Thursday, April 10, 2003

Homosexuality(part 2)

Not knowing what to do with their problem and finding the change so hard or almost impossible, homosexuals have welcomed recent biological findings about the biological roots of their problem and this has become their main point in arguing about the normality of their sexual orientation. Unfortunately this conclusion is too hasty and incautious. As we all know scientific findings are constantly changing; with every new discovery, previous convictions can be proven totally wrong. After explaining what the latest researches have found, William Byne, a psychiatrist and neuroanatomist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City states: “These speculations reemphasize how far researchers must go before they understand the factors--both biological and experiential-- that contribute to sexual orientation” and then he warns us about the wrong use of such findings: “While attempts to replicate these preliminary findings continue, researchers and the public must resist the temptation to consider them in any but the most tentative fashion.” The fallibility of science has been proven all through the history, and maybe the tentative measure would be not to act upon any scientific product unless it passes the test of time
The entire conclusion that homosexuality is in the right path like heterosexuality drawn from scientific findings is flawed. I don’t think anyone can ignore or totally object to these scientific findings. For a long time only psychological origins were given as the reasons for mental states and it was mainly due to our lack of knowledge in biology. Today we know that any human behavior is influenced by two factors: environment and genetics, so it has both psychological and biological origins. One of the assumptions that this is based on is that if something is genetic or innate then it is normal as anything else. If this is true, we have to accept those with Down syndrome as normal human beings and blinds as equal to everyone else. We all know that some children show some characteristics from the very childhood that we don’t approve of; some are bad-tempered, some are more envious than others, and some are lazier . All these traits of behavior are influenced to some extent by genetics, but it doesn’t mean that they are equal to those that we approve in morality or worth. Fred G. Zaspel is talking exactly about the same thing when he states:
The most recent explanation is that people are just "born that way." Let's think about that. Let's say a man is born a kleptomaniac. Should society give him the freedom to steal? What if a man has a natural tendency toward adultery? Should it be approved? You see, the question is not that of psychological predisposition.
One of the attempts made is to show that homosexuality is natural because animals engage in such a behavior. Though there are many opposite arguments to this fact, even if we accept it, it won’t have the implication claimed. First of all, being natural among animals isn’t equal to being natural among humans. We can think of countless things that happen naturally in nature but are not considered natural for humans at all. But have we chosen animals to be our role model after all? I think this argument boils down to the one I explained earlier in this paragraph about the difference between naturality of a behavior and it’s moral correctness.
(posted by Farid)

Comments: Post a Comment