Recent arguments for and against recognizing homosexual ordination have become a double-edged sword in the realm of science that end up undercutting both sides of the theological debate. One side supports the allowance for homosexual ordination on the basis of genetics. As George Hunsinger has argued, if the Apostle Paul had known about modern medical findings that homosexuality is not a voluntary choice but essentially a genetic predisposition, the apostle would most likely not have considered homosexuality to be a sin. The other side has rejected the possibility of a gay gene based on the same assumption that choice is foundational to any definition of sin. As John MacArthur has stated:
LARRY KING: Even if you didn’t choose it, even if it was shown to you that it was genes? No? You wouldn’t buy it.
JOHN MACARTHUR: It’s not genetic, you choose it.
KING: How do you know?
MACARTHUR: Because it’s a sin. It’s categorized by God himself.
KING: So you have an answer that medical science doesn’t know? Still being studied?
MACARTHUR: If medical science says it’s genetic, then they need to read what the scripture says.
But what if science not only found a gay gene but could “correct” it in utero and make the gay fetus straight? Hunsinger’s hypothetical fails to consider this possibility and thus fails to ask the deeper question: if the Apostle Paul knew about modern medical ways of changing sexual orientation, would he have affirmed using them to make gays straight? MacArthur’s rejection of the possibility of a gay gene because that would contradict his interpretation of Scripture reminds one of the Roman Catholic censure of Galileo’s findings which had run contrary to the Church’s understanding of an earth-centered universe “according to Scripture.” Besides undermining Scripture’s credibility, MacArthur’s blind devotion to Scripture rejects out of hand the possibility of science to do what he would presumably find Scripture in favor of doing.
Does this mean that you think the apostle *would* be in favor of preselecting gays out of the gene pool through a kind of eugenics program?
This is a very hard question. A few months ago, the NY Times did a special on Downs syndrome families in light of recent scientific findings of a DS gene. The parents of DS children were afraid that their kids would no longer have a DS community (which would mean less government funding, less emotional support from other DS people) because science will have essentially “corrected” the DS gene or preselected it out of existence. Of course, this begs the question whether a gay gene is equivalent to the DS gene. When I hear homosexuals say (usually in response to fundamentalist Christian attacks), “Why would I want to choose this lifestyle when it brings so much heartache to my family and so much discrimination against me?!”, I get the impression that given the opportunity from science to no longer be gay at the biological level they would take it. At the same time, I also get the sense that many homosexuals would not take up this opportunity, even when given a choice that they previously lamented they did not have.
First off, I didn’t understand how Catholics could so blatantly deny scientific facts . . . that is until i heard MacArthur firsthand illustrate the kind of ignorant mind that just can’t handle the truth, no matter how many undeniable proofs are laid befor their eyes. Unbelievable. anyways, gays definitely have got a huge . . . huge problem on their hands with eugenics. it really is ironic since they spent so much time trying to prove the genetic basis for their gayness…. now, it’s that genetic basis that threatens them with extinction as a people.
Jeez, this all sounds so familiar. Let me think. Ah, yes! Eugenics was first popularized by the Nazis. What great company you all are in.
Jacob – Abuse (a la the Nazis) does not require its disuse (a la Jacob); it only cautions against misuse. Otherwise, you would have to be against a whole host of things (e.g., nuclear energy; prisons).
KT, good point. But you have to admit, the thought of wiping out an entire community through genetic pre-selection does sound Nazi-like.
An interesting discussion but the whole “Gay Gene” debate misses the point, if homosexuality is a sin, motives are irrelevant. By nature I, a strait male, struggle with the temptation to cheat on my wife because of my genes, but few would argue that this would not be a sin. I also want to maim those who anger me, but but my natural response only demonstrates my fallenness and need for a savior; not a debate about what the cause for my actions is. As far as homosexuality goes I agree with what MacArthur talked about in the interview that was not in the quote, and that is what is more important than what the individual sin is, is the presences of repentance and the individuals response to the sin of homosexuality. Unfortunately, like most sins if the majority doesnt struggle with it its much more comfortable for individuals who make up the majority in the church to point fingers while ignoring the common and equally damming sins, such as adultery and pornography.