Now on ScienceBlogs: The significance of 2/13

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Omni Brain

An exploration of the serious/fun/ridiculous - past/present/future of the brain and the science that loves it.

The Homunculus

steve_icon_medium.jpgSteve Higgins is sometimes a Psychologist, sometimes a Neuroscientist, and sometimes even a Human Factors Engineer. He works for the U.S. Government. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois in Psychology.

Search

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogroll


Bloggers' Rights at EFF


Openlab 2007


Glial Cells

Access Omni Brain mobile here.

Access Omni Brain email here.

Axons

« Multimedia Friday | 03/16/2007 | Main | Neuro cartoons for while I'm away »

Baptists suggest that homosexuality may be biological.

Category: BiologyPolicy & PoliticsPsychiatryPsychologyReligion
Posted on: March 16, 2007 9:29 AM, by The Omnibrain

202550026_25bd2e2790.jpgIt sounds good doesn't it?! Just read a bit further until you realize what they're actually saying...

The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has suggested 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., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and one of the country's evangelical leaders, posted the article on his personal Web site earlier this month.

Mr. Mohler said in the article that scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality.

That suggestion offended fellow conservatives, Mr. Mohler said. 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.

I wonder how they intend on treating this 'disorder' prenatally. They do realize that that whole turning gay sheep straight story from a month or two ago was totally misdirected right? Perhaps they will be funding some animal research and then PETA can get mad at them and then gay rights groups can get mad at both of them. This is going to end really well :P

Here's the NYT article

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/35774

Comments

1

Despite the not-unexpected twist, the real significance of this story is that the facts about homosexuality are slowly leaking into the insulated world of the fundamentalists.

Posted by: Mark | March 16, 2007 10:10 AM

2

Lobotomy?

Posted by: Ryan Fox | March 16, 2007 10:22 AM

3

As soon as a gay is identified (age 12? age 20? ) they'll have to go back in time to the neonatal stage.

Then they'll change things. How? The power of prayer! Ta-da! They will cast spells on the fetus, and perhaps, the womb, maybe the umbilical cord, just to be safe.

Then they use the time machine to return to the present where they can gloat over their success.

I'm surprised you didn't figure this out yourself.

Posted by: Roy | March 16, 2007 10:54 AM

4

Wait till they see the NEW study which identifies ALL southern baptists as being outwardly or intrinsically gay. I suspect they will then approach things differently.

I think the study would be out already, but Pator Ted Haggard and Mark Foley have been sittting on it...


Posted by: J-Dog | March 16, 2007 11:34 AM

5

So if they want to treat it as a medical condition, that raises the question of why God would allow something that he disapproves of to happen in such a widespread manner . . .

Posted by: DragonScholar | March 16, 2007 12:55 PM

6

Soooo, it's okay to tamper with foetuses when we're trying to make them not-gay? Wouldn't that be interfering with the will of god? I wouldn't wanna be one of those Baptists now.

I wonder when they'll come out in favour of embryonic stem-cell research to help insure a supply of not-gay material.

Jesus' General had a nice link on this.

Posted by: Metro | March 16, 2007 2:59 PM

7

I'm not surprised at this move. I've long thought that the approach of justifying homosexuality in terms of biology, the "we're born that way" strategy, risked just this kind of response. After all, we engage in various pre-conception and pre-natal treatments to avoid various kinds of "natural" conditions, such as spina bifida, so why not homosexuality? Plenty of things can be biological and yet undesirable.

The biological claim, while it appeals to fairness ("they just can't help it") is implicitly apologetic ("they just can't help that they act disgustingly and against God's will"). It's always seemed to me that a much more honest and ultimately successful approach is to fight the bias and stigma directly ("what I do with my own life is none of your goddamned business"), rather than resort to apology ("I was forced by nature to be queer").

Posted by: Tulse | March 16, 2007 3:58 PM

8

You're right, Tulse. We should be fighting intolerance directly. Just bear in mind that those who feel that gays and lesbians are "unnatural" have the Bible to draw upon to justify their beliefs (even though there is no mention of female homosexuality in the Bible, but whatever). By claiming that being gay is a "choice", they can them accuse gay men of trying to "recruit" children to their unholy lifestyle. There is also an active ex-gay movement, as well as numerous therapists who boast success in "curing" homosexuality. It's no coincidence that intervention is occurring at younger ages with parents placing their kids in reeducation camps designed to make them more heterosexual. So long as this industry is there with yahoos like James Dobson supporting it, children trying to come to terms with their sexual orientation face an uphill battle.

Posted by: Romeo Vitelli | March 18, 2007 8:22 PM

9

ya'll,

Jay-zus just wonts us ta be reg-lar. just kidding...Southern Baptists are FUCKING morons.

Posted by: c | April 14, 2007 5:23 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.