homosexuality

You have to read carefully, but there are some quite loaded statements in the quotes the New York Times collected when researching its article talking about how the change of one gene will determine whether fruit flies are "homosexual" or not.1 From all behavioral appearances, a female fly with the male gene will still be female, but will attempt to seduce other female flies, will act more aggressive, and so on. The reverse is true of the males. I wonder how long this gene is, I think I remember reading some place that a "gene" isn't necessarily just one molecule. I do not know enough biology here.

But of even more interest was the statement expressing hope that this will "take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."2 There are several things wrong here. One, he clearly wanted this result. I am not saying that invalidates his research, any number of people have come to research with ideas of what should be there, and found something similar. But it is interesting. Secondly, it is interesting that he thinks, or wants it to be, possible to move something from "the realm of morality" to a separate "realm of science." He obviously thinks that if his homosexuality is genetically determined, that his behavior must be unquestionable. That is not the case. Lets pause here for a moment and consider a hypothetical case.

The basic unquestioned assumption here is that a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, even a genetic determinant of homosexuality must lead to homosexual activity. The argument is that these instincts and drives are so powerful that man by the exercise of his will cannot prevent himself, or at least in many cases will not be able to prevent himself, from acting on them. It is an unquestioned assumption, and I have seen it lead people to treat Dan Brown's heretical ideas3 with more consideration than they deserve. For a moment here, let us take as a given that the speculations that there may be a gene that "causes" some men to rape women, just as it is claimed that this gene determines (if it exists in more than fruit flies) determines homosexual activity, not just homosexual inclination. This is not something that I am making up,4 though I have lost the reference. "Social Darwinists" have come up with the idea that our genetic makeup may drive us to many of our actions, and yes, rape is one of the ones they used as an example. The logic went that a serial rapist in a society that either cannot safely abort or has a strong taboo against abortion will have an advantage over other men in passing on his genes, and thus there would be a drift over time towards rapists, somewhat counterbalanced by the sexual selection against them. If such a gene was found, if we found a gene common to all rapists, and lacking in those who do not rape. Perhaps a recessive gene with carriers, but whatever: imagine such a gene exists. Would rape cease to be wrong? Would rape move "out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science" in society and our societal perception of it?

I posit, more I assert, that it would not. We would still consider rape wrong. We would consider such men diseased, and we would seek their cure. Perhaps we would not lock them in jail, but if not, we would likely lock them in a mental institution. We would not leave our daughters, wives, and sisters at risk of assault by them simply because they "could not stop themselves." The same holds true here. If a sexual preference determining gene is found, then we would and must still condemn homosexual behavior. Such men are diseased, and a cure should be found. They are not normal, they should not be encouraged to flaunt their sickness.

Now, I am sure, any reader who does not know me is thinking that I am one seriously homophobic person. Such is our society. My actual position is beyond what is so far expressed though: I think that any such gene need not be acted on. Yes, if it it exists, it DOES constitute a disease. But even if it does exist, it does not excuse the behavior. Man's will can and does determine his actions. Man can, by an act of will, restrain his instinct, yes, even his sexual instinct. Thus men and women have lived celibate lives. Thus while some have failed in their vow of celibacy, some have not failed. And they were not freaks to be able to, but rather the freak would be one who could not. Note, I say "could not," not "did not" and not "will not." Many who could restrain their behavior to within moral bounds choose not to. Because it is easier. Because they think they know better. For both reasons, for others, it matters not. What maters is that it was a choice, and one that could have been made the other way.

Remember then that the Church, and I, do not condemn, hate, or fear homosexuals. We simply call them to a life of chastity, the same life of chastity (celibacy) that we expect of unmarried heterosexuals. Perhaps they did not choose their course, perhaps biology forced it on the, but the calling remains, the duty remains. And perhaps, some day, be it by genetic therapy (if it is indeed genetic in humans as well as fruit flies), or perhaps by some other means, we will eventually find a reliable cure for homosexuality. And then these men and women can go on to live normal, healthy lives. And that would be best for them, and for society at large.