Even if biological, God still hates Gays

[CaptJodan]

Furor Over Baptist's 'Gay Baby' Article
By DAVID CRARY
AP
NEW YORK (March 15) - The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, acknowledged that he irked many fellow conservatives with an article earlier this month saying scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality.

Proof of a biological basis would challenge the belief of many conservative Christians that homosexuality - which they view as sinful - is a matter of choice that can be overcome through prayer and counseling.

However, Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was assailed even more harshly by gay-rights supporters. They were upset by his assertion that homosexuality would remain a sin even if it were biologically based, and by his support for possible medical treatment that could switch an unborn gay baby's sexual orientation to heterosexual.

"He's willing to play God," said Harry Knox, a spokesman on religious issues for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group. "He's more than willing to let homophobia take over and be the determinant of how he responds to this issue, in spite of everything else he believes about not tinkering with the unborn."

Mohler said he was aware of the invective being directed at him on gay-rights blogs, where some participants have likened him to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor notorious for death-camp experimentation.

"I wonder if people actually read what I wrote," Mohler said in a telephone interview. "But I wrote the article intending to start a conversation, and I think I've been successful at that."

The article, published March 2 on Mohler's personal Web site, carried a long but intriguing title: "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?"

Mohler began by summarizing some recent research into sexual orientation, and advising his Christian readership that they should brace for the possibility that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven.

Mohler wrote that such proof would not alter the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, but said the discovery would be "of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations."

He also referred to a recent article in the pop-culture magazine Radar, which explored the possibility that sexual orientation could be detected in unborn babies and raised the question of whether parents - even liberals who support gay rights - might be open to trying future prenatal techniques that would reverse homosexuality.

Mohler said he would strongly oppose any move to encourage abortion or genetic manipulation of fetuses on grounds of sexual orientation, but he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment - if such a technology were developed - to reverse homosexuality. He said this would no different, in moral terms, to using technology that would restore vision to a blind fetus.

"I realize this sounds very offensive to homosexuals, but it's the only way a Christian can look at it," Mohler said. "We should have no more problem with that than treating any medical problem."

Mohler's argument was endorsed by a prominent Roman Catholic thinker, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., and editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI 's U.S. publisher.

"Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said. "If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."

Such logic dismayed Jennifer Chrisler of Family Pride, a group that supports gay and lesbian families.

"What bothers me is the hypocrisy," she said. "In one breath, they say the sanctity of an unborn life is unconditional, and in the next breath, it's OK to perform medical treatments on them because of their own moral convictions, not because there's anything wrong with the child."

Paul Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris, wrote a detailed critique of Mohler's column, contending that there could be many genes contributing to sexual orientation and that medical attempts to alter it could be risky.

"If there are such genes, they will also contribute to other aspects of social and sexual interactions," Myers wrote. "Disentangling the nuances of preference from the whole damn problem of loving people might well be impossible."

Not all reaction to Mohler's article has been negative.

Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist critical of those who consider homosexuality a disorder, commended Mohler's openness to the prospect that it is biologically based.

"This represents a major shift," Drescher said. "This is a man who actually has an open mind, who is struggling to reconcile his religious beliefs with facts that contradict it."

[Lord Zentei]

Given the retarded idea of "original sin" and assorted bullshit, while I find this attitude repugnant, I also find it unsurprising.

[CaptJodan]

Edit: Forgot the link.

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a ... 0000000001

[CaptJodan]

Given the retarded idea of "original sin" and assorted bullshit, while I find this attitude repugnant, I also find it unsurprising.

Surprising? Hell no. I totally grant that. But the hipocracy just burns so damn much. Also, it's just a bit frightening.

[Wicked Pilot]

We've seen the Christians gay bash a thousands time before. I think the discussion we should take away from this article is the merit of changing someone's sexual orientation while in the womb. That could come down the line as a possibility sooner then we may think.

Honest question here, if proven technology existed to do such, how many of you would change your son or daughter's orientation while in the womb? And if a Christian/Muslim/Jewish parent wanted to do the same to their kids, reason irelevant, would you support preventing them?

[Aaron]

I think I'd be tempted, while Canada is a tolerant place the amount of shit a gay/lesbian has to put up with still isn't small. I'm not so sure I want my children to go through that.

[Haminal10]

We've seen the Christians gay bash a thousands time before. I think the discussion we should take away from this article is the merit of changing someone's sexual orientation while in the womb. That could come down the line as a possibility sooner then we may think.

Honest question here, if proven technology existed to do such, how many of you would change your son or daughter's orientation while in the womb? And if a Christian/Muslim/Jewish parent wanted to do the same to their kids, reason irelevant, would you support preventing them?

If there was no other harm to the child, I would want them to be straight. Pretty much for the sole reason that my wife and I would like Grandchildren someday.

That being said, I would love a gay child just as much as a straight one.

[Wicked Pilot]

I'd be tempted just do to the fact that if you're straight you have such a larger portion of the population in which to find someone to love and make a life with. If you're gay it's a much leaner target environment.

[CaptJodan]

I'd be tempted just do to the fact that if you're straight you have such a larger portion of the population in which to find someone to love and make a life with. If you're gay it's a much leaner target environment.

Not to mention the dwindling prospects as others take the same route.

Really, if a gay "cure" was found to be viable, I can't see it as a good thing for the social rights of those who can't partake in the cure (for instance those already born). Right or wrong, discriminatory feelings towards those who are gay would continue and perhaps increase as the population died out (or at least became so small as to be maginalized much more than they already are).

I'd be really torn on the cure issue, personally. What is best for my child's happiness would likely be the cure, but I feel it would ultimately harm the surviving gay community (not that me giving the "cure" to my child would change the harm already done or anything).

What we need is X-Men-like super powers.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'd be tempted just do to the fact that if you're straight you have such a larger portion of the population in which to find someone to love and make a life with. If you're gay it's a much leaner target environment.

I've had no problem finding 'targets' in crowded low-concentration environments. It's a bit like Parmenio detecting the Demon in a ballroom full of short-lifers. We can pick each other up pretty easily.

That said, I'm ambivalent toward this anti-gay hormone treatment. On the one hand, I find it nauseating to deprive people of the choice to make their child straight if they want, while on the other hand, I find it revolting there's the small possibility this could be enforced by governments (or the food industry!) through additives in maternity food. On the gripping hand, there's always the possibility of jigging the treatment the other way to make the kid gay.

There's always the possibility of the scientists simply refusing to take the final steps toward making this a reality, rendering the whole discussion moot. There's already a movement against designer babies as it is.is

[sketerpot]

That said, I'm ambivalent toward this anti-gay hormone treatment. On the one hand, I find it nauseating to deprive people of the choice to make their child straight if they want, while on the other hand, I find it revolting there's the small possibility this could be enforced by governments (or the food industry!) through additives in maternity food. On the gripping hand, there's always the possibility of jigging the treatment the other way to make the kid gay.

Interesting thought: if you ever wanted to run a coercive government population control program, strategic use of maternity food gayification additives would probably be the most humane way to do it.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

That said, I'm ambivalent toward this anti-gay hormone treatment. On the one hand, I find it nauseating to deprive people of the choice to make their child straight if they want, while on the other hand, I find it revolting there's the small possibility this could be enforced by governments (or the food industry!) through additives in maternity food. On the gripping hand, there's always the possibility of jigging the treatment the other way to make the kid gay.

Interesting thought: if you ever wanted to run a coercive government population control program, strategic use of maternity food gayification additives would probably be the most humane way to do it.

It would still run blatantly counter to my standard of ethics. Hell, the whole concept of sexuality modification as discussed here comes close to shitting on my ethical sensibilities.

[Medic]

Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist critical of those who consider homosexuality a disorder, commended Mohler's openness to the prospect that it is biologically based.

"This represents a major shift," Drescher said. "This is a man who actually has an open mind, who is struggling to reconcile his religious beliefs with facts that contradict it."

Open minded this psychiatrist says? At the end of the day this Baptist Reverend ultimately appealed to Biblical inerrancy to resolve a moral dispute and came off as a complete hypocritical tool. So he acknowledged gayery might be biological and STILL asserts it's immoral? Big whoop, his reconciliation amounted to devaluing one religious nigh-tenet (you can't play God!) by pleading for one special exemption: we should of course try to limit the expression of gayery in society, cause that's immoral, the Bible says so.

He is of course too making the astronomical error of presuming God's will were he to exist. Hell, it's not like gayery was Sodom's failing, or what are we to make of this?

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."
~ Ezekiel 16:49

But then that's the problem, he's just picking and choosing among in-vogue interpretations of the Bible his particular sect of Christianity trumpets loudly. Maybe one day helping the poor and needy will be valued in a religious sense, kinda like, you know, the opposite of Supply Side Jesus. I mean, if SSJ were to help the poor and needy there would be no INCENTIVE to avoid becoming poor and needy, right?

That and his carving out a don't-play-God exception for prenatal gay-culling is eerily similar to the idea that a biological basis for religious thought and behavior isn't itself an argument against the probability of God. I'm sure it is for crazy pigmey-eating-tribesmen religions but certainly not one of the "Big Three." Worthless special pleading.

[mr friendly guy]

I'd be tempted just do to the fact that if you're straight you have such a larger portion of the population in which to find someone to love and make a life with. If you're gay it's a much leaner target environment.

That being said, you could also argue that they would have less competition for a partner.

[Teleros]

Given the retarded idea of "original sin" and assorted bullshit, while I find this attitude repugnant, I also find it unsurprising.

Really? Quite refreshing that he's willing to listen to science (at least on some issues) - there may be hope yet .

Open minded this psychiatrist says?

Well it's be polite to what is probably a moderate position for the fundamentalists, or scream "bigot!" and start a whole new row .

Hell, the whole concept of sexuality modification as discussed here comes close to shitting on my ethical sensibilities.

Yep, although if I had to for whatever reason I'd rather a heterosexual kid, pretty much for the reasons above (want grandchildren, bigger chance of finding the right guy / girl etc).

What we need is X-Men-like super powers.

[url=http://elgoonishshive.com/El Goonish Shive[/url]: have a look at "GRACE'S BIRTHDAY PARTY" .

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Hell, the whole concept of sexuality modification as discussed here comes close to shitting on my ethical sensibilities.

Yep, although if I had to for whatever reason I'd rather a heterosexual kid, pretty much for the reasons above (want grandchildren, bigger chance of finding the right guy / girl etc).

That's the point. There's really no reason for this RAR HIPOTHETICLE SENAREO you propose to come about, other than bigotry on part of a possible future SO or other family member, IMO.

[Azazal]

hmm, interesting conundrum was pointed out on a another board. If there was a "cure" for being homosexual that could be used in the womb, but it required the use of embryonic stem cells, what would the fundies do?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

hmm, interesting conundrum was pointed out on a another board. If there was a "cure" for being homosexual that could be used in the womb, but it required the use of embryonic stem cells, what would the fundies do?

Easy. Hold their nose and use the stem cells, then scream bloody murder at a very special high pitch when anyone else dares blink at stem cells.

In other words implement the most despicable, hypocritical, assholish, distasteful, and damaging solution available to them.

[Justforfun000]

I'm with Einy. I'm ambivalent about the "cure". As difficult as my life has been, I'm now out and with a wonderful partner of 6 years, and I'm very happy being gay. I actually prefer the orientation for many reasons.

In general I don't like fucking around with natural things that don't have any intrinsic harm to them. The only harm homosexuality bring is the bigotry from society it evokes. I don't think that's good enough to alter it in the womb. Also procreation is still possible for gay people. They might even take a deep breath, hold their nose, and go to it the old fashioned way.

Of course this issue brings up the very contentious debate regarding a child's right to be raised by the two people that actually created them. From countless examples borne out by adoption circumstances, there seems to be a very strong desire to know and evaluate your birth parents, at least for a lot of people. It's a valid debate on deliberately conceiving a child to be raised by other parents. However this has been done by surrogates as well for heterosexuals, so you'd have to rule the same way on that procedure as well....

[Lord Relvenous]

I've heard this discussion in other places and someone told me they thought it was a gross misconduct and an infringing on human rights to limit a persons sexual orientation. I looked at her and said, "So this is what your telling me: kill the baby? yes, its your body. Change its sexual orientation? No, that's violating its rights."

Heh?

[Justforfun000]

I've heard this discussion in other places and someone told me they thought it was a gross misconduct and an infringing on human rights to limit a persons sexual orientation. I looked at her and said, "So this is what your telling me: kill the baby? yes, its your body. Change its sexual orientation? No, that's violating its rights."

Well the link isn't quite the same....because the idea is that the baby isn't really a baby until a certain stage of development. At least this is the current scientifically held idea. So abortion isn't really "killing" anything. This is semantics really, but it's impossible to prove one side correct at this time.

Changing the orientation is obviously pre-supposing the existence of the baby is going to be allowed.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Since being gay is a genetic thing, I'd support a screening test for markers on physical exams. I'm also looking foward to use of suppression of the genes or related factors on various occasions and situations, prenatal or not. It decreases a lot of problems.

[CaptJodan]

Since being gay is a genetic thing,

You found the gay gene, did you? You might want to share that with the rest of the scientific community. It'd be a major breakthough. Because as far as I know, they haven't found it to be directly genetic in nature just yet.

[Justforfun000]

I'm also looking foward to use of suppression of the genes or related factors on various occasions and situations, prenatal or not. It decreases a lot of problems.

Problems for who? And where would you draw the line at this kind of genetic tampering? Have you ever seen the movie Gattaca by any chance?

[Singular Intellect]

I personally can't raise any moral objection to parents wanting a kid who isn't gay, and doing something about it. Technically speaking, it would make the person's life easier in today's society and it's prejudices, and most parents don't want to intentionally inflict hardship upon their kids.

I think it's an interesting scenario considering the opposite action, ie: engineering the person to be gay.

One could argue that altering a person before they're born to a heterosexual state is, perhaps unfortunately but also the reality, going to make that individual's life easier.

On the other hand, altering a person's orientation to be homosexual would be quite difficult to argue as making their life easier or better in any way. And I somehow doubt most parents are going to be interested in the arguement the gay community needs more fuck buddies, so roll the dice and risk making your kid's life unnecessarily more difficult.

It's a rather sad situation really, and the only reason this is an issue at all is because of the prejudices of society against gay people. But ironically because of that prejudice, 'fixing' your kid to be heterosexual cannot be argued as harmful, and can be actually argued as making their life easier.

So unless the gay community fought against the rightsof parents to dictate their child's orientation, or started their own efforts at engineering gay individuals, the gay population could start suffering a serious decline. Which only compounds the problem since they then become a smaller minority, and in that light less even desireable to be part of.