What if homosexuality is biological and not volitional, determined by genes and not by choices? Is this good news or bad news? Most frequently, gay rights supporters cite this as evidence why their lifestyle should be accepted. But biological determinism is a two- edged sword, as the Rev Albert Mohler Jr, one of America’s leading evangelicals, showed this month.

Mohler has created a firestorm of controversy with an article suggesting that there may be “some level of biological causation”. But his response was not acceptance, but medical treatment for the unborn foetus. “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,” he wrote in his blog. Not surprisingly, gay rights groups accused Mohler of homophobia, although he urged Christians to be understanding and charitable towards homosexuals.

Mohler’s intervention in the debate was sparked by recent research which appears to show that rams with same-sex attraction can be “cured” chemically. This led to speculation that a pregnant woman whose child might be genetically disposed to homosexuality could wear a hormone patch to change his sexual orientation.

• Author
• Recent Posts

Michael Cook

Michael Cook edits BioEdge, a bioethics newsletter, and MercatorNet, an on-line magazine whose focus is human dignity. He writes from Sydney, Australia.

Latest posts by Michael Cook (see all)

• How long can you put off seeing the doctor because of lockdowns? - December 3, 2021
• House of Lords debates assisted suicide—again - October 28, 2021
• Spanish government tries to restrict conscientious objection - October 28, 2021