Joe Carter has done a fine job of explaining the consequences of a biological cure for homosexuality. This is an issue that I have talked about before, and have gotten some rather heated comments in response to suggesting that it ought to be cured if there is a way to change sexual orientation genetically.
Until I read Joe's post, it hadn't occurred to me that there might be a significant opposition from religious conservatives to a biological cure for homosexuality. It would seem that they are afraid that reducing homosexuality to a "mere" mental disorder is somehow taking away individuality responsibility for sin. That is beside the fact that the manifestation of sin is often biological in some way. I see to recall there being some mention about physical death being the result of sin, so why couldn't there be a feedback cycle between sin and mental disorders?
You remove homosexuality as a temptation by curing the "gay gene" and what do you have left? A sinner. People are born sinful, all you would be doing is taking away on particularly problematic area from that person's life. Anyone who has struggled with sexual sin, like most men have, knows that the real reason that sexual sin is so much worse is not really morality, but the depth that it can cut into you.
As Joe pointed out, there are in fact many cases where otherwise heterosexual men engage in homosexual sex. Curing a natural inclination would in fact force greater accountability because each act would be an incontrovertibly deviant act. Literally deviant, in the sense that they would be deviating from their own biological drives to something that is unnatural for their biology to desire. Homosexuality is unnatural from God's perspective, but it is not unnatural from the perspective of someone born homosexual, as it is their nature to seek that sort of sex. Take that away, and well, it becomes a purely unnatural act for them.
What is so quaint about the appeals to biological determinism is that human physiology can be rewired. The cowards who hide behind it are in essence arguing that what it means to be human is static, which it demonstrably is not. Factors from microevolution (intra-species evolution) to spiritual salvation prove that it is not, and genetic engineering ups the ante greatly.
Others:
Danny Carlton has an interesting idea about some of this. He raises the possibility that a significant amount of the pull for some people may be the sense of community that is provided by being a member of the "homosexual community." That does make sense, especially when you consider the fact that there are otherwise straight women who will experiment with bisexuality in order to impress men, among other things.
Leave a comment