I’m never worried about cans of worms from authentic conversation partners; worry not. And I’ve been wanting to find time for a good response, and haven’t been successful in the past several days, and with other factors not getting better, the following summary of my thoughts will have to suffice:

I guess the scope of your general question is a bit vague, and we need to get into the specifics of the behavior at hand. Predilection to liking steak over pasta, or to indulging too much in alcohol, or to introverted or extroverted behavior, or to a heterosexual orientation, are all different things. They require rooting in some anthropological analysis and some normative analysis. And so I’m not sure where to go even with your refocused (and thanks for that) question: what is the cost of how my assessment of which behavior being wrong? Are we talking about left handedness vs right handedness? Are we talking about human sexuality? Are we talking about what?

If we’re talking about human sexuality, then I dare say we tend, paradoxically, to both give it too much concern and not enough. We obsess about it in our moral and theological frameworks, to the exclusion of much more, in my judgment, central concerns. We don’t focus enough on how central human sexuality is to our flourishing and how it relates to other aspects of our being. Getting these assumptions (or I like better conclusions, since I believe, though I may be wrong, that I have a foundation and defensible decisions behind my point-of-view) wrong might be catastrophic in some circumstances, and might not matter a hill of beans in others.

Sorry if that’s vague, but that’s the best I can do with a general question like that.

Thanks for the comments, Will…

The actual intent of my question or quandary is this: If I say to someone that a particular behavior is approved (or even ‘God given’) in whatever context, what is the cost or downside of my being wrong?

“The moral rules must apply equally; the must be able to be universalized.” Sounds good, but I’m not sure it is correct – not every naturally occurring impulse is necessarily OK, and certainly not everyone has the same impulses. So – what if this assumption of fairness is incorrect?

I never said that every naturally occuring impulse is ok, nor that everyone has the same impulse. The point is that the moral norm needs be universalized, or else it fails a basic ethical principle. We used the example of alcohol consumption earlier: the norm might be don’t use alcohol to excess. That’s universal to all human beings qua human beings. You don’t say something like: women, don’t use alcohol to excess, but men, you can go ahead. We don’t say: wives, don’t sleep around, but men, it’s okay (wink wink, nudge nudge). The point is that if we say that human sexuality is innate and an expression of who we are in some deep way (itself a debatable point, but one I think is true), and that orientation within that sexuality is more “God-given” than we once thought it was, then it violates that ethical principle to say “go have straight-sex within marriage” because it is asking one group to violate that orientation in a way that is not universally asked of others. (There are other ethical principles that can be drawn upon, but the one here is strictly universality). It doesn’t offer a morally permissible way for gays or lesbians to fulfill their “God-given” sexuality, period. Whereas, by opening up unions, we can apply a norm “go have sex within marriage” that is universal, offering a morally appropriate action to all…

what if these others are untrue as well

Well, wouldn’t be the first time I’d be wrong, but epistemologically, I posit the basic possibility. But, on the other hand, there are things I’m fairly solid about. But I’ve never been one to argue that this is purely genetic or purely choice; its more complex than that. My argument has been that the complexity ranges the same on this matter for homosexuals and heterosexuals, and ought to be treated similarly, both for areas of approbation and for condemnation. The biblical record, in my judgment, doesn’t ultimately say in a clear way that committed, monogamous homosexual relationships are wrong. It just doesn’t. The theological question of where we go from there is more interesting…

“The moral rules must apply equally; the must be able to be universalized.” Sounds good, but I’m not sure it is correct – not every naturally occurring impulse is necessarily OK, and certainly not everyone has the same impulses. So – what if this assumption of fairness is incorrect?

“biblical condemnation of homosexual practice that is actually debatable.” What if this is wishful thinking? What if the argument that ancient cultures did not talk about orientation (which is not particularly true, by the way), is irrelevant to behavioral requirements?

My point is not to argue the merits of each item – that has been done ad nauseum by people much more acquainted with the topic. Instead, it just appears to me that people make different assumptions – one, for example, that sexual attraction is a choice, is clearly untrue – what if these others are untrue as well?

You’re very right that Mohler makes certain assumptions – and you choose contrary ones. This may seem a silly question, but what if you’re wrong? The dangers on Mohler’s side are very evident – because the ideas themselves are often used to justify contempt and disrespect. He is trying to go out of his way to mitigate that, but the danger is real. On the other hand – what is the danger posed by the other side of this debate? If it is incorrect, what are the consequences?

You’re very right that Mohler makes certain assumptions – and you choose contrary ones. This may seem a silly question, but what if you’re wrong? The dangers on Mohler’s side are very evident – because the ideas themselves are often used to justify contempt and disrespect. He is trying to go out of his way to mitigate that, but the danger is real. On the other hand – what is the danger posed by the other side of this debate? If it is incorrect, what are the consequences?