Discussion:
Rev. Albert Mohler Jr. on gay eugenics
(too old to reply)
shegeek72
2007-04-05 03:13:30 UTC
Permalink
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/7125.article

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.

[...]

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?

[...]

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?
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarafoundation.org
Matthew Johnson
2007-04-09 01:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/7125.article
What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be
sexually attracted to other boys?
Here, as often, a hypothetical question is used to introduce a line of
fallacious.
Post by shegeek72
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.
Some scientists believe some very strange things.Look, for example, at
the very strange opinions of the scientists who got PhDs from
respectable institutions who now churn out anti-scientific nonsense
for the so-called "Institute for Creation Research".

Or consider the example of Dr. Linus Pauling, who was a real
scientist, made outstanding achievements in chemistry, for which he
well-deserved the Nobel Prize he got; yet he devoted years of his life
to pseudo-science in support of the theory that vitamin C could cure
just about anything -- despite the mounting evidence that it could not
even cure/prevent the common cold, which was the linch-pin of his
theory.

So that "some scientists" believe this or that is no excuse for using
their irrational opinions to introduce a whole line of fallacious
reasoning -- as you so often do, and do in this post.
Post by shegeek72
For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or
hormonal cause of sexual orientation.
Well, so _what_ if "some scientists" do this? Some scientists are
still looking for a "fountain of youth", too. It doesn't make their
activity truly scientific. Nor does it make it right.
Post by shegeek72
Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found
And none will be found, because it is not genetically determined.
Post by shegeek72
-- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted
science.
Which contradicts the claims you have made so often in this NG. It it
about time you faced the truth.
Post by shegeek72
Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that
biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.
"Now claimed" by WHOM? Your use of the impersonal expression "it is
now claimed" is a famous technique of deception. Your use of it is no
exception.

This so called "body of evidence" is no more scientific than the
claptrap about alcoholism being genetic.

[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
zach
2007-04-09 01:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/7125.article
<snip>
Post by shegeek72
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 totally misses the obvious. In a society in which abortion choice
is accepted and even lauded, is there a moral issue in deciding to
abort such a baby? Does choosing to abort such fetuses constitute
preemptive genocide? More importantly, would you stand with the pro-
lifers with whom you may suddenly share common ground?
shegeek72
2007-04-10 01:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by zach
This totally misses the obvious. In a society in which abortion choice
is accepted and even lauded, is there a moral issue in deciding to
abort such a baby? Does choosing to abort such fetuses constitute
preemptive genocide? More importantly, would you stand with the pro-
lifers with whom you may suddenly share common ground?
This misses the point that many Christians have misinterpreted the
"homosexuality" in the Bible, which refers to homosexual rape and
prostitution. The Bible, particularly the OT, has to be looked at
through the lens of the customs and society that existed in those
times. Homosexual rape was used against enemies as a form of
humiliation; there was homosexual prostitution and man/boy pairing in
Greece.

There wouldn't even be a discussion on changing one's sexual
orientation in-vitro unless Christians had taken it upon themselves to
declare being gay "evil" (a ridiculous idea) or "immoral," thereby
negatively effecting or ruining thousands of gays' and lesbians'
lives.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarafoundation.org
Matthew Johnson
2007-04-11 02:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by zach
This totally misses the obvious. In a society in which abortion choice
is accepted and even lauded, is there a moral issue in deciding to
abort such a baby? Does choosing to abort such fetuses constitute
preemptive genocide? More importantly, would you stand with the pro-
lifers with whom you may suddenly share common ground?
This misses the point that many Christians have misinterpreted the
"homosexuality" in the Bible, which refers to homosexual rape and
prostitution.
No, that is not what it refers to. That is a popular, modern misreading, based
on intense theological bias.
Post by shegeek72
The Bible, particularly the OT, has to be looked at
through the lens of the customs and society that existed in those
times.
Which you _never_ do. Practice what you preach.

If you did do this, you would recognize that the "customs and society that
existed in those times" had an _intense_ hatred of any and all homosexual
activity, at least among Semites.
Post by shegeek72
Homosexual rape was used against enemies as a form of
humiliation;
True, but irrelevant.
Post by shegeek72
there was homosexual prostitution and man/boy pairing in
Greece.
Once more, true but irrelevant, except, of course, for the relevance you so
intensely ignore: both of these are forms of the homosexual activity that was
banned by the New Testament Law.

Ironic that you should bring the Greeks up as a witness, when they do not
support you. Not only do the Greek Fathers all agree that _all_ homosexual
activity is banned, but even Plato, in Book I of "Laws", condemns all of it --
despite what you think you read in earlier dialogues.

[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Loading...