0
031064
Guest
This is simply false. Most evolutionary biologists will tell you that homosexuals can still promote the continued existence of their species by acting as subsidiary caregivers.
- Status
0
031064
Guest
Here’s what you have all done so far:
- Provided me with numerous ‘because God says so’ points
- Provided me with no scientifically relevant data to back up those point (my personal favourite was when someone cited that excrement comes out of the anus- what comes out of the penis and vagina? Urine- liquid excrement.)
- You have not at all explained why an intelligent God would design a male anus that has the ability to experience independent sensual pleasure.
- You have largely bombarded me with doctrine, and Church teachings that hold little scientific authority or no scientific clout.
B
benidict
Guest
hi. dont know if anyone has taken this on from a mystic standpoint. if you look at the star of david, it is an upright triangle, and an upsidown triangle interwoven. if you look at genisis, it states that God created man in his own image, Male and Female created he them. therefore one of the many meanings within the star of david, is that male and female combined form the image of God. in otherwords, when men and women have intercourse, they are in effect reflecting the true naure of our Creator by being one. homosexuality on the otherhand is a mockery of the image of God. its end result is nothing or death. whereas man and woman bring forth life. the interesting thing to note tho, is lesbianism, is never addressed in the scriptures, apart from one verse by the apostle paul. the rabbis also did not view this as a great evil as they did male homosexuality, since women together cannot complete the act to become one. although this behavior was discouraged, it was not punishable by death, as was male homosexuality. hope this helps. peace
D
davidv
Guest
Homosexual relations are not a scientific problem. Science is not equiped to deal with it. These relations are a spiritual problem. Theological means are required to deal with it.
Based on this I would say that your prior piety was pretty shallow, as this is evidence of a poorly formed view of what love truely is.
L
ladybri77
Guest
To answer that question, God didn’t doom people to be gay or to even have certain weaknesses. When evil entered the world (Satan), when he was thrown out of heaven and came to earth to dwell, he appeared in the Garden and tempted Eve. Since Eve chose to sin against God by eating the apple, as He gave us free will, the descendents of Adam and Eve would suffer the consequence of sin entering into the world at this point. They went and hid because they were ashamed. Ever since The Fall, as it is called, we have battled evil. Sickness, disease, birth defects, all kinds of anomalies have flourished since the Fall. Not to mention dysfunction in the family because people have been decieved and deeply hurt by some form of sin done against them. Some of us came to believe the lies that were told us or that we perceive as truth.
What is my point? Evil has been in the world since the beginning. God didn’t stop it because He gave us free will and a chance to turn to Him and be saved. He demosntrated His love to us by giving us free will. Once we violated His commands, sin entered in and caused havoc. So, He sent a Savior, that if we choose to accept Him, we would have eternal life despite our actions. So, God did not create evil nor did He doom people to a life of struggle. It’s because of sin in the world that we struggle. The good news is that God’s Grace is there to help us and make us stronger because of the struggle if we don’t give in and turn to Him to receive it.
I heard the story of an alcoholic once who was very deep into alcoholism. He started going to AA and felt strengthed there. He discovered God and recovered. He said that He is so thankful for his alcoholism because if he never became an alcoholic, he never would have experienced God’s grace in such a powerful way. The same can be said of people with homosexuality, if we don’t give into it, we can experience a greater level of spiritual and emotional growth and become closer to God.
You’ve probably heard of people who have lost their legs and say they wouldn’t want their legs back because they have learned how to be truly happy. So, we can turn anything that has caused us pain or was meant to harm us into something positive by God’s grace.
L
ladybri77
Guest
However, in Romans, it says both males and females turned from one another and burned in their desire toward the same sex…committing sin between them. (ad lib)the interesting thing to note tho, is lesbianism, is never addressed in the scriptures, apart from one verse by the apostle paul. the rabbis also did not view this as a great evil as they did male homosexuality, since women together cannot complete the act to become one. although this behavior was discouraged, it was not punishable by death, as was male homosexuality. hope this helps. peace
R
richardacombs
Guest
Once again, you throw out “facts” with no references. What evolutionary biologists? Who are they? What are their credentials? Where were the studies conducted and when?
The very fact that homosexual acts cannot result in procreation substantiates my original statement. You provide wishful thinking, not research.
Various people face various temptations. Let me see: wrath, sloth, pride, greed, lust, gluttony, and envy are considered by many the “cardinal” sins. Lust, which is just one of these seven sins, includes all types immoral activities including homosexual acts.
The idea is to resist the temptations. I don’t recall ever reading in the Bible or in the dogmas and doctrines of the Church, that some people are immune from temptations. Jesus was repeatedly tempted. Often, people give in to the temptations. That’s when they ask for forgiveness, which God has already provided through the sacrifice of his Son. Salvation is a gift of God. The works we do that prove our faith are resisting the many temptations that surround us. Complaining about a particular temptation and crying that it is unfair does not qualify as a work to demonstrate our faith.
B
benidict
Guest
yes. that is the verse i am refering to. but look how he phrases it. its almost as an afterthought. women together, cannot complete a connection. therefore they cannot form a mockery of the image of God. furthermore. research has indicated, that a majority of females are bi-sexual by nature. think about it. when you were in school, did anyone think it strange that two females would walk down the hall holding hands, or that they tend to cuddle together? no. now if two males were to do the same, that would be strange. Peace
L
ladybri77
Guest
Yes, I see what you mean, but I think sex is just as sinful with two women as two men. Been there, done that.yes. that is the verse i am refering to. but look how he phrases it. its almost as an afterthought. women together, cannot complete a connection. therefore they cannot form a mockery of the image of God. furthermore. research has indicated, that a majority of females are bi-sexual by nature. think about it. when you were in school, did anyone think it strange that two females would walk down the hall holding hands, or that they tend to cuddle together? no. now if two males were to do the same, that would be strange. Peace
B
benidict
Guest
i see your point. i myself practice celibacy since i am single. its alot less complicated. i have some wonderful female friends who i love dearly. and i think i have a much more fulfilling relationship with both of them because sexuality is not an issue. Peace
K
kepha1
Guest
No one is saying a homosexual cannot be loved. No other church on this planet has a more compassionate approach to homosexuality than the Catholic Church. I support that statement with this evidence: couragerc.org/
- Provided me with numerous ‘because God says so’ points
- Provided me with no scientifically relevant data to back up those point (my personal favourite was when someone cited that excrement comes out of the anus- what comes out of the penis and vagina? Urine- liquid excrement.)
- You have not at all explained why an intelligent God would design a male anus that has the ability to experience independent sensual pleasure.
- You have largely bombarded me with doctrine, and Church teachings that hold little scientific authority or no scientific clout.
"…Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54
Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals’ propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.58
References on the next post
K
kepha1
Guest
- C. Bagley and P. Tremblay, “Suicidal Behaviors in Homosexual and Bisexual Males,” Crisis 18 (1997): 24-34.
- R. A. Garofalo et al., “The Associations Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-Based Sample of Adolescents,” Pediatrics 101 (1998): 895-902.
- R. Herrell et al., Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-74; D. M. Fergusson, J. Horwood, A. L. Beautrais, “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 876-80; M. J. Bailey, “Homosexuality and Mental Illness,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 883-4.
- P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 757-76.
- Ibid.
- Laura Dean et al., “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns,” Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 4, no. 3 (2000): 101-51.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978).
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- J. B. Lehmann, C. U. Lehmann, and P. J. Kelly, “Development and Health Care Needs of Lesbians,” Journal of Women’s Health 7 (1998) 379-88.
catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
N
Nozzferrahhtoo
Guest
It is a safe position the user you reply to holds. Across nature species are in fact strengthened by their non-reproducing elements, not weakened by them. Species from ants and wasps in the insect world to many examples such as the bald mole rat in the mammal world benefit greatly rather than suffer from the existence of non-reproducing elements in their hierarchy.
