Furor Over Baptist's Gay-Baby Article

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.nbc5i.com/family/11254359/detail.html

Cool! I've been waiting at least 10 years for this discussion, ever since I first read they found probable genes that determined sexual preference. I've wondered how the Christians (edit: read The Church) would resolve their stigma of the life of unborn babies (and not interfering with them) versus their homophobia and their conviction that homosexuality is a sin. Can you say "moral dilemma"?

I read that they found the gay-causing gene round about the same time as they found the obesity-causing gene, and obesity (or gluttony at least) is one of the 7 deadly sins, while homosexuality is not (unless you consider it to fall under Lust). So my friends and I had a lot of these discussions way back when, so it's enlightening to see them actually discussed by religious leaders and their critics.

Last edited by Tanz on 15 Mar 2007, 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't see it as a moral dilemna at all. I am a christian and believe homosexuality is wrong but I also see it as a disorder that may have roots in genes. I am certainly also prolife and of course aborting a child because he may be gay would be wrong. I don't see anything wrong with curing a mental disorder though. Homosexuality is a disorder becasue the reason we have sex and a sex drive is for copulation. A man cannot copulate with a man. I thinks thats pretty simple. Being a disorder doesn't make it wrong any more than a lot of disorders, so i think one can say even as a doctor that something is a disorder without making a moral judgement. As a christian I do believe its wrong, but thats not a medical statement, thats my personal beliefs.

Also, the fact that I think something is wrong doesn't make me have a phobia of it. I beleive sex outside of marriage is wrong. But most of my friends do this. I'm not going to stop being freinds with them because they have chosen to do something I choose not to. I also have friends that are gay and the same rule applies.

That someone is more predisposed to something doesn't make it right. If I'm predisposed to aggressive sexual tendencies, does that make rape ok? what if they found a gene that made people attracted to young children, would that justify the actions of predators? Clearly no. THe difference with that of course is that you can jail a person for hurting someone but you can't for a consensual act, nor should you. But my point is that just because something feels natural to someone, even if it feels that way because of genes, that doesn't automatically mean that their behavior is justfied or normal.

I'm Catholic, though I go to Episcopal Church due to being intermarried. For the record, if there is a schism within the Episcopal Church, I will not attend the denomination that allows practicing homosexuals to be in the clergy. I'm pretty much for gay rights, but don't feel that these rights should extend into religious denominations where the dogma clearly forbids it.

I think that Jesus loves us just the way we are. According to my beliefs, homosexual acts are a sin, just like masturbation or extramarital sex. The fact that someone has homosexual urges does not make them a sinner. Therefore, I do not think that someone who is likely to have such urges in the future needs to be "cured".

It's wrong to mess around with God's creation. I also think that this supposed "cure" is a form of eugenics. Eugenics is morally reprehensable and decidedly un-Christian.

Beyond the issue of homosexuality and its true origin, the notion of altering babies while they're still in the womb in order to make them fit in with what society considers the norm after they're born (rather than as a life saving measure) is a rather unsettling one that carries implications for us all.

Last edited by asperion on 15 Mar 2007, 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly.

Precisely the point behind all those "cure autism" groups. IF they find some genetic marker, then it's pre-natal testing, and/or drugs so the baby isn't *gasp* less than normal ! !!

Yes.

AND, to me it adds to the insult that a Christian group wants to tinker with God's creation in the name of God.

That IS rather contradictory, isn't it??

It sounds like we're beginning to venture into the field of eugenics, which, in my opinion, is not a good thing. I don't think anyone has the right to choose what kinds of people are born. It seems almost like a form of genocide, for people to just completely eliminate the people they don't like.

To think - without Asperger's or pansexuality, just where would I be right now?

What gets me is that these Christian sects want to define what is disordered and not disordered based on their beliefs, which means they want to take over the world.

As a Buddhist, I find it disturbing. While the research shows that gay people can be psychologically healthy, able to raise well adjusted children, can contribute to society, these so-called "Christians" claim they can somehow judge for others who do not share their views, beliefs, culture, and moral tenets, and call certain behavior a "sin" and wrong based on a cultural tome written thousands of years ago in a vastly different culture, and yet not really understand what those people from long ago were talking about. We live in a multi-cultural society, and for these "Christians" to spout such nonsense shows they not only don't care about those differences, but they are dismissive as well.

This isn't going to get far. I just don't see what the big deal is, but it does upset me, and I'm trying to deal with that.

Metta, Rjaye

It's amazing whenever someone speaks of the gay gene. If people were more brilliant they would soon realize that a lot of the so called gays and lesbians are intersexed aka hermaphrodites. There was a mutation or imbalance of hormones in the womb, often because of problems with the mother's body, though sometimes environmentally induced. If more gays and lesbians where geneotyped and tested this would become apparent. You can't be a straight man when your DNA and hormones spell out that you are XX female or vice versa. Same with hormones- why would you think someone is female when they have the testosterone level of a normal, healthy male? If a baby has a teste is it male or female? If baby has no testes is it male or female? It gets very complicated now doesn't it? There are people with either of these conditions that have been labeled or perhaps mislabeled as male or female basically at mercy of the dr that delivered them and labeled them. An OB once told me she has delivered thousands of newborns and knows for certain there are 5 sexes.

The Baptists will always find something to fight over though. Their dogma is HATRED of anyone different or anyone not Baptist. I was forced to attend Baptist churches as a child and at 4 yrs old was wise enough to see threw their lies how they sing Jesus loves all the little children of the world, but the Baptist Jesus hates all children who aren't Baptist bigots. Many Baptists are actually serving the devil through their hatred.

I toast to thee.

In response to Juggernaut
=====================
Homosexuality is a natural response to overpopulation or severe gender number discrepancy. As the problem grows the rate of homosexuality among both males and females rises exponentially in response. Five out of nine male dogs in the USA are homosexual.

And besides, your religion is not universally followed and therefore you have no moral supremacy.

While I don't quite agree with everything you've posted here, I do agree with the fact that intersexuality is way more common that people realize. Where do these people stand in the scheme of restrictive, arbitrary mores? If they are both or some mixture (which we all are--male/female is a spectrum as well), how are they to be treated?

I mean, if everything functions on their body, but they are both sexes, or neither, then aren't they whole? I am against any sexual reassignment surgery for intersexed infants-I'm only for those limited surgeries to establish bladder/G.I. function in those with malformation in those organs. The reason--usually the unique genitalia is functional--it just doesn't fit in with cultural expectations.

I am against any surgery that intends to [italics]re-[/italics]assign body identity to a minor. Such a thing should only be decided by the individual. As hard as it could be on a family, sexual reassignment surgery is invasive, full of serious risks, and impacts sexual sensation. Besides, such surgery is more successful when the person is mature.

Just because we may be uncomfortable with intersexuality, doesn't mean there's something pathological with it. It may just show something pathological about us.

Metta, Rjaye

hear, hear! I was wondering who was gonna draw that comparison to people with Asperger's Syndrome and other "Disorders"

Merle

______________________________
"There's no shame in being a social pariah!"
Marge Simpson

It's like saying "Hey God, you made a mistake here with those 'gay/AS/MS/OCD' genes in this baby so we are gonna improve on your creation!"

sheesh, the arrogance!

Merle