This is interesting, but not surprising. Pro-homosexuality people and groups will use the evidence suggesting a biological and genetic basis for homosexuality to erode what traditional Christians would call the moral culpability for those acts. These Christians would also explain the data thusly: Homosexual practices (which they view as sinful habits) by repetition incline a person toward continued performance of those acts, and profoundly disincline that person toward a discontinuation of such habits, and a recognition of them as morally objectionable (see, for example, Thomas Aquinas). So, the biological feminization of the brain in a homosexual male (and the like for a female) would be viewed as an explanation for that habit formation.
Anyway, from an argumentation standpoint, it's not wise to use the biological evidence to erode culpability, for this reason: Predisposition does not equal predetermination. Leaving aside the morality or immorality of this particular case, we can think of many instances where people are held morally responsible for behaviors that they may be biologically or genetically predisposed to carry out, e.g. alcoholism. Our legal system rightly lessens culpability in scores of cases, but never supposes that genetic, or even learned behavior, obliterates culpability entirely.
The natural conclusion is this, then: It is possible to acknowledge that a biological, genetic, or even environmental predisposition toward homosexuality exists, while simultaneously holding that homosexual practice is immoral.
Anyway, from an argumentation standpoint, it's not wise to use the biological evidence to erode culpability, for this reason: Predisposition does not equal predetermination. Leaving aside the morality or immorality of this particular case, we can think of many instances where people are held morally responsible for behaviors that they may be biologically or genetically predisposed to carry out, e.g. alcoholism. Our legal system rightly lessens culpability in scores of cases, but never supposes that genetic, or even learned behavior, obliterates culpability entirely.
The natural conclusion is this, then: It is possible to acknowledge that a biological, genetic, or even environmental predisposition toward homosexuality exists, while simultaneously holding that homosexual practice is immoral.
Comments