RJ ([info]rjlippincott) wrote,
@ 2008-05-15 17:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
We live in interesting times...or we're getting very close to them.
California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

No need to quote, it'll be all over the news for the next day or so. But once again, this gets me thinking.

I should say from the start that the following focuses on how this all impacts Christianity. I'm not ignoring other religions, I simply don't know enough about them to comment.

I believe that coming down the road like a freight train is an absolutely astounding cataclysmic social upheaval. Maybe I'm diving into hyperbole, but we're looking at something with the potential of religious upheaval on the scale of the Reformation.

Y'see, there's a fair chance that we're this close to proving scientifically that homosexuality is caused by genetics. I think it's probable that within a few years, we'll have proof that people are born either straight or gay. And by "proof," I mean "Results that can be predicted and duplicated." Here's an example of the type of proof I think we'll see: a lab producing a dozen clones of a single animal, and stating in advance "These six will turn out to be gay, those six will turn out to be straight."

This knowledge has the potential to rock organized religion to its foundation.

Here's the basic problem: Sin is defined as disobedience to God. If God's Word commands that homosexuality is a sin, then those who choose to be gay are sinners.

But the complication is that if people are born gay, then there is no choice. Therefore one must conclude that if God's Word commands that homosexuality is a sin, and one also assumes that God has control over all aspects of creation, then one must conclude that God is intentionally creating some people with no choice but to commit sin.

(As an aside, this does go a great deal to explain the behavior of Idaho Sen. Larry Craig and his steadfast insistence that he's not gay. If he believes that homosexuality is a matter of choice, and if he's never in his life said to himself "I choose to be gay" then he's telling the truth so far as he understands it. He may well believe that a periodic temptation to have sex with men is simply that...temptation. It's something that he has to struggle with. But if he was born with genetics that make him gay...then we've simply got a man who is in a state of denial about his true nature. But I digress.)

Taking this all a step further, learning that homosexuality is a result of genetics would mean that God is creating some people with the express intent that they go to Hell. This is a definition of a capricious and cruel God, not a loving and kind God as portrayed by Christian churches. It's like finding a Biblical passage that states that all blue-eyed persons, or all left-handed persons, or all blonds are condemned to Hell. It has the potential to shake Christianity all the way to its roots.

What happens to a doctrine based upon natural law if it turns out not to be a natural law at all? What happens to a religious organization based upon a belief in God's Word when it suddenly seems that God's Word doesn't line up with what we know? Short answer: the same thing that happens back when we figured out for sure that the earth actually orbits the sun, and not the other way around. (Isn't it funny how a concept that we take for granted today and see as having no conflict at all with the contents of the Bible was, just a few centuries ago, controversial enough to lead to violence, imprisonment, and killing?)

The funny part of this all is that the answer to the dilemma already exists, and is known. Yes, many people will reject it, but ultimately it will prevail. Either it will prevail, or the Christian church will be destroyed.

Hint: When the genetic proof is found and the social crisis begins, look for sales of this book to go up.

(Post a new comment)


[info]snippy
2008-05-15 09:51 pm UTC (link)
I think your thinking is incomplete. What we know about genes and being homosexual is environmental and expressive, e.g., that a boy who has 2 or more older brothers is more likely to be homosexual, and that the likelihood goes up the more older brothers he has. There may not be a "gay gene," just a range of expression (gay/straight is a false dichotomy).

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]rjlippincott
2008-05-15 10:03 pm UTC (link)
Maybe it is incomplete. Hey, I'm a tech writer, not a doctor.

But if I understand what you're saying, we agree that there is evidence pointing to causes other than "choice." And if I can take it a step further, this would suggest that one day we'll figure out what those causes are.

It doesn't even matter if it's a binary gay/straight dichotomy or not. If we determine that sexuality is externally imposed, then we destroy the concept of an internal choice. If we destroy the concept of the internal choice, we destroy the concept of sin associated with one's place on the sexual scale.

And I'm thinking that the end of that concept would be a remarkable step forward for society, albeit one that will come with much upheaval.

I don't think it's choice. I don't know of anyone who has chosen to be gay, straight, bisexual, or anything else. So far as I know, we are what we are.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]snippy
2008-05-16 04:12 am UTC (link)
Oh, yeah. We're in violent agreement: it will change philosophy. I was just picking at the one thing I disagreed with, or wanted to amplify.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]9thmoon
2008-05-15 10:21 pm UTC (link)
Does it really matter whether science proves it, or just whether it's popularly accepted as fact?

I mean, look at christianity's answer to evolution - denial. "Science is flawed."

(Reply to this)(Thread)
+1
[info]timtad
2008-05-16 02:48 am UTC (link)
you beat me to it.

Any such scientific conclusion will be another excuse for a religious book burning.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Yes, but...
[info]rjlippincott
2008-05-16 03:47 pm UTC (link)
I mean, look at christianity's answer to evolution - denial. "Science is flawed."

Well, I disagree on a couple of points.

The first is the scope. When I say "Christian" I don't mean "right wing fundamental," I don't mean the relatively small numbers of evangelicals in this country...I mean it as opposed to Judaic or Muslim (and all other religions) worldwide. I mean inclusive of Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans...and all the scads of independent churches. Many of those are composed mostly of members who accept evolution over "intelligent design" (or whatever the current fad is).

And, additionally, I don't just mean this country. I'm talkin' about Europe, South America...all those other places where people attend churches that have a cross or crucifix somewhere in the belief system.

The difference between this issue and the evolution debate is a tougher one because no matter how much people get wound up about it, the reality is that it's largely irrelevant in our everyday lives. That stuff all took place billions of years ago, and no matter which answer is true you're still going to go home to the same apartment and same Floof tonight, and tomorrow you'll be at the same job.

Here's another example: of course the earth is round and of course it orbits the sun but...unless you're an astronaut it really has little effect on your life whether the world is round or flat. You'd still take the same route to work, still live in the same place, have the same dog, etc. (Yes, the flat earth analogy falls apart when one considers satellites...so I'm not gonna press it too far.)

The issue of genetics and sexuality is more critical, because I believe that generations of prejudice have been based largely on the perception of what God wants, and that a different lifestyle is an intentional affront and rebellion.

When we have convincing evidence that this belief is wrong, there will be three types of reactions.
  1. Some will reject it out of hand, as you say. My prediction is that this will be a small percentage world wide.
  2. Some will view this as a contradiction which destroys their faith. This will be a larger, significant number.
  3. The optimist in me says that by a vast majority, a greater number will re-examine the root cause of the belief that homosexuality is a sin...and upon the re-examination will discover that for about five hundred years we've been mis-translating a couple of words.
That third item will drive the reform.

Boswell's book (the one I link to) was popular 15-20 years ago, but fell into disregard largely because it was interpreted as letting the Church off the hook for it's intolerance. I think most people stopped reading before they got to the part about re-examining the translations of certain passages. That's too bad...because it was quite a find.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Yes, but...
[info]new_iconoclast
2008-05-16 06:26 pm UTC (link)
The first is the scope. When I say "Christian" I don't mean "right wing fundamental," I don't mean the relatively small numbers of evangelicals in this country.

I think that many agnostics and atheists lump all Christians into that category, unfortunately. When I see the run-of-the-mill crappy arguments by atheists that "God can't exist because he's not like the Christians say he is," it's always a shoeless, snake-handlin', deep-holler, come-to-Jesus hillbilly-ignorant evangelical viewpoint that becomes the straw man.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Yes, but...
[info]rjlippincott
2008-05-20 02:10 pm UTC (link)
When I see the run-of-the-mill crappy arguments by atheists that "God can't exist because he's not like the Christians say he is," it's always a shoeless, snake-handlin', deep-holler, come-to-Jesus hillbilly-ignorant evangelical viewpoint that becomes the straw man.

Exactly. The term gets blurred, and I think it's because a few decades back people began to speak of "evangelical" or "born-again" Christians, who just took to calling themselves "Christians." But members of the Roman Catholic, Episcopal, and Orthodox churches are Christian as well...it's just that generally they use their respective church names to describe themselves.

By the way, you've also hinted at an interesting point that I've heard expressed before: Many times when an atheist says "God doesn't exist," he's not referring to a generic concept of a universal supreme being but rather one major religion's view of God. The atheist has a very specific picture in his mind of the God who doesn't exist.

For example, an atheist in this country may list reasons why a Christian God doesn't exist, but doesn't give a moment's thought to having to explain why Vishnu doesn't exist, or why Mohammad couldn't possibly have been a prophet because Allah doesn't exist either.

I've never quite figured out why that is, but sometimes (and there are some other factors that play into this) I get a sense that there's an attitude of "Well, you don't really think the people in those other countries believe that, do you? I'm sure they just hang on to it because it's their culture, and they're supposed to. But no, they don't take it seriously."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
Re: Yes, but... - [info]new_iconoclast, 2008-06-03 03:07 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Eh?
[info]carbonelle
2008-05-24 04:01 am UTC (link)
What is Original Sin, if not something we were all born with? Shoot, we know people are born with strong tendencies to alcoholism, that there is an underlying genetic tendency to violent action... Etc., etc., etc. as the King of Siam said to Anna.

Revolution? Any?

We aren't going to find that "gayness" is as straightforwardly genetic as black skin, Down's syndrome or hyper-masculinity: because if it were, we'd know it: modern genetics has that kind of simple connection covered.

So what we're left with is what choices you make with the tendencies you're born with--and how revocable those choices are in the way your life plays out.

If you can find a complete copy of Anderson's Fairy Tales, go read the The Garden of Paradise. I think you'll find Christians have thought about that kind of thing pretty thoroughly.

It's only moderns, with their historical parochialism, who imagine that Christian theology and moral philosophy has never thought of anything they are only just now wrapping their minds 'round.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]eviltwin2
2008-05-15 10:40 pm UTC (link)
Perhaps if people are genetically gay and God made them thatb way, he did so as way of testing them to see if they can fight thier programmed nature and abide by his laws. Kind of like an integrity test.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]rjlippincott
2008-05-20 02:11 pm UTC (link)
Awww, that would be nasty. That's like letting people be born without legs, but saying that in order to get into heaven you have to be able to run a mile.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]eviltwin2
2008-05-20 03:15 pm UTC (link)
But it would jibe with thast whole "God doesn't give us more than we can handle" argument.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]wellarmedsmurf
2008-05-15 11:51 pm UTC (link)
Strictly speaking, "being gay" isn't considered a sin...acting upon it is.
at least among the christian homo-phobes I know...

but I respectfully submit you're simultaneously giving christians too much and too little credit; most christians I know have no problem with homosexuality, nor do they believe God does. (I'm in this group.)

And the ones who DO believe homosexuality is a sin...I doubt they'll let a little thing like science change that. ;)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]_katiekaboom_
2008-05-16 08:27 pm UTC (link)

"And the ones who DO believe homosexuality is a sin...I doubt they'll let a little thing like science change that. ;)"

My thoughts exactly. I am not a Christian, myself, but was raised by Christian parents, went to the Christian churches and schools and so on. When I was 8, I realized that there was no upper limit to the denial any hypocrisy involved in the religion- particularly among the types who believe that being gay is a sin. There is absolutely nothing a "good Christian" can't twist to their own needs; mainly denial of logic and common sense. Blind as bats.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]darthbeckman
2008-05-16 01:00 am UTC (link)
then one must conclude that God is intentionally creating some people with no choice but to commit sin.

You need to be more precise. There is no such thing as there being "no choice but to commit sin." It isn't the homosexual inclination that is considered sinful (it is intrinsically disordered, but that's a different matter) but homosexual acts. Homosexuals are no more destined for hell than thieves, adulterers, and murderers are destined for hell. Feelings and attractions are not subject to the will, and where the will does not come into play, there can be no sin. The dilemma between faith and reason/science has always been a false one.

I think a more interesting and more real dilemma is posed by this possibility: "there's a fair chance that we're this close to proving scientifically that homosexuality is caused by genetics. I think it's probable that within a few years, we'll have proof that people are born either straight or gay. And by 'proof,' I mean 'Results that can be predicted and duplicated.'"

If that ever comes to pass, then I think it will mean the practical extinction of homosexuals as a part of the population. Hardly anyone wants their child to be gay. Some people fear it more than others, and some may be more sanguine about it than others, but it's truly bizarre to imagine any parent hoping that little Johnny will want to marry little Billy. I imagine that if homosexuality is proven to be wholly caused by genetics, then somebody somewhere will pay for research into a way to neutralize that gene or whatever it happens to be. If it cannot be done, then it's possible we'll see the widespread abortion of gay babies.

Then we'll see the odd spectacle of progressives and Christians united against the evils of abortion, albeit for very different reasons.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]_katiekaboom_
2008-05-16 08:30 pm UTC (link)
Well, supposing many things, here, first that there is a creator god, second that "he" thinks it a sin to act on the urge of homosexuality, why would he create some people who will be born this way? this is no more gentle, loving or knowing that just making it a sin to be born gay. That entire perception of god is flawed horribly. Just with this one teeny example alone, of gay people, how can there still be belief in a god who is all knowing, all loving and all powerful? Really...how?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]darthbeckman
2008-05-16 09:52 pm UTC (link)
Why does God create people with an urge to sleep with other people's spouses? Or abuse children? Or any number of other disordered desires? Free will deals with just that: the will. I don't know if the homosexual orientation is genetic or not. Contrary to our host's hypothesis, there is nothing at all that would pose a problem for Christianity if it were (except for maybe some misguided fundamentalists). Our desires are not subject to the will, but we can choose to will that something be done or not. Most men, especially when they're young, want to sleep with as many women as possible. That instinct may be "natural" but that does not mean it is right to act on it. And it no more disproves the existence of God or shakes Christianity to its foundations than the discovery that homosexuality is genetic would.

The way I like to put it is this: there never has been and there never will be anything discovered by the light of science that conflicts with the truths of the Christian faith. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't understand the faith, doesn't understand the science, or is selling a book.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]_katiekaboom_
2008-05-17 06:57 am UTC (link)
I can think of several "truths of the Christian faith" that are in direct conflict with science. Take Creationism, for example.

And who says it is natural for young men to want to sleep with women? Maybe it's not. But you can point to history and biology and call it natural. Well, there have been gay people all throughout history, too, so why not assume that that is natural as well. If you deem a man's attraction for a woman to be natural instinct, but it's not okay to ACT on that instinct if it involves "as many women as possible," then why not make the same declaration for men that are attracted to men, or women who are attracted to women?

"Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't understand the faith, doesn't understand the science, or is selling a book."

Is this how you justify twisting the words of the Bible to suit what you personally believe to be true, and still save a seat in heaven? All my life, I've been hearing the same basic logic. Anyone who questions the supposed "word of god" is ignorant or stupid or evil. Obnoxious.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]darthbeckman, 2008-05-17 08:33 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-17 05:00 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]darthbeckman, 2008-05-17 07:12 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-19 03:59 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]darthbeckman, 2008-05-19 05:02 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-19 05:47 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]darthbeckman, 2008-05-19 07:03 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-19 07:29 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]darthbeckman, 2008-05-19 07:47 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-19 08:11 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]darthbeckman, 2008-05-19 11:34 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-20 03:54 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-19 07:37 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]darthbeckman, 2008-05-19 07:49 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-19 08:13 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]darthbeckman, 2008-05-19 11:32 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-20 03:48 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]darthbeckman, 2008-05-20 04:55 am UTC (Expand)
PART ONE - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-20 03:45 pm UTC (Expand)
PART TWO - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-20 03:46 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]rubel, 2008-05-19 09:30 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]new_iconoclast, 2008-05-17 08:45 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-19 04:12 am UTC (Expand)

[info]rjlippincott
2008-05-20 02:33 pm UTC (link)
The way I like to put it is this: there never has been and there never will be anything discovered by the light of science that conflicts with the truths of the Christian faith. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't understand the faith, doesn't understand the science, or is selling a book.

I agree with this statement, but I have to add the caveat that from time to time we get confused on some details regarding those truths.

Here's an example.

Joshua 10:13 states clearly that "the sun stood still" during a battle. This was for centuries directly interpreted as Biblical proof that the sun moves around the earth. And we can't just write this off as a one-line metaphor, because the concept of the earth being the firm center is also repeated in Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Ecclesiastes 1:5.

Unfortunately, around 1600 Copernicus came up with a new theory that put the earth in motion around the sun, and not long afterward Galileo came up with observations that supported the theory. For his efforts, Galileo spent years under house arrest on Church order, and was forced to recant his support of heliocentrism.

Of course today we know and accept that the earth moves around the sun, despite the fact that a few lines in the Bible state otherwise. As you note, we have largely accepted that there is no conflict between a literal reading of these words and our overall larger view of the Church's teaching regarding God's relationship to man.

In this case, the reason why this truth of the Christian faith is not in conflict with science is because we've chosen to disregard the words that would create the conflict. Or, to be more fair, I should say that we've reinterpreted them as being merely descriptive of how things appeared to be as opposed to a statement of literal fact.

But four hundred years ago, science and Christianity were in deep, deep conflict. It's important to remember that in terms of the history of Christianity, four hundred years is still the relatively recent past.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]rjlippincott
2008-05-16 03:22 pm UTC (link)
Hardly anyone wants their child to be gay. Some people fear it more than others, and some may be more sanguine about it than others, but it's truly bizarre to imagine any parent hoping that little Johnny will want to marry little Billy.

Good point. Now why do you suppose that is?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]darthbeckman
2008-05-16 09:37 pm UTC (link)
I know perfectly well why that is. So tell me: do you want gay children? I'm not asking if you'd accept them and love them if they were, but do you hope and pray or earnestly desire to have homosexual children?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]rjlippincott
2008-05-17 12:15 am UTC (link)
I know perfectly well why that is.

Good, I figured you would. Now please share.

If I need to be more specific I will: It is my understanding that there is a specific passage in the New Testament that is interpreted as meaning homosexuality is a sin. I have two questions. The first is "Is my understanding correct?" and the second is "What is that verse?"

So tell me: do you want gay children? I'm not asking if you'd accept them and love them if they were, but do you hope and pray or earnestly desire to have homosexual children?

The truthful answer you'll find quite unsatisfactory: My wife and I remain childless by choice. I want neither straight nor gay children.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]darthbeckman, 2008-05-17 01:09 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-17 06:59 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]new_iconoclast, 2008-05-17 09:15 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-19 04:15 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]new_iconoclast, 2008-05-19 01:18 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_katiekaboom_, 2008-05-19 01:21 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]new_iconoclast
2008-05-16 06:23 pm UTC (link)
Here's the basic problem: Sin is defined as disobedience to God. If God's Word commands that homosexuality is a sin, then those who choose to be gay are sinners.

But the complication is that if people are born gay, then there is no choice. Therefore one must conclude that if God's Word commands that homosexuality is a sin, and one also assumes that God has control over all aspects of creation, then one must conclude that God is intentionally creating some people with no choice but to commit sin.

I see a couple of faults with your logic, at least from my viewpoint (my viewpoint is mine, and does not reflect the official viewpoint of my church, etc. etc.).

First, same-sex attraction in and of itself is not a sin. The act is a sin. I am straight, and am greatly attracted to a particular hot blonde to whom I am not married. That attraction is not sinful. Dwelling on it is not really good for my spiritual state of mind, and acting on that attraction would be sinful. But the attraction itself is not sinful. It's what I do about it that counts. Unfortunately, that would leave the genetic gay with no religiously legitimate outlet for his sexual desires.

Second, a genetic cause does not mean that the result is "normal." Down's Syndrome and countless other mental and physical conditions which exist from birth are or could be genetic, and are due to mutations - we sometimes call them "birth defects." If homosexuality is genetic, it could well be an unintentional mutation - a birth defect. Thus, God would not be responsible for "intentionally creating people with no choice but to commit sin." I don't buy that God exercises personal control over each chromosome in each child; else we'd already be positing an unjust and unmerciful God with respect to Down's Syndrome, hypocephaly, etc. ad infinitum.

I suspect we may find someday that pedophilia and various other "distasteful" sexual attractions are genetic as well.

PS: "Impact" is not a verb. You've been writing government docs for too long.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]rjlippincott
2008-05-17 12:28 am UTC (link)
Down's Syndrome and countless other mental and physical conditions which exist from birth are or could be genetic, and are due to mutations - we sometimes call them "birth defects." If homosexuality is genetic, it could well be an unintentional mutation - a birth defect. Thus, God would not be responsible for "intentionally creating people with no choice but to commit sin."

Actually, my read of this suggests that we're closer in thought than it may seem.

You're right about Down's syndrome and countless other mental and physical defects. The difference is that there is no passage in the Bible that says that people who suffer from these defects won't make it into Heaven. There is, however, a passage that says that about homosexuals. This should actually be a flag that something is wrong somewhere.

Thus, God would not be responsible for "intentionally creating people with no choice but to commit sin."

Actually, that's exactly my point for thinking that the discovery of "gay from birth" is going to shake the church to its foundations. There is really only one way out of the dilemma, and that is to conclude that the verse that condemns gays is incorrect...or to be more precise, incorrectly translated.

Edited at 2008-05-17 12:29 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]new_iconoclast
2008-05-17 08:38 pm UTC (link)
There is, however, a passage that says that about homosexuals.

Which one? I've heard that asserted, but I've never been convinced. Now, that probably means that we agree on most of this issue; that wouldn't surprise me. What I do think the Bible condemns, again, is homosexual acts, not thoughts and feelings. Just like it condemns heterosexual acts (outside of marriage). That certainly calls into question our age-old assumptions about the nature of marriage, doesn't it? :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…