homosexual marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter WordHeavy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hokomai said:
There are two issues: did in fact homosexual sex occur alongside heterosexual sex?

The simple existence of descendants in my view does not preclude the regular or even universal practice of homosexual sex. In our most closely-related species, bonobos, this is the case.

The second issue raised by your question is: how could there possibly be an adaptive advantage to homosexual sex, especially if it led to fewer descendants, or a smaller gene pool? At this point we move past observation to hypothesis. My suggestion, which answers your question, is that homosexuals, without the need to care for children of their own, or with fewer children of their own, are available in human groups to provide support for childcare, and other services to the group, thereby strengthening the chances of survival of their close genetic relatives.

Homosexual sex in early human history, or our history before we were human, was clearly not a dead end, and could have led to our very existence. It was clearly not a dead end since the universal practice of homosexuality in human society suggests it has always happened, and our close relatives like it even more than we do. It may have led to our very existence by helping support a group of non-parenting individuals who helped strengthen the group, in much the same way that celibate clergy strengthen the Church.
Click to expand...
Ho,

If you postulate that there were first a male and a female that then created another human being then heterosexual sex preceeded any homosexual activity by default. The question then becomes when did this perverse activity begin and I don’t think anyone knows.

Your consideration of what the purpose of homosexuality might be is at odds with the history of laws against homosexuality. They were not a welcome group.
 
meltzerboy said:
I agree with your comments. Also, I thought secularism was the purported enemy of religious liberty. Why then should that be the basis of an appeal against same-sex marriage for any person concerned with freedom of religion? Strange bedfellows (no pun intended) in presenting a secular argument to support a moral one only when it is convenient.

From the Jewish perspective, the primary reason for marriage is NOT procreation, although this is a close second, but rather, love and companionship: the unitive function.
Click to expand...
Meltz,

I ask you to look at the Jewish history as it pertains to homosexuality. In the context that Judaism is divided on the issue today and was not in the past, the obvious point is that consideration of homosexuality at any level does not unite Judaism rather it divides it. Homosexuality is not unitive it is divisive.
 
CopticChristian said:
Ho,

If you postulate that there were first a male and a female that then created another human being then heterosexual sex preceeded any homosexual activity by default. The question then becomes when did this perverse activity begin and I don’t think anyone knows.

Your consideration of what the purpose of homosexuality might be is at odds with the history of laws against homosexuality. They were not a welcome group.
Click to expand...
If there were only one of each sex, the of course, this would be right. But there were not, and could not have been. What was to stop both the ‘first male’ and the ‘first female’ each having sex with another of the same gender, before having sex with each other? And if there were no others, we have the problem of incest in the next generation.
 
Hokomai said:
If there were only one of each sex, the of course, this would be right. But there were not, and could not have been. What was to stop both the ‘first male’ and the ‘first female’ each having sex with another of the same gender, before having sex with each other? And if there were no others, we have the problem of incest in the next generation.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Common sense however, would preclude the widespread practice of homosexual activity (in males) early on. Sexually transmitted disease would have been quite deadly, to not only those participating in said activity but then to any opposite sex partner they then engaged and then to any potential offspring. Potentially causing miscarriages, blindness, and other problems that would create problems for ultimate survival. Maybe that is why some early humanoid species didn’t make it. 🤷
 
jilly4ski said:
:rolleyes: Common sense however, would preclude the widespread practice of homosexual activity (in males) early on. Sexually transmitted disease would have been quite deadly, to not only those participating in said activity but then to any opposite sex partner they then engaged and then to any potential offspring. Potentially causing miscarriages, blindness, and other problems that would create problems for ultimate survival. Maybe that is why some early humanoid species didn’t make it. 🤷
Click to expand...
This is an interesting hypothesis, but I don’t know of any evidence. Most sexually-transmitted diseases seem to be of relevantly recent origin. What I take to be an allusion to hygiene factors would depend of course on the actual practices, and the overall state of antibodies etc. almost anything you postulate in this way about same-sexuality applies equally to heterosexual activity, as there is little limit to human ingenuity!
 
Hokomai said:
This is an interesting hypothesis, but I don’t know of any evidence. Most sexually-transmitted diseases seem to be of relevantly recent origin. What I take to be an allusion to hygiene factors would depend of course on the actual practices, and the overall state of antibodies etc. almost anything you postulate in this way about same-sexuality applies equally to heterosexual activity, as there is little limit to human ingenuity!
Click to expand...
Except that human feces would still hold bacteria and viruses that if transferred to another part of the body, either oral or the genital (urinary tract) would cause severe problems. Thus those might have been completely separate from any diseases spread around exclusively heterosexual couples. And I doubt that STDs are of recent origin. I bet they were a lot less wide spread because even if people were very salacious they did not get around much (limited travel) and thus the spread of the disease would have been minimal. Not to mention they would have been more deadly, thus limiting their spread.

It would be every interesting but very difficult to see or prove any diseases in early humanoid species.
 
Hokomai said:
If there were only one of each sex, the of course, this would be right. But there were not, and could not have been. What was to stop both the ‘first male’ and the ‘first female’ each having sex with another of the same gender, before having sex with each other? And if there were no others, we have the problem of incest in the next generation.
Click to expand...
Ho,

Rather than conjecture provide me proof. There is proof that Laws against Homosexuality have been transmitted in time. Your conjectures have no proof. They exist in your mind.
 
Hokomai said:
This is an interesting hypothesis, **but I don’t know of any evidence. **Most sexually-transmitted diseases seem to be of relevantly recent origin. What I take to be an allusion to hygiene factors would depend of course on the actual practices, and the overall state of antibodies etc. almost anything you postulate in this way about same-sexuality applies equally to heterosexual activity, as there is little limit to human ingenuity!
Click to expand...
Ho,

You amuse me. On the one hand you offer conjecture as to the first man and first woman having sex with each other and that is without any evidence. When faced with something your mind cannot conjure you invoke lack of evidence. Do you not see the folly of your thinking?
 
Hokomai said:
I think there is little doubt that a particular human male and a particular human female are ancestors of us all, but there are likely to be many other females and males who are also our ancestors. What is now simple observation in science (not a theory) also tells us that **humans and bonobos have common ancestors. **
While I am familiar with the Church teaching about Adam and Eve, until your post I had assumed it was compatible with science. The Church also teaches that its teaching is compatible with science. Do you reject this teaching?

(Note: I do not consider this off-topic. Observations of other species are widely used in the homosexual rights debate, and they were first raised in this thread in support of the OP. all we are doing here is establishing the groundwork needed to debate this coherently in the context of Church teaching.)
Click to expand...
Ho,

I have lots of strange activity in my family however I am not inclined to accept homosexual activity as a norm. Now in consideration of what you offer as a relative the bonobo…I say this.

When the bonobo can write a book, translate historical activity in writing, offer an invention for furthering of the well being of the community and or have a TV show that rivals Rachel Ray 30 minute meals I am uniclined to accept bonobo homoxesual activity as relevant as any ancestor to relate to.🙂

If the bonobo has homosexual activity and that you claim to be a relative then I have serious concerns.:confused:
 
Hokomai said:
This is an interesting hypothesis, but I don’t know of any evidence. Most sexually-transmitted diseases seem to be of relevantly recent origin. What I take to be an allusion to hygiene factors would depend of course on the actual practices, and the overall state of antibodies etc. almost anything you postulate in this way about same-sexuality applies equally to heterosexual activity, as there is little limit to human ingenuity!
Click to expand...
Some people have sex with animals, which is one theory of how AIDs all came about. Please don’t tell me that isn’t a dead end.
 
CopticChristian said:
Ho,

I have lots of strange activity in my family however I am not inclined to accept homosexual activity as a norm. Now in consideration of what you offer as a relative the bonobo…I say this.

When the bonobo can write a book, translate historical activity in writing, offer an invention for furthering of the well being of the community and or have a TV show that rivals Rachel Ray 30 minute meals I am uniclined to accept bonobo homoxesual activity as relevant as any ancestor to relate to.🙂

If the bonobo has homosexual activity and that you claim to be a relative then I have serious concerns.:confused:
Click to expand...
👍 my point exactly.
 
Hokomai said:
There are two issues: did in fact homosexual sex occur alongside heterosexual sex?

The simple existence of descendants in my view does not preclude the regular or even universal practice of homosexual sex. In our most closely-related species, bonobos, this is the case.

The second issue raised by your question is: how could there possibly be an adaptive advantage to homosexual sex, especially if it led to fewer descendants, or a smaller gene pool? At this point we move past observation to hypothesis. My suggestion, which answers your question, is that homosexuals, without the need to care for children of their own, or with fewer children of their own, are available in human groups to provide support for childcare, and other services to the group, thereby strengthening the chances of survival of their close genetic relatives.

Homosexual sex in early human history, or our history before we were human, was clearly not a dead end, and could have led to our very existence. It was clearly not a dead end since the universal practice of homosexuality in human society suggests it has always happened, and our close relatives like it even more than we do. It may have led to our very existence by helping support a group of non-parenting individuals who helped strengthen the group, in much the same way that celibate clergy strengthen the Church.
Click to expand...
Deviant acts are deviant acts. Animal homosexual acts are impulsive. Is the new human claim we are returning to the animal state?
 
buffalo said:
Deviant acts are deviant acts. Animal homosexual acts are impulsive. Is the new human claim we are returning to the animal state?
Click to expand...
Buf,

Human can act like animals however the expectation is that they can rise above this ability to act as animals.

This is why animals don’t have a show like Rachel Ray.👍
 
Hokomai said:
I think there is little doubt that a particular human male and a particular human female are ancestors of us all, but there are likely to be many other females and males who are also our ancestors. What is now simple observation in science (not a theory) also tells us that humans and bonobos have common ancestors.
Click to expand...
The bolded part made me smile because it reminded me of Mark Twain’s words:

I believe that our Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey.
.
 
Seriously, I don’t buy into the theory that man descended from the apes or that bonobos and man share a common ancestor. It is reasonable to posit that there is a basic template that is common to living things, with add-ons with creatures on the higher rungs according to complexity and ability.

However, what animates the bonobo is not what animates man.

Further, animal homosexuality is a myth. As posed by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, because animals do it, it must be natural, right? Wrong.

The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
  • Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
    • Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
    • Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
    • Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
    • Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

In opposition to this line of reasoning:

-There is no “homosexual instinct” in animals
-It is poor science to “read” human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior,
and
-Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
,
 
I still don’t get this. Recently, I put a friend down as beneficiary on my IRA account. It was all done over the phone. No questions about sexual orientation. I did the same regarding my meager bank account. Again, no questions regarding orientation were asked. I plan to leave him what I own. So what are the responsibilities and impediments for same-sex couples? The two of us are just long-time friends, both male.

I worked in a hospital for almost 10 years. People were free to visit whoever they wanted. No orientation questions were asked.

Peace,
Ed
 
Hokomai said:
Christine your response above does not do justice to what I said. I pointed out that the ‘stuff’ of which we are ‘made’ as you put it, DNA and other genetic material, is not only the same but can be transferred only by descent. To believe that God in the case of humans but not other living things, intervenes in order not only to place a soul in each person but to re-create genetic material to look exactly like the genetic material found in every other living thing, and to **look like it was transferred by descent **is, literally, incredible. Unless, of course, you think that there is a god(s) who sets out to delude and fool us. We use comparisons with other living things to learn more about humans in every field of science, especially medicine. I am still alive today because those comparisons are comparisons of genuinely similar things. To exclude sexuality from such comparisons would cut us of from valuable knowledge. After all, our ancestors were having sex long before we were mammals, or even vertebrates. Bonobos are our closest living relatives. That’s why it makes sense to study their similarities and differences, including in the area of sexuality.
Click to expand...
but even animals understand if they all have sex with the same gender than they go extinct, which is why it is not natural and is not exhibited by animals (other than ones who seem to use sex for pleasure) which as humans, and humans of faith, we view as sinful. This is why homosexual marriage/unions will never be justified. It’s not politics when it comes down to it, its science 👍
 
From a legal perspective, there’s the appeal to “Natural Law.”

See: Reid, Eric. “Assessing and Responding to Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ in Light of Natural Law” (2005), The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top