Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Is your fetus gay?
March 8, 2007 1:40 PM   Subscribe

Is Your Baby Gay? Southern Baptist theologian Albert Mohler has come out to support stem cell research: If a biological basis [for homosexuality] 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.
posted by parmanparman (121 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
We can finally be done with this negro problem once and for all, too!
posted by interrobang at 1:45 PM on March 8, 2007


elle oh elle.
posted by The God Complex at 1:47 PM on March 8, 2007


we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation

Actually I think they are mandating the chemical castration of everyone.
posted by srboisvert at 1:47 PM on March 8, 2007


Head... hurting. Logic... failing! /Shatner

God micromanages biology in evolution, but we have to correct his mistake in "intelligently designing" homosexuality?

Castration would be a great way to avoid sexual temptation and sin, but I guess that's too creepy.
posted by CKmtl at 1:54 PM on March 8, 2007


Using biotech to ward off "unnatural", willfull, sinful behavior...

My head just assplode!
posted by LordSludge at 1:54 PM on March 8, 2007


"There's nothing to cure" - Ororo Munroe
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 1:56 PM on March 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


As a card-carrying homosexual, I look forward to the final solution to Will and Grace.
posted by serazin at 2:00 PM on March 8, 2007 [4 favorites]


I dunno. Honestly, if this means that more of our gay population will be born to parents who are capable of loving and accepting gay kids, I'm all for it.
posted by nebulawindphone at 2:00 PM on March 8, 2007


. . . And so we make the fatal leap from misguided legislations of morality to the totalitarian biological engineering of it.

Me - I'd like to build a time machine to travel back and rescue Jesus from the cross and put him in the witness relocation program, thus retroactively eliminating this particular stem of fuckwitted zealots who can't seem to jive with the essentials of what he really said at the sermon on the mount. "Blessed are the cheesemakers."
posted by isopraxis at 2:05 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


The irony will be when a test for homosexuality can be performed in utero, and xtian parents start aborting their gay children.
posted by mullingitover at 2:06 PM on March 8, 2007 [12 favorites]


Doesn't this mean we can just breed more gay?
posted by Nelson at 2:07 PM on March 8, 2007


...inevitable effects of sin

I must admit I'm captivated by this.

I mean, if it's bad teeth and gonorrhea, that's one thing, but if it's Lear Jets and a full dance card, well...
posted by mmrtnt at 2:09 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Even now, fundie nutjob scientists are hard at work on the development of nanobots equipped with tiny copies of Playboy to be injected into the amniotic fluid. Oops I've already said too much.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:10 PM on March 8, 2007


What about research with "gay" stem cell lines? Is that ok?
posted by bonehead at 2:10 PM on March 8, 2007


xtian: teh gay is a sin
SCIENCE!: it is not a sin it is the way some people are
xtian: not the way people are. it is a choice. choosing to be gay is a sin
SCIENCE!: we have evidence that it is an inborn trait not a choice
xtian: no it is a choice
SCIENCE!: here is the evidence
xtian: no. choice
SCIENCE!: it is an inborn trait. we may even be able to prevent it
xtian: a cure?
SCIENCE!: well... no. just it proves that it is not a choice if we can prevent it
xtian: give me the cure!!!111
SCIENCE!: but I thought it was a choice :) lol!
xtian: give it to me!
SCIENCE!: why do you want to cure it?
xtian: teh gay is a sin
SCIENCE!: *head asplodes*
posted by ND¢ at 2:13 PM on March 8, 2007 [44 favorites]


nanobots equipped with tiny copies of Playboyembryo. Or possibly "Barely Blastocyst"?
posted by CKmtl at 2:13 PM on March 8, 2007 [4 favorites]


Me - I'd like to build a time machine to travel back and rescue Jesus ...

I dunno, that didnt work so well for this time-travelling gender-confused individual.

Frivolity aside, all I can say is .... wow. Just .. wow.
posted by elendil71 at 2:16 PM on March 8, 2007


Playboyembryo

Female Blasocysts Gone Wild!
posted by mmrtnt at 2:18 PM on March 8, 2007


The treatment will involve stem cells, this man's head will explode trying to resolve the paradox, we'll all get on with our lives.
posted by boo_radley at 2:19 PM on March 8, 2007


St. Thomas Aquinas believed that all infants were Sinners.

That's why he's a saint.
posted by delmoi at 2:19 PM on March 8, 2007


we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

Does this mean these "religious" people support abortion of the detected gay embryos?

I'm just askin' . . . .
posted by birdhaus at 2:21 PM on March 8, 2007


In the post-Haggard world I imagine it's got to be a little harder for a dude like Mohler to pretend he doesn't have a folder called unusedfiles2003 buried on his hard drive that's jammed full of pictures of buff young dudes with monsterous hoses glazed donut faces.
posted by The Straightener at 2:21 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


birdhaus: addressed in the article.
posted by boo_radley at 2:22 PM on March 8, 2007


For the record, the article never mentions stem cell research -- which would have no real chance at changing genes -- but pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). The ethical issues involved in genetically engineering out (or in) certain sexual preferences are interesting, but this literally is "better dead than gay".
posted by ontic at 2:22 PM on March 8, 2007


"GAY"TTACA
posted by inconsequentialist at 2:24 PM on March 8, 2007 [3 favorites]


6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God.

Poor lonley li'l paragraph. Two sentences worth of coherent thought stranded in a sea of batshitinsanity.
posted by maryh at 2:25 PM on March 8, 2007 [7 favorites]


Nice summing-up, ND¢.
posted by adamrice at 2:26 PM on March 8, 2007


I tried to read the whole article, really I did....but blood started to shoot out my nose. I had to stop to clean off the monitor.

You know if they had a Holy Water and Chrism Patch, maybe we could get rid of original sin altogther. Wait! Nobody else use that idea, I'm going to be a millionaire...
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 2:27 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


serazin:

Where do you get the card anyway?
posted by Mister_A at 2:29 PM on March 8, 2007


I know it's been dealt with already, I know, but I must:

"If a biological basis [for homosexuality] is found,"

...then that means, under your own Biblical literalism, God created homosexuality, along with everything else under the sun, some 6,000 years ago. God made them that way Albert, you brain-addled simpleton.

Poor excuse for a theologian, if you ask me.

"The irony will be when a test for homosexuality can be performed in utero, and xtian parents start aborting their gay children."

Boy, you said it.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:29 PM on March 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


Tyrell: The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.

Roy: Why not?

Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.

Roy: What about EMS recombination.

Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfonate as an alkylating agent a potent mutagen It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.

Roy: Then a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells.

Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.

Roy: But not to last.
posted by kjs3 at 2:29 PM on March 8, 2007 [4 favorites]


You guys have cards?
posted by boo_radley at 2:30 PM on March 8, 2007


Metafilter: Buff young dudes with monsterous hoses glazed donut faces
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:31 PM on March 8, 2007


oooh.... maybe if we can identify the genetic marker that leads to the psychosis that causes belief in god we can cure that too!
posted by badstone at 2:32 PM on March 8, 2007


They could always abort. We have the technology.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:32 PM on March 8, 2007


You know, on the other hand, this isn't an easy position for the pro-choice folks to argue against, given that they tend to believe that embryos don't have rights and abortion is morally permissible for most reasons.

It's kind of like Mohler has made the ultimate unholy bargain: trading a traditional stand on the ethics of abortion for the possibility of limiting or eliminating homosexuality. Kind of fascinating to see how far hatred of homosexuality goes.
posted by ontic at 2:33 PM on March 8, 2007


You guys have cards?

We also have secret decoder rings.
posted by CKmtl at 2:35 PM on March 8, 2007


Mister_A and boo_radley,

You get the card after you recruit five innocent heterosexuals into the gay folds (so to speak). It used to be just 1 conversion, but these days, everyone wants to be gay.
posted by serazin at 2:38 PM on March 8, 2007


...God made them that way Albert, you brain-addled simpleton.

You completely underestimate the miraculous fungibility of faith.
posted by mmrtnt at 2:38 PM on March 8, 2007


It's interesting to me that he keeps using the liberal mom as his example. What will the Liberals do, huh?! I get the impression he's not comfortable at all with exploring the implications of this from his own conservative Christian standpoint.
posted by maryh at 2:39 PM on March 8, 2007


Buff young dudes with monsterous hoses glazed donut faces

Sounds like a counterpoint to Burroughs' "decent churchgoing women with their mean pinched bitter evil faces."
posted by brundlefly at 2:40 PM on March 8, 2007


...everyone wants to be gay

I like to tell people I'm a lesbian stuck in a man's body.
posted by mmrtnt at 2:41 PM on March 8, 2007


I wonder if dude knows that if we can change sexual orientation then we'll for damned sure be able to make the kids smart enough to not be brainwashable sheep for the religious movement to herd around.

CKmtl, are they secret decoder cock rings? Because that would be cool!
posted by fenriq at 2:41 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


You know, on the other hand, this isn't an easy position for the pro-choice folks to argue against

I doubt pro-choice people would want or try to argue against it.

given that they tend to believe that embryos don't have rights and abortion is morally permissible for most reasons.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that certain reasons are beyond ridicule.
posted by brundlefly at 2:44 PM on March 8, 2007


But if you think about this rationally it makes a lot of sense. This could finally put an end to the Global Warming of heterosexuals; unjust war against heterosexuals for money and oil; the wrongful incarceration of innocent heterosexual people in prison camps; straight world hunger; gender inequality (of male heterosexuals); and terrorism.
posted by Elmore at 2:45 PM on March 8, 2007


We also have secret decoder rings.

I sure am out of the loop. No wonder no one responds to my well-positioned hankies anymore.
posted by treepour at 2:47 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Bad as this idea is, he's EXPLICITLY not interested in abortion:
7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.
posted by boo_radley at 2:50 PM on March 8, 2007


Which leads to the question...

Are they actively searching for the whack-job, fundamentalist Preimplantation thingie?

Or is it just that no sheep are afflicted with this?
posted by mmrtnt at 2:51 PM on March 8, 2007


All we have are semaphore flags. :(
posted by boo_radley at 2:53 PM on March 8, 2007


Does the pro-choice crowd have reasons against altering a fetusses' sexual orientation in utero?
posted by inconsequentialist at 2:55 PM on March 8, 2007


inconsequentialist: Yes. Eugenics has a long, brutal history behind it, and to engage in the practice for purely behavioral reasons is intolerable.
posted by boo_radley at 2:57 PM on March 8, 2007


This whole thing is so incredibly unscientific.

I mean, it's obvious that the reason so many men are gay nowadays is because of their moms listening to disco back in the '70's and '80's.

Sheesh.
posted by mmrtnt at 3:00 PM on March 8, 2007


In the post-Haggard world I imagine it's got to be a little harder for a dude like Mohler to pretend he doesn't have a folder called unusedfiles2003 buried on his hard drive that's jammed full of pictures of buff young dudes with monsterous hoses glazed donut faces.

Well the right-wingers have another Jeff Gannon/James Guckert to deal with this week!

Matt Sanchez -- Jeff Gannon Redux
"U.S. Marine reservist Matt Sanchez was given an Academic Freedom Award at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, where Ann Coulter hurled her 'faggot' slur against Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. Sanchez, who attends Columbia University, also recently appeared on conservative talk shows where he criticized 'radical anti-military students' he met during campus recruiting. Reports have since surfaced that Sanchez has allegedly worked as a gay porn star [and prostitute], prompting silence from his (now former) right-wing cheerleaders and charges of hypocrisy lobbed at Sanchez by gay bloggers."
Photo: Matt Sanchez with Ann Coulter
posted by ericb at 3:03 PM on March 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


inconsequentialist: Yes. Eugenics has a long, brutal history behind it, and to engage in the practice for purely behavioral reasons is intolerable.

Yeah, this seems right and really what's at issue in the article. The author seems more open to the idea that homosexuality has a biological basis than most Christians so I don't see why people want to attack him on that point. If he grants that, then the issue really becomes about the ethics of eugenics rather than about homosexuality and abortion per se.

Again, "GAY"TTACA.
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:05 PM on March 8, 2007


Yes, quite. Mimosas on the veranda, then?
posted by boo_radley at 3:07 PM on March 8, 2007


This question involves both abortion and gay rights -- the perfect moral storm of our times.

*looks at photos of iraq war, wonders where this person has been*
posted by pyramid termite at 3:07 PM on March 8, 2007


If only technology could provide a way to deal with the perfidious jew.
posted by 2sheets at 3:11 PM on March 8, 2007


wonders where this person has been

He's been obsessing about other peoples sex lives, which should tell you most of the story right there.

Seriously, why do people spend so much time obsessing over what other consenting adults do with their genitalia? That's more perverted than anything I can think of.

(except of course that long discourse on rams..um, ramming. I know it's SCIENCE!, but sheesh..)
posted by jonmc at 3:13 PM on March 8, 2007


You get the card after you recruit five innocent heterosexuals into the gay folds (so to speak). It used to be just 1 conversion, but these days, everyone wants to be gay.

And for every 100 converted you earn a free Prada, Gucci or Armani gift card ($1,000 value).
posted by ericb at 3:13 PM on March 8, 2007



You guys have cards?

We also have secret decoder rings.


and they look faaabulous. (Biexuals just get belt buckles).
posted by jonmc at 3:17 PM on March 8, 2007


Bisexual. I'm not sure what a Biexual is, sounds like a vaguely sinister political party.
posted by jonmc at 3:19 PM on March 8, 2007


ericb - the lesbians have been clamoring for a more socially concious prize at the 100 conversion mark - we're thinking something like shade-grown, organic, hemp, bags made by a women's collective in Guatamala. (Actually, by the time I finished writing that I realized how hopelessly out-of-date I am in this post-L Word-world.)
posted by serazin at 3:22 PM on March 8, 2007


From the linked-to op-ed piece: "Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments."

When I was a "homosexual activist" that's what I said, and that remains my position."Science" is also "socially constructed," and Science did not learn about the causes of spina bifida and yellow fever to make Society more accepting of them. Indeed, we don't need Science to accomplish social acceptance any more than we needed Science to "cure" society's habit of burning Jews and witches.

Try this: "Why ask why? Get used to it."
posted by davy at 3:24 PM on March 8, 2007


inconsequentialist: The author seems more open to the idea that homosexuality has a biological basis than most Christians so I don't see why people want to attack him on that point.

Yes, but he goes on to say that a biological basis is:

a) either completely irrelevant to the dirty, vile, sin so let's carry on the status quo [points 3, 4, 9, 10]; or

b) a gift from science because it gives them a new angle by which to preach against / try to eliminate homosexuality. [points 5 and 8]

I had no intention of actually reading the article (didn't want to grace it with a hit), but I'm kind of glad I did. Aside from the extra calories I burnt off by grinding my teeth, the guy's s method of sneaking around Intelligent Design of Homosexuality was good for a laugh. God didn't design the "gay gene", the shock of falling from grace and out of eden was enough to hammer homosexuality into the genome.

fenriq: CKmtl, are they secret decoder cock rings? Because that would be cool!

I've said too much. I musn't say more, or Carson Kressley will have my head.
posted by CKmtl at 3:36 PM on March 8, 2007


I am bookmarking this article to send to idiots who like to say "Well, perhaps you simply don't know any Baptists. They are good, decent, god fearing people. They're not unreasonable fanatics. They suffer from a host of negative portrayal. You just believe in some crude stereotype about evangelical Christians." etc.

(You know, never them mind that I grew up in a town in Alabama with 1200 people in it during the 60s, 70s and 80s, and that I spent up until I was 20 or so every Sunday in a Baptist church, because that has NO bearing whatsoever.)

Plain and simple: this guy is a big ol' jerk ass. The kind that makes what little hope for humanity I have getting even more fragile and tiny.
posted by smallerdemon at 3:39 PM on March 8, 2007


Fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb are aborted 9 out of 10 times.

I wonder what the ratio would be for homosexual fetuses.
posted by chlorus at 3:41 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Why would roosters wear jewelry?
posted by davy at 3:42 PM on March 8, 2007


Jonmc - Biexual refers to the obligatory twice yearly (for some, only once every two years) accidental meeting with your divorced other at a time when you are trying to impress your soon to be other.
posted by Elmore at 3:43 PM on March 8, 2007


Yes, but he goes on to say that a biological basis is:

a) either completely irrelevant to the dirty, vile, sin so let's carry on the status quo [points 3, 4, 9, 10]; or

b) a gift from science because it gives them a new angle by which to preach against / try to eliminate homosexuality. [points 5 and 8]



Sure, but if we set aside (a) for the moment and think just about (b), then the way to attack him isn't to argue that homosexuality has a biological basis. The way to attack his position would be to argue against eugenic practices in general. That's all I'm really getting at there.
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:43 PM on March 8, 2007


I'm officially requesting that Science find the gene that causes people listen to bad music.
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:45 PM on March 8, 2007


We can finally be done with this negro problem once and for all, too!

But then what would white women do for sex?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:46 PM on March 8, 2007 [5 favorites]


If a biological basis [for nutty xians] is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the psycho orientation to (something like) sanity is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid stupid, theology-based temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.
posted by doctor_negative at 3:47 PM on March 8, 2007


"...the guy's s method of sneaking around Intelligent Design of Homosexuality was good for a laugh. God didn't design the "gay gene", the shock of falling from grace and out of eden was enough to hammer homosexuality into the genome."

*blinks*

Wow.

That's not just a cognitive backflip, this guy just won triple gold medals in the Olympics of Mental Gymnastics. In a nice blue leotard with one of those streamer-stick things, too, probably.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:47 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


If a biological basis [for nutty xians] is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the psycho orientation to (something like) sanity is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid stupid, theology-based temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

This post of mine might be of some assistance.
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:51 PM on March 8, 2007


... to avoid ... the inevitable effects of sin.

Way to attempt to avoid the inevitable!
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:54 PM on March 8, 2007


Okay, before everyone gets upset, realistically stem cell research is in its infancy, is very time-consuming, it is technical, and it requires a great investment of R&D dollars, on the scale made possible only by an industrialized nation with a large GDP, or perhaps a multinational pharmaceutical corporation.

This leaves two possibilities, research-wise:

• We live under a Handmaid's Tale-like government which funnels billions of research dollars to NIH to research stem-cell technologies to identify and then destroy or mutate gay or bisexual fetuses

• Big Pharma gets into the spirit of things and thinks there is a market for the same

Neither of these two possibilities seem remotely possible within the next 20 years. Granted, Bush believes in Jebus, but thankfully we're still a-ways-away from a Sharia-like federal government. My fingers are crossed, anyway.

In all likelihood, researchers will soon find and verify genetic markers indicating a predisposition for sexual persuasion. The only option at that juncture is for Christians to either abort their gay fetuses or give their children up for adoption.

Given their hate-filled agenda, they'll be too busy to put their money where their mouth is and, as usual, won't put any resources into adoption. Finally, they will cave in on the abortion issue in the name of sexual purity, at last permitting all of us to live in a pro-choice society.

Granted, some gay fetuses may never grow up to be fabulous children and adults, but in time the Christian master race will hate itself into sterility. I say we give them the choice to make themselves extinct.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:59 PM on March 8, 2007


This was already tried in Maine two years ago.
posted by JanetLand at 4:06 PM on March 8, 2007


zoogleplex: That's not just a cognitive backflip, this guy just won triple gold medals in the Olympics of Mental Gymnastics. In a nice blue leotard with one of those streamer-stick things, too, probably.

Seriously. Puts both Kerri Strug and Nadia Comaneci to shame.

But now I can't get the notion of god kicking adam in the butt, and adam responding "Ohh... May I have another, sir?", out of my head.
posted by CKmtl at 4:10 PM on March 8, 2007


Taking the whole gay and god thing out of it, just what exactly is wrong with eugenics? If we can make somebody stronger, taller, healthier, then why shouldn't we? If parents prefer red hair then what's the difference between allowing them to select for that and allowing them to make their kid wear saddle shoes?
posted by willnot at 4:11 PM on March 8, 2007


But if God never makes mistakes, and God put in the gay gene, then aren't we playing God against God's will and wisdom when we alter that gene, which is a terrible sin that must be corrected...

*head explodes*
posted by Muddler at 4:12 PM on March 8, 2007


All over the world people are aborting female fetuses because they don't value little girls. Why should gay babies masses of cells enjoy any particular protection, if the parents don't happen to value little queers?

If, asking yourselves this, it suddenly occurs to some of you that maybe the "right to choose" is not absolute and unquestionable after all, but needs to be balanced against other important considerations, well, fuller politely covers yawn. I'm entirely used to seeing people drag themselves kicking and screaming around to my perspective--in the end.
posted by jfuller at 4:22 PM on March 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


This reinforces me belief that regardless of the actual "cause" of homosexuality, it is important to maintain that it is a choice, and that free people have the right to live as they choose as long as they don't cause harm.

Of course, the main obstacle to that is that these idiots think rubbing your private parts at all (forget where or on who) is a sin that needs to be eliminated.

My (political) argument against the biological basis of homosexuality has for a long time been that convincing anti-homosexual people of that will only make them look for a cure, and not lead to any more understanding, tolerance or progress.

I also happen to think that teh gay having much of a biological basis is pretty absurd, but if they can find a cure for other people liking god-damned chocolate as well, I guess I can play along.
posted by illovich at 4:24 PM on March 8, 2007


Who wouldn't love to be the child of this man?

"Son, now that you are five, I have to tell you that you are gay. It was just your bad luck that Adam and Eve were sinners. Your mother and I believe in the sanctity of life and so we did not abort you, but in return you must promise me never to give in to your unnatural homosexual desires. It would be a sin. When you are old enough we will find you a good Christian woman to be your bride. Until then, remember God doesn't want you to be a homosexual.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:28 PM on March 8, 2007


boo_radley : Bad as this idea is, he's EXPLICITLY not interested in abortion:

The thing of it is though, if that highly unlikely event that actually pull this nonsense off, what his intent is and what is actually going to happen are two different things. We've all heard of the pro-life protesters who bring their unwed child in to have an abortion, and are right back out on the picket line the next day. The cognitive dissonance of this crowd is powerful.

What this could actually lead to is two camps on the right; the anti-gay pro-abortion, and the gay-indifferent pro-life.

Hopefully their differences will be enough that they can start fighting each other with such a zealous passion, that they will ignore the rest of us, and we can get on with our lives.
posted by quin at 4:28 PM on March 8, 2007


If, asking yourselves this, it suddenly occurs to some of you that maybe the "right to choose" is not absolute and unquestionable after all, but needs to be balanced against other important considerations, well, fuller politely covers yawn.

I'd like to state for the record that my support for abortion stands firm. It's really none of my business why someone aborts a pregnancy - whether it's self-loathing, a lack or unwillingness to pay, or an irrational fear of what the baby may become (gay/fbi agent/president/alcoholic/antichrist/all of the above).

Most of the abortion talk previously in the thread seemed to be amusement at the coming fundamentalist cognitive dissonance, where they have to choose between gay offspring and an abortion.

My biggest worry is that a population of fundamentalist children will have to spend their childhoods in special soul-crushing "I'm-not-gay-I-love-Jesus-(not-in-a-gay-way-though)" schools.
posted by illovich at 4:30 PM on March 8, 2007


Ahh, here is the old post I was thinking of.
posted by quin at 4:31 PM on March 8, 2007


this particular stem of fuckwitted zealots who can't seem to jive with the essentials of what he really said at the sermon on the mount

Way late to the pile-on, but fundies mostly just blink at you when you mention the Sermon on the Mount (aka the Beatitudes) -- they're all about the Ten Commandments. Of course, you can always point out that those don't say anything more about homosexuality than the former do.
posted by pax digita at 4:48 PM on March 8, 2007


If, asking yourselves this, it suddenly occurs to some of you that maybe the "right to choose" is not absolute and unquestionable after all, but needs to be balanced against other important considerations, well, fuller politely covers yawn. I'm entirely used to seeing people drag themselves kicking and screaming around to my perspective--in the end.

Does your perspective include the sanctimonious self regard, or is that a bonus extra?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:48 PM on March 8, 2007


I'm not sure what a Biexual is

A biexual is someone who has been divorced twice. I have been divorced once, so I am monoexual. Elizabeth Taylor has achieved teraexuality.

A Biexual with a capital Bi, however, is merely someone from Biexia.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:53 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


> or is that a bonus extra?

There's also a free side order of schadenfreude at watching 'em squirm in the bed they made.
posted by jfuller at 4:53 PM on March 8, 2007


jfuller: All over the world people are aborting female fetuses because they don't value little girls. Why should gay babies masses of cells enjoy any particular protection, if the parents don't happen to value little queers?

Erm, so just because it happens to vagina-bearing babies, it should happen to other babies? Instead of aborting them, they should be born into an environment that'll demean them? Merely stoping the selective abortions won't kill the female-devalueing environment that led to the selective abortions in the first place. Promoting social change in addition to / instead of just banning selective abortion would lead to the same desired result: female babies aren't aborted simply because they're female.

Also, the guy is loudly dismissing selective (or any) abortion. He's wanting to either genetically weed out homosexuality, or slap a patch on the mother's bloated abdomen to stop the genes from expressing themselves in a homo-conducive manner. Not really the same as aborting baby girls, more like making them grow dicks in-utero.
posted by CKmtl at 4:56 PM on March 8, 2007


"If, asking yourselves this, it suddenly occurs to some of you that maybe the "right to choose" is not absolute and unquestionable after all, but needs to be balanced against other important considerations, well, fuller politely covers yawn. I'm entirely used to seeing people drag themselves kicking and screaming around to my perspective--in the end."

*re-reads thread*

I don't see much evidence here that anyone's taking the extreme position of "abortion by choice, done for any reason or whim whatsoever." (on preview, illovich's post)

I suspect very few people would agree that selectively aborting girls in favor of boys is good for anyone. I'm personally a bit queasy about what someone posted above about Down's syndrome fetuses.

I don't think any reasonable pro-choice person believes that women should have abortions for anything other than fairly extreme reasons, like being too young to care for a child, having too many children already, pregnancy by rape, or pregnancy that threatens the mother's life.

Do you really think people who are pro-choice take abortion that lightly?

And btw, jfuller, what is your "perspective," exactly?
posted by zoogleplex at 4:59 PM on March 8, 2007


I think that the whole "choice" concept will be thrown out entirely. Right now, mainstream Christianity has a problem with the choice concept not because "God made it" (God made evil, disease, etc., so this isn't a huge cognitive leap), but rather the painful idea that one might be condemned simply as an accident of birth. Christianity has gotten a little soft-hearted, but this will eventually swing back into "original sin," with a more scientific bent. Take your other sins, either as Commandments or your basic Seven Deadlies: Gluttony? Sure, people could be predisposed to eat more ... but they shouldn't act on it. Sloth? You may have a problem with your thyroid ... but you can still get some exercise. Yes, as it turns out, we have identified genes and even hormonal cycles that may promote adultery, but you still have a decision not to follow through with your urges. You are born a sinner of some kind, being queer can just be one of those kinds. You don't have to *gasp* actually indulge in the unmentionable vice of the Greeks.

Original sin, once re-embraced, will allow for more of a Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God kind of feel, where we're born screwed, and only salvation can bring us back. Thus, we'll be back to a lot of denial.

I don't promote these kinds of ideas, but that's how I see it playing out.
posted by adipocere at 5:19 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Taking the whole gay and god thing out of it, just what exactly is wrong with eugenics? If we can make somebody stronger, taller, healthier, then why shouldn't we? If parents prefer red hair then what's the difference between allowing them to select for that and allowing them to make their kid wear saddle shoes?

From the Wiki:
"Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, in some cases, genocide of races perceived as inferior."

Eugenics isn't about changing the individual, it's about changing the species, breeding humans towards a specific goal. The problem with that is who choses what the final goal is? You? Me? I's not the sort of thing you're likely to see put up to a public poll. You're asking why parents can't chose the hair color of their child. Eugenics asks why we can't select a specific hair color (or skin color, or sexual orientation, etc.) for all children.
posted by lekvar at 5:21 PM on March 8, 2007


If parents prefer red hair then what's the difference between allowing them to select for that and allowing them to make their kid wear saddle shoes?

Bit of an aside, but... Parents can already select kids based on hair colour preference anyway... at the adoption center / orphanage. Then all the money that would've gone into having the desperately-wanted redhead baby could go into, oh, college tuition? And an orphan would have a home.
posted by CKmtl at 5:28 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Regarding the research concerning gay sheep in the article:
The story of the gay sheep became a textbook example of the distortion and vituperation that can result when science meets the global news cycle.
For background, some discussion from the NY Times about the gay sheep research and what it does and doesn't mean. It's silly that this line of research has received so much play in the popular media and it goes to show how titillated we are by sexuality in the US.
posted by peeedro at 5:37 PM on March 8, 2007


And if you want to put the shoe on the other foot, there are researchers working towards finding a biological basis for the belief in God (nytimes also, sorry).
Lost in the hullabaloo over the neo-atheists is a quieter and potentially more illuminating debate. It is taking place not between science and religion but within science itself, specifically among the scientists studying the evolution of religion. These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history. What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved, whether it was because belief itself was adaptive or because it was just an evolutionary byproduct, a mere consequence of some other adaptation in the evolution of the human brain.
If there is a genetic basis to believing in a God/Gods, is this something that we should search for in a PDG?
posted by peeedro at 5:53 PM on March 8, 2007


If a biological basis [for homosexuality] 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

That's a whole lotta ifs. And some of those so-called developments would never make it through research ethics boards.
posted by docgonzo at 6:19 PM on March 8, 2007


Seems to me the "curing gay" gene proposal was built just to support the "don't suppress any kind of life" argument.

The argument stands on the unverified assertion that homosexual behaviors are caused only (or most frequently) by a particular genetic malfunction, as is (a not verified) theory it should prevent (or reduce as close as willing to zero) the chances of reproduction, which is (arguably) undesiderable for the survival chances of a species.

So if the "gay gene" or "gene carriers" isn't to be suppressed, why should other "defect gene" or "defective gene carriers" be suppressed ?

Seems like a connection to anti abortionists stances, either focused to get gay behind the anti abortionist stances (unlikely) or to again demonize homosexuals as selfish and hypocrite (more likely , an hate agenda)
posted by elpapacito at 7:24 PM on March 8, 2007


It is not birth, marriage, or death - but gastrulation - which is truly the most important time in our life.
- Lewis Wolpert
posted by porpoise at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2007


Clearly more money needs to be thrown into find the cause of, and the cure to, bigotry of all kinds, religious and otherwise. If religion is found to be a disease -- and I think there's quite a strong case for believing it is -- then the cure should be applied as widely and unapologetically as possible.
posted by clevershark at 8:39 PM on March 8, 2007


ericb writes "Photo: Matt Sanchez with Ann Coulter"

We all know that she only had this picture taken to prove that she was only joking about Edwards, and to show that some of her best friends are faggots!
posted by clevershark at 8:44 PM on March 8, 2007


Eugenics asks why we can't select a specific hair color (or skin color, or sexual orientation, etc.) for all children.

Good point, lekvar - like the monoculture in cattle (small gene pool, lack of diversity) resulting in increased use of potent antibiotics (to ill consequences), breeding for particular traits in humans opens up weaknesses. For example; some people were resistant-to/not-over-reactive-against the 1912 flu. If some selected trait inadvertently homogenized a certain portion of the genome coding for MHC/MiHC, everybody could die from a single pathogen.

Hmm, do American fundamentalist Christians have a particular penchant for "natural conception" (penis -> vagina -> insemination -> &c) or is in vitro fertilization A-OK? I guess they could IV fertilize, then only implant the non-gay zygotes (wait.. nevermind; fertilization = soul making-or-something-or-the-other).

So why do so-called, self-identified religious people get IVF and spawn a litter of children, knowing that a lot of fertlized eggs are going to be discarded?
posted by porpoise at 8:57 PM on March 8, 2007


a frozen embryo is just a soul baptized in liquid nitrogen.
posted by bruce at 10:39 PM on March 8, 2007


If a biological basis for religious irrationality is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the mental orientation to reason is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid political scapegoating and the inevitable effects of non compus mentis.
posted by Twang at 10:44 PM on March 8, 2007


*sigh* Why is everything getting progressively worse? I weep for the world that my 6 year old will inherit.
posted by oncogenesis at 10:46 PM on March 8, 2007


Eugenics.

Scopes trial.

Kansas board of education.

Ignorance, hypocrisy, hatred

Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war...
posted by altman at 12:26 AM on March 9, 2007


And this is unexpected?

It's a direct result of taking the easy road with regard to this issue. Rather than defend the choice as perfectly acceptable, no no, it's no choice at all.

Congratulations.
posted by dreamsign at 1:54 AM on March 9, 2007


Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own?

Ha! I love how they take it as a given that other people are as hypocritical as they are.

Yes, Mr. Hatemonger, they will. It's called being moral, and I think you'll find it's quite different from just saying you are.

Am I the only one who is secretly waiting -- hoping -- for someone to pop in and tell us all this article is a clever satire and we've been had?
posted by AV at 5:44 AM on March 9, 2007


Psalms 139:13 says, “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.”

I guess this verse is good enough for the fundies to oppose abortion, but the idea that God might make someone gay on purpose is enough for Mohler and the Southern Baptists to embark on a Eugenics Crusdade to free the world from homosexual "sin."

Just another example of how biblical literalism is all about picking and choosing whatever fits your cultural prejudice.
posted by MasonDixon at 6:17 AM on March 9, 2007


jfuller once again fails to understand that being repulsed by the reasons for a given abortion does not equal wanting to get rid of abortion itself. Much as a distaste for racial slurs does not equal getting rid of free speech. Huh. So simple, and yet, it eludes his grasp.
posted by emjaybee at 8:40 AM on March 9, 2007


My friend will love this. She's been wanting a gay son for years. Finally she'll have the peace mind knowing that he'll be born gay.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:02 AM on March 9, 2007


> jfuller once again fails to understand that being repulsed by the reasons for a given
> abortion does not equal wanting to get rid of abortion itself.

Where did jfuller say "get rid of abortion"? Only in your mind.

Unless of course what jfuller actually believes (and explicitly stated above, namely that the right to choose abortion is not absolute and unqualified but instead needs to be balanced against other important considerations) counts for you as "getting rid of abortion." If that's your notion then you're the one zoogleplex was looking for, the one pushing for "...the extreme position of 'abortion by choice, done for any reason or whim whatsoever.'" No ifs or buts, no questions may be asked, no other considerations count. zoogleplex, meet emjaybee.


> And btw, jfuller, what is your "perspective," exactly?

A. The right to choose abortion is not absolute and unqualified but instead needs to be balanced against other important considerations.

B. The most important other consideration is that it establishes a very scary precedent to state that there is a whole class of living individuals who are members of the species Homo sapiens but whose humanity is... up for discussion. If there can be one group whose humanity is not instantly assumed but is instead discussable, there can and certainly will be others. We'll start with yours.
posted by jfuller at 12:09 PM on March 9, 2007


jfuller: If there can be one group whose humanity is not instantly assumed but is instead discussable, there can and certainly will be others. We'll start with yours.

All the talk of abortion prior to your arrival was snarkiness at fundies having to choose between abortion and raising a gay kid, in the time between theoretical pre-natal homo-testing and a non-abortion "cure". No one was seriously discussing selective abortion until you came and dropped it out of the blue.

Also, no one here was advocating the selective abortion of females that you mentionned. So using it as a "well, X happens, so why shouldn't happen to you too?" is a bit batty. I mean, if this happened to be a thread about condemning the Rwadan genocide, it's like smugly throwing out "Well, it happened to the Jews, so tough luck bug-eaters!". Condemning one incarnation of a Bad Thing, without explicitly condemning all other possible incarnations, doesn't equal supporting the other incarnations.

Now that I've thought about it for a while, I don't think the majority of fundies would choose the abort-my-gay-baby route. Sure, some would see it as the lesser of two evils, but I think a theoretical pre-natal homo-test (prior to the non-abortion "cure") will just open up a whole new batshitinsanity market. Big-C Big-$ Christian books on how to straighten gay kids out, special schools and camps like illovich mentionned, or DVD sets to instruct god-fearing pregnant mothers on how to properly bugger themselves with a crucifix Linda-Blair-style in order to untaint the fruit of their loins. No abortions, keep the hate up, and milk even more money from the flock.
posted by CKmtl at 1:50 PM on March 9, 2007


"B. The most important other consideration is that it establishes a very scary precedent to state that there is a whole class of living individuals who are members of the species Homo sapiens but whose humanity is... up for discussion."

OK, to what class specifically are you referring? Fetuses/unborn children? Homosexuals? People with Down's? You need to be more clear about this.

"If there can be one group whose humanity is not instantly assumed but is instead discussable, there can and certainly will be others."

It may be that societies as a whole have a right to pick and choose what groups have what rights. Certainly they have in the past, and still do today. One could just as easily say that the "right to live" is not absolute and is dependent on other major considerations; for instance, as a legal matter in the United States, it depends on the existence of the Constitution. Also, if you support the death penalty for certain crimes, you are supporting deprivation of the "right to live" under certain circumstances. In a general sense, your right to be alive is highly dependent on your ability to procure food and water.

"We'll start with yours."

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant heterosexual male Americans with college educations? That's my group, really. Good luck with that! :)

Returning to seriousness, I'm fine with you and I disagreeing to some extent about abortion, providing you are in favor of the freely allowable use of birth control and education pertaining to same. Indeed, I'm "against" abortion in the sense that I think it's a lousy method of birth control, given the availability of many highly effective methods that we have these days. With all of that, there just shouldn't be so many "unwanted" pregancies.

I don't wanna get this far off topic, but since I challenged jfuller I felt I should state my position as well.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:51 PM on March 9, 2007


The very idea of designer babies scares me in a sort of "breeding the master race" kind of way. (Oh fine, it reminds me of the Nazis. There. I Godwined the thread.) At the same time, in addition to "the gay gene" I believe that G-d granted us free choice and we should be allowed to do whatever stupid things we want to the fetuses growing in our own uteri (but not the uteri of others, that's pushing it).

I may regret this when I am put in the nursing home by a generation of red-headed heterosexual supermen, all of whom are ill-dressed, fashion having died along with the homosexuals, but for now...

Paying a lot of money for unnecessary testing and treatment of non-life threatening "conditions" would definitely be up to the mother. It would be ridiculous and stupid, but hey, so is putting babies in flowerpots and millions of people are all over THAT.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:40 PM on March 9, 2007


"Breeding the Master Race"
posted by ericb at 7:44 PM on March 9, 2007


Alan Colmes Ties GOP Marine Hero, Prostitute, Porn Star in Knots [with audio interview].
posted by ericb at 7:33 AM on March 10, 2007


If there can be one group whose humanity is not instantly assumed but is instead discussable, there can and certainly will be others. We'll start with yours

then start worshipping those spermatozoa, man, because by your standards they're a human life, too.

and if you ever jerk off, remember to organize 300 million little funerals.
posted by matteo at 7:36 AM on March 10, 2007


NIH Chief: Stem Cell Ban Hobbles Science
posted by homunculus at 10:53 PM on March 20, 2007


I don't care what xtians do their own fetuses. It certainly can't
be any worse than what they do to their children. And if
it turns out that the gay can be detected in-utero, you can
be pretty sure you'll be reading about some lesbians aborting
heterosexual fetuses.

I wonder how a fundamentalist theologian can justify literally
playing God with something that was hitherto God's Will?
posted by the Real Dan at 10:48 AM on March 29, 2007


« Older Juan Catalan, 28, was arrested in the May 2003 mur...  |  The FIRST ("For Inspiration an... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments