Monday, January 15, 2007

Very Uncomfortable

MikeT over at Codemonkey Ramblings raises an interesting question but still is not quite direct enough about it for my liking.

He asks this question:
If homosexual desires are the result of biology and not social conditioning and trauma that suppresses heterosexual desires, then what proof is there that truly deviant expressions of human sexuality are not equally inborn?

I don't think his question is addressed in clear enough terms. I would ask this question:

If homosexual desires are the result of biology, perhaps pedophilic desires are too. If you excuse homosexual desires on the basis of nature, then how can you condemn those that wish to have sex with children? If it's biological it must be ok right? Aren't we evolving?

Mike is right, it's intellectually dishonest to play both sides of the fence. You can give homosexuality a pass based on nature unless you consider the possibility that other behaviors that are repugnant are biological as well. There are some people that clearly have violent personalities. If it's biological, we should just let it be right? Don't they have the right to express their natural desires as well?

I am willing to consider the possibility that homosexual and pedophilic desires are biological but I don't they they are natural. Deviations in biology will certainly effect behavior. Also, having a biological predilection toward a certain behavior still does not excuse it. Homosexuality is no more excusable than pedophilia or murder or theft or adultery.

Labels: , , ,