Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
But I thought they didn't believe in science?
So, now that science seems to be closing in on a genetic or at least developmental basis for homosexuality, the Religious Right is taking an interest. Why? So they can stomp it out, of course.
Now, I'm not gay, and I don't have kids, so in one sense I don't have a dog in this fight. But saying that is like saying that I don't care what happens down in Gitmo, just because the likelihood of me ever winding up in that situation is nil.
Besides, I like the hypocrisy of how the Religious Right will disavow the power of science to determine truths about some things, and yet embrace other aspects of science when it conveniently fits with their agenda.
Via Andrew Sullivan, comes this piece by Albert Mohler, The President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: Is Your Baby Gay? In the article you find some remarkable comments:
For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.
OK, nothing too odd about that. Simple statement of the current state of the scientific research in this area. But here's what follows:
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.
Say what? This is the same bunch who deny the scientific basis of evolution (just search his website), yet they're saying that there was a change in the DNA structure of humans in regard to 'The Fall'?
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. ... 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."
Wait, so God is gay? Huh? That's going to trip up the fundies.
But here's the money shot (and what tripped Sullivan's trigger):
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.
Yup, this science thing is grand, if it'll allow us to eliminate the gays. Because, you know, no one would want to be gay or have gay kids. I mean, that's just icky, right? Not to mention prohibited in the Bible. Even though God is sorta gay.
Gee, you don't think maybe there's another agenda at work here, do you?
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Update...
...AP has a story up about this, outlining the ridiculousness of the things that Mohler said - which also quotes our dear friend PZ Myers!
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
What about the power of prayer?
Since there's a biological cause for homosexuality, then couldn't it be cured by the power of prayer? And if it's not people willfully choosing to be gay, then the solution is, as always, in God's hands.
Thanks, Jim, for that disturbing look into mind of dumbamentalism.
If religion was based on facts, it would be called science. And no one would believe it. -- Stephen Colbert
False hope.
"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."
They dont wait for a successful treatment. "De-gaying" programs already exist, such as Exodus International. Oh, they have a pathetic success rate, the effects usually wear off after a few years when they work at all, and they have been plagued by scandle since founding - including more than a few people driven to suicide by the 'treatment.' And there is a long list of qualified medical associations condemning Exodus and similar organisations as not just ineffective, but extremally harmful.
To which the proponents respond... not at all. Because, in the words John Smid, administrator of the teenagers' anti-gay camp Love in Action (At which 'guests' must be kept from leaving by force and barbed wire after being sent by concerned homophobic parents), "I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle. In a physical death you could still have a spiritual resurrection; whereas, returning to homosexuality you are yielding yourself to a spiritual death from which there is no recovery."
Playing God
Now, I'm not gay, and I don't have kids, so in one sense I don't have a dog in this fight.
I understand what you are saying, but I think that we as heterosexuals always have a dog in the fight for equal rights for homosexuals. Homophobia is a problem for the GLBT community, but it is a heterosexual problem. We heterosexuals have the responsibility for overcoming our own bigotry.
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.
So how do they reconcile this with the statement that "all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God"? I've always heard that "God didn't make no junk". Yet if they were to ultimately accept a biological basis for homosexuality, doesn't that mean that God did it? I thought we weren't supposed to be "playing God" with genetics and such? Sounds like there might be an exception for homosexuality.
Perzactly.
Perzactly, Bruce, which is why I went on to say that it does matter to me just as much as threatening any other civil right does. If I wasn't clear about that, I apologize: I think that it is absolutely the case that we need to stand up for the rights of *everyone*, and I make no distinction because of my own sexual orientation.
As to the second part of your post - well, let's just say that the ability to maintain their narrow beliefs in the face of logic and fact seems to be a trademark of the Religious nuts of all stripes.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
A New Moral Dilemma
What if an accurate test was found that would determine if a fetus is inclined to be homosexual?
Would theists;
1) Permit abortions in those cases?
2) Have those childred identified as 'at risk' of being homosexual handled differently growing up? Send to 're-training' perhaps?
3) Find a way to 'prevent' that trait from being propigated? (genetic modification, or - heaven forbid - stem-cell research).
This is so hypocrital that I feel sick writing this. Science is attacked by theists from all fronts - unless it can serve their twisted purpose. And then they only use the tiny bit of science that can be of use.
More evidence that theists are so brainwashed that they cannot make the simplest logical conclusions.
Eric
You're right
You're right. It's one of the moral dilemma's that xian's can't get around. Just like the article Jim posted indicates, they'll just try to weasel around the implications. I feel like they'll react to a genetic marker for homosexuality just like they'd react to finding life on another planet. They will talk around it or ignore it because it doesn't fit what they'd like to see.
**edit** I forgot one...they could also just deny the evidence for it.