It doesn’t take too fertile an imagination to grasp where such a misconception would leave us. If biology determined morality, then any tendency attributable to nature would have to be thought moral. If, as some claim, there is a hereditary basis for alcoholism, it would follow that it is moral for those so afflicted to drink like a fish. If we found that incorrigible children were in the grip of a bad-seed gene, it would follow that it is moral for them to misbehave. What if we next found a biological basis for domestic violence or pedophilia? Why, it would be a Pandora’s box, for our collective moral compass could then be no better than the worst of human biology.
A corollary of the aforementioned is that whether or not homosexuality is a choice is also irrelevant to the discussion of morality. Again, the sometimes brutal dictates of nature — and those of nurture, for that matter — saddle innumerable hapless souls with crosses to bear, some physical, some emotional, and some psychological. We never labor under the illusion that innateness translates into goodness – that is, not until a squeaky wheel finds that its agenda collapses when people don’t check their brains at the door.
I need to clarify something about this matter of choice. The wise don’t claim that people choose to have homosexual feelings, as the homosexual lobby would have you believe. It’s obvious that feelings are rarely of our own conscious design, as nature, nurture, or both determine man’s emotional constitution just as they do his physical one. Rather, choice enters the equation when the afflicted choose to act upon those feelings.
So it is with all feelings. People can experience countless urges and impulses, some positive and some negative, and insofar as their wisdom and will are sufficient, they avoid acting upon the latter. When they do act upon them with full knowledge and consent of the will, they sin.
Thus, the truth here is simple: Homosexuality may not be a choice, but homosexual behavior certainly is.
Regardless of their origin, to assert we are to be governed by feelings is not only wrong, it reduces us to animals. Beasts act on feelings, enslaved as they are by instinct, which is why we don’t accuse them of immorality. A lion may kill the cubs when taking over a pride, a female praying mantis may decapitate the male, and a coyote may eat his prey while it’s still alive, but they do not sin. They merely act in accordance with their nature, being bereft of both intellect and free will, two qualities that make man like God.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - diana hartman
Eye color is also biologically induced. Are we saying eye color is okay (read: not subject to being altered per society's like/dislike of a particular color), so must then homicidal tendencies? Dare we equate height and how far up one can reach with acts of pedophilia?
Part of the controversy surrounding Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is that it could well be the (biologically necessary) flipside of the world's most relevant inventions, innovations and discoveries. To "cure" it is to potentially squelch those who might otherwise go on to do great things.
To categorize homosexuality with the crippling ailments of sickle cell anemia, spina bifida or Huntington's disease is to suggest at least an equal rate of distress. No one ever died of or has been hospitalized with homosexuality. Homosexuality is no more a restriction or a distortion of behavior than is heterosexuality. Sexual hang-ups and disorders ("ours" or "theirs") are a mental health issue and are hardly exclusive to any one sexual orientation.
Not all biologically determined traits are equal. To suggest they are, on any level, is to presuppose one's position in the grand scheme of things as if that position were the right, normal, moral and correct position. There's your "playing God" scenario, and since I don't believe in God, that would be more along the lines of assuming the role of an imaginary creature in the real world.
Keep your unicorns to yourself. The rest of us would prefer to use real horses.
2 - Jet in Columbus
In terms of human history another human "malady" which took a mental rather than physical form was considered "Evil" by evangelicals. This mental aberation with no basis of physical birth was considered the devil invading a child at birth and was so feared, that when a child was discovered with it, it was taught to behave "normally" and never exhibit the trait in public for fear of public scorn...
What Malady?
Being left-handed.
Why is it that human kind isn't happy unless it has something to hate?
3 - Bob
I think that the liberal and fair-minded amongst us who do not think homosexuality is in any way immoral should give the "biology" question the disdain it deserves.
If, as I do, I want to argue that homosexuality isn't immoral anyway, then whether or not it is biologically based is irrelevant. Wearing glasses isn't a moral issue. Does it matter if you wear them as a lifestyle choice (when you could wear contacts) or if you class it as biology because it's related to eyesight? No. It doesn't matter. Since it's not a moral issue, it's irrelevant.
4 - Michael J. West
Thus, the truth here is simple: Homosexuality may not be a choice, but homosexual behavior certainly is.
Absolutely and undeniably true, Selwyn.
But you know, to piggyback on what Jet said...left-handed behavior is also a choice. Left-handed people can choose to act right-handed, can easily acquire the motor skills that allow them to throw, catch, write, cut scissors, and hold objects with their right hand as well as any "biological" right-handed person. FAR more easily than a gay person could train themselves for heterosexual behavior.
But why the hell should either group, left-handed or gay, have to?
You compare homosexuality to sociopathy, sickle-cell anemia, dwarfism, giantism, microcephaly, Huntington's disease, and spina bifida. Most of these conditions inherently pose immediate, chronic, long-term and potentially fatal consequences to the afflicted. Sociopathy is a condition that inherently poses immediate, long-term and potentially fatal consequences to others.
Homosexuality does none of these. Jet and I compare it to left-handedness because, in terms of its inherent consequences to the person who possesses the trait and to others, it is far closer to left-handedness on the spectrum than it is to any of the conditions you mention.
It is also, by the way, the comparison that the American Psychiatric Association uses when comparing homosexuality to heterosexuality: that homosexuality is abnormal to roughly the same degree that left-handedness is abnormal. (Both, after all, comprise approximately 10% of the population.)
You write that "there are many good reasons to cure it, among them being health, social, and personal happiness imperatives."
Which I don't understand. I wasn't aware, first of all, that homosexuality posed inherent health problems. Are homosexuals more likely to be born with webbed feet or cystic fibrosis? Are they more likely to develop Alzheimer's or stomach cancer in later life?
Social? Not that I want to keep harping back on this, but curing left-handedness would have enormous social benefits as well. After all, everything in American society--from cars to computer keyboards to sports to the written language itself (as any left-handed person who writes longhand can tell you)--is designed with right-handed people in mind. But no one seriously advocates curing left-handedness. I wonder why.
Personal happiness: God, I don't know where to start. Let's just say that if we set out to "cure" every trait that might interfere with personal happiness, we'd pretty much exterminate the human race.
Which leaves us back with the plain ol' "it's immoral." But what is immoral about it? I'm still not clear on that. And until that can be demonstrated, I'm at a loss as to why it should be disparaged, discouraged, or "cured." And I'm not even gay!
5 - Jet in Columbus
Until the common man can figure out that being gay and being a pedophile, a sexual pervert, and a nymphomaniac are not forever superglued together, no progress will ever be made on this subject.
99.99 percent of all gays are no different from straights, except for who they sleep with... and that's what scares the homophobes the most, you can't tell a left-handed person just by looking at them, and you can't tell a gay person just by looking at them.
You fear what you don't understand
you kill what you fear...
6 - Jet in Columbus
Mike, to answer your question, in ancient times, for a group or race of people to have any hope of survival, there was but one way..."safety in numbers"
Taboos were passed early on that any sexual practice that didn't produce children-and lots of them-was forbidden. That's why multiple wives were allowed in biblical times, but the spilling and waste of male seed through masturbation and homosexuality wasn't.
Unfortunately those taboos have been passed down in time, even though they're no longer needed.
God didn't write the bible
Man did
7 - lori
Wow. The writer thinks that homosexual sex is immoral but that eugenics is just dandy.
8 - DNeuman
Wow, I'm totally impressed with all of the above comments. They made their points much better than I could.
One thing that puzzled me at first was Duke's all or nothing approach to morality. Then I realized that he probably thinks that if morality isn't written down in a sacred book, then there can't be any morality at all. Which, I suppose, why fundamentalists distrust atheists.
But I do have a source for my ethics that I think can be considered universal, and brushed on in some of the above comments. And that is to consider the harm from any action or policy. I would also give harm to society more precedence than harm to the individual. Many philosophers have come up with this, but I first learned about it from Robert Pirsig in his book Lila: An Inquiry into Morals. In it he describes his "Metaphysics of Quality"
So sociopathic behaviour would be unethical/immoral. But homosexuality has no more impact on society than left-handedness (maybe even less if you are a scissor stocker) and there is no reason to prevent or remove it, regardless of how one arrives at it. Marriage of any kind is a benefit to society, so we should not restrict whom one is allowed to marry.
Removing society from the tyranny of an uneditable book, we can decide the morality/ethics of any variety of situations completely unpredicted by past generations.
One could argue that this idea forces people to subjugate themselves for the greater good. I think only to some extent, since the morale of the individual is also an important factor in the health of the society.
9 - J.J. Hunsecker
you appear to have "fallen victim to a misconception" that you know what you are talking about. You present no science, have none in your background, but think your beliefs are enough justification.
Is your knowledge of someone choosing not to participate in homosexual acts first hand? It would explain a lot.
10 - Nick in Cleveland
"Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy."
Funny that those of us who comment are subject to those terms, but the author thinks that drugs, invasive pre-natal surgery and denial of one's God-given nature don't fall under "personal attacks."
11 - Rodrigo
I would just like to add something the the being left handed- being gay thread. Imagine it eugenics had been developed in the time when lefties were still considered abominations, surely you would also agree on the "correction" of such "abnormality" and equate it to all the disorders that you mention.
We should not decide such matters on the opinion of a book so old we can only imagine the original intent of the writers. And even if we were sure of their intent it would be irrelevant, for we live in a society with freedom of(and from) religion.
12 - Al Barger
As a non-believer, I completely disagree/disregard the author's belief that homosexuality is sinful. However, I do very much appreciate his critical distinction between biology and morality.
Moreover, I'd like to challenge some of the good liberals who seem eager to attack "eugenics." Being anti-eugenics might make sense for a pro-life absolutist who doesn't believe we should be tinkering with God's work.
On the other hand, good liberal pro-choice advocates would seem to be obligated to also support a woman's choices to in vitro treatments of whatever kind the pregnant woman wishes. Her body, her choice - right?
If you're going to lose your mind over anybody even suggesting that it might be morally questionable to absolutely KILL a fetus, then I don't see how you'd be able to object to any possible thing that the woman might choose to do that she thinks would actually HELP it.
13 - jaz
but Al..where does one draw the line?
genetic diseases, eye color, handedness...being gay?
a good case could be made to prevent hereditary diseases...but other factors, which could influence the new Person being born without their consent?
definitely a dialog that needs to be had, to discuss the overall ethics inherent in the situation for all concerned, the parents, the doctors..and especially the child
14 - Sister Ray
To me, the eugenics issue applies to the ethics of abortion. Will society put pressure on women to abort if the fetus has Down Syndrome or other disability? The founder of Planned Parenthood thought feeble-minded people should be prevented from reproducing.
15 - Jet in Columbus
So...Let me see if I've got this "Straight", it's immoral to interfere with an unborn fetus by aborting it as it is a life created by god and should not be altered or interfered with. Anything that the child is, is "God's will"...
... but it's okay to alter it genitically if it's gay?
uh huh...
16 - jaz
the Planned Patrenthood/abortion thing is a dying dinosaur...with the legalization of the "morning after" pill..this issue disappears
Jet hits closer to the bone, and as i said, this is a discussion that NEEDS to be had, at the highest levels...to begin the outlining of Ethics in 21st century medicine
17 - Randy in Manitoba, Canada
A baby’s development journey from conception to birth is at risk of any of one or more of an infinite number of physical and mental abnormalities.
If a baby is afflicted only with the abnormality of being gay, the baby is technically so close to being biologically normal when compared to the potential abnormality spectrum that it is tantamount to being a normal baby.
The time, effort and resources to attempt to rectify this insignificant abnormality of being gay verses being straight compared to the many other abnormalities that afflict babies and do cause a true financial and social burden on society are a gross mismanagement of the priorities of society.
18 - Michael J. West
the Planned Patrenthood/abortion thing is a dying dinosaur...with the legalization of the "morning after" pill..this issue disappears
Well, with the over-the-counter-ization of the "morning after" pill, anyway. There's still activist pharmacists on the "legal, but prescribed" side.
19 - DNeuman
Sister Ray #14:
I believe a woman can get genetic tests down to see if the baby has things like Down Syndrome. She can decide what she wants to do with that information. But yeah, I wouldn't want the government making that decision for me.
Jaz #13:
Parents already make a lot of choices for their children:
* what school they go to
* what tv they watch
* do they buy educational toys or not
* do they take an interest in their education
* how they express their love (or don't)
These things have a profound effect on the child's later life. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to hear from the child:
* why didn't you marry someone smarter so I'd get better grades?
* I hate my eyes. Why didn't you marry someone with blue eyes?
* Why did you marry someone who is bald? Don't you know what that is going to do to me?
Of course I've never heard of any kid saying that. Everyone seems to know that they get what they get. Or maybe it takes a while before they realize why they get what they get, and by then they are resigned to it.
While it makes me queezy right now, I suspect that some day genetic alteration of the fetus will be the norm. What parent wouldn't want to give their child every advantage possible?
20 - jaz
true enough, Michael..but they lose the legal battle every time...they need state licenses, and refusing service means their license gets revoked
self correcting, and it will take a while for the "litmus test" of abortion policy to fade away
but it will
21 - Brandon Riley, Ph.D.
"By definition, homosexuality is an abnormality and there are many good reasons to cure it, among them being health, social, and personal happiness imperatives."
Wow. Where to begin?
Let's start with your use of the term "abnormality," which I have to assume confounds normality with majority. Because most people are heterosexual, it follows from this simple calculus that homosexuals are not normal. Indeed, it would imply that any characteristic not shared by the majority (such as being left-handed or having blue eyes) should be considered a deviation.
You certainly aren't using "abnormal" in any meaningful clinical or health-related sense, because in the mental health paradigm, abnormality is defined by the presence of a harmful dysfunction. Decades of psychological research have demonstrated that homosexuality is not inherently pathological. To the contrary, the negative effects you mentioned on "health, social, and personal happiness imperatives" are understood to have their origin in cultural heterosexism and internalized homophobia. In other words, we understand them to be common psychological consequences of oppression.
Homosexuality is quite distinct from the harmful dysfunctions of sociopathy, pedophilia, or microcephaly. So distinct, in fact, that it is absurd to juxtapose them. The first two involve behaviors in which other people are victimized, and the last is associated with mental retardation and other neurological disabilities.
Speaking as a gay man in a helping profession that required years of advanced education and training in psychology, I find your comparisons rather unjust.
All major medical and mental health organizations - the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. - have affirmed for decades that homosexuality is not a disorder and, by definition, cannot be "cured."
Mohler is not advocating anything that could be medically construed as treatment or a cure. What he's proposing is the elimination of a biological predisposition to same-sex attraction, a human phenotype he happens to find distasteful. As Wane Besen keenly observed, what Mohler envisions is nothing less than a "final solution" to gay and lesbian persons.
The only refuge homophobes like Mohler have left is religion, which they handily trot out to justify their condemnation of homosexuality. But I find it interesting that they should cling so tenaciously to certain passages while discarding others. And by "interesting" I mean hypocritical, because their selective adherence is not motivated by any rational or coherent morality. As Leonard Pitts Jr. recently remarked:
"Bigots often wrap their objections up in claims of fundamental right and wrong where sexual orientation is concerned: I have a moral objection to homosexuality, they will say loftily.
I've always thought 'visceral' would be a better and truer adjective. As in, a gut-level objection to people of the same sex engaging in physical or emotional intimacy."
At least gay and lesbian people can make the argument that their choices are motivated by love. Mohler and his supporters cannot truthfully say the same.
22 - jaz
to the Doctor in #21 above
/thunderous golfclap
sheer poetry of Reason...
nuff said
23 - Al Barger
Brother Jaz sez: "but Al..where does one draw the line?"
I don't know. I'm just extremely wary of the government getting to draw such lines.
Jet [comment 15]- No, I'm not saying that. Depending on circumstances, I will tend to personally regard abortion as a bad sin - but even there I'm not inclined to grant government authority over such things.
As to in vitro anti-gay treatments, that's way too purely theoretical to really answer. I would be pretty strongly predisposed to frown on such a thing, even if it were safe and effective. So I would probably be against it personally, but even more reticent than with abortion to grant government authority in such matters over the mother.
24 - Akeela
Being born gay is every bit as sinful as being born black, or blonde.
I always thought that homosexuality was God's (and/or Nature’s) plan to counter our excessive enthusiasm for the "be fruitful and multiply" advice that we got a while back.
25 - nugget
Al Barger quoted author's belief that homosexuality is sinful.
The author never said that. Duke said that he/she believed that the behavior was sinful.
This article was excellent and I havn't read a decent rebuttal.