Such beneficial non-reproduction is achieved in a variety of ways from the simple one of making those elements sex less and so removing the element of reproduction from them, but in others it can be achieved by re-directing the sexual impulse to non-reproductive ends (such as homosexuality) while still retaining the beneficial aspects of the act (such as social commitment and bonding).
In other words in these animals, humans included, it is not the homosexual act itself that is beneficial, but the elements of the species that are created by the redirection of their instincts by the homosexual act into non-reproductive pathways.
Successful reproduction in evolution is not about having the most children only. It is about the successful and safe rearing of those children so they can have children of their own. If there are 2 sets of 4 siblings, the former having no homosexual elements and the latter having 1, then the children of the first group each have 100% parental care.
The children of the 3 non homosexuals in the second group also have 100% paternal care PLUS 33% of the homosexual care element of the 4th sibling. This gives a protective advantage as an example of what I referred to in paragraph 1 above. Not only that but given that a large number of the genes of the homosexual sibling are in the other siblings, not to mention their off spring, the successful transfer of ones genes into future generations does not require direct reproduction on ones own part.
As with all science a theory like that will be required to make predictions. If you wanted a sibling to be a protective but not reproducing element then you would certainly not want it to be the first born if you can help it. The prediction the theory would make therefore is that the younger the sibling the more effective it would be as a carer and protector for the children of its siblings. Is this born out in reality?
In fact it is as recent discoveries have shown that there appears a correlation between the number of children a woman has and the probability of that child being homosexual. A hormone thought to increase the probability of a son being homosexual, for example, is found to be present in greater quantities with each son a woman has, making the likely hood of each son in the sequence being the homosexual element.
This very concept is indeed explored by many evolutionary biologists. I would recommend the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, not because I have any particular respect for him or that I think you can find good science in books, but because he does indeed cover this very topic clearly and concisely and his bibliography of the peer reviewed science he bases it on is detailed and will very effectively answer your request for names and publications.
R
richardacombs
Guest
What you’re saying is that even though homosexuals have no practical use in reproduction, they are still useful in child rearing. You could take non-homosexual, unmarried humans–by the measure of Darwinism far up the evolutionary scale from insects–and provide the same child rearing without all the negative side effects of human homosexuality, as so eloquently provided by kepha1 in posts #230 and #231 above.
This is certainly a case of figures don’t lie, but liars sure figure. The human homosexual sibling would care for the siblings of his/her siblings? Exactly how would this occur–by placing the person with homosexual tendencies in permanent bondage? Why not an unmarried heterosexual? Actually, you could use the same example you provide to demonstrate a statistically equal disadvantage of homosexuals in the system, since heterosexual humans are forced to care and provide for non-reproducing members of their society.
This supports my previous statement. “…the younger the sibling the more effective it would be as a carer and protector for the children of its siblings. Is this born out in reality?” Of course, I respond, the youngest always willingly cares for the siblings of older siblings. Such logic also predicts that given wings, pigs would fly.
Discoveries? “…appears…probability…thought…likely hood…” Let me use those same words in another sentence and produce an equally valid hypothesis: “It appears from my home that in all probability the earth is flat. It is thought, therefore, by myself and my neighbors that in all likelihood the earth is flat.”
Exactly so. Too often, fuzzy headed thinking with “appears…probabilities…thoughts…and likelihoods…” is published and publicized as valid research, instead it’s little more than a rambling litany of the author’s preconceived notions.
This argument reminds me of the Darwinism debacle. Probabilities, likelihoods, appearances, thoughts, suppositions, and piecemeal evidence are packaged and sold as fact. We certainly have solid evidence of micro-evolution: that individual species can adapt to the environment. We do not have, or we have contradictory and questionable evidence, of macro-evolution: that one genus can evolve into another, or that even one species can evolve into another. I am not denying Darwinism, I am only giving it the credit it deserves as a well-accepted theory.
N
Nozzferrahhtoo
Guest
RichardCombs,
No I am not limiting the homosexual elements to just child rearing, but that is one example of where they can be benefical. Read again what I wrote though, it is not limited to children. I quote that in the animal kingdom many species “benefit greatly rather than suffer from the existence of non-reproducing elements in their hierarchy.” I certainly do not reduce people to being mere incubators and rearers of children like some here would have them.
I am not sure what use your point is about unmarried homosexuals, except as a jumping point for getting in a not subtle attempt at calling people who disagree with you “liars” as you did here. Nothing I am saying about homosexuality and the possible natural explanations for it preclude single heterosexuals from doing or partaking in anything.
The point is that many aspects of these species hierarchies benefit from not just parental care but extended family care. That nature would therefore cause things to happen (such as homosexuality) to increase the probability of such things occurring is no surprise. Sure heterosexuals can achieve the same thing, but just as likely said heterosexual will find themselves suddenly with off spring of their own and their duties and priorities will shift.
If you however think the earth is flat as you say above, then there is a lot more work to be done here than discussing possible evolutionary advantages of species producing non-reproductive elements.
No I am not limiting the homosexual elements to just child rearing, but that is one example of where they can be benefical. Read again what I wrote though, it is not limited to children. I quote that in the animal kingdom many species “benefit greatly rather than suffer from the existence of non-reproducing elements in their hierarchy.” I certainly do not reduce people to being mere incubators and rearers of children like some here would have them.
I am not sure what use your point is about unmarried homosexuals, except as a jumping point for getting in a not subtle attempt at calling people who disagree with you “liars” as you did here. Nothing I am saying about homosexuality and the possible natural explanations for it preclude single heterosexuals from doing or partaking in anything.
The point is that many aspects of these species hierarchies benefit from not just parental care but extended family care. That nature would therefore cause things to happen (such as homosexuality) to increase the probability of such things occurring is no surprise. Sure heterosexuals can achieve the same thing, but just as likely said heterosexual will find themselves suddenly with off spring of their own and their duties and priorities will shift.
If you however think the earth is flat as you say above, then there is a lot more work to be done here than discussing possible evolutionary advantages of species producing non-reproductive elements.
L
ladybri77
Guest
Of course there is a benefit when somone volunteers to raise children, but at what cost? The benefit is that the child might have a loving home with its material needs met. At the same time, how would the child be affected growing up in an environment where a sinful lifestyle is practiced? The child would probably come to love their parents and see beyond their sexual orientation, however, how would they be affected at school? How would their morals be formed based on the sexual relationship between the couple?
It would probably be different in each situation with the child possibly eventually discovering the Lord as an adult and knowing right from wrong or they would come to accept the sinful lifestyle as okay, telling others it was okay, when in fact, it’s not. After all they were brought up that way…
N
Nozzferrahhtoo
Guest
Your whole post assumes two things:
- There is a “lord” and discovering this is a good thing
- That homosexuality is bad, and hence its influence on children is therefore bad.
The second is the subject of this thread. I have seen many arguments on whether homosexuality is good or bad go down a similar road. “Homosexuality is bad because it can cause children to be homosexual or influence their morality on the subject”. A statement that is only true if homosexuality was bad. In other words you have to assume Homosexuality to be bad in order for this “evidence” to show homosexuality is bad. Any argument that is only an argument if you pre-assume it’s conclusion is an argument we must dismiss instantly.
L
ladybri77
Guest
Okay, let’s assume it’s wrong or immoral, with immoral here meaning not just sin but the presupposed impossibility of same sex unions producing life. In turn, the child would inevitably be affected either morally or socially. If it’s not wrong, which it is, the child could still be affected socially and morally if immorality here means sexual unions which do not produce life influencing him or her to believe a lie.
Now many have used the argument of what about those who cannot have children having sex, why isn’t that wrong? With God or “nature” intending the use of our sexual organs as being made for a male and female union, and with the majority of heterosexuals being able to and having children, