Many people believe scientists have demonstrated that homosexuality is genetically determined. While scientists have proven no such thing, what if they did? What follows from such a discovery morally speaking, and what might follow from that legally speaking? Let me deal with each in turn.
What would the moral ramifications of such a discovery be? Would the existence of a gene that predisposed (if not determined) one towards same-sex attraction tell us whether homosexuality is morally good or morally bad? No, for two reasons. First, you can’t get a moral ought from an ontological is. What is, and what should be do not necessarily coincide. Just because it is the case (for the sake of argument) that homosexual attraction is genetic does not mean homosexual attraction is good and desirable.
Secondly, genes determine things we consider both good and bad. For example, genes code for colored eyes (good) and some forms of cancer (bad). This invites a question for the genetic reductionist: should homosexuality be viewed as a genetic disease like cancer, or should it be viewed as a genetic “good” like eye color? Even if we start with the presupposition that homosexuality is genetically determined it does not tell us whether the genes have determined something that is good or bad. Something more is needed to determine that, and that something more is ethics. That’s why any possible future discovery of a genetic link to homosexuality is morally irrelevant.
While the moral ramifications would be moot, what about the legal ramifications? The discovery that homosexuality is genetically determined could have severe legal ramifications that will have a great impact on the church’s ability to condemn homosexuality as a moral evil. If homosexuality is genetically determined on the same level as race or sex, then it could be considered a suspect class by the courts (suspect classes require the strictest level of Constitutional scrutiny). You can’t discriminate against a suspect class for the specific property that classifies them as a suspect class without feeling the weight of the law coming down on you.
If homosexuality is genetically determined on the same level that race and gender, then any discrimination against a homosexual because of his homosexuality could be considered equivalent to discriminating against a black man because of the color of his skin. In the same way that the latter would be racism and punishable by law, the former might be considered homophobic and punishable by law. This could prevent Christians from making moral judgments against homosexuality.
You say, “That would never happen in America!!” Really? Would a church face legal action if it used the Bible to promote racism? Yes (correct me if I’m wrong Andy). If the government can prosecute those who express certain religious views on the issue of race because it’s a suspect class, why couldn’t they prosecute those who express certain religious views on the issue of “sexual orientation” if it were also a suspect class? The fact that those who use the Bible to promote racism are misinterpreting the Bible is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that certain expressions of religious views are punishable by law because those expressions violate the law. If there is a law that says homosexuals are a protected class, any discrimination against them—whether religious or secular in nature—can be punished.
If I remember correctly, in Sweden a pastor cannot even read a passage from the Bible that condemns homosexuality. Freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression are being honed in by political correctness in the West. America is no exception to this trend. If we continue in the ideological vein we’re heading in this country, what’s happening in Sweden may be coming to a theater near you!
(Political commercial) How do we stop it? We vote! We are in the majority, and yet we are silent. The only way the majority can become captive to the minority in a democratic society is if the voting public stays home on election day. If you stay home on election day don’t be surprised if the world you walk out to the next day is a world you don’t want to be in. The world is ours for the making. Let’s make it right by making our voices heard to our representatives on issues that are of moral importance to us. Remember, we are the government!
May 17, 2006 at 3:43 pm
It sounds like you are saying that it is illegal to BE racist. I’ve heard that there ARE churches that are racist (still). Especially in the South. Are you saying their BELIEFS, their preaching/teachings are “punishable by law”?
Do you have any court cases on this? How would they be punished?
(I’m interested in US cases only)
I’m not talking about the ACTS of racism->harming another person, etc. I’m talking about the BELIEF system.
My two cents:
I don’t think it’s illegal to BE racist, and I don’t think it would ever be illegal to “disagree with the acts of homosexuality”.
I don’t even think the government forces churches to HIRE minorities (i.e. force the churches to abide by “equal opportunity” rules). If they did, we’d have more women in leadership.
The church needs to preach and teach against acts of sin. Male with Male and/or Female with Female, in the churches eyes, are acts of sin.
If a person is BORN with a “Gay Gene” is the church going to preach against the person? It would be weird if it did. I think they’d stick to the current rule->preach and teach against ACTS of sin.
hey, just a thought->
Isn’t there an “alcoholic” gene? If so, why isn’t the church force to stop preaching/teaching about alcohol and the negative effects of it?
LikeLike
May 17, 2006 at 3:53 pm
What if we ALL had “the Gay Gene”?
What would the church do then!!!
Don’t we all have both female and male hormones?
(smile)
LikeLike
May 17, 2006 at 4:11 pm
I’m not referring to beliefs, but public speech and acts that display racist beliefs.
I would hope Andy would chime in here seeing that he is the law student. I’m not aware of any cases myself, but it’s my understanding that racist comments could be prosecuted under hate speech laws if those comments led to violence (for either party).
There was a case in PA (or something like that) where either the city or some other group was trying to prosecute a group of Christians who were protesting homosexuality. They didn’t do anything illegal. They were being prosecuted because of their supposed hate speech against homosexuals. I don’t remember if the court dismissed the case, or if the plaintiffs dropped the case under public pressure, but the Christians were never prosecuted. The fact that they were jailed for it and faced prosecution is scary enough.
I don’t know that an alcoholism gene has ever been discovered. There could be. We do know that it tends to run in families, but that could be explained equally well by sociology as it could biology. Regardless, when we’re talking about genetic ties to something it’s not that the genes determine the behavior. At best it gives a propensity toward the desire or behavior, but it is not biological determinism.
Jason
LikeLike
May 17, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Was Jesus born the son of God? That is, is their a connection between his genes and his divine status? Does ontology preceed Christology?
I’m not so sure we can dismiss ontology so easily.
LikeLike
May 18, 2006 at 6:49 am
Aaron,
That one came out of nowhere! I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Are you on drugs? Just kidding!
No, I don’t think Jesus’ genes were divine genes. They were human, which is the only way he could have been human, and appeared as a human.
But what does it mean to say ontology precedes “Christology”? I’ll be the last one to dismiss ontology!
Jason
LikeLike
May 18, 2006 at 8:14 am
As with most things in the law, this can be a very difficult path to navigate. Beliefs are something that would not likely be prosecuted under our current form of government. To that end even preaching will not likely criminally prosecuted. There are essentially two parts to every crime, an unlawful act and a culpable mental state (intent). Unless both are present, then a person cannot be convicted of a crime. One example of this is the KKK. As much as the majority of society despises them, they are still allowed to exist and to have rallies legally. It is only when actions are taken that they are deemed to be breaking the law. Therefore, even if a gene is found, it is unlikely that preaching will be considered criminal unless the preacher is encouraging people to act criminally with respect to homosexuals.
With that said, if a “gay gene” were found, it would definitely be easier to for legislatures to add them to protected classes of people. As it is, they have been added as a protected class in many ways already. The rub here is how the church would treat homosexuals that applied for a job at the church – and what job they are looking for. While it would seem easy to say that the person could not be hired as a minister because of the obvious conflict between homosexuality and the church’s beliefs. But if they just wanted a job as a janitor? None of the job responsibilities have anything to do with a person’s sexual orientation (unless there is a church school and the children are exposed to the sexual orientation of the janitor). Could the church face legal action for not hiring a homosexual in that situation?
Where this would get really tricky is when faced with the balancing act of the rights of a protected class and the Constitutional right to religion. I don’t know exactly how that would be come out if litigated because the divide between the rights of these two groups is so wide. It seems that many that support homosexuals completely abhor religion – especially Christianity; and those that support religious beliefs abhor providing homosexuals with a protected class status. I would think that any decisions regarding this would be a very close vote in the judiciary.
I don’t know if I got totally off topic here, but that’s the best answer that I can give at this time, and if I had to summarize it, the answer would be – it depends.
God Bless
LikeLike
May 18, 2006 at 9:23 am
Jason Said:
“I’m not referring to beliefs, but public speech and acts that display racist beliefs.”
Jason Said:
“I’m not aware of any cases myself, but it’s my understanding that racist comments could be prosecuted under hate speech laws if those comments led to violence (for either party).”
ME:
Again->I don’t think the church would be prosecuted for their beliefs, but their acts of violence->if any.
Your blog seems to insinuate that the church would be prosecuted for their belief system. I thought this was a far fetched idea.
Andy made a very good point with the KKK. They have the right to believe what they want, but they do not have the right to display acts of violence toward other people. I think it would be the same with the church.
LikeLike
May 18, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Andy,
Thanks for chiming in. I agree with you for the most part. While I understand that the freedom of speech is valued more in this country than in other Western countries, free speech against particular moral evils is under attack in other Western countries (Sweden for example), and it is increasingly coming under attack here (particularly in the area of hate speech, which I find ridiculous). As I noted to Linda, already in this country some have tried to prosecute Christians for demonstrating against homosexuality.
It seems that you are evaluating what might happen in the future in light of current law only. Obviously you can’t predict what the law will look like five, ten, or twenty years in the future, but if a gay gene were discovered ten years from now the legal landscape that exists today would not be the same. Do you think, based on the legal and cultural trends that got the law to the point it is today in its bent towards protecting homosexuals from being discriminated against, that the trend would continue to the point that in ten years it would almost be a no-brainer to consider homosexuals a suspect class if a gay gene were found?
It just seems to me that if a gay gene is found, and (supposedly) homosexuals cannot change their “sexual orientation” anymore than a woman can change her gender, a Caucasian can change his race, or a Mexican can changer her nationality, that any public speech condemning homosexuality would be viewed by the law on the same level as condemnation of the female gender, race, or nationality, and this could have legal ramifications for preaching against homosexuality as a moral evil just like it is in Sweden. You don’t think that’s likely?
Jason
LikeLike
May 18, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Linda,
Beliefs could not be prosecuted apart from their expression because beliefs are private things that no one else has access to unless they are expressed verbally or actively.
While we all agree that racist beliefs should be protected, I also believe that racist remarks should be protected. The only thing that should be prosecuted are racist actions. The same goes for the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. I think physical ills toward homosexuals should be punishable, but speech against homosexuality should be protected. I fear that we are headed in the direction in this country toward making it illegal to express condemnation towards homosexuality, and the discovery of a gay-gene would only solidify that trend.
Jason
Jason
LikeLike
May 19, 2006 at 7:54 am
Jason,
I haven’t done any research on the hate speech laws, but I think the speech must be a threat to a defined group of people or person – if it matches other types of regulated speech laws. In other words, even though the language used is against homosexuality in general, it must be directed to specific, defined group of people or a person. This would mean that a sermon from the pulpit in a church would unlikely be sufficient – there are not necessarily homosexuals present. Even if they are present, the law must define what the required mental state is, and it may require that the preacher have subjective knowledge that the person is, in fact, homosexual.
While preaching in church may not be sufficient, going to a place that is known as a gathering place for homosexuals and preaching against homosexuality may constitute hate speech. In either case, the content of the speech will also matter. Just because it is not supportive of homosexuality will not necessarily make it hate speech. Without a hypothetical or an actual situation to analyze, it would be virtually impossible to say what would happen.
LikeLike