What there should not be is ‘eugenics’ (the wording I used could be interpreted as suggesting that there should not be ‘moral parameters’ … which, of course, there must be – for just about anything one might care to mention!).

When I read statements like “[T]his does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin …”, a number of questions spring to mind, among them:-

1. How can someone apparently be so sure about God’s attitude to ‘homosexuality’ per se? (The Bible as a whole is far from clear on the issue, in the view of many, myself included.)

2. (following on from 1.) Is there such as thing as homosexual ‘non-sin’? If so, what might be the moral / ethical hallmarks of this? (Perhaps the move towards civil unions is in fact a good way to promote homosexual ‘non-sin’.)

3. If sexuality is somehow innate (and the science does appear to be pointing that way), then is God wanting us to engage in some kind of ‘eugenics’? Or does he want us to ‘leave well alone’ and make the best of the gift of life as it ‘given’ to us? (It surely has to be the latter!)

One of the things that really bothers me about ‘homosexuality’ possibly being genetic is the ‘designer baby’ syndrome. If a ‘gay gene’ (or whatever) is ever identified, will some prospective parents choose to have an abortion rather than a gay offspring? For this reason, I think it essential that we, as a society, sort out very clearly the moral parameters of any ‘eugenics’ aspect (as in there shouldn’t be any!) as soon as possible.

Once one has sincerely concluded that sexuality is, at some fundamental level, innate, there is IMHO really ‘no going back’. (Legislators in many countries recognize this in their classification of sexual orientation as a ‘protected characteristic’ – to use the legal terminology here in Britain.) Perhaps this is why some are resisting the idea so vehemently: THEY understand that just as well as we do.

1. How can someone apparently be so sure about God’s attitude to ‘homosexuality’ per se? (The Bible as a whole is far from clear on the issue, in the view of many, myself included.)

2. (following on from 1.) Is there such as thing as homosexual ‘non-sin’? If so, what might be the moral / ethical hallmarks of this? (Perhaps the move towards civil unions is in fact a good way to promote homosexual ‘non-sin’.)

3. If sexuality is somehow innate (and the science does appear to be pointing that way), then is God wanting us to engage in some kind of ‘eugenics’? Or does he want us to ‘leave well alone’ and make the best of the gift of life as it ‘given’ to us? (It surely has to be the latter!)

One of the things that really bothers me about bothers me ‘homosexuality’ possibly being genetic is the ‘designer baby’ syndrome. If a ‘gay gene’ (or whatever) is ever identified, will some prospective parents choose to have an abortion rather than a gay offspring? For this reason, I think it essential that we, as a society, sort out very clearly the moral parameters of ‘eugenics’ aspect (as in there shouldn’t be any!) as soon as possible.

Once one has sincerely concluded that sexuality is, at some fundamental level, innate, there is IMHO really ‘no going back’. (Legislators in many countries recognize this in classifying sexual orientation as a ‘protected characteristic’, to use the legal terminology here in Britain.) Perhaps this is why some are resisting the idea so vehemently: THEY understand that just as well as we do.

O Tempore, o mores

Marty