Dr. Al Mohler has a fascinating post about research into gay animals, a possible prenatal “cure” for homosexuality and the insuing conflicts many in our society will be faced with when the age of designer babies becomes a complete reality.
Sam forwarded this to me with a little hyperbole saying that Mohler was “supporting genocide of gays through biological means.” When you read his extremely well-thought out and intelligent post, it is obvious that Mohler is not advocating the mass-killing of gay individuals. He is not even supporting aborting babies who are gay. He and I would equate that with mass-killings, but many do not so I felt the disctinction had to be made.
He lays out the current scientific and cultural climate and then details what he believes to be the Christian response. Much of what he says bears repeating, maybe even louder in light of recent ignorant comments by a certain media-obsessed conservative columnist.
Here are the things he asks Christians to remember:
1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.
2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.
3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.
4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.
5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.
6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons — the fact that all humans are made in God’s image — reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons — whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever — are equally made in the image of God.
7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.
8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.
9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.
10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.
In other words, "We would actually tinker with DNA if it meant we could stop people from being different than us. Dammit, we must do everything we can to stop the evil of homosexuality. If that means changing babies, we'll do it, because a person being born, and loving another person is wrong. WRONG. Unless we give them permission, any love shared by consenting adults is wrong."
You're crazy to support this. Absolutely crazy. The ethical issues alone are enough to boggle the mind – what business is it of yours to alter your child's existence? (Some) Christians are so possessed by homosexuality that they just can't think clearly anymore.
I don't know if it is "tinkering with DNA" as much as balancing out hormones, etc. I have no idea about the research and the "cure" and would not blindly support it. I'm not sure if Mohler does, though it appears in #8 he would.
Sam, this is again from the Christian perspective, which regards homosexual behavior as sinful and as sin it seperates us from God. Mohler is saying that we should do what we can to make it easier for people to avoid sin and to find God.
I don't think Mohler is possessed by homosexuality. Why doesn't someone go and tally his posts up and see? ;) But it is worth nothing that he continues to illustrate the invalidity of the over the top statements that Louis (and you) sometimes makes about Christianity being more concerned about homosexuality than abortion. He is clear that he finds that statement aburd (see #s 6 and 7)
I'd love to argue about this, but I'm not in the mood today. I guess I just think that people who love lecturing everybody else about "playing God" shouldn't be advocating "playing God" themselves. If your God designed gays, can you please explain how on Earth is right for you to undo his work? Maybe it's only right when its gays being attacked.
I see. I'm "over the top" about your religion, yet you find it acceptable to "fix" gay fetuses to suit your religious superstitions? You are really sick.
I'd also like to point how quickly you can go from claiming, "Gays are sick people who made sick digusting choices against the will of God and Christianity and the Bible," to, "Gays aren't at fault, and we'll just fix them in utero."
That's a huge leap, considering how many times I've been accused to being stupid for believing that gays are born gay.
I’d also like to point out that, in the light of #8 above, the implication is that post-birth homosexuals would also be subject to the “fix” he proposes (ie, forced hospitalizations complete with hormonal and electro-shock therapies ala the 50’s). I shudder to think that xianists are the majority in this country and currently control the White House and Supreme Court. Thus does religious genocide start (both pre- and post-birth). No wonder I despise that religion.
…any love shared by consenting adults is wrong.
I think you have love and sex confused here. They are not the same thing. At all. Too many people think so, unfortunately.
gay fetuses
There is no such thing as a gay fetus or a straight one for that matter. Just think about that. Please.
Perhaps a person can be born predisposed to be effeminate. I would not deny that at all. But a person is not homosexual as a fetus or a child. Not until those hormones kick in at puberty are they even sexual at all.
What nonsense! For one thing, "effeminate" is not synonymous with homosexual. I, for one, was never effeminate, yet I knew from an early age that I was different from the other boys. How? I didn't know just how until later, but there was a definite difference in perceptions and desires.
And, there's no confusion as to sex and love. Gays love the same as straights, and we express that love through sex (among other things). No difference.
Gays aren't all effeminate. Are you (Some) Christians capable of anything but mind-bending stereotypes? Do you know ANY gay people when you're saying this crap, or are you just mouthing whatever it is that Dobson or Mohler hints at?
“effeminate” is not synonymous with homosexual
Well, that was sort of my point…. There is no doubt in my mind that people are predisposed to act certain ways (effeminate or masculine; shy or outgoing; etc.). But I do not think we are predisposed to how we are going to express ourselves sexually. That we will express ourselves sexually, there is no doubt. I mean, our environment has more to do with the expression of our sexuality than our predisposition to act either masculine or feminine.
I know effeminate men who are happily married. Married in the sense that they have a wife, you know. Happily in the sense that they have been married without divorcing for some number of years…
And I know masculine men who are happily married, in the same sense…..
are you just mouthing whatever it is that Dobson or Mohler hints at?
I didn’t read Mohler, except where seeker has excerpted him in his posts… (Which was only Mohler in this post, if I read that right) Never heard of him before, actually. Or if I did I forgot.
"But I do not think we are predisposed to how we are going to express ourselves sexually."
Can you provide any proof for this opinion?
Thus does religious genocide start (both pre- and post-birth).
Anyone who supports abortion on demand has no room to criticize anyone about genocide, since they are complicit in the nearly 5000 murders a day that happen in the U.S. alone.
And in case you missed it, Mohler and I are quite clear about abortion being out of the question. In fact, your allusion to some slippery slope goes directly against the facts, and is a smear tactic, not a real danger.
I’d also like to point how quickly you can go from claiming, “Gays are sick people who made sick disgusting choices against the will of God and Christianity and the Bible,” to, “Gays aren’t at fault, and we’ll just fix them in utero.”
That’s a huge leap, considering how many times I’ve been accused to being stupid for believing that gays are born gay.
I’m not sure who accused you of being stupid for believing that gays are born that way, but it wasn’t here. In fact, what is obviously ignorant is to account 100% of homosexuality to biology, when preliminary experiments (see below) show c. 40% of homosexuality can be explained by biology, so the other 60 is probably environmental.
In fact, a recent article by Francis Collins discusses how very few or no personality traits (of which hx is one) are hard wired, but at best, have a 60% genetic component. Collins also adds:
Also, anyone with half a mind for observation will well note the characteristic backgrounds of a majority of homosexuals – abusive or distant father, controlling mother, sexual abuse, and/or conflict with or rejection by same-sex peers. In fact, I have rarely met a gay who was not obviously injured, not by their homosexuality, but by one or many of the factors above. Anyone who denies this is self-deceived.
Are there exceptions? Sure. But let’s just use the 80/20 rule for now.
And while much of Christianity might be under the misguided arguments about homosexuality being entirely environmental, or that it is chosen, what Mohler is suggesting is exactly what I’ve been saying – you see, it is the reasonable conservative position, not some edge case. For reference, see the following:
Gay gene found in fruit flies
Sexual Orientation is probably caused by a combination of nature and nurture – like many human [traits]and diseases, there is usually a combination of genetic/hormonal and environmental/social conditions that give rise to the specific characteristic or disease.
Does the existence of a gay gene mean homosexuality is natural, and therefore normal and healthy? Not at all. Researchers are also looking at genes for aggression and depression, but that doesn’t make these conditions “normal.” Conversely, though, it does not make it abnormal either – there are genes for sexual and personality development that are considered to have normal variants. The question is, is homosexuality a normal or abnormal variant?
How would the identification of a gay gene in humans affect reparative therapy? As with all psychology, they would probably treat with a combination of drugs and therapy. Drugs to help balance their chemistry, and therapy to help them heal and develop healthy gender identities.
My Genes made me do it
The “genetic” or “natural” argument is one of the arguments used to justify homosexuality. It states that IF hx is found to have a genetic component (which it has not yet), that would prove that it is natural, and therefore morally OK. But just because something is genetic does not make it normal and healthy, or intended by God. Disease is genetic too.
Homosexuality – Genetic or Environmental?
Based on the studies, Sanders estimates that genes account for about 40 percent of homosexuality.
Exploring the Evolutionary Puzzle of Male Homosexuality
Berman discusses the probable genetic causes of homosexuality, and proposes that before six weeks of gestation, all humans have a “proto-female” brain, which, in the case of boys, then gets “washed” with hormones that “masculinize” the brain. Some boys get more of this than others, and those with “Low Masculinized Brains” often turn out to be homosexual. He also discusses how he believes there is no evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.
Petri dishes and womb ethics
Is it ok for hetero parents to abort potentially gay fetuses because they are “undesirable”? Even more interesting, recent research on sheep shows that heterosexuality can be induced by giving various hormones – is it ok to treat gay children, or one’s self this way?
Conservatives have a simple answer:
– all children have the right to life, regardless of infirmities
– exceptions should be made for extreme deformities or painful, quickly fatal conditions
– treating homosexuality with medicine, like other genetic abnormalities such as aggression, is entirely ethical if done with the care that all medicine should be approached with. However, evidence points to considerable environmental developmental and environmental factors in homosexuality, so there will be no “magic pill.”
You find it acceptable to “fix” gay fetuses to suit your religious superstitions? You are really sick.
Thankfully, you are of the opinion that a woman should have the choice to kill OR treat her unborn child, so you won’t be doing anything about this except complaining. Who is the sick one, the one who allows murder but not treatment? Come on, Mr. Kettle.
I believe it is ethically, biologically, and logically defensible to conclude that hx is an illness and not a normal variant, just like other genetic/environmentally induced abnormalities. Some people live with their illnesses quite functionally, but that does not make their illnesses normal.
And treating it like an illness does not lead to discrimination. We don’t discriminate against people with depression, ADD, or addictive personalities. We love and treat them. Those who refuse treatment are called “in denial,” and this is where those who try to normalize hx live. In denial of the plain truth that hx is against nature, biology, design, morality, and mental health, just like promiscuity.
"But I do not think we are predisposed to how we are going to express ourselves sexually."
