Homosexuality and Evolution

[Carolinagirl411]

The purpose of sex is procreative and unitive, and must include both aspects each and every time? We could go into a long discussion on infertility within the rehlm of heterosexual marriage…

Doesn’t matter if the man or woman is infertile…The rules still stand. Trust me this topic has been beaten to death. Look up some of the threads on infertility and birth control

Sex is supposed to be open to life in that the ACT is complete. For instance it would be wrong for a man to have anal sex with a woman b/c the act would be completed in the wrong place…the digestive tract and not the reproductive tract. Sorry for the graphic detail but that is what the Church requires. Sex is considered Lustful if not completed in the appropriate area b/c you are only trying to get your needs met and you aren’t open to life regardless of infertility.

So Homosexuals…males…have sex using the wrong place…the digestive tract and not the reproductive tract.

The Church does not approve of birth control for basically the same reasons they do not approve of homosexuality… really other people can explain it better if this isn’t good enough. Just look

 

[ComputerGeek25]

The institution of marriage is older than the Church. It is known from right reason and the natural moral law. The burden is on you to show why on how it may be changed.

The Church speaks as Christ. When is Christ wrong?

Que the “Why did God …” arguements…

 

[onaquest]

I work with adults that are developmentally disabled. None of them are homosexual. These are adults that are gender aware and still the men want to dance with the women and the women want to dance with the men. What is to be made of that?

 

[KES]

Again, this topic has been discssed several times on the forums here…

The long and short of it, is that a couple should not frustrate the procreative part of sex, even if one or both parties are infertile.

How old were Abraham and Sarah?

I know the topic has been discussed in other threads, that is why I decided to not say anything else about it I apologize for being off topic of this tread but I am going to do that one last time and I will end here. I was well aware that I would find most people on this foum disagee with me about homosexuality. I just hoped to find even one person who might just contemplate the idea of accepting commited LGB couples. My partner and I (we are both women) are in a long commited relationship. We are very much in love and I couldn’t imagine my life without her. We are going to be having a child and I want to raise my child in the catholic church. Growing up Catholic I was always taught not to judge others, pray for love and peace, treat others with respect and kindness especially when they are different than you. That is the Catholocism I want my children to know. Take care.

 

[Swan]

The Church does not approve of homosexuality for several reasons, one is that it goes against natural law…this topic has been discussed in several threads so if you want a better explanation you could search the forum. There are experts on the matter that could explain it much better than I.

But the gist is that the purpose of sex is procreative and unitive. It is a sin for anyone to have sex without both aspects as seen by the whole birth control issue. So a homosexual couple will NEVER have the procreative aspect of sex since they do not have the capabilities. Therefore…it is a mortal sin!

Actually, it seems to be a part of natural law. See:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

*But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York’s Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks. *

see link for full story

 

[Carolinagirl411]

LOL well I swear…you think you’ve heard of everything

anyway the link didn’t work

but I think humans are just held to a higher accountability…who knows

an apologist would be able to answer this one better.

 

[buffalo]

Actually, it seems to be a part of natural law. See:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

*But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York’s Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks. *

see link for full story

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

 

[Swan]

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

Do you get any info from un-biased sites? Mine is from National Geographic - I’ll go with them, thanks.

And we do have cannibalism and some fathers do kill their offspring. The point is that is happens in nature - it is not inherently a perverted human activity - which seems to be what you and others have suggested.

 

[buffalo]

Do you get any info from un-biased sites? Mine is from National Geographic - I’ll go with them, thanks.

And we do have cannibalism and some fathers do kill their offspring. The point is that is happens in nature - it is not inherently a perverted human activity - which seems to be what you and others have suggested.

National Geographic is not biased? Are you kidding?

By the way - the truth is not biased.

Peoplecanchange

 

[Exalt]

National Geographic is not biased? Are you kidding?

By the way - the truth is not biased.

Peoplecanchange

“The truth” - that is, the objective reality of the world apart from human interpretation - certainly does exist a certain way (that is, there is such a thing as objective truth). But getting at the nature of that objective reality is very difficult. Human beings are restricted at a very fundamental level from being able to understand that reality - namely, because we are intelligent animals. We interpret a wide, impassible collection of matter in one’s home as “a wall,” for example. But the reality is that the wall is really a quivering mass of energy. And even that isn’t a very adequate explanation of the object reality of matter.

And that’s just one small example about how it’s really hard to get at the true nature of the universe we live in.

That being said, the nature of sexuality is extremely complex. It might be easy to make big statements like “Homosexuality is unnatural” or (for social darwinists) “Homosexuality does not propagate the species.” It’s easy to say something like that, sure, but it’s *far *from the whole story. I worry when individuals believe they are privy to the absolute truth. I find they are typically very closed to evidence to the contrary, or only open inasmuch as they can refute it (i.e., apologetics). I also find that they are very unwilling to admit that their understanding of the issue is something that can change. I, for example, acknowledge that my understanding of the word is constantly changing, and I’m certainly open to changing my mind about a ton of issues. Anyway, the *reality *is that all these issues are extremely complex and our understanding of them grows all the time.

Regarding that particular website (PeopleCanChange.com), there’s definitely some truth there. I know lots of people who once called themselves gay and now call themselves bisexual or heterosexual - and I don’t doubt their claims at all. However, I’ve never met anyone who has claimed they changed by any amount of effort. It seems to just happen naturally for them.

That being said, what do these studies that PeopleCanChange.com actually *say? *The vast majority of them demonstrate that people who normally experience homosexual attraction can experience some attraction to women, after a certain degree of effort (usually some type of therapy). How much of a change that actually is isn’t really clear. I also wonder about the religious positions and motivations of the people seeking change - can a nontheist experience this change or is belief in God a necessity? Also, I wonder about the long term effects (including, is the change these studies cite actually something that lasts?)

But if it is real, and if some people can really change from one sexual orientation to another, I don’t think I can tell them that they shouldn’t. I wonder about *why *they’re doing it and I wonder about if the change will last - but that doesn’t mean I have the right to tell them they shouldn’t. And if it makes them happier or more fulfilled - well, that’s great.

However, I don’t think that the same is afforded to people who are homosexual and find change either undesirable, impossible for them, or both. There’s certainly something to be said for becoming accepting and becoming comfortable with your identity - and for many people (myself included) that includes being gay. That’s something that ought to be respected.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

But if the “gay gene” were dominant, how would the species survive? We can’t all do IVF. Propogation of the species and all that…

this one is going where I am thinking. I am thinking if evolution took millions of years, then the recessive “gay” genes would cease to exist due to non-reproduction.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

It would make sense that it would. Genetic traits are passed on by sexual reproduction, and that’s the only way that they survive. However we don’t know if the “gay gene” existed in the first humans or not.

But, if the gay gene was introduced into the gene pool at a time when the institution of marriage was already firmly in place, the gay gene probably would have passed on.

That is, of course, if there were a gay gene.

But, would not the gay gene disappear just as fast since, if one could not help themselves then most likely they would not reproduce via marriage? or if they did get married would not the dominat gene of their spouse overcome it?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I am thinking a “gay” gene would have to be recessive if it exists otherwise the human race would go extinct.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

No thanks, I will do some more research and see where your numbers are coming from. I am well aware of the complexity of why homoesexuality was even in the DSM and why it was removed. I double majored in Psychology and Women/Gender Studies. Yes, you could say it was removed more for political/societal reasons. However, extensive research leads us to to view homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. If you want sources you can go to any psych database and find many of these.

This is a question for everyone, would you be more understanding and accepting if there was a scientific reason for homosexuality?

Since there is a scientific reason for alcoholism, and one has the choice NOT to take that first drink. I don’t think it would matter at all if there were a scientific reason for homosexuality.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

But why should we keep it that way? That is my question. Would you maybe consider that the church might be wrong on this?

You mean God might be wrong on this, “be fruitful and multiply”.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The purpose of sex is procreative and unitive, and must include both aspects each and every time? We could go into a long discussion on infertility within the rehlm of heterosexual marriage…

Please make that a seperate thread. I am an eunuch after marriage and have no kids.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

Romans 8

20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Animals do not have a soul and were not created in God’s image. The whole creation is under corruption since the fall, so even if animals are doing the gay thing that does not make it “natural”. What they are doing could very well be a symtom of corruption.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Do you get any info from un-biased sites? Mine is from National Geographic - I’ll go with them, thanks.

And we do have cannibalism and some fathers do kill their offspring. The point is that is happens in nature - it is not inherently a perverted human activity - which seems to be what you and others have suggested.

National Geographic unbias, not that is funny ROFL

 

[Dameedna]

If there is a “gay” gene, it certainly does not stop one from pro-creating. I’ve known a number of “gay” men who were with Women(and lesbians who were with men).

I wouldn’t be surprised to find there was a gene for sexual orientation, such as there has now been evidence produced for a monogamous Gene(only 5% of mamals have it, we being one of them).

Human sexuality is complex however. It seems to be the case, that some lesbian women(I’ve never heard of this with gays), do not actually partake of sexual intimacy with their partner beyond hugging and Kissing as they don’t like it. I would not be surprised if there is some history there leading them to same-gender relationships.

There is also male on Male rape, which occurs often in prison systems and has nothing to do with orientation and has a lot to do with control and power. I’m not saying that THAT is the reason for homosexuality just that the behaviour is not alway’s black and white.

But I doubt it’s primarily a hormonal thing. Hormoes drive “sex drive” they don’t drive the gender one is attracted to.

Another option for homosexual behaviour, as has been showed in a number of studies, albiet with lower mamals, and that is the rate of homosexual behaviour increases upon population saturation, so it may even be natures way of ensuring a species doesn’t overpopulate itself. Not too sure what I think about that one though.

There are also our closests relatives, the Bonobos that basically have lots of sex with each other, regardless of age, or gender(though prepubescent sex doesn’t occur). Females with females, males with Males. They are not quite sure why, but they are definately a primate that follows the theory, make love, not war…lol!!

Until we find the “gay” gene, we won’t really know. I do agree however, that for the people who are gay it is not a choice. I’ve simply known too many of them. What it’s caused by, who knows?

 

[kristie_m]

Until we find the “gay” gene, we won’t really know. I do agree however, that for the people who are gay it is not a choice. I’ve simply known too many of them. What it’s caused by, who knows?

Don’t know that “being gay” as in, having the tendencies toward same sex relationships is a choice…for some it may not be. But for others, nurture, rather than nature, is the determining factor. And I think there’s a great deal of hope for those people in dealing with the issues in order to develop perfectly healthy heterosexual relationships. I’ve known people who have spent years in “the lifestyle” and later, after much prayer and counseling, were able to love, marry, and even have children with members of the opposite sex.