The culture wars against homosexuality are failing, most notably with younger demographics. So what’s an evangelical pastor to do? Switch tactics. Claim homosexuality is biological. Put the blame Adam and Eve (heck, why not?) and suggest curing homosexuality in the womb with an infusion of hormones.
Oh, yes, he did.
From The Seeker, the Chicago Tribune’s blog on religion:
Earlier this month, [Rev. Albert Mohler Jr.], president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, acknowledged that homosexuality might be biological, adding it should come as no surprise.
“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,” Mohler wrote on his blog. “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.”
Citing scientists who claim they can change the sexual preference of lambs before they’re born, he challenged his flock to imagine the possibilities of detecting homosexuality in the womb and a hormone patch that could change it.
Conservatives cringed at Mohler’s suggestion that babies might be born with a sexual orientation, a significant departure from the church’s teachings. Meanwhile gay rights activists bristled at Mohler’s relentless quest for a “cure.”
You know, we can’t say we’re all that shocked by the reverend’s ignorant suggestions. But more disappointing is that Chicago Tribune chose to make his intentionally provocative comments the basis of an online poll that asks, “If you could know your baby is gay before birth, and hormone treatments were available to change the orientation, would you use them?” Followed by: “Do you think it is morally justifiable for others to use such treatment?”
What if the reverend had suggested being born black was a curse? Or a type of disability? Would the Trib have parroted that language? Why is it OK to treat homosexuality as though it were a genetic disease?
The comments that follow are the predictable back-and-forth about the origins of homosexuality, what the bible supposedly says, etc. There are some who think being gay is just so god-awful that the patch would be a blessing.
“If such a test and treatment was possible I would absolutely take advantage. Why would anyone want other than the best for their child? Being born gay may not be a ‘sin’, but why force someone to deal with the difficulties that would certainly arise? If science is showing a way to identify the spcecific [sic] gene that makes someone gay then a method to remedy this is not far off – and I say that’s a very good thing,” wrote Jon, who added he’s expecting a son in May (editor’s note: Hey, good luck!).
There are also plenty of comments from readers who find the whole issue offensive.
“Could you also post a poll to survey the public about whether any of us would choose to cure offspring of being straight? That only seems fair!” wrote David Greene.
Or, as AL simply noted, “Too bad there isn’t a patch for intolerance.”