I donât think there is irrefutable proof âagainstâ homosexuality being inherited. But the connection between human sexuality and genetics is still not clearly understood and I think care should be taken when drawing moral conclusions from genetic science. I think sensible ethical thinking takes into account the evidence of natural and human sciences but we need to be very careful when drawing normative conclusions about human behaviour from the natural world, whether for or against homosexuality. Humans have evolved in a unique manner and while humans are animals, we also have a degree of conciousness, intelligence and choice that allows us to plan and choose our actions to a degree perhaps no other animal can.
I think in sexual morality there are dangerous extremes that must be avoided. I think the extremes might be called âhedonismâ and âpuritanism.â As with other areas of moral choice, too much emphasis can be placed on desire and instinct or freedom to the point people merely do something because âit feels rightâ or âI must do it because my instincts or desires made me do it.â I think our freedom is precious and it is a cop-out to do things just on impulse, as much sexual activity in our culture seems to be based on. The other extreme is a rigid puritanical ideal which regards sex as polluting and evil in all its forms and narrows the acceptable types of sexual behaviour to an unrealistic range, not recognising the diversity of human individuals. The attitude of the Christian church has at times leaned strongly towards the puritanical view, even towards sex in heterosexual lifelong marriage, while secular views seem to err too much on the hedonist side, against the puritanical view.
All people are animals and biological creatures of flesh and blood, and as such, we are also sexual. It would be inhuman to deny this. But we also have concious minds capable of moral decision making, conscience, and choice. As such we also have a responsibility to avoid doing things that result in harm or evil to others.
Sexual morality is hotly contested, especially where religion is involved. People donât agree these days on sexual questions (such as which sex acts are morally licit and which arenât) and even disagree on the basis on which sexual norms should be built. Religious people usually emphasize a divine law, command or will approach whereby God or the founder sets certain laws regarding sex and these can never be transgressed without serious sin because of the holiness of the divine. Secular people understandably donât want their lives hampered by religious zealots and appeal to secular rationality, usually an ethical norm derived from human reason, informed by experience and emotion.
There is also another problem in that empirical science does not work with black and white certainty and absolute proof, and rarely addresses moral issues. Scientists are not driven by moral agendas (i.e. to set out to prove homosexuality is evil). Science tries to understand natural phenomena by formulating theories and testing them against observation and experiment. If the idea fails, then it is disregarded. Scientists do not adhere to an idea because it proves a moral point or belief. So scientific findings, while they help inform moral debate, cannot decide a moral question. Proof that homosexuality is strongly heritable though in a substantial minority of people through no choice or fault of their own though, would certainly weigh against the proposition homosexuality is evil, especially if the same were found to be true of heterosexuality.
I think care should be taken in turning to science to try to merely reinforce our beliefs and prejudices. Science is not about proving true what we already believe, but about openly and without bias trying to understand what the information from natural phenomena tell us objectively about the universe and its laws. Such a process is open-ended and critical and without settled dogmas and truths. As such science often represents a refreshing respite and challenge to fundamentalist religious thinking.
