Furor Over Baptist's 'Gay Baby' Article

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,839
17,651
146
Ya know if both sides attack you, you're probably close to being correct. (Although I don't know if I agree that it needs to be "cured")

Furor Over Baptist's 'Gay Baby' Article
By DAVID CRARY
AP
'Is Your Baby Gay?'

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."
 

leftyman

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2000
7,073
3
81
I would think that if it was detectable and possible to change, it would be an option that everyone would chose.
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Originally posted by: leftyman
I would think that if it was detectable and possible to change, it would be an option that everyone would chose.

The Nazis called. They want their science back.
 

leftyman

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2000
7,073
3
81
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: leftyman
I would think that if it was detectable and possible to change, it would be an option that everyone would chose.

The Nazis called. They want their science back.

why do you say that?
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,348
6,175
126
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111!111111!!1!11

aidanjm in 3, 2, 1...

lol, that's what I was thinking...

well I didn't read the full article cause my attention span is too low right now. it's funny because last night my girlfriend and I were talking about what it would be like if we had a gay kid. i don't know how it came up, but we were just joking around about it and saying that it would suck if our child turned out to be gay. of course we would still care for the child, but it would still be disappointing.

that said, if i could prevent my child from being gay, i would definitely do it.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
I'm all for gay rights and, given the option, I would definately consider doing this for my son.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,839
17,651
146
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: leftyman
I would think that if it was detectable and possible to change, it would be an option that everyone would chose.

The Nazis called. They want their science back.

The most logical answer is that homosexuality occurs during gestation. In other words, it's a kind of random "birth defect."

So in that case eugenics would have nothing to do with this.

And eugenics is hardly a Nazi creation. Hell, the founder of planned parenthood was a stanch supporter of eugenics.

In fact, eugenics was a very leftist idea before WWII.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
I doubt science could ever take the place of nature, but since we have wandered so far from what we should be, perhaps it would be a step in the right direction?
 

clamum

Lifer
Feb 13, 2003
26,252
403
126
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: clamum
What a fvckin freak.

Why is he a freak?

Read the article.

To me, it's just weird treating homosexuality like a disease where prenatal treatment tries to get rid of it.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,839
17,651
146
Originally posted by: clamum
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: clamum
What a fvckin freak.

Why is he a freak?

Read the article.

To me, it's just weird treating homosexuality like a disease where prenatal treatment tries to get rid of it.

Like I said, I don't know if I agree with the idea of "curing" it.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,839
17,651
146
Originally posted by: MBrown
Homosexuality is a choice /thread.

Really? So you think you could choose to be attracted to men over women?

Sorry, anyone who say's it's a choice better be ready, willing and able to switch sides at will to prove it, or admit they're being idiots.
 

leftyman

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2000
7,073
3
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MBrown
Homosexuality is a choice /thread.

Really? So you think you could choose to be attracted to men over women?

Sorry, anyone who say's it's a choice better be ready, willing and able to switch sides at will to prove it, or admit they're being idiots.

it might have something to do with his sig...
 

MmmSkyscraper

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
9,472
1
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MBrown
Homosexuality is a choice /thread.

Really? So you think you could choose to be attracted to men over women?

Sorry, anyone who say's it's a choice better be ready, willing and able to switch sides at will to prove it, or admit they're being idiots.

/paging sonz70...
 

AnyMal

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
15,780
0
76
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MBrown
Homosexuality is a choice /thread.

Really? So you think you could choose to be attracted to men over women?

Sorry, anyone who say's it's a choice better be ready, willing and able to switch sides at will to prove it, or admit they're being idiots.

/paging sonz70...

Last Visited On: 11/13/2005 04:45 PM

I seriously doubt he'll be chiming in.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Like I said, I don't know if I agree with the idea of "curing" it.

The only thing I don't agree with is that he thinks it's a genetic defect yet still thinks it is a sin. When did birth defects become sins?

If there was a fix, I would leave it up to parents to decide whether their children go through with it. The fix would obviously carry a risk. Some would go for it, some wouldn't, and I would consider it not my business.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,839
17,651
146
Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: Amused
Like I said, I don't know if I agree with the idea of "curing" it.

The only thing I don't agree with is that he thinks it's a genetic defect yet still thinks it is a sin. When did birth defects become sins?

If there was a fix, I would leave it up to parents to decide whether their children go through with it. The fix would obviously carry a risk. Some would go for it, some wouldn't, and I would consider it not my business.

It's very doubtful it's genetic since it never runs in families, but is random.

It's more likely a random birth defect. (I know, gays hate that idea).
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: leftyman
I would think that if it was detectable and possible to change, it would be an option that everyone would chose.

The Nazis called. They want their science back.

The most logical answer is that homosexuality occurs during gestation. In other words, it's a kind of random "birth defect."

So in that case eugenics would have nothing to do with this.

And eugenics is hardly a Nazi creation. Hell, the founder of planned parenthood was a stanch supporter of eugenics.

In fact, eugenics was a very leftist idea before WWII.

I was thinking of the experiments on fetuses and babies.