This will be a little different, but these are my morning devotions after all, and I have been meditating
on this one for a few days.
Then, when it came up on one of my discussion groups, I decided to put my thoughts on paper (so
to speak).
A group member wrote:
>>Born Gay?
Countless studies have been performed aiming
to prove
that homosexuality is caused by genetics.
Gay proponents love this argument because it says, Hey, we can't help our sexual orientation.
We are born this way!
The evidence looks solid. The researchers seem credible.
five researchers led by Dean Hamer at the National Cancer
Institute released a study in July of 1993 that attempted to link homosexuality
in men with a specific genetic region of the
X-chromosome.
But, to date, no solid scientific evidence exists that
people are born homosexual.<<
Jocelyn Replies:
I hope I'm not getting off topic here, but this post triggered
something
I read in the gospel of Matthew the other day that started me thinking about this subject.
We had a discussion in psychology class about "gender," which successfully confused the issue
of who is male and who is female to most of the young impressionable students
in that class (the instructor of that particular
class also happened to be the person sponsering a gay student organization on campus).
I found out, in that class, that If we listen to the psychologists, and their slant on the results
of research, there would be tremendous confusion on how to even tell male from female.
Even so, when a baby is born the Doctor or midwife takes a look at the genitals, and says--"it's
a boy or it's a girl!"
I've never heard of a case of genetic testing on a baby that appears normal to see if it really
is male or female.
Most of us (including physicians) seem to rely on good old fashion "unscientific" common sense
to tell us how to tell male from female babies at birth.
But what about the rare case of a child being born without the genitalia its chromosomes say it ought
to have?
It has been known to happen that tests have determined
a female child was really a male whose
genitalia had failed to develope for some reason or other.
And that brings me to the passage in Matthew that arrested me the other day--it really did--I couldn't
get past it until I had meditated on it and prayed about it for a while.
I know I'm straying a bit from the homosexual issue--
please bear with me--I'm getting there.
Jesus got on the subject of eunuchs--men who for one
reason or another became castrated--some
against their
will, some willingly, some born that way.
It was the last one that got me.
So here is my question: Is it a possibility that some of these male children who are born with a
chromosomal mix that produces the appearance of female genitalia (or close to it) are those who are "born eunuchs?"
Don't lynch me anybody--please--I'm just pondering this
thing.
If a parent isn't submitted to the will of God, they most likely will raise Daniel as a Danielle
(just to make life easier for the poor child--or perhaps for themselves).
I have read of some who have chosen to surgically have the issue settled and later even changed
the name from a male to female name--completely affected a gender change (to the naked eye) on their child.
This no doubt causes incredible confusion and identity
crisis in the affected child, but really,
how many would
leave the child the way they were born and teach them that
this is the way God made them, so it must
have been for a
good purpose, and there was really nothing wrong with them?
How many of these children would ultimately be shown the
scripture in Matthew 19:12 as a possibility
that it might
apply to them--that the Lord not only knew in advance there would be
people like them, but actually "planned" in advance for such people to exist?
There are genetic/chromosomal differences in people that
we may never understand fully the reasons
for, but male is male and female is female, and except for the occassional
case just discussed, the differences are
obvious at birth that no hospital yet has mandated genetic testing to see if the appearance
and the chromosomes match the genitalia.
As for homosexuality being genetic, I felt the point made in the original post was excellent, that even if there were to be found genetic reasons for it, why would it be treated any differently from other mental
health/behavioral issues that are considered detrimental and treated for recovery?
Have any studies been done on the rates of depression, anxiety, alcohol/substance abuse or suicide
among homosexuals as compared to the rest of the population?
My uneducated guess is, they will be eccelerated in that people group and would indicate that they
do indeed, desperately, need help.
