Furor Over Baptist's 'Gay Baby' Article

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles...00010000000001

Quote:

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."

So, what's your whole take on this?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

I don't even bother paying attention or getting riled up by stuff the Southern Baptists push as fact. It's like reading gossip magazines. Also what are we debating here? The Southern Baptists are notorious for talking out of their asses without the proper research, statistics or credentials.

Did you even read the article he posted Devo? I don't think at one point did the article mention one thing as a fact.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

For the record, I am a girl.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

For the record: Jello has only slightly noticeable difference between flavors.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

He tries to avoid the hypocrisy by saying that he wouldn't endorse genetic manipulation, but would endorse pre-natal hormonal treatments. But aren't hormonal treatments alone capable of altering the sex of the fetus? The article seems to ignore tricky things like sexual identity. It looks like he's saying that if a baby might be predisposed to like guys, you make it a girl which ignores the fact that it may be predisposed to be identify as a male.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I honestly can't believe a leader in the Southern Baptist church even acknowledged that homosexuality could possibly be genetic. That's a HUGE step. I understand that at the same time he's being incredibly hypocritical, but we can't expect people to change everything they've been taught overnight.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

It is rather intriguing. For theologically orthodox and conservative Christians, the disposition toward homosexual acts is an uncommon, crippling tendancy toward a sin that would typically not even be a possibility. However, most also believe that prenatal manipulation is unnecessary and immoral in itself. I think that, politically, this will be fascinating to watch, as we'll see a split between divisions not seen since the early 1700's: fatalists (people shouldn't be obsessed with extending or "fixing" human bodies or minds, because the soul matters most) versus those subject to new medicine (physical and mental well-being comes first, after which conversion is done).

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Apparently he thinks if it's genetic it's a disorder that can be treated. I'm lolling at that part seriously. Anti-gay pills.

I've always thought of it as more of a lifestyle choice. Hard to view playing "catcher and pitcher" with another dude as a predetermined genetic feature.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Did you choose to be attracted to women?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I don't know about you guys, but I sure chose to be straight. Vaginas are #1.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by FLEX

I've always thought of it as more of a lifestyle choice. Hard to view playing "catcher and pitcher" with another dude as a predetermined genetic feature.

You realize there's a difference between faggot attraction and buttfucking?

Of course anal sex is not a "predetermined genetic feature". Neither is watching television or typing your retarded opinions on the Internet.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I guess I never really thought about homosexuality from the perspective of it being a "disorder." But I can't think of anything off the top of my head to argue against it either. I mean, yeah it might be biological, but I'd have a hard time believing it's *natural*, considering you can't reproduce with the same sex.

On a side note, I find it amusing that so many gay people defend themselves by saying "Do you think I *wanted* to be this way?!" and then proceed to get their panties in a twist when a possible remedy is proposed.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Dhsu

I mean, yeah it might be biological, but I'd have a hard time believing it's *natural*, considering you can't reproduce with the same sex.

Years ago I read a study that suggested a possible answer. It seems that sisters of homosexual men tend to be more fertile (have more babies) than sisters of straight men. I don't know if that study ever held up, but could be an explanation for the persistance of a gene that at first glance would "breed itself out."

I was speaking idiomatically.

Dhsu: A large number of non-dominant traits, including ones not at all beneficial to reproduction rates such as being a midget (hell if I know the scientific term) have survived just fine.

Windsong: Please refrain from strawman arguments.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Isn't being a midget considered a defect though? An undesirable trait? I haven't been able to come up with a good response for people who view homosexuality the same way.

Most amazing jew boots

Here's something that came to mind while I was reading:

1) Conservatives generally don't like abortion.

2) Liberals generally don't like people making social/behavioral decisions for others.

3) Hypothetically speaking, say it does turn out to be something a pre-natal procedure could change.

Wouldn't the liberals be just as big of hypocrites as the conservatives for saying that the parents don't have a right to choose? I mean, they already support abortion, right?

Conversely, wouldn't the conservatives be hypocrites for denying the parents' right to choose an abortion, but then saying "LOL IT'S OKAY IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR CHILD TO GROW UP A FAG. HERE'S SOME CHEMICAL X TO MAKE IT BETTER" ?

Following the logic that the "fetus" is not infact a sentient lifeform and therefore "belongs" to the mother for all intents and purposes, wouldn't it be okay if parents chose for the child its sexual orientation? I mean, they can already decide whether it lives or dies, that's a pretty damn big decision, I don't see how crossing a few wires would make a difference, especially if it's long before the child reaches sexual maturity, it would never know.

I'm not Anti-Gay or anything, it's just an interesting thought that came to mind. How does this reflect other people's thoughts?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I don't think it would be all that hypocritical on the conservative side...following the (admittedly large) assumption that homosexuality is a disorder, I don't know anybody who would *choose* to be blind, crippled, or mentally impaired. The same would apply to relatively benign but inconvenient conditions such as being a midget or albino. So in cases like that, I think the parents can assume that if the child were old enough to have a choice, they would want to have those things corrected. I'm pretty sure the same thing can't be said for abortees.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Dhsu seems to sum it up rather nicely. I suppose that those supporting that opinion can argue that they are not "boosting" the innate abilities of anyone, but merely creating a reasonable baseline for physical traits. Consider it the social equivalent of subsidies for the poor.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

2) Liberals generally don't like people making social/behavioral decisions for others.

Nah, liberals love making social/behavioral dicisions for others especially if they can get others to rely more on the fed gov't to spend their money for them.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

Wouldn't the liberals be just as big of hypocrites as the conservatives for saying that the parents don't have a right to choose? I mean, they already support abortion, right?

Typically the gay community has a tendency to side with the pro-choicers on most all issues. But if they find that gay gene and more abortions come as a result... you can bet that the pro-lifers will gather some unlikely support.

Quote:

Following the logic that the "fetus" is not infact a sentient lifeform and therefore "belongs" to the mother for all intents and purposes, wouldn't it be okay if parents chose for the child its sexual orientation? I mean, they can already decide whether it lives or dies, that's a pretty damn big decision, I don't see how crossing a few wires would make a difference, especially if it's long before the child reaches sexual maturity, it would never know.

I'm gonna go watch Gattaca.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Nah, liberals love making social/behavioral dicisions for others especially if they can get others to rely more on the fed gov't to spend their money for them.

In some cases. Although, I have heard some pretty interesting ideas about social welfare programs that don't involve a tax hike, in fact, much to the opposite effect.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Big difference between prenatal anti-gay 'treatment' and abortion: A child who whose sexual orientation was changed (if this is even possible) would have to live with the decision their parents made. Abortees don't live at all, therefore (in a way) they are unaffected by the decision to abort.

Originally Posted by Dhsu

On a side note, I find it amusing that so many gay people defend themselves by saying "Do you think I *wanted* to be this way?!" and then proceed to get their panties in a twist when a possible remedy is proposed.

Try to think of it this way: Let's say someone tells you that one of your traits, one that you didn't control, was wrong. They also tell you there is a way to 'correct' it. Sounds fine and dandy, right? But you don't think your trait is wrong. Don't fix it if it isn't broken, and it isn't broken at all.

We can play house, we can play cops and robbers, but please, let's not play God.

I was speaking idiomatically.

As far as I know, modern science hasn't been able to point out THE reason why people feel attracted to their sex. I personally am, and nurture influence can't be that big; both my sister and my brother are heterosexual. As for the nature... I was taught in class that, at one point during pregnancy, a male baby could have received more oestrogen than "the normal amount", which can explain their preference for other males

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Normally I would agree with the "not broken" argument, if nature didn't suggest otherwise. You can't really compare homosexuality with other traits such as hair color or race, as those don't have an effect on reproduction. Yes, a lot of homosexuals like the way they are, but that's because they're already homosexual. :P If they had grown up straight, I can't see them wishing they were attracted to the same sex.

Although if for some reason someone actually did prefer to be homosexual, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a defect. Some people want to be infertile and even go so far as to get hysterectomies/vasectomies, but that doesn't mean infertility is a normal condition.

Also, I'm not sure how a child would have to "live" with his parents' decision. He'd probably never even know about it. How many straight people live with some uncanny feeling that they should have been born homosexual? And even if that were true, but personally I'd rather live with a pre-determined sexual orientation than not live at all. I dunno though, I might be in the minority.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Dhsu

How many straight people live with some uncanny feeling that they should have been born homosexual?

Well, ever hear of transexuals? They are biologically one sex, but mentally/emotionally they are the other. It's pretty unpleasant, especially if you live somewhere the majority of people would be quite glad to lynch you if they knew (I have a good friend in this situation u.u). Biologically he's straight, but emotionally/mentally she's homosexual.

Originally Posted by Dhsu

And even if that were true, but personally I'd rather live with a pre-determined sexual orientation than not live at all. I dunno though, I might be in the minority.

I wasn't trying to say abortion is better. Frankly I'm not a fan of that either, but it's all up to the individual, I suppose, as there are always too many circumstances to consider. The way I phrased it was rather callous though, sorry. I was merely pointing out that these are actually rather different issues, as the one has very definite results (no child), whereas the other, assuming it did anything or even worked as it would be intended to, has a very high risk of screwing up the child quite a bit in ways unknown.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by beanerd

Well, ever hear of transexuals? They are biologically one sex, but mentally/emotionally they are the other. It's pretty unpleasant, especially if you live somewhere the majority of people would be quite glad to lynch you if they knew (I have a good friend in this situation u.u). Biologically he's straight, but emotionally/mentally she's homosexual.

Well, in that case it's their gender role that they want to change, not their orientation. The sex they're attracted to stays the same. I don't really know of anyone who grew up feeling that they were attracted to the wrong sex.

Jam it back in, in the dark.