Sunday, March 18, 2007

Baptist Leader Concedes Homosexuality is Inborn, But Still Thinks It's a Sin


The Rev. Albert Mohler Jr. president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky, has drawn criticism from both the right and the left for an article he wrote earlier this month about the nature of homosexuality. Mohler stated that scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality. He also went on to say that even though homosexuality is likely biologically caused and not a choice, that parents should consider seeking prenatal treatment that would reverse homosexual sexual orientation, if such a treatment is made possible in the future.

In other words, he's acknowledging that homosexuality is inborn, and not a choice, but he still thinks it's a sin, anyway. It's a retread of the same ol' tired argument from some Christians who think they're tolerant when they assert that they don't think being gay is a sin, provided that the gay person will abstain from having sex for the rest of their lives.

Religious conservatives criticized Mohler's attitude because they believe that homosexuality is a sinful free choice that must be eradicated through prayer and counseling.

Liberals took a dim view of his insistence that homosexuality is still a sin, even though he concedes that it's biologically based. "He's willing to play God," said Harry Knox, from the Human Rights Campaign.

"What bothers me is the hypocrisy," said Jennifer Chrisler, of Family Pride, a group that supports gay and lesbian families. "In one breath, they say the sanctity of an unborn life is unconditional, and in the next breath, it's OK to perform medical treatments on them because of their own moral convictions, not because there's anything wrong with the child."

I agree. One's sexual orientation, be it gay, straight, or bisexual isn't a sin. Tampering with the DNA of a healthy unborn child for the sole purposing of changing sexual orientation, however, is what is immoral and a sin in my book.

Thoughts?

No comments: