biblical understanding comes from?]I've said this before and will say this again. In my opinion, Leviticus 18 does not apply to people who are NOT Children of Israel. The Seven Commandments of Noah do. Additionally, and more importantly, because Leviticus 20 describes homosexual behavior as a capital crime, there MUST BE AT LEAST TWO WITNESSES to get a conviction of death.
Therefore, In my opinion, the prohibitions in Leviticus, as they are written were and are designed to keep the Children of Israel from engaging in the temple prostitution commonly associated with idol worship. European and American culture has that same kind of idol worship today - only it is called pornography - and it infests your culture like cockroaches in a garbage pail.
For non-Jews and people who are not children of Israel to attempt to follow our laws is really a waste of time. They are not written for you at all. They are written for us, and are designed to keep us holy on our own land. See Leviticus 18:25.
So, for you to reject "the old Jewish ghost in the sky," doctor, and then talk about how adult you are, only shows how childish you really are.
Try learning what it is that you spit at so vehemently. There may be a surprise or two in store for you in the end.
Enough said.
31 - J.J. Hunsecker
"I think Selwyn refers to the physical manifestation of homosexuality and nothing else. The behavior, the action, the anal sex to be blunt."
Hey genius, lesbians don't perform anal sex. You are apparently too immature to take part in this conversation to be blunt.
32 - jaz
Ruvy...what I was trying to point out was that those attempting to utilize OT scripture for trying to say such behavior is "immoral" in the context of Today , was fallacious...i used that clip because it demonstrates some of why such is the case.
that the text you cite refers to this as a "capital crime" clearly demonstrates what i'm trying to point out...and the clip mentions quite a few other "capital crimes" according to the same texts...and shows how strange these things appear in today's context...
i like the clip especially because it gives chapter and verse for many of the examples
33 - Dr. Riley
Dear Ruvy,
Thank you for expressing your opinions on Leviticus.
However, the reason these archaic laws have no relevance to me is not because I'm a gentile, but because I'm not superstitious.
34 - nugget
Why?
In my life experience, I have never met one gay person that could legitimize monogomous gay relationships for me. I have met, befriended, confided in, and worked with lots of gay men. I can't speak about lesbians because I don't know any personally. I do like the indigo girls though.
Based on the men that I've known and been friends with (over 10 at least) they've ALL been very confused as far as relationships go. They've ALL been extremely preoccupied with sex. I know what you're thinking. How does this make them different from straight men? Well, sex for a straight man is certainly a preoccupation, but this is derived from the fact that it's much much more difficult for straight men to GET sex. Hell I wish I was gay sometimes. Based on stories of my gay friends, I could run to the local gay clubs and have no problem getting BJ or sex within the hour.
MEN are sexual beasts. Men loving men is a more sexual relationship than it is emotional. ALL of the gay men I've known ALSO had sexual tendencies to be attracted to women too. A few of them liked my fiance (at the time), and were sexually attracted to her. She's very good looking and has a great personality. Any guy would be an idiot not to be attracted to her.
Ironically, I saw her as a true litmus test for a gay. That is, was he truly JUST attracted to men? Or was there some strange attraction to women too? Lurking there in the back of their minds? Well in most cases, at that time, my wife (now) and I agreed that they were bisexual. Honestly, those men didn't know what they wanted. They were gung ho openmindedness and gay rights, but they weren't truly looking for monogomous gay relationships.
As far as being your everyday, honest, relationship-seeking gay man just looking for love, I'll believe it when I see it. I havn't seen the abberation. I havn't seen the anomoly. I havn't even seen CLOSE to the picture you bloggers (or Brokeback Mountain) paints of good quality moral gay men. Where are they? Where are you good gay men that want 30 year relationships and loving kids?
If you exist then you are a .05% minority. I've seen what's in this world.
Let me add, EVEN in Brokeback Mountain the romance was overshadowed by their lust. There was hardly ANY wooing on either side. They didn't even kiss. Do any of you recall watching a great romance movie where penetration preceded the kiss? think about it.
35 - Michael J. West
Nugget, you're painting with an EXTREMELY broad brush, and the paint's not holding up very well.
For example, you say,
Where are you good gay men that want 30 year relationships and loving kids?
If you exist then you are a .05% minority.
Which, unless you can actually provide fact-based statistics that back up that claim, is ridiculous. You're basing it on your very narrow experience with gay men (and one fictional motion picture).
There are 15 million gay men in this country. If you have been close (close enough to know the very intimate details of their sexual history and/or desires, as you describe here) to 30 of those, you are working on a sample size of two one-millionths of one percent of gay men in America. And you can't possibly make any meaningful or realistic judgement about ALL or MOST gay men based on that.
(And by the way, I can introduce you to at least five long-term, monogamous gay male couples just within two miles from my house. But that's hardly a representative sample either.)
BUT, let's say you're absolutely right. Completely and totally accurate about gay men's sexual dispositions in this country. Let's say the vast majority of gay men consider monogamy a joke; sex is their all-consuming interest; and all of them harbor attractions to women anyway.
So what?
None of that is any reason to try to get rid of, or advocate the avoiding of, homosexual behavior. If the behavior is between consenting adults, and all of them know exactly the homosexual behavior in which they're engaging, and not a single person not engaging in the homosexual behavior is in a clear and present danger from the other people's homosexual behavior...then their behavior is their own to determine, and neither you nor I nor anybody has any right to say that it should be curbed, avoided, or even slightly restrained.
And again...that's assuming your (highly opinionated, neither documented nor thoroughly examined) statements about MOST gay male sexual dispositions, are correct.
In other words, even if you can prove that the (highly opinionated, undocumented, poorly investigated) things you said about gay men are right, you haven't given a very good answer to my question. So I'm going to have to return to it.
Homosexuality behavior is something that could and should be avoided somehow.
Why?
36 - Jet in Columbus
Nugget sez-There was hardly ANY wooing on either side. They didn't even kiss.
You obviously didn't catch my article on how Brokeback Mountain took the best Kiss of all time Award?
37 - J.J. Hunsecker
"In my life experience, I have never met one gay person that could legitimize monogomous gay relationships for me."
That's because they don't have to. What an ego you have. You knew 10 people and they define a whole group? I am awed by your ignorance.
"Any guy would be an idiot not to be attracted to her."
If she married you, that's one big knock against her.
I'm not sure what your preoccupation with Brokeback is about, but just because it's in a movie, doesn't make it real. Or do you also believe animals can talk because you saw it in a movie?
38 - J.J. Hunsecker
MJW, great response. game, set, match.
39 - sr
Dr. Riley you will receive no respect from me. Ruvy, don't give the dude the time of day. Jet my amigo, you know I respect you, however your comment #6, God didn't write the Bible, Man did. You are partly correct. Man did with the guidance of God. I believe you know that also. Im just a simple man crying in the wilderness eating locusts. It's my destiny. I stir-fry the locusts in my wok with lemon butter.
40 - nugget
Michael J. West:
I like how my personal experiences have to reach some national statistical standard for you to understand. If you were being real you'd say, "yes, I understand that misconception because of A, B, and C, but you might be mistaken because..."
Right. Don't talk to me about sample sizes and limited experience. How well do you know those neighbors of yours?
then their behavior is their own to determine, and neither you nor I nor anybody has any right to say that it should be curbed, avoided, or even slightly restrained.
Am i your straw man or phantom now? You think you have me pegged?
I don't want to control gays, I'd like to see gays being honest about sexuality and relationships. So far, in the public and private sector, I have yet to see it.
Besides, say, the Indigo Girls and that series, "Angels in America", (and even those examples teeter on being kitsch and closed to straight men that don't PANDER), I'd say every example, public and private I've seen that represented is anything BUT convincing. Even the gays I've met in church are noticeably self-righteous and obnoxious about their sexual preferences. They might not be loud about it, but let's just say they are less than humble. Humility is not a word I associate with a gay man.
I'm not asking to be won over, I think homosexuality is wrong. Ask any 5 year-old what they think about two men in love and they'd have the most honest reaction you could ever dig for. It's the same as asking a 5 year-old what they think about drinking, smoking, fighting. They don't like it. They don't want to be around it. Something about it is adulterated and wrong and weird.
I trust those instincts of a small child, Michael. You may say that it's a conditioned response to societal norms. Something the kids are taught to believe and understand. I don't believe that. Kids know. Kids are immediately sensitive to perversion and such. That's why.
I'll live my life not saying a word to any gay man's face about my reservations of their lifestyle, but that doesn't mean I don't think that it's wrong. I do NOT need to explain why it's wrong. Just like I don't need to explain why anything else is wrong. It just IS. Simple enough for you?
41 - Jet in Columbus
Nugget prejudices can only be taught, which is exactly what you did to your five-year-old.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Can your kid also point out hetrosexual child molesters?
Can your physic kid also point out jews or left-handed people? Our kid sounds like the perfect candidate for airport security screener looking for terrorists.
Your child believes those things about gays and smoking and drinking because you yourself taught your child to have that attitude.
I pity you and your child, and your so-called gay friends.
42 - Jet in Columbus
By the way who the hell have you the almighty right to judge what's right and wrong.. and only by your standards?
43 - Dave Nalle
Ask any 5 year-old what they think about two men in love and they'd have the most honest reaction you could ever dig for. It's the same as asking a 5 year-old what they think about drinking, smoking, fighting. They don't like it. They don't want to be around it. Something about it is adulterated and wrong and weird.
Sorry, Nugget. That's just a load of crap. I have a kid who's almost 5 and she has several schoolmates who have same-sex parents. She doesn't think it's weird or creepy, it's just a fact of life for her, because we've never told her to think otherwise.
Dave
44 - jaz
still no answer as to why this is counted as something "immoral"...or even the simpler Ethical question of who does it harm to have this behavior between consenting adults
until someone can point that out, and substantiate the claim...then it ain't anybodies business but those involved...and it's hypocritical to call anyone "immoral" without showing your Proof
45 - Dr. Riley
"I'll live my life not saying a word to any gay man's face about my reservations of their lifestyle, but that doesn't mean I don't think that it's wrong. I do NOT need to explain why it's wrong. Just like I don't need to explain why anything else is wrong. It just IS. Simple enough for you?"
Very simple, Nugget.
And also very unsophisticated. This is classic "black and white" thinking. Is your world really so devoid of color?
You cannot identify any real harms from being gay or lesbian. You cannot identify any rational basis for your heterosexist position. You can only stereotype based on your limited experience (as viewed through your biased lens) and what you've seen in a movie.
What it seems to boil down to is, "I just don't like homosexuality. Therefore, it is wrong."
Not "wrong for me personally," but "Wrong. Period." There can be no debate on this because there is no real thinking involved. Your mind is made up, and not even the most compelling evidence or argument could sway you from your overvalued beliefs.
I have already quoted Leonard Pitts on this. Your objection is a visceral one, not a moral one. It is a purely gut-level reaction. When you say, "I do NOT need to explain why it is wrong," you're really saying, "I CAN'T explain why it is wrong."
This is exactly what I would expect. Hate is often very difficult to justify.
(And you accused me of emotive reasoning! How ironic.)
As for that line about how you "Trust the instincts of a small child" - come on. Spare us this romantic drivel. Children are not born knowing right and wrong, and it is well known that children absorb their beliefs, values, and prejudices from the world around them.
Oh, wait. You don't believe that, either.
How convenient that you can just override facts with what you want to be true. Clearly, your magical thinking grants you the advantage here.
I concede. Not because your points have any semblance of validity, but because I know when I'm wasting my time.
46 - J.J. Hunsecker
"Ask any 5 year-old what they think about two men in love"
Yeah, because a five-year-old understands the concept of love. Ask a young male toddler if he has a girlfriend and he'll say that's gross, so according to your way of "thinking," no couples should form. You better hope that five-year-old is okay with intercourse, or there goes the species, although I wonder if that would be a bad thing. A five-year-old would rather stay at home watching cartoons than going to church, so why are you bothering to go?
"I trust those instincts of a small child,"
you mean, just like a small child whose instincts think it's okay to take candy from a stranger, to touch a hot stove, to run into a busy street, to drink liquids under the sink, to put everything they pick up into their mouth?
I do know this: I would certainly trust the thinking of a five-year-old over yours after this sad display.
47 - Christopher Rose
Selwyn Duke is just a faithist shill and entirely lacking in the ability to think. This article is appalling.
48 - Michael J. West
Wow, Nugget - Jet, Dave, Jaz, Dr. Riley, and J.J. have already done an excellent job of refuting your argument. But I'll take a whack at it anyway.
I do NOT need to explain why it's wrong. Just like I don't need to explain why anything else is wrong. It just IS. Simple enough for you?
If by "simple enough," you mean ludicrously, inanely, impossibly oversimple, then yes. It's simple enough.
For starters, what makes you think you don't need to explain why anything else is wrong? Of course you do! At least, if you want to have a leg to stand on when you declare something to be wrong.
Murder, for example, is wrong because it undeservedly takes the life of a human being who, by virtue of his/her very existence, enjoys the right to exist. Rape is wrong because it violates the safety, privacy, and sanctity of another person's mind and body without that person giving consent. Stealing is wrong because it violates another person's property, that which they (or someone who loves them) acquired using their own legitimately earned money.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, is wrong because "it just IS."
Ask any 5 year-old what they think about two men in love and they'd have the most honest reaction you could ever dig for. It's the same as asking a 5 year-old what they think about drinking, smoking, fighting. They don't like it. They don't want to be around it. Something about it is adulterated and wrong and weird. I trust those instincts of a small child, Michael.
My brother was 5 years old when he asked my mother where babies came from. She told him. He threw up. But I presume that you trust those instincts of a small child.
I don't say that a 5-year-old gives "a conditioned response to societal norms." That would be ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as trusting the instincts of a 5-year-old, whose instincts are actually to distrust anything that is different from their own immediate experiences. Just as it's a 5-year-old's instinct to recoil in horror from a stalk of broccoli on their plate, even though they've never tasted broccoli before: it looks weird, compared to the things they like to eat, therefore it's gross.
Am i your straw man or phantom now? You think you have me pegged?
Well, actually, what you said earlier was, "Homosexuality behavior is something that could and should be avoided somehow." I repeated that wording back to you and you say, "You think you have me pegged?" Well, yeah, I do. You said that homosexual behavior is something that should be avoided, so I have you pegged as a person who thinks that homosexual behavior is something that should be avoided.
I don't want to control gays, I'd like to see gays being honest about sexuality and relationships.
As I indicated, that's not what you said before. You said that homosexual behavior is something that could and should be avoided. It's right up there in your comment 26.
So how is my holding you to that statement, making you into a straw man?
Don't talk to me about sample sizes and limited experience. How well do you know those neighbors of yours?
Funny, it seems to me that in my comment (#35), when I talked about my gay neighbors, I said "But that's hardly a representative sample either." In other words, I admitted that my experience with gay men can't possibly be used to represent the thoughts or actions of the majority of gay men. Yours can't either, but the difference is that I've admitted that and you haven't.
But if you'd really like to rest your laurels on the knee-jerk idea that "homosexuality is wrong because it just IS," rather than using your brain and coming up with a reason that actually makes sense and can be applied, you're perfectly welcome to do so.
49 - Michael J. West
I had a long response typed in, then I hit "Publish" and it disappeared. Which is bullshit, but ain't much I can do.
Of course, Jet, Dave, Jaz, Dr. Riley, and J.J. had already done a perfectly fine job refuting your arguments, Nugget, and all I would have done is supplemented them.
I do want to point out that you said, in your comment 26, "Homosexuality behavior is something that could and should be avoided somehow." In #35, I said, "neither you nor I nor anybody has any right to say that it should be curbed, avoided, or even slightly restrained." To which you replied in #40, "Am i your straw man or phantom now? You think you have me pegged?"
Well, yes. I think I have you pegged as someone who thinks that homosexual behavior should be avoided. Because you said you did.
As for the rest? Well, hey. Since you've decided that homosexual behavior is wrong because "it just IS," and that for some reason you need no justification that either (a) makes sense or (b) can be applied in any practical way, I'll let you off the hook, Nugget. Using your brain is terribly overrated.
50 - Michael J. West
Oh, look! NOW my comment suddenly appears. Disregard Comment 49, then. It's just a Cliff's Notes version of #48.
51 - Christopher Rose
Michael: the slightly moody spam tool briefly retained your comment for reasons beyond comprehension.
52 - MAOZ
Ruvy, re your discussion at #30, I want to point out that in the Mishne Torah Ramba"m states explicitly that sexual relations with another male are forbidden to a ben No'ach (as well as relations with his mother, his father's wife [even if she's not his mother], an animal, etc....). See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:10 or Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamoteihem 9:5.
53 - Werner
Homosexuality is a given of evolutionary biology in the same fashion as left handedness. In the former case there is a slight advantage in having a small part of an "inclusive group" who serve as group of extra "brothers". The comparison with sociopathy is weak since many things have a basis in biology, from eye colour to intellectual abilities. About all we can say is that this form of genuine evil can not be "cured". Isolation is about the only answer.
54 - Jet in Columbus
In the era the bible was written it was imperative that people reproduced as many children as possible in order to make sure their race or ethnicity endured, otherwise they'd be overrun by their enemies.
Thus sexual activity natural or not was outlawed such as masturbation and homosexuality.
Safety in numbers.
That no longer holds true, though people keep holding onto desparately to an out dated text written centuries ago.
The same as only permitting your children to study from a 2000 year old math book, or medical text.
Time to grow up into the 21st century kids... the only reason left to hold onto the Bible is as an excuse to hate people.
There are plenty of contemporary texts that teach "morality" a lot better and are better informed.
herasy... I know
But of course that's only my opinion...
Jet