TO DENY GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE IS AMORAL

There seems to be a conflict with survival of the fittest and “moral standards”: between biologically established adaptation and our learned or imposed standards of conduct dominating modern civilization. We seem to know what biological reality is just as we seem to know what morality is but the knowledge seems to be in conflict. It seems reflexive in nature to say it is amoral to be what we are biologically, to be what we have no control over. It involved both physical attributes as well as behavior. Of course, standards of conduct are culturally sensitive, but that is the problem. The currently raging gay rights debate brings this conflict to the forefront; however, such conflicts are broad ranging and involve a fundamental principle; our genes and our sense of morality often seem “out of tune”.

Discussing genetic determinism in any context has the potential of invoking rage sometimes in certain groups of people while at other times in all people. Although the list of subject for this discussion could be long and include criminality, feminism, racism, sociopathology, the discussion here focuses on the example of homosexuality. What is involved in most if not all of these examples is far beyond the simple Mendelian genetics we learned in grade school. Homosexuality is the synergist result of a complex physical and personality genetic complex. It is not in a one-gene one-trait inheritance mode. There is no such thing as a gay gene. However, there is no doubt, homosexuality is genetically determined, a fact denied by many if not most of those who condemn homosexuality as amoral or as a disease. Gay couples cannot adopt a child because the child will turn out gay is as pure genetic nonsense and being afraid gays will have children if they marry.

Genetic reality is reflected in many different ways. For example, very few people can be both homosexual and bisexual at the same time thus freed of genetic restrains and therefore able to make unbiased choices of sexual partners with which they are entirely comfortable. That does not mean some people are just a little bit gay or that one person is “more gay” than the next person.

The genetic of homosexuality is established science. What is not established is how does society deal with this; therefore, begs the question, how do we “morally” deal with homosexuals. Up to now, we have not done a good job. Obviously, gay sex violates the biological principle of reproduction, which violates natural selection by adaptation for survival of the species but is in tune with innate sex drives and genetic based emotions such as pleasure, family commitment, love, respect, and a long list of etceteras. There are those among us who would deny them the same freedom because homosexuality is biologically “unnatural” therefore amoral and “these people” therefore, treat them as criminals making their lives so miserable they deny their sexuality to the point of wanting to commit suicide. Mistreating people badly because of the way they were born is not moral. It makes no sense to treat people differently because of their genetic makeup.

At times, our conduct as a society seems childlike; thus, immature, and to boggle the mind when seen in adults.  Young classmates ridicule and shame a child with patches on his or her clothing as well as one with a cleft palette like Parents ridicule and shame a boy that likes to plays with dolls or a girl that likes to play football. We must mature and learn to treat each other’s genetic difference based on what the differences actually are. We cannot treat all people the same just because they are people; after all, there are seven billion of them out there and they are all different. What we must do is to try and help everyone to have as good a quality of life as possible. In other words, can we learn as a society that it is not amoral to be what we are genetically just because they are different in behavior or appearance? Can we learn this thing if we go to a church molded by 2000-year-old concepts—which is what conservative means—that teaches what some of us are is amoral?  Can we live in a society that says it is against the law for gays to marry; thus deny “certain” people a good quality of life? Can we live in a society that says it is against the law for gays to marry, and sincerely believe that is the moral thing to do?

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated