What If Homosexuality Is Biological?
2007 Selwyn Duke
Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary in Louisville, Ky., 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; he then sent the
latter group into a tizzy by reasserting that homosexual behavior is sinful and
that modern science may offer prenatal remedies for it.
homosexuality may have a basis in biology is rejected by many on the right for
the same reason it is embraced by homosexuals.
The reasoning is that if such feelings are biologically induced, then
homosexual behavior is neither sinful nor a choice.
Thus, the genesis of same-sex attraction has become a locus of debate in
the culture war. The truth is,
however, that both sides have fallen victim to a misconception, one I have long
wanted to dispel.
biological basis for homosexuality would only be relevant insofar as preventing
the condition is concerned; it has no bearing on morality.
This is for a very simple reason: Biology doesnít determine morality.
about it. Many of the same people
who tell us homosexuality is inborn also claim that sociopaths (those without
consciences and who exhibit antisocial behavior) may be born and not made.
But, if this is true, would that render it moral for these individuals to
trample the rights of others? If one
is born with homicidal instincts, would it be licit for him to commit murder?
Donít scoff, for itís precisely the same reasoning.
Either morality is dictated by biology or it isnít.
we answer this question has profound implications for the future, and this is
why relativistic single-issue activists Ė who are often blinded by an
all-consuming passion to promote their cause Ė are so dangerous.
We must not embrace the fiction that biology has any bearing on morality
whatsoever, not in the name of legitimizing homosexuality or in that of any
other issue, no matter how great or small. Even
if the issue were a noble one, to do so would constitute the setting of a
dangerous philosophical precedent simply to achieve a short-term social victory.
all, to accept this supposition would place societyís moral compass at the
mercy of nature, which, mind you, is far from inerrant.
Biologically induced disorders and deformities are as staggering in
number as they are curious in character. Whether
itís dwarfism, giantism, microcephaly, Huntingtonís disease, spina bifida or
something else, theyíre sufficiently frightening to make every parent hope and
pray for a healthy child. Thus, even
if biology were the sole author of a personís feelings (which I donít
believe), why would we think nature any more perfect an architect of that realm
than it is of the physical one?
doesnít 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. And what if we next
found a biological basis for domestic violence or pedophilia?
Why, it would be a Pandoraís box, for our collective moral compass
could then be no better than the worst of human biology.
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 Ė and those of nurture,
for that matter Ė saddle innumerable hapless souls with crosses to bear, some
physical, some emotional and some psychological, and 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 donít check their brains at the door.
I need to clarify something about this matter of choice.
The wise donít claim that people choose to have homosexual feelings, as
the homosexual lobby would have you believe.
Itís obvious that feelings are rarely of our own conscious design, as
nature, nurture or both determine manís 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. And when they do act upon
them with full knowledge and consent of the will, they sin.
the truth here is simple: Homosexuality may not be a choice, but homosexual
behavior certainly is.
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 donít 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 itís 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.
back to the embattled Rev. Mohler, he has also been likened to infamous Nazi
death camp doctor Josef Mengele for his support of prenatal intervention to
prevent homosexuality. And Harry
Knox, a spokesman for the homosexual group the Human Rights Campaign, said
ďHeís [Mohler is] willing to play God . . . in spite of everything else he
believes about not tinkering with the unborn.Ē
is irrational and another example of ignoring a widely accepted and moral
principle in the name of furthering a selfish cause.
Medical intervention Ė be it genetic or chemical, within the womb or
without Ė is morally licit when designed to correct abnormality.
For instance, who wouldnít support such intervention to cure sickle
cell anemia or any of the problems I mentioned earlier?
This isnít playing God or the Devil, for it isnít directed toward
eugenics or the creation of monsters. It
isnít the remaking or unmaking of Godís plan but the bringing of rebellious
nature back into harmony with it.
might also point out that, while I never shrink from labeling homosexual
behavior immoral, such a belief is no prerequisite for remedial action.
After all, we donít for even a moment think microcephaly is immoral,
but neither would we for even a moment hesitate to correct such a problem.
By definition, homosexuality is an abnormality and there are many good
reasons to cure it, among them being health, social and personal happiness
course, like other groups that seek power, the homosexual lobby wants its
constituency to grow, knowing there is strength in numbers.
Like anyone looking for happiness not in virtue but in the acceptance of
his vice, they want the approval of others.
And like anyone seeking to justify the unjustifiable, they cannot bear
the light of truth shone on that which looks best in darkness.
After all, the truth can be scary. Itís
just a pity it doesnít scare them straight.
Selwyn Duke is a freelance writer out or Larchmont, NY. He has written for various publications including: IntellectualConservative.com, AmericanThinker.com and is a regular columnist for RenewAmerica.us.