When the Homily is about Immunology

Science dictates morality?

Check this article out.

Logic 101.

homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.

Premise 1: Homosexuality is determined at birth.
Proof? Evidence, sure...but proof that no aspects of our sexuality are curbed and guided by environment and choice?

Premise 2: Anything determined at birth (What the author means here is that anything that is genetically determined) must be embraced as "normal" and, I suppose, "good."

We've covered this before haven't we? Are we to tell the those born with horrific deformities that this is a "good" thing? A "normal" thing? This dividing between normal and abnormal - that which is genetic is always normal and that which is learned is potentially abnormal - is flat out wrong and both Christian gay activists and Christian "homophobes" need to give up this line of thought.

But, I'm less interested in the overall specifics of this author's topic and more intrigued (i.e. frightened) by the presiding moral logic implied here.

Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.

It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true.

Stop for a minute while we are hinged upon the favorite whipping boy of the science vs. religion debate. The real failing here had nothing whatsoever to do with morality. The failing here is that the Church actually lost track of what its real commodity is, morality (as the author rightly suggests). The author's example in applying this to the issue of homosexuality is fundamentally flawed because what Galileo found said nothing about morality. Now watch closely:

This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice.

Two significant problems here. Morality is not and indeed cannot and indeed had better not ever be a commodity of "mounting scientific evidence." Also, note the fundamental misunderstanding of morality - consider that we are already seeing evidence to suggest that people with rage issues have a genetic predisposition toward violence and indeed if there continues to be "mounting scientific evidence", will this pastor and others like him lead the crusade to stop the Old Testament condemnation of murderers? Or how about the quite natural desire for men to have as many procreating partners as possible? Try using that excuse. My genes made me do it honey.

Again, the fundamental misunderstanding of morality here is two-fold. One being that morality must always have to do with choice and the other is that humans are slaves to biological determinism. If either proposition is true, then our religion has done more than lose its credibility, it has become a waste of time.

The extent to which gays and lesbians have suffered at the hands of religion, I would think is largely due to the fact that many Christians throughout time have subscribed to the same understanding of morality and biology noted in this article. However, if to suffer means anything other than complete acceptance and "blessing as-is", then I am afraid the suffering will continue.

All of us, to different degrees are at war against our biology, our environment, and our will. In the end, it will not matter which of these three fought against us the most - but rather the extent to which we are becoming like the Second Adam - the New Man...the way we were supposed to be.

God between us and science dictating morality.