eugenics and fundies



Next time some foaming fundie nutter blithers to you about evolution
and "eugenics", lay this one on him:



http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891


Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do
Something About It?

Posted: Friday, March 02, 2007 at 3:40 am ET

What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be
sexually attracted to other boys? Beyond that, what if hormonal
treatments could change the baby's orientation to heterosexual? Would
you do it? Some scientists believe that such developments are just
around the corner.

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.

The most interesting research along these lines relates to the study
of sheep. Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are
conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through
"sexual partner preference testing." As William Saletan at Slate.com
explains:

A bare majority of rams turn out to be heterosexual. One in five
swings both ways. About 15 percent are asexual, and 7 percent to 10
percent are gay.

Why so many gay rams? Is it too much socializing with ewes? Same-sex
play with other lambs? Domestication? Nope. Those theories have been
debunked. Gay rams don't act girly. They're just as gay in the wild.
And a crucial part of their brains--the "sexually dimorphic nucleus"--
looks more like a ewe's than like a straight ram's. Gay men have a
similar brain resemblance to women. Charles Roselli, the project's
lead scientist, says such research "strongly suggests that sexual
preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in
humans."

What makes the sheep "sexual partner preference testing" research so
interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather
surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change
the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a
biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery
of a "cure" for the same phenomenon.

That's where the issue gets really interesting. People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals [PETA] has called for an end to the research,
while tennis star Martina Navratilova called the research "homophobic
and cruel" and argued that gay sheep have a "right" to be homosexual.
No kidding.

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.

Tyler Gray addresses these issues in the current issue of Radar
magazine. In "Is Your Baby Gay?," Gray sets out a fascinating
scenario. A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman
and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of
homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about
their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her
abdomen will "reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his
chromosomes." The Sunday Times [London] predicts that such a patch
should be available for use on humans within the decade. Will she use
it?

This question stands at the intersection of so many competing
interests. Feminists and political liberals have argued for decades
now that a woman should have an unrestricted right to an abortion, for
any cause or for no stated cause at all. How can they now complain if
women decide to abort fetuses identified as homosexual? This question
involves both abortion and gay rights -- the perfect moral storm of
our times.

Homosexual activists have claimed that sexual orientation cannot be
changed. What if a hormone patch during pregnancy will do the job?

As Gray suggests:

In a culture that encourages us to customize everything from our Nikes
to our venti skinny lattes, perhaps it is only a matter of time before
baby-making becomes just another consumer transaction. Already have a
girl? Make this one a boy! Want to impress your boho friends? Make a
real statement with lesbian twins!

More to the point, Gray understands that such a development would
reshape the abortion and gay-rights debates in America:

Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to
ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child
outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy (assuming the
stigma on homosexuality survives the scientific refutation of the
Right's treasured belief that it is a "lifestyle choice.") Pro-choice
activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their
hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a
little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal
abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are
choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?

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?

Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms
should think carefully about these points:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof
that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this
direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other
animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological
causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of
great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of
why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.

6. 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.

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons,
born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight
against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as
homosexual in orientation.

8. 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.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral
choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that
does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation.
We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and
attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even
generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely
responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-
called sexual orientation.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can
never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must
insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of
all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to
at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender
identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral
verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but
it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and
its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who
struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge
should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the
greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.



(For those who might not know, Rev Albert Mohler is the President of
the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky.)



================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"


Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Way OT: What? (was Re: John "Enforcer" Williams - Declaration!)
    ... forget what it is like to be a kid. ... madman, or become gay. ... Then you don't know much about homosexuality. ... person's sexual orientation simply does not hold water. ...
    (misc.fitness.weights)
  • Re: Miss California upheld
    ... People in the gay community have thought of this, ... don't think about implications). ... would proof of a genetic basis for homosexuality make it more ... which still continues as to what determines sexual orientation - ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: OT Marriage lunacy revealed
    ... You do know about the X and Y chromosomes don't you? ... If the zygote ends up with 2 X chromosomes the baby will be a girl. ... At a point in the gestation process there has to be a release of certain hormones by the mother for not only the sexual orientation but for the development of the sexual organs. ... Homosexuality is very rarely a choice but there are cases where a misdirected youth can be persuaded that he/she is a homosexual. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT Marriage lunacy revealed
    ... You do know about the X and Y chromosomes don't you? ... If the zygote ends up with 2 X chromosomes the baby will be a girl. ... But the development of the sexual orientation does not stop there. ... of the inclination toward homosexuality. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT: Freedom of Speech outside US?
    ... In one of them you have someone who acknowledges that gays were persecuted but states that the Nazi leaders were gay. ... it sounds eeerily like the ministers who preach against homosexuality and then are discovered to have had gay liaisons. ... You say that sexual orientation isn't important, yet you still keep trying to paint the gay community with that broad brush. ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)