Can you provide any proof for this opinion?
How about this situation:
A man is born. He matures. He never has sex with a woman or a man. Why?
I think it could be concluded that his environment never provided him the opportunity to express himself sexually. Because his genes certainly have predisposed him to be a sexual being…But not to the expression of his sexuality.
We don’t discriminate against people with depression, ADD, or addictive personalities. We love and treat them.
Seeker, evidently you have never been on the receiving end of that type of discrimination and social and economic stigmas with being mentally ill. If you had any personal real-world experience, particularly with accute bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, you would know that we do indeed discriminate against those that have those sorts of illnesses. I can attest to that with first hand knowledge of this.
So, you’re counter argument is flawed at best.
Silver
If you had any personal real-world experience, particularly with acute bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, you would know that we do indeed discriminate against those that have those sorts of illnesses.
How do we discriminate against them?
Lawanda,
In answer to your question we as a society and by extension those Christians that are members of this society can and do discriminate in terms of:
* Preventing those with acute conditions that are treatable for gaining employment
* Forcing those that are indeed ill to conceal their illness for fear of reprisal and possible discrimination in times of being reviewed for possible promotion or termination.
* Social stygma based descrimation that has been built up with over 2.5 centuries of misunderstanding of mental illness that constitutes the false perception within society that those with mental illnesses are somehow less than whole or are subhuman. This will include and extend to the concept of the not-in-my backyard mentality so frequently expressed towards excons or sex offenders (something you can relate to as a topic close to home), but specifically targeted against those with illnesses.
All these things happen despite there are laws on the books with regard to employment, etc against discrimination in this country. And yes, it is more widespread than you might think.
I agree that we discriminate, but what do you propose we do to destigmatize their ailment short of calling it a normal variant? That’s my main point, not that illnesses are treated fairly, but that by law, there is only so much we can do, and declaring them as normative would prevent people from seeking treatment.
Why don’t we just call this assumption place or straw man city, since so much of the “responses” take my words (or Mohler’s) and create something that wasn’t there?
I never made a jump from “Gays are sick people who make disgusting choices” to “Gays aren’t at fault” as I never made either of those suggestions. What Mohler is saying is that there may be some hormonal differences that may make people more inclined to being attracted to the same sex that can be changed prebirth. (He didn’t say anything about postbirth or certainly not anything about electroshock or whatever other sort of “shock” statement you want to throw out there.)
Gay people are just like me – a sinful person. They are at fault just like I am for all the sins I committ. No difference. In my opinion, each of us are predisposed, by our character and other factors, to be tempted by certain sins in certain ways. If there was something medically that could help me be tempted less by the sins I am tempted by I would love to have that.
“Thus does religious genocide start (both pre- and post-birth).” – Louis
That is hyperbole at best and slander at worst Louis and you know it. You continue to ignore his other points (#6) and things I have said repeatedly so that it fits your preconcieved ideas that Christians literally want to kill gay people.
I believe you are created in the image of God just as much as I am and therefore deserve to have your life protected just as much as mine. But I’m sure you will continue to ignore this to fit your own conspiracy theories about Christians.
Aaron,
All due respect, but you definitely DON’T believe that Louis deserves to have his life protected. You believed that he deserves to have his life protected as you’d prefer him to live it, but that isn’t the same thing. Louis, born, should be free to go through his life, and as long as his actions don’t hurt anybody, be free to live his life. You think that Louis should be free to go through life as long as you aren’t personally offended (grossed out) by his decisions. That isn’t the same thing. Proposing to fix a person’s sexuality in utero is bananas, because we’ll have no way of knowing how those people will turn out, and who are we to choose a person’s sexuality.
So why don’t we revisit this question: who are you Christians to be playing God with another person’s sexuality? Isn’t that up to God? Isn’t that his decision, as opposed to yours? Or are you responsible in this case because you hate gays?
(And Seeker, claiming that pro-choice people can’t object to genocide is absolutely ludicrous. Genocide and abortion are two TOTALLY different things. You and I both know it.)
Just a few points in response to the drooling above:
1. Let's get beyond this "nature or nurture" argument, shall we? As this point in time, we just don't know. However, we ARE confronted with the inescapable fact that there is, and always has been, a certain minority who is either primarily or partially attracted sexually and emotionally to the same sex. So What? Big Deal! Can't we just address the facts in the field? Millions of Americans (and others) are gay. Period. We are citizens, and deserve FULL citizenship – which means full and equal protection under the law and Constitution. Anyone who opposes this is prima facie a bigot and outside the pale.
2. Those who claim that this situation is also, prima facie, a bigot and outside the pale. There is NO evidence that homosexuality is an "illness." What, indeed, is an illness anyway? seeker claims to have never met a gay person who wasn't "damaged" in some way that made him hx. Absurd. His testimony is obviously "damaged" by his own, amply demonstrated, bigotry. Homosexuals exist and have ALWAYS existed. It is a fact of life! Declaring that gays are "ill" is, in and of itself, proof of stupid bigotry.
3. My use of the term "genocide" is perfectly defensible: this is a term which applies to those who wish to wipe out a certain population. Christers want to wipe out the gay population, whether via death or the closet. Christers are behind every movement and political attempt to deny gays equal rights. Ala seeker, they seek to demonize us, whether by the "illness" nonsense, or religious persecution. They are the vicious and indefensible oppressors of gay people, both in the present and for centuries past. I, personally, wish I could live in a non-christian world, preferably one descended from the ancient Greeks. There is much good to say for Jesus, but nothing for his religion.
#2 above should read:
“Those who claim that this situation is the result of “illness” is also, prima facie, a bigot and outside the pale.”
Here is what the NY Times (subscription) said about the article…
Homosexuality May Be Based on Biology, Baptist Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 16, 2007
The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has suggested 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., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and one of the country’s evangelical leaders, posted the article on his personal Web site earlier this month.
Mr. Mohler said in the article that scientific research “points to some level of biological causation” for homosexuality.
That suggestion offended fellow conservatives, Mr. Mohler said. 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.
But Mr. Mohler said he was criticized even more strongly by supporters of gay rights, who 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 change an unborn child’s sexual orientation.
“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.”
The article, published on March 2, carried a long but intriguing title: “Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?”
Mr. 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 might be proven.
He 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.”
Cineaste,
Basically, we’re both hitting on the issue here. (Some) Christians obviously don’t believe that their own God wasn’t being very smart when s/he created gays, and they’re proposing to fix it. The audacity of such a thing is really unbelievable, isn’t it? For these people, for whom God is of the utmost importance, to say, “Hey, God screwed up here, he didn’t know what he was doing, we’ll fix that,” shows the depths of their insanity over homosexuals. It is absolute madness.
Sorry, Sam, but I don’t think you are accurate here. Christers would claim that gays are the result of the “Fall” and that God had nothing to do with their existence. Of course, they can provide no evidence at all for this stupid opinion, so we may ignore it. Why argue with people whose grasp of reality is, to put it charitably, meager? People (like seeker) that believe that the entire Cosmos (!) is less than 10,000 years old will believe ANYTHING. Maybe science should endeavor to provide a “fix” for xian fetuses.
People (like seeker) that believe that the entire Cosmos (!) is less than 10,000 years old will believe ANYTHING. Maybe science should endeavor to provide a “fix” for xian fetuses.
Louis, in response to the above, below is a graph that shows the relationship between Mean IQ and strongly held religious beliefs. When you graph the data you’ll notice that it is, not surprisingly, an inverse relationship. Now, I am a big proponent of exercising restraint when it comes to inferring causality from simple correlation, so I won’t do that. That is to say, I will refrain from using this relationship to show that low IQ causes strongly held religious beliefs, or vice versa. But I found the relationship interesting nonetheless. Here’s the graph:
[Is there a correlation between Religion and IQ?]
The United States is the data point with the red circle around it, a bit askew, if you ask me.
The IQ data was taken from the book, IQ and The Wealth of Nations. The religious belief data was taken from a survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project. The question from the survey was, “How important is religion in your life—very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?” The report only gave the results for those that answered “very important”.
Take it as you will.
I think that the most interesting part here is just how much howling the both of you are going to get from Aaron and Seeker. Neither of them like being stereotyped: as unthinking religionists, as young-earth believers, as whatever else. But all gays being effeminate? Yes please. Gays trying to ruin the American family? You bet. Gay marriage ruining straight marriage? Uh-huh.
There is one set of rules for us, and a totally different set of rules for them.
The fact that xians are now expressing approval of eugenics proves how deep their loathing of gay people runs. Thus, they open themselves up to any charges we can level in their direction.
I,personally, don’t think that stupid people go in for religion, but that deeply held religion makes people stupid.
Btw, But all gays being effeminate I never said that. Nobody did. Just an fyi.
Grrr. I had a HUGE comment that somehow disappeared. I will try again tomorrow.
Lawanda, there is no sense in trying to back out of your comments. This is what you said:
Either you believe that homosexuality and effeminacy are intrinsically connected, or you are speaking total nonsense. If you don’t believe they are connected, then the first sentence that I quoted is utterly meaningless. You may as well have started your statement with, “I like jam.”
I don’t seriously believe you are that stupid, however, so the obvious conclusion is that you believe homosexuals are generally effeminate. Even if you don’t strictly believe that all homosexuals are effeminate, you are still adhering to a gross stereotype.
Maybe Lawanda is just demonstrating poor writing skills. This being the internet, we aren’t polishing our prose like we would in a class (speaking as a former English teacher here). So, I’m willing to cut Lawanda some slack here.
I obviously didn’t make my point the first time, but then I posted another whole comment to clarify:
Louis said: “effeminate” is not synonymous with homosexual
I said: Well, that was sort of my point…. There is no doubt in my mind that people are predisposed to act certain ways (effeminate or masculine; shy or outgoing; etc.). But I do not think we are predisposed to how we are going to express ourselves sexually. That we will express ourselves sexually, there is no doubt. I mean, our environment has more to do with the expression of our sexuality than our predisposition to act either masculine or feminine.
I know effeminate men who are happily married. Married in the sense that they have a wife, you know. Happily in the sense that they have been married without divorcing for some number of years…
And I know masculine men who are happily married, in the same sense…..
Thank you Louis ;)
I like to be correct (grammatically and otherwise ;) ) but I am often posting while holding kids, or sometimes late at night. So, I just aim to get at least some of what I am thinking out into my posts so that you are able to understand what I mean! :)
"effeminate" is not synonymous with homosexual
Of course, that is true. Not all gays are effeminate. However, they most certainly are linked – the overly effeminate homosexual who lisps, who has feminine mannerisms, a swishy walk, or cross-dresses, is common enough to be an commonly understood stereotype, reinforced by the many gays who adopt one or all of these approaches. While gays run the gamut from flaming femme fatal to overly macho butch guy, gender reversal is a trait commonly associated with homosexuals. It's more than just a stereotype, it's a cultural byword due to its commonness.
Nice try, seeker, but I won’t bite, and I urge others not to either. This guy just wants the attention.
Troll.
That’s lame Seeker, even by the low standards I use for you. Dabbling in that sort of stereotypical nonsense only further backs up our notion that, at heart, you’re hate gays.
Incidentally, none of you Christians have explained why you should be free to “fix” God’s mistakes. How is it, again, that you sinners are capable of fixing God’s work?
I don’t think I am going to go back through all the stuff that I wrote that got killed somehow, but here are the highlights:
It is illogical to protest at anyone doing anything to a unborn baby and then defend the right of a woman to murder that same child. How can you claim some type of immorality on the part of those changing genetics or hormones of a baby when you don’t seem to mind the child being killed? If the baby is a person it deserves protection, if it is not then it does not.
From my own perspective, I think part of the reason this is such a divisive thing currently is that in the minds of Sam, Louis and others they see the worst possible things like “eugenics” and “tinker with DNA,” whereas I am picturing the best possible things like simply balancing out hormones that may be out of balance which may increase the tendency of a person to be attracted to the same sex.
Mohler has placed himself in a difficult position by somewhat supporting something that does not yet exist. It allows those opposed to the Christian perspective to accuse him (and others) of the worst possible things. I am sure many “treatments” for gay tendencies would be rejected by Mohler, but his open-ended support has left an attack door open.
That is why personally I can’t say if I support anything because we are dealing with complete hypotheticals here. When we have specifics and I can look at those on my own without someone filtering it for me, I will be able to make a decision as to what I think about it and how I feel it lines up with Christianity.
But Sam really wants an answer about “playing God,” so I give him that. Part of this goes back to your view of what homosexuality is, as opposed to Mohler and part of it goes to your view of what Mohler is saying, ie assuming the worst, as I spoke of earlier.
I assume you view sexual preference as an inborn part of the genetic make-up of an individual, something that cannot be changed or influenced in either way, at least not really though you would say some try to hide from their real feelings. Mohler would argue that is not the case and the evidence he is citing does not point to that either. He is arguing that hormonal differences play the nature role in the development of gay individuals. According to this research, those hormonal imbalances can be changed to the normal amounts pre-birth reducing the likelihood of someone being attracted to the same sex.
And as much as Louis is dismissive of the Christian theology, he understands that we believe that sin entered into creation after the fall and that impacted everything on earth. Unless you understand the fall, you could argue that Christians want to play God when they take medicine to Africa to treat children born with AIDS, because they were born that way.
I’m not equating being gay with having AIDS, but merely using it as an illustration. Not everything that exists in us pre-birth is God’s design. Is He in control? Yes, He is, but according to Christian theology He is not asserting full control yet because He is allowing people the chance to accept His free offer of salvation. Accepting His offer will not be a choice once He takes full control of the world. While He continues to let us sleep in the bed we made, He is offering grace and forgiveness to anyone who will accept it.
This is a small example, but I may have a tendency pre-birth to be near-sighted (I am). That is not part of God’s perfect design. It is a result of the fall and sin entering our world.
Also, Sam do you care to take back all those stereotypes that you accused me of holding to since I have yet to voice any of those? Or do you hold to two sets of rules? Can you throw out stereotypes, but no one else?
Cineaste, I have a question – what if I were to post a graph during a discussion about morality that showed the less religious a person is the more immoral they are. Then I said, “Take it as you will.”
Everyone knows that you are implying that religious people are less intelligent. Clearly Louis understood and responded to that. If you want to say that, fine, say it, but don’t hide behind innuendo and insinuations.
But to the graph itself, it is noteworthy that you basically throw the US out as an aberration when it does not match your concept of what reality should be. It is also noteworthy that the US is the only nation among those who value religion highly that is not a developing nation. To me that should indicate that much more is involved that simply religion, it has more to do with the standard of living in the country – better health care, better education, etc. – than with any religious involvement.
A lame defense. You tell us that God is all powerful, but then claim to fix his work. You claim that God created everything, but then claim to fix his work. You claim to be a fallen sinner like everybody else, but you claim to be able to be less of a fallen sinner so that you might change other people’s sexual orientations at will.
Incidentally, comparing AIDS and gays was clever. What won’t you compare? Genocide and gays? Crucifixion and gays? Being gay isn’t the same as dying of a disease, a lesson you shouldn’t need to be taught.
Sam, you asked for it and of course it is going to be "lame" because you misunderstand the whole thing. It has nothing to do with "fixing" anything or changing a sexual orientation.
I am not "less [or more] of a fallen sinner" than anyone else. I also don't remember supporting everying that Mohler said. I thought it was "interesting" and "well-thought out" and "much of it" beared repeating.
Also, I compared being gay to being nearsighted, I guess you missed the comparison didn't you?
I guess you also missed the whole thing about your wrongly skewering me for having a double standard, while inacting your own stereotype double standard.
Aaron’s response illustrates the points I have been making here and elsewhere about xianity: it is, and always has been, dogmatically and profoundly homophobic. Not only is this the position of some christians who have promoted a mistaken version of their religion, it is inherent in the very theology which undergirds their faith. Gay people aren’t just “ill” or willfully perverted or being trendy or the equivalent of near-sightedness, we are wrong, a mistake, a symptom of the evil which permeates the entire universe as a result of the “Fall.” This is why there can be no compromise with these people. For, to them, compromising with us (ie, accepting us as equals), would be to acquiesce to the fallen and “sinful” state of humanity, to ally oneself with the Devil (ie, evil). No matter how they put it, no matter what moderate or mild mask they put on (ala Aaron), they are still, at base, as homophobic as the most violent and vocal bigots out there. They just can’t help it. If they accept xianity, they are required to be homophobes, for their religion is, and must be, homophobic.
And, of course, this is merely yet another species of hate. I know Aaron and seeker and Lawanda will bristle at this, but let’s just call a spade a spade for a change, shall we? I agree that there are gradations of hate, and that seeker is a more vocal and virulent hater of gay people than Aaron, but that just doesn’t change the issue at its heart. When one’s philosophy of life declares that gay people are mistakes or mental cripples or aberrations or products of the “fall” (ie, evil), that is an expression of hatred, however mild or well-intentioned. When Aaron tells me that the deepest and most profound feelings of love and desire I have are somehow evil and contrary to God’s will, then I have to declare to him that he is a bigot and a hatemonger, and that his plan to “fix” us or force us back into the closet, is genocidal. It also justifies my rejection of his religion. How could I possibly do otherwise? Xianity gives one message to straights and another entirely to gay people. When their holy book tells us we are worthy of death and not included in their Kingdom, how can I judge otherwise? And, please, don’t tell me that you are as “sinful” as I! The situation is entirely different (for one thing, you can marry and I can’t). When one considers the affect this evil has had on gay people over the centuries, the terror and persecution we have and continue to have, undergone, I would be a complete fool and knave to believe otherwise.
I recommend the following for everyone:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-kramer20mar20,1,4594749.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true
Cineaste, I have a question – what if I were to post a graph during a discussion about morality that showed the less religious a person is the more immoral they are. Then I said, “Take it as you will.”
I would say there is no way to chart morality. It would simply be a matter of opinion. As for the “take it as you will” part, how does it feel to be on FOX news?
Everyone knows that you are implying that religious people are less intelligent. Clearly Louis understood and responded to that. If you want to say that, fine, say it, but don’t hide behind innuendo and insinuations.
No, I am not implying this. If you had asked me, my response to this correlation would’ve been this…
Industrialized nations tend to have better educational systems. Better educational systems produce higher IQ scores nationally. The social stability of industrialized nations means people have less reason to be religious because there are fewer things in their lives that they can’t control. “Third World” nations tend to have inferior educational systems. Poorer educational systems produce lower IQ scores nationally. The social stability of “Third World” nations means people have more to pray for because there are more things in their lives that they can’t control like where the next meal is coming from or will they be blown up by a suicide bomber.
As you can now see, if you agree with what I said, there is no direct correlation between IQ and religiosity. What I would argue though is strong religious views are correlated to ignorance, not IQ. Again, I stress I do not intend the word “ignorant” pejoratively. I am simply saying that religious fundamentalists teach that their Holy Books contain the truth, thereby shutting out anything to the contrary. Whatever is contrary to the Bible or Qu’ran, fundamentalists are ignorant of it for it’s not part of their education. They are taught, from a young age to reject anything contrary to the Bible. For example, Evolution.
The U.S. is an aberration now, but if the religious right wingers have their way with science, we will be reduced to a school system of Christian Madrassas where the Bible is taught as the fount of truth. That is why you and Seeker believe the Earth is 10,000 years old or less. This belief is based upon religion. Y.E.C. is a clear indication of poor education and ignorance, not low IQ. This supports my original quote from Louis.
And, of course, this is merely yet another species of hate.
I think you hate me way more than I hate you.
When one's philosophy of life declares that gay people are mistakes or mental cripples
Are you bigoted against mentally ill people, Louis?
:-p
I do not think anyone is a "mistake" personally. Just products of their environment…and pretty much on equal footing with everyone else in the world except in their ability to care.
When Aaron tells me that the deepest and most profound feelings of love and desire I have are somehow evil and contrary to God's will
I think (and you will not like this, but neither will most straight people)… that love is a word greatly mishandled by our society.
Love is a way of life not a feeling, and definitely not who you have sex with. Sex is much more enjoyable/beneficial if there is a strong bond between the partners. Definitely. But a strong bond is obviously not a prerequisite for a sexual relationship. Most people have that – sexual relationships. Most people do not experience a loving relationship with anyone but their children or parents. And those relationships are even iffy with all the "self love" that floats around these days.
Anyway, all of our desires are good. In moderation, and directed toward the proper object :) See, you don't like that. I knew it. But neither does half my family – who've been married to 5 different women, some of them…
But I think you are one-sided when you say we hate homosexuals. By your theory, we hate everyone, because everyone does bad stuff, according to the Bible…
But, and this is where you will not see our point of view, even though you do the exact same thing: We don't hate people. We just try not to encourage (or discourage if you must take the negative) people to do things that are not right in our eyes. You do the same. And so does Cineaste. Well, doesn't everyone?
Anyway, all of our desires are good. In moderation, and directed toward the proper object :) See, you don’t like that. I knew it. But neither does half my family – who’ve been married to 5 different women, some of them…
BTW, I am not fond of this thought either. Especially when I am looking at cake or cookies ;)
Also, my life is not stellar. Not by any means. The difference between me and you is that I care about my life being more like the Bible says it should, and you don’t.
That is the only difference. Don’t you think?
And that difference is wider than the Grand Canyon.
Louis, why is it that I have no idea what you feel, but you know perfectly well what I am feeling or believe enough to know that I “hate” you or that I am a bigot, etc? We are all products of the fall. Much of who I am is a direct result of that as well. And you might not see this as a difference, but I don’t view homosexual attractions or feelings as sinful.
To compromise with you or any other gay person is not to “make a deal with the Devil” it is to work with another human being created in the image of God. Here in apparently lies a huge difference, I don’t view you as being defined by your sexuality. Either you view yourself in that manner or you believe that I do. Being gay is not all there is to know about Louis. You are an intelligent commenter on a wide variety of issues apart from homosexual issues, so I don’t define you as “Louis the gay man” and I don’t view you as any more fallen than myself.
I also resent your charges of my attempts to “fix” you are any other gay person. I repeatedly said that I was not coming out in favor of this. I needed specifics to see exactly what was involved. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on it.
Cineaste, I think you said all that needs to be said about your intentions upon posting that graph when you said “how does it feel to be on FOX news?” and knowing your opinion of their journalism.
Interestingly enough, no one has answered my question about how one can logically support the killing of the unborn, but not the genetic manipulation (in the worst case senario). If the unborn baby is a person and their genes should not be tampered with, should their life not also be protected? I would like to see an answer to this question.
Cineaste, I think you said all that needs to be said about your intentions upon posting that graph when you said "how does it feel to be on FOX news?" and knowing your opinion of their journalism.
I'm still angry with your "Obama madrassa?" post.
If the unborn baby is a person and their genes should not be tampered with, should their life not also be protected? I would like to see an answer to this question.
Oh, that's a good question. Can you elaborate a bit more please so I can understand your point? Then, let me chew on it a bit.
Aaron,
If we’re going to play change the subject, how about, instead of abortion (where none of us are going to gain any ground), we talk about the sexuality of your children? If one grows up to be gay, are you going to screaming at the heavens, furious that your fix wasn’t available in utero?
If I remember your story correctly, one of your children was born under a questionable bill of health (a scenario I neither can, nor want, to imagine). An abortion was suggested, but you objected: this was your child after all. You couldn’t do such a thing.
Now you’re asking me to believe that you would be willing to risk all of the long-term unknowns of a sexuality fix if it meant that there was less of a chance that you were the parent of somebody homosexual? That seems awfully self-serving. Suddenly, your child’s best interest has nothing to do with the debate. Suddenly, all of your arguments against abortion no longer matter, because why should a Christian be burdened with a gay child.
As a father, I want my daughter to have the best experience possible in her life. But I can’t make a decision for her about her sexuality because I respect her too much as an individual. Why can’t you offer the same level of respect for children?
Cineaste, do you remember how I bent over backwards in that post to make sure no one thought that I was suggesting Obama went to a madrassa, how many updates and changes I made to it to clarify it, how that was a huge story in the media and my blog post featured that big news story as half the post, the other half dealing with his evangelical ties? I treated both the same – as questions he had to answer.
My question about personhood, this "cure" and abortion is this: The same people that argue here that a mother should have the right to abort her unborn baby also argue that the same mother does not have the right to tinker with the baby's hormones or genes. How is that? Is potential sexual orientation more valuable than life? If a baby is not a person and can be aborted, how can you ask for protections in other areas?
A tangent to this is the question of placing moral restrictions on science. Any time a Christian says that science may be entering moral gray areas and we should slow down or even halt progress in that area, they are met with a chorus of taunts for being anti-science and progress. Now this comes along and many on the left suddenly question the morality of this and want science to tread carefully. What makes the differences? Why is one morally grey area okay to run through, but others should be considered carefully? I believe this is one of the many areas where science should tread very lightly and very slowly.
Sam, here is where there is an apparent misunderstanding. But I will answer each question and point your brought up in the order you made them.
No, I am not going to "scream at the heavens" at the lack of a prenatal cure for my child who tells me they are gay. They will still be child and I will love them, just like I do now. I may not agree with or approve everything they say or do, but that does not stop them from being my child that I love.
Wesley had a spot on his brain and the doctor asked if we wanted to do more tests to determine if we wanted to abort him. (I shudder even writing that.) Of course, he was born and continues to be perfectly healthy.
I don't remember when I said I would agree to do this procedure. I thought I had made it clear that in my mind Mohler made a mistake by supporting blindly a future "cure" seeing that we don't know what that future cure would be.
Clearly, I would not endanger my child's life or health for the chance that it might make them less likely to be gay. It would not be an option. Nor would I "tinker with the DNA" as who knows what that would lead to and is not a road I want to go down morally for this or any other issue.
I would never consider doing anything like this – prenatal treatments – unless numerous testing and research was done to prove the safety of it. And even then I would only consider (not even automatically support) it if it was something simply like my wife taking an extra vitamin or a pill to balance hormones – if the research say indicates that the natural case for an increase in same sex attraction is caused by a difference in hormone levels between straights and gays. Again, that would only lead to me considering doing anything about it. If there were any, at all, inherit risks involved I would refuse.
The difference comes from the perspective. From my Christian-based viewpoint, I would not be changing my child's sexual orientation, but rather easing a temptation for them in the future. I know that you disagree with this and I know that many, especially Louis, finds this to be offensive. I know it is offensive to many that I would even potentially consider taking part. But I am just letting you know my own personal rationale using my worldview.
But, please let me make it clear that I am not in any way issuing blind support for any potential cure for homosexual attractions. Understand that it would take a lot for me to even consider it, much less use it.
Understand that it would take a lot for me to even consider it, much less use it.
Or believe it….. ?
I think almost any type of treatment or operation done prenatally is so risky for mother and baby it is not worth it. But that is just my opinion. I have never “been there, done that” so who knows if I would change my mind if they told me it was the only way to save my baby’s life, that is: to operate or use a treatment on a baby in utero.
I would not believe them if they told me they knew who my kid would have sex with (or be attracted to) in 17 years time, personally. I’d prolly laugh in their face. :-p
Arguing with christianists on this matter is pointless. The more they try to explain themselves, the more offensive they become. According to Paul, they're supposed to be ambassadors for Christ. What a joke! christians are the best advertisement against Christ I can imagine. Judge the tree by its fruit. They don't even realize how offensive and hurtful they are! Thus, arguing with them is a total waste of time. I am so turned off by them, that, even if their stupid system was proven true, I would still reject it. I would rather go to hell than spend an eternity in heaven with stupid xians.
Taking this, http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/03/032107episc.ht…
into account, I have to say, in all fairness, that there is a form of xianity that I could follow. This would involve a Reformation which would throw out most of the stupid and baseless claims orthodoxy currently makes. A cleansed xianity, combined with Buddhism, is a possibility.
A direct response by Jon Stewart on this post topic.
The Gay Disease
Is there any more doubt as to how ridiculous the concept of gay as a disease is?
The video is no longer available due to copyrights.
Louis, I am curious as to what you found so offensive in my reply (I assume it was my reply). I try to be as Paul said "at peace with all men as it depends on me," so I make an effort not to offend if at all possible.
I know that you find much of my beliefs to be offensive, on those we have to agree to disagree – while I try to maintain my convictions without being rude or purposely hurtful.
Well, duh!
"From my Christian-based viewpoint, I would not be changing my child's sexual orientation, but rather easing a temptation for them in the future. I know that you disagree with this and I know that many, especially Louis, finds this to be offensive. I know it is offensive to many that I would even potentially consider taking part. But I am just letting you know my own personal rationale using my worldview."
You just don't get it. In fact, I believe that you can't get it considering your "worldview." That's why I say it's pointless. Straights may, in some cases, be sympathetic, but they just can't get what it's like (especially if they're religious). It's a matter for despair.
Of course I can't completely understand your point of view, neither can you understand mine totally. That's no reason for despair.
I do not want to offend, but having said that, I want to obey Paul's principle of not offending as much as it relies on me. Continuing to voice what what I see as truth (objective truth) is more important than not offending. It is the same for you.
I don't expect you to completely see my rationale. As you said, you can't understand me. But I do want to be able to voice my believes as inoffensive as possible. I have no desire to say things that end up as hurtful for no reason.
i want to dialogue so that I better understand you and so that you better understand me. Unfortunately that can lead to those on both sides getting offended at some point. I'm willing to live with being offended occassionally in order to continue dialogue and make progress.