Homosexuals hung on the horns of a dilemma of their own making
From The South Florida Herald Tribune...
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....
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.
Mohler's website, which the article "links" to with a mistyped URL at the end of the piece, says...
Homosexual activists were among the first to call for (and fund) research into a biological cause of homosexuality. After all, they argued, the discovery of a biological cause would lead to the normalization of homosexuality simply because it would then be seen to be natural, and thus moral.
But now the picture is quite different. Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments....
The development of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis [PDG] is one of the greatest threats to human dignity in our times. These tests are already leading to the abortion of fetuses identified as carrying unwanted genetic markers. The tests can now check for more than 1,300 different chromosomal abnormalities or patterns. With DNA analysis, the genetic factors could be identified right down to hair and eye color and other traits. The logic is all too simple. If you don't like what you see on the PDG report . . . just abort and start over. Soon, genetic treatments may allow for changing the profile. Welcome to the world of designer babies.
If that happens, how many parents -- even among those who consider themselves most liberal -- would choose a gay child? How many parents, armed with this diagnosis, would use the patch and change the orientation?
Mohler's biggest mistake is in using the term "causation" to refer to biological factors which may influence behavior. Biology does not cause behavior, it only influences it. We, as human beings, have the will to determine our own behavior and are not slaves to our genes, hormones or appendages.
We've already seen deaf activists oppose efforts to restore the hearing in hearing-disabled infants, claiming that it assumes deafness is a bad thing. (No, seriously, that's what they argue). Mohler simply argues that were methods developed to counteract any biological component that was proven to influence sexual orientation, preventative measures would not be immoral.
This debate has actually been going on for some time within the "communities" of people who suffer from hormone affecting congenital conditions. Some argue that only a minimal amount of treatment should be available since "preventing gayness" would, in their opinion, be immoral (apparently hey are willing to enforce their "morality" but find other's morality, offensive). While others see no problem in more intense treatment, including surgeries, to conform the child to a more widely accepted "norm".
Mohler is also pointing out (with evident glee, and I can't say I blame him) the catch-22 the homosexual activist have placed themselves in. While screaming for proof (realistic or not) that homosexuality is "caused" by biology, they now are faced with findings which would indicate that people could simply act against what few factors are found that actually influence sexual orientation, thus suggesting that even if real proof could be eventually be found that homosexuality has a biological cause, it would be accompanied by a "cure"—and that's the last thing they want.
Which begs the question: If they reject, out of hand, a hypothetical "cure", can they still legitimately call it anything but a choice?
Posted by Danny Carlton at March 15, 2007 6:01 AM