Homosexuality arguements

[jimmy]

I have been conversing with an atheist about Christianity. He brought up the matter of Homosexuality. He has a brother in law that is a homosexual and he does not see it as immoral. I do not know how to argue this, can you guys give me your best arguement against homosexuality when talking to an atheist. Using the bible will not work because he does not accept the bible.

The reason why I am arguing with him on this issue is to make him see the good of Christianity.

 

[BayCityRickL]

You may not be able to win him over, if he has such a skeptical attitude. The subject falls into the realm of whether anything is right or wrong, in the first place. You have to be able to start somewhere and work your way over to that subject, if you can.

One central case to be made is whether it is biologically adaptive to be homosexual? Of course it’s not. Nature is talking to us.

Another approach is with natural law. The way things work, men and women are biologically complimentary and for a purpose. That purpose is the only valid purpose.

If he does not accept the inspiration of the Bible, perhaps he can think about it being simply a rule for living, and a tested rule for that. The fact that the Bible speaks to the subject, indicates that homosexuality was known a long time ago, and the judgment of that kind of behavior was made back then.

The best evidence at present is that homosexuality is not hard wired into anybody by genetics. The highest expression of masculinity is in its complimentary relationship with the opposite sex.

Lacking eyewitness testimony in this matter, you might say, then the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

 

[JimG]

You might want to simply point out the serious health problems associated with a homosexual lifestyle.

christianarsenal.com/HomoHealth.htm

homosexuellt.com/infosida/show_article.asp?Idnr=207

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

healthyplace.com/communities/gender/site/depression/mental_problems.htm

 

[buffalo]

Visit here for the arguments:

Narth

Stephen Bennet Ministries

Courage

 

[AlanFromWichita]

BayCityRickL:

One central case to be made is whether it is biologically adaptive to be homosexual? Of course it’s not. Nature is talking to us.

The best evidence at present is that homosexuality is not hard wired into anybody by genetics. The highest expression of masculinity is in its complimentary relationship with the opposite sex.

Dear BayCityRickL,

I agree with your points. One thing I’ve observed in the political arena is that the same people who believe in Darwin are often the ones who claim that homosexuality IS hardwired. If you put those two things together, homosexuals should have been extinct long ago.

This is not an opinion for or against Darwin, BTW. Just an observation of inconsistency among certain political groups.

Also from the political arena is that gay rights activists tend to also claim to be champions of “diversity.” There is no diversity at all in a homosexual relationship, and I question whether one reason they exist is so that those involved do not have to deal with diversity. A “complimentary relationship with the opposite sex” as you’ve described can properly be called a “diverse” relationship.

Alan

 

[Ken]

BayCityRickL:

You may not be able to win him over, if he has such a skeptical attitude. The subject falls into the realm of whether anything is right or wrong, in the first place. You have to be able to start somewhere and work your way over to that subject, if you can.

One central case to be made is whether it is biologically adaptive to be homosexual? Of course it’s not. Nature is talking to us.

Another approach is with natural law. The way things work, men and women are biologically complimentary and for a purpose. That purpose is the only valid purpose.

If he does not accept the inspiration of the Bible, perhaps he can think about it being simply a rule for living, and a tested rule for that. The fact that the Bible speaks to the subject, indicates that homosexuality was known a long time ago, and the judgment of that kind of behavior was made back then.

The best evidence at present is that homosexuality is not hard wired into anybody by genetics. The highest expression of masculinity is in its complimentary relationship with the opposite sex.

Lacking eyewitness testimony in this matter, you might say, then the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

Lack of evidence for genetic causes does not disprove a genetic cause.

There is also no evidence that it is genetic.

Bottom line is that we don’t know. Opinions in either direction are meaningless.

 

[mlchance]

Ken:

Opinions in either direction are meaningless.

Maybe your opinion is meaningless, but there is a vast and convincing body of evidence that shows that homosexuality is not only not genetic but is caused by environmental factors dealing with early childhood.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[PilgrimJWT]

Ken:

Lack of evidence for genetic causes does not disprove a genetic cause.

There is also no evidence that it is genetic.

Bottom line is that we don’t know. Opinions in either direction are meaningless.

Right on. Us Catholics tend to assign moral blame too readily, and I would bet that most would call homosexuality a matter of choice. Many in the homosexual community would say it was genetic or inborn. And neither is anywhere close to making a solid case for their arguments. As you put it so well, we DO NOT KNOW.

 

[mlchance]

PilgrimJWT:

Right on. Us Catholics tend to assign moral blame too readily, and I would bet that most would call homosexuality a matter of choice. Many in the homosexual community would say it was genetic or inborn. And neither is anywhere close to making a solid case for their arguments. As you put it so well, we DO NOT KNOW.

Anyone who says homosexuality’s cause is genetic is blowing smoke. There is not only zero evidence for genetic causation, there is actually negative evidence for genetic causation. This combined with the great deal of evidence that points to psychological causes for homosexuality pretty much ends the debate for anyone honest enough to evaluate the evidence.

Also, the cause of homosexuality is completely irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality. Grant for the sake of argument that no one chooses *to be *homosexual. This grant does nothing to change the fact that engaging in homosexual intercourse is a choice, and it is a choice that is contrary to natural law, Scripture, and Tradition.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mlchance:

Also, the cause of homosexuality is completely irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality. Grant for the sake of argument that no one chooses *to be *homosexual. This grant does nothing to change the fact that engaging in homosexual intercourse is a choice, and it is a choice that is contrary to natural law, Scripture, and Tradition.

Dear Mark,

This is a good point. Technically, jimmy only said that his friend’s brother-in-law was homosexual, not that he’s engaging in homosexual behavior. Perhaps we are to assume they are, but it gives me an idea.

Maybe a starting point with discussion is to emphasize the point you just made. The Church teaches that there is nothing immoral about being a homosexual. Maybe jimmy could start the discussion by establishing that point of agreement; that we are not saying the person is immoral just because of the way he is. It may not get very far, but it’s a place to start.

Alan

Reference:
CCC 2357-2359:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[Ken]

mlchance:

Maybe your opinion is meaningless, but there is a vast and convincing body of evidence that shows that homosexuality is not only not genetic but is caused by environmental factors dealing with early childhood.

– Mark L. Chance.

My opinion on issues which have not been demonstrated with scientific rigor is indeed meaningless. Perhaps your opinion isn’t. If it isn’t, why is it meaningful? What does it mean?

What is the evidence that shows homosexuality is not genetic? Is it conclusive? Do we have sufficient information about general human genetics to even attempt to exclude a characteristic from the realm of genetices? Are we now that advanced? Is this generally accepted by geneticists?

What is the convincing evidence that homosexuality is caused by environmental factors? Who is convinced? Is it generally accepted among scientists?

What reason do we have to hold that there is one and only one cause of homosexuality? Might it have different causes in different people? Is it our general experience that particular human behaviors have one and only one cause?

Do we know the causes of most human behavior characteristics? Have we advanced that far? The human genetic code was just mapped about three years ago. Has it been completely deciphered and linkages between genes and characteristics rigorously determined?

 

[Ken]

mlchance:

Anyone who says homosexuality’s cause is genetic is blowing smoke. There is not only zero evidence for genetic causation, there is actually negative evidence for genetic causation. This combined with the great deal of evidence that points to psychological causes for homosexuality pretty much ends the debate for anyone honest enough to evaluate the evidence.

Also, the cause of homosexuality is completely irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality. Grant for the sake of argument that no one chooses *to be *homosexual. This grant does nothing to change the fact that engaging in homosexual intercourse is a choice, and it is a choice that is contrary to natural law, Scripture, and Tradition.

– Mark L. Chance.

People who demand a genetic cause are equalled in their ignorance only by those who demand another cause.

Is psychology uneffected by genetics? Do scientists generally believe this?

 

[Mijoy2]

mlchance:

Maybe your opinion is meaningless, but there is a vast and convincing body of evidence that shows that homosexuality is not only not genetic but is caused by environmental factors dealing with early childhood.

– Mark L. Chance.

There is vast evidence for both sides of the debate. I doubt it will ever be conclusively decided.

I do wonder though how it can be not genetic yet there are people born with physical traits of both genders. In fact there are people with organs of both genders. Given this it certainly lends evidence to a possible genetic confusion over which sex to be attracted to.

If the body can be physically not totaly male or female, why can’t the mind be such?

My point isn’t whether homosexuality is right or wrong. My point is that if it is in fact genetic, a Catholic homosexual certainly has a large cross to bear.

 

[Riley259]

The Christian and religious arguments against homosexual relations are strong but you can argue against homosexuality as being disordered just from a biological point of view as well. Credible research indicates that homosexuality only happens in approximately 2% of the population (including bisexuals). This means that 98% of the population is heterosexual - that alone is powerful evidence that only heteresexuality is natural and normal and homosexuality is disordered. In order to perpetuate the species, we need to procreate with the opposite sex (artificial methods notwithstanding), otherwise our species would eventually become extinct. There is also strong evidence to suggest that homosexuality is not inborn or genetic but is caused by a constellation of environmental factors including poor identity with same sex, weak relationship with same-sex parent, abuse, among others. The two main studies (LaVay and Hamer)from the early 1990’s that gay activists use to support their inborn theory of homosexuality were flawed and not replicable but unfortunately the media did a great “sell” job to promote the myth of homosexuality having strictly biological origins. In less than 5% of the cases, there is perhaps a suggestion that certain individuals *may be *predisposed to homosexuality due to gender nonconformity issues but this is certainly not a given (Whitehead, N., My Genes Made me Do It!). The implication is that homosexuality is actually preventable in childhood or during teen years if appropriate cues and signs are identified and addressed properly (this is true for other disorders like speech disorders). Although difficult in adulthood, studies indicate that homosexuality is also fully reversable in 30% of the cases and partially reversable in another 30%. The remaining 30+% are likely intractable because of motivation factors. Some of these studies were reported by Robert Spitzer, the very person who pushed hard to have the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) panel change the status of homosexuality as something that was previously listed as a psychiatric disorder to something that was not (1973) - a closer examination of this change clearly indicated that it was politically motivated. Numerous studies also firmly indicate that being homosexual is bad for you healthwise. Homosexuals have an increased risk of suicide, shorter lifespan, increased risk of disease and mental illness - the list goes on and on. In sum, homosexuality is unnatural and disordered and continuing to live that lifestyle will not only make you unhappy but will make you unhealthy.

 

[JimG]

It does seem that if homosexuality were entirely genetic, the condition would have died out centuries ago through natural selection.

 

[dts]

I would begin by querying the consistency of the atheist’s position. Everyone has some standard of morality. When you are dealing with an atheist, you must discover his standards and worldview.

E.g, series of questions to probe his views of morality and his consistency:

Do you believe public schools should teach children that homosexual sex is just as good as heterosexual marital sex?

Do you believe that all kinds of sex are moral?

Do you believe that bestiality is moral?

Do you believe that polyamory is desirable?

Is adultery wrong? Why or why not?

Why is homosexual sexual conduct immoral while certain other types of sexual conduct are not?

 

[jennstall]

JimG:

It does seem that if homosexuality were entirely genetic, the condition would have died out centuries ago through natural selection.

If that were true wouldn’t other genetic aberrations related to sexual reproduction have died out as well?

 

[mlchance]

Mijoy2:

There is vast evidence for both sides of the debate. I doubt it will ever be conclusively decided.

I do wonder though how it can be not genetic yet there are people born with physical traits of both genders. In fact there are people with organs of both genders. Given this it certainly lends evidence to a possible genetic confusion over which sex to be attracted to.

If the body can be physically not totaly male or female, why can’t the mind be such?

Actually, there is zero evidence for genetic causation. Zero. Cases of hermaphroditism and other deformations of the genitalia are irrelevant to the question of homosexuality’s causes.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Mijoy2]

Riley259:

Numerous studies also firmly indicate that being homosexual is bad for you healthwise. Homosexuals have an increased risk of suicide, shorter lifespan, increased risk of disease and mental illness - the list goes on and on. In sum, homosexuality is unnatural and disordered and continuing to live that lifestyle will not only make you unhappy but will make you unhealthy.

True. But couldn’t it be argued that this is true because of the rejection from society and if there were more acceptance the unhappiness and health issues may diminish?

I don’t chose to be misunderstood here. I am fully aware of the teaching of the Church in this regard. I also, as a Catholic, believe that the Church’s teachings represent the will of God. Therefore I pray for my homosexual brothers and sisters. Having said this, and being new to the Catholic faith (revert) it is a teaching I have much difficulty with. I work amongst a large population of homosexuals. Not sure why, maybe it’s the nature of my work. Throughout my life I have always been very understanding and supportive of the homosexual lifestyle (said from a purely secular view, I had no spiritual view). I never saw a hint of evil in the lifestyle. The individuals I know are highly respectable, warm, kind people who cry at sad movies and stories, are charitable, friendly and giving of themselves equal to those of the heterosexual community. Now, having learned what I have learned about my Faith, I find it very difficult to come to grips with.

I’ve also felt divorce was a viable means to end a bad marriage. I no longer feel that way. I never felt adultry was wrong in absolutely all circumstances. I felt under certain conditions it was understandable. I no longer feel that way. These teachings came a bit easier to me. The teachings regarding homosexuality is tougher for me. Probably will continue to be. In this regard I feel a battle between conscience and faith. Faith will win because I believe the doctrine to be Truth. Homosexuality is against the will of God. However the inner battle resumes. It’s not like a switch I can throw.

 

[stellina]

Mijoy2:

There is vast evidence for both sides of the debate. I doubt it will ever be conclusively decided.

You & the others are right: we just don’t know what causes it.

I’ve been thinking about this lately as I have a couple of lifelong male friends who “came out of the closet” several years ago. I can’t say that I understand or condone their lifestyle, but they were my dear friends before I knew about it & they still are. The one thing that stands out is that every homosexual man I’ve known had a bad relationship with his father, running the gamut between fathers who were cold and distant to those who were violently abusive. It’s very sad. They need our prayers as much as anyone else.

I’m not saying that environmental factors are the sole explanation, but it would make sense that a genetic predisposition to homosexuality would be brought out through lack of a good male role model in a boy’s formative years. Anyway, I don’t know & nobody else seems to either, but it’s safe to say that this is a complicated issue and there are surely several factors at work.