There is a line of argument commonly invoked nowadays that is most problematic, namely: It is in the genes. The idea is that if one’s interests or tastes or behavior has a secure biological basis, then one’s interests or tastes or behavior cannot be open to criticism. But, of course, this is just so much nonsense. The argument is simply unsound.
It has been claimed that a person can be born with a biological predisposition with regard to alcohol consumption. Needless to say, what surely does not follow from this is that consuming untold amounts of alcohol is just fine and cannot be open to moral criticism. It most certainly can. The same argument holds if some people are born with a biological disposition for being depressed. It has been said that a person can be born with a biological disposition towards violence. Obviously, violent behavior is open to moral criticism.
I did not begin with the example of a biological disposition for violent behavior precisely because I wanted it to be clear that a person’s behavior can be open to moral criticism even if the individual harms no one else but himself. Yet, the example of a genetic basis for violent behavior is telling in the sense that it shows, at once, that one does not have a sufficient reason for excusing or tolerating a given type behavior, given the mere truth that the behavior has a genetic basis.
Significantly, having a genetic basis for a disposition with regard to a given kind of behavior does not entail biological determinism with respect to that behavior; and there is very little behavior in terms of acts of agency that genes determine. So a person with a biological disposition for violent behavior could still be expected not to behave in a violent manner. The difference is that she would have to take precautions that those without that disposition do not have to take. Likewise for the person with a biological disposition with regard to alcohol consumption. In the first case, the person might have to avoid crowded sports arenas, for example. In the second, the person might have to avoid that single glass of wine with dinner. And the ability to do either of these things is not precluded by the corresponding biological disposition for violence and alcohol consumption, respectively.
The relevance of all this to the subtitle of this entry is clear. A gay alcoholic is open to moral criticism for being an alcoholic—not for being gay. This is so even if we have a biological disposition in both cases. But the reason why the gay alcoholic is not open to moral criticism for being gay is not simply that there is a biological disposition for being gay. That cannot be the rerason. Rather, the reason has to be that a person cannot be open to moral criticism solely on the basis of her or his sexual orientation, whether that orientation is biologically anchored or self-induced. For surely the thought cannot be that being gay is wrong if it is self-induced in the way that, say, the taste for beer is. I mean surely no one is born liking beer. Yet, a great many go to their grave enjoying “a cold one”, as they say.
Hiding behind biology serves only to obfuscate matters. It is, of course, important to establish that a person’s sexual orientation, as such, does not bespeak some deep psychological flaw. So it is not trivial to establish that homosexuality is natural in that sense—or least it is not some form of mental derangement. But aggressive behavior can be natural in that sense too, as can various kinds of fears. Thus, an independent argument is needed to establish that what is natural is thereby good, precisely because we know that what is natural can also be morally unacceptable. My favorite example in this regard is promiscuity.
Lots and lots of arguments in evolutionary theory show males are more disposed to be promiscuous than females. Yet, fidelity is highly valued in contemporary society. The unfaithful male cannot go: “Honey, I am so sorry that my unfaithfulness offends you so. But have you read the work of evolutionary biologists regarding the matter? It is all perfectly natural, you know. Here, dear, read this and then let us talk about it.” Any man looking to bring his relationship with a woman to an abrupt halt need only proffer this rationale ! ! !
As I have said: naturalness with respect to biological dispositions most certainly does not entail determinism with respect to behavior.
What many advocates of the view that being gay is a biological disposition miss is this. Unless there is an independent argument to the effect that being gay is as morally wholesome as being straight, then in the face of the increasing ability to engage in gene manipulation, what reason would there be not to opt for a genetic manipulation that delivers heterosexuality, given that sexual orientation could indeed be determined at this level? It is true, as they say, that being gay does not make one less of a person. The same, though, holds for being an alcoholic. Yet, this truth is perfectly compatible with it being rational to opt out of alcoholism. Gays have been so besotted with the idea that homosexuality has a biological basis that they have failed to see that this truth amounts to a very hollow victory, indeed.
For the truth that homosexuality has a biological basis does not establish that given the choice between homosexuality and heterosexuality either for themselves or for another (say, their children), persons have little or no reason to prefer one sexual orientation over the other. Biology is not morality; and this truth has been lost on so many who, with regard to homosexuality, are quick to point out: “It is in the genes”. For if homosexuality is viewed on the order of promiscuity among males (which also has a biological basis), a person could retort: “Yea, and let us make sure that we keep it there”. Owing to intellectual myopia on the part of the gay movement, the arguments that could be given here are not being given.
Many gays think that they have struck gold with the biological argument. Unless more is said, however, the truth is that this gold is none other than quicksand.
