Homosexuality Still A Sin

It was naivete, I suppose, that led me to believe that radical religious intolerance to homosexuality would wane in the face of mounting scientific evidence that it's biological and not chosen.

Au contraire, mon frer. It appears they will embrace their homophobia all the more tightly despite science and even logic. But, perhaps there's hope -- centuries later, the church did apologize to Galileo.

I'm referring to a blog post by the Rev. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and leader if the Southern Baptist Convention titled, "Is Your Baby Gay?"

Mohler provides a thought experiment -- if gayness is biologically based and you could apply a hormone patch or some such to reverse your baby's latent fabulousness, is it moral to do so.

Yes, he argues:

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.

To his viewpoint, a biological cause to homosexuality is linked to the fall or man and homosexuality is but a temptation -- a temptation even if biologically ordered that must be resisted.:

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.

Let's summarize: Science seems to suggest that a person's sexuality is biologically based, one of many gene and chromosome pairings that comes with height and whether a person will have blue eyes. But while eye color is not a sin, sexual orientation is.

Why the distinction?

To be sure, sexuality is more complex and fundamental than eye color. Though both may derive from the gene pool, one is trivial and one is not. Testimony: Since adolescence, I knew that my personal, physical emotional and spiritual well being was centered on a pairing with another male, just as for most of my counterparts it was centered on the opposite sex.

At the time, I accepted society's judgement that my feelings were "unnatural" and this led to much unhappiness and inner turmoil -- not because of my feelings for men, but because of society's reaction to them.

Now we know that such "feelings" are genetic and a religious leader like Mohler is conceding the case. But it's still a sin.

I don't understand how a just God could allow a person to be created to then be condemned by his or her maker for being who they are naturally. "I create you to condemn you." What kind of God is that?

Homosexuality is not by nature destructive. It is neither moral or immoral. It is a simple fact of nature. It merely is. How people treat each other, what sort of lives they lead are the true measures of character and morality. I have been truly blessed by love and happiness because of my long-term homosexual relationship. It has been a source for good in my life. The negative baggage I've had to deal with has come from without, not from within.

The radical, homophobic right will not see this no matter what the science because they refuse to see gay people as leading rich, productive, good lives. All they see is a sex act they can't understand.

Their myopia's tragically sad.