Homosexuality and Evolution

[Dameedna]

Don’t know that “being gay” as in, having the tendencies toward same sex relationships is a choice…for some it may not be.

I agree. I think for some, it in fact may be a choice. I think that’s the icky part to many. That they have a certain nature, and are going against it due to circumstances or force.

Negating our ability to live freely makes most of us shudder.

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.

ahh,but see I’m very, very suspicious of this. I have come across ONLY ONE such person(doesnt’ mean there are others) and the homosexual acts they performed were quite aggresive and angry and about control of another. They ended up hetrosexual, but I don’t think they were ever gay.

Homosexual behaviour is a big ticket item in relgion, because it is one of those areas, where we realize that choice MAY be involved, but it may not be.

How do we condem a person for something they were born with? what if their “born” trait was truly shocking like a desire to kill naturally? or a desire to hurt children naturally? What do we do THEN?

We know that’s not good for others, but if it’s their “biology” how do we fight it? How do we judge it and guage it? How do we help and fix it, and by what criteria do we state it is good or bad?

The whole emphasis behind this debate is what really interests me, not the debate itself. I am a relative moralist not objective. I’ve known enough gay’s and lesbians to have made my own judgment call on their sexual orientation and I have seen their relationships no different than heterosexuals.

But if Biology plays a key in our concept of morality…where does that leave, our concept…of morality in and of itself?

It’s a tricky one.

 

[Exalt]

I agree. I think for some, it in fact may be a choice. I think that’s the icky part to many. That they have a certain nature, and are going against it due to circumstances or force.

Negating our ability to live freely makes most of us shudder.

ahh,but see I’m very, very suspicious of this. I have come across ONLY ONE such person(doesnt’ mean there are others) and the homosexual acts they performed were quite aggresive and angry and about control of another. They ended up hetrosexual, but I don’t think they were ever gay.

Homosexual behaviour is a big ticket item in relgion, because it is one of those areas, where we realize that choice MAY be involved, but it may not be.

How do we condem a person for something they were born with? what if their “born” trait was truly shocking like a desire to kill naturally? or a desire to hurt children naturally? What do we do THEN?

We know that’s not good for others, but if it’s their “biology” how do we fight it? How do we judge it and guage it? How do we help and fix it, and by what criteria do we state it is good or bad?

The whole emphasis behind this debate is what really interests me, not the debate itself. I am a relative moralist not objective. I’ve known enough gay’s and lesbians to have made my own judgment call on their sexual orientation and I have seen their relationships no different than heterosexuals.

But if Biology plays a key in our concept of morality…where does that leave, our concept…of morality in and of itself?

It’s a tricky one.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from these discussions, it’s that the entire theory behind natural law is pretty much bogus. We know enough about biology now (and genetics) that the whole idea of “natural” has moved beyond any practical application to morality.

The whole idea of natural law has moved beyond any kind of accessible theology that the average catholic can understand to something only the academics can attempt to explain. And even they recognize the growing flaws there, as the natural world becomes more and more explained. That being said, the Natural Law argument continues to be cited. But it really boils down to this point, which is an extremely weak argument indeed:

I quote from this website’s explanation for natural law, in relation to homosexuality:

“People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal…Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions.”

catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

I just want to point out that it isn’t really reasoning. It’s just saying “I feel that is wrong” and then saying “well, it must be wrong.”

But that last line there is true, in a sense. The basic feelings we have about moral issues absolutely drive the behavior of most human beings. There’s a reason for that, but I don’t think “it’s unnatural!!” is adequate at all. The reason *why *human beings believe what they believe about morality is a question that really interests me, and I think biologists, in conjunction with social psychologists, are beginning to offer some explanations.

 

[Dameedna]

But that last line there is true, in a sense. The basic feelings we have about moral issues absolutely drive the behavior of most human beings. There’s a reason for that, but I don’t think “it’s unnatural!!” is adequate at all. The reason *why *human beings believe what they believe about morality is a question that really interests me, and I think biologists, in conjunction with social psychologists, are beginning to offer some explanations.

They answer it, in a way that is dependant on Biology, not religion.

I’m not sure other than that, what you are trying to say?

 

[buffalo]

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from these discussions, it’s that the entire theory behind natural law is pretty much bogus. We know enough about biology now (and genetics) that the whole idea of “natural” has moved beyond any practical application to morality.

The whole idea of natural law has moved beyond any kind of accessible theology that the average catholic can understand to something only the academics can attempt to explain. And even they recognize the growing flaws there, as the natural world becomes more and more explained. That being said, the Natural Law argument continues to be cited. But it really boils down to this point, which is an extremely weak argument indeed:

I quote from this website’s explanation for natural law, in relation to homosexuality:

“People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal…Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions.”

catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

I just want to point out that it isn’t really reasoning. It’s just saying “I feel that is wrong” and then saying “well, it must be wrong.”

But that last line there is true, in a sense. The basic feelings we have about moral issues absolutely drive the behavior of most human beings. There’s a reason for that, but I don’t think “it’s unnatural!!” is adequate at all. The reason *why *human beings believe what they believe about morality is a question that really interests me, and I think biologists, in conjunction with social psychologists, are beginning to offer some explanations.

Catholic teaching is that the natural law is written into every human heart.

 

[onaquest]

I work with adults with developmental disabilities. None of them show homosexual tendencies. They are all gender aware and at dances the men want to dance with women and the women want to dance with men. What do you make of this?

I share it because it seems to fit with your talk on genes and because it is just something I have noticed.

 

[Exalt]

They answer it, in a way that is dependant on Biology, not religion.

I’m not sure other than that, what you are trying to say?

Of course. They’re not interested in religious explanations to that answer (i.e., God made us feel that such and such is wrong).

And I was just adding some comments to what you said there.

 

[Exalt]

Catholic teaching is that the natural law is written into every human heart.

But it’s rather hard to tell what basic intuitions that I have are good and which ones aren’t so good. If I get grossed out every time I see a black man kiss a white woman, that’s bad and not “natural law that was written on my heart by God”. But if I get grossed out every time I see a man kiss another man, that’s good and part of the "natural law that was written into every human heart.

Natural law theory is all well and good when you’re reflecting on what you have already been told is right or wrong, but it is absolutely meaningless as a starting place for thinking about ethical issues.

 

[cpayne]

Natural law theory is all well and good when you’re reflecting on what you have already been told is right or wrong, but it is absolutely meaningless as a starting place for thinking about ethical issues.

The rational mind has both a theoretical aspect (what we should believe based on what is self-evidently true, and the reasoning developing from that) and a practical aspect (how we should behave based on what is self-evidently morally true, and the reasoning developing from that). The axiomatic knowledge of some elements of right and wrong, and the habitual, almost “instinctive” reactions based on that knowledge, are called synderesis. These axiomatic principles do not depend on what we’ve been “told,” although what we are told can reinforce them. What we’ve been told (in secular schools, for example) can also confuse and blunt the force of these axiomatic principles, and people can actually end up confused about right and wrong. The same is true on the theoretical level—I’ve had students actually argue with me that A does not always equal A, just as I’ve had students argue with me that homosexual liaisons are “right” for some humans.

At any rate, given all the reasoning that has in fact developed from natural law principles, the quoted comment seems deliberately intended to deceive. Deliberately intending to deceive in a conversation such as this one, as everyone knows, is (naturally) wrong.

 

[cpayne]

I just noticed that my post has just about nothing to do with the thread topic. Sorry.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

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.

Hi KES, Lets say while “with child” it is determined that your child has the “rape gene”, should you abort him?

 

[Carolinagirl411]

Hi KES, Lets say while “with child” it is determined that your child has the “rape gene”, should you abort him?

Wow that’s a statement…Reminds me of psychopaths and sociopaths…Psychologists/Psychiatrists believe that Psychopaths are born killers, born without a conscience or ever having the ability to develop one. Sociopaths are made by their environment. Born perfectly normal but due to abuse/stress/inability to cope they become killers…

People believe Psychopaths have a serial killer “gene” so to speak or a gene that malfunctions to prevent them from developing a moral conscience. If you were able to determine your child has that defect what would you do…Most people I’m sure would be like “They may have that gene but the environmental influences can prevent them from being that way”

Prob same thing for homosexuality

Sorry to go off topic…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If …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?

Thats a cop out. One can have the predisposition towards alcoholism, but one does not have to drink, it is a choice. The same is true for them that have a “predisposition” towards any sin, be it gayness, adultry, or whatever — acting on that urge is a choice.

God is able to deliver you completely by cleansing, sanctifying, and justifying you (I Corinthians 6:9-11). Though sexual misconduct is a failing of the flesh (Galatians 5), the Holy Spirit can, and will, produce the self-control you needto overcome it (Galatians 5:22-23).

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Wow that’s a statement…Reminds me of psychopaths and sociopaths…Psychologists/Psychiatrists believe that Psychopaths are born killers, born without a conscience or ever having the ability to develop one. Sociopaths are made by their environment. Born perfectly normal but due to abuse/stress/inability to cope they become killers…

People believe Psychopaths have a serial killer “gene” so to speak or a gene that malfunctions to prevent them from developing a moral conscience. If you were able to determine your child has that defect what would you do…Most people I’m sure would be like “They may have that gene but the environmental influences can prevent them from being that way”

Prob same thing for homosexuality

Sorry to go off topic…

No problem, that is where I was going.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Bottom line, God idenitifies homosexuality as sin, just as he identifies gluttion, adultry, drunkness, etc all sins of lack of self control. And, yet if one is truly born of God then by God’s grace and strength one can overcome those sins. The fact that one is walking in any of those sins I think is proof that one is NOT born of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New International Version - UK)

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 8:5-8 (New International Version - UK)

5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace;

7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Don’t you know that evil people won’t have a share in the blessings of God’s kingdom? Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual

1 Timothy 1:10
The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

[BlaineTog]

I never said the church should say if you are homosexual you should go nuts. I am saying that if the problem the church has with homosexual acts is that these acts are not within the context of a marriage, than shouldn’t the church allow marriage for sex sex couples as to help them not sin (not tempt others to sin as you said)?

It’s kinda a chicken-and-egg situation. Homosexual sex isn’t licit because sex is only for marriage and marriage must be heterosexual.

Anyway, as for the actual topic, I heard an interesting hypothesis as for why homosexuality would have hung on were it genetic. The basic idea is that the alpha-male selects for women exhibiting homosexual behavior because he also knows that the lesbian isn’t going to go behind his back and conceive other children which he would then accidentally raise as his own because she wouldn’t have any desire to couple with other men. Straight women could pretend to be gay for this purpose, but they’re more likely to be convincing at it if they’re actually gay (or at least bisexual).

I have no idea if this actually makes sense or not, but it’s interesting all the same.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

It makes sense and sounds silly to me because if a man suspected his wife were the cheating type, he would think twice about committing to her, unless his name was Hosea.

If a gay couple can choose to have a child, then that proves that they have choices and can no longer say, “I have no choice”.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

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.

Really? I don’t remember seeing the Sacrament of Marriage before the Church, certianly Monogamey wasen’t the norm in the OT as pologamy was quite regularly practiced.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Thats a cop out. One can have the predisposition towards alcoholism, but one does not have to drink, it is a choice. .

That’s not compariable, I have alchaholism in my family, and the few times I have had a drink I have had an acute sense that I could very easily get dependent on Alchohol, so I don’t mae a habit of drinking, I used to love putting a splash of Wiskey in my tea, but started feeling dependent on it so I stoped.

The idea of comparing my choice not to drink, and a homosexual choosing never to persure fufilling, loving relationships with another persone are any way compariable in terms of magnitude is just utter non-sense

 

[fix]

Really? I don’t remember seeing the Sacrament of Marriage before the Church, certianly Monogamey wasen’t the norm in the OT as pologamy was quite regularly practiced.

Why does it have to be a sacrament to be valid or a natural marriage? Are you claiming a baptized person married to a non baptized person are not really married?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Why does it have to be a sacrament to be valid or a natural marriage? Are you claiming a baptized person married to a non baptized person are not really married?

No, The Church recognises such marriages, I’m claiming that Marriage in the OT was quite different from Marriage in the present Church, do you deney this?