Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability -- By: Sherwood O. Cole

Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 154:615 (Jul 1997)
Article: Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability
Author: Sherwood O. Cole


Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability

Sherwood O. Cole

[Sherwood O. Cole is Professor of Psychology, Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, La Mirada, California, and Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.]

Biological explanations of behavior have important implications for moral judgment and culpability. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of homosexual behavior. If biology explains homosexual behavior, it is assumed that individuals are given little choice in the matter and thus cannot be held responsible for behavior they cannot control. Such an attribution proscribes moral censure and the behavior ceases to be “sin.” This argument is being used by members of the gay and lesbian community to great political and social advantage. They argue that being born that way entitles them to legal recognition and social acceptance.1 They argue that they should be accepted for what they are and welcomed into the mainstream of society.

Public opinion of morality is also swayed by biological explanations of homosexuality; in general, people are more accepting of such behavior when biology is believed to be the cause.2 It is also possible that some Christians have difficulty attributing

culpability to homosexual behavior when it is biologically based.3 This may be due to the fact that the nature of biological influences on homosexuality is misunderstood. As a result, many Christians are left with only two options—one is to deny or minimize biological contributions to homosexuality and the other is to alter the interpretation of passages of Scripture associated with a clear condemnation and prohibition of homosexual practices.

A resolution of the biological-moral issue of homosexual behavior rests on proper answers to a number of critical questions. What is the nature of the biological explanation of homosexuality? Does the explanation imply immutability and determine one’s destiny, or does it express itself in ways that still permit the exercising of one’s will? Thus the degree of biological influence on homosexuality becomes critical to the discussion. It is also apparent that one’s basis of moral judgment and how one defines morality have a profound effect on the discussion. Is morality to be defined in terms of individual rights, conventional norms of society (such as justice or fairness) or in terms of biblical principles? This article attempts to provide answers to these questions and to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian perspective o...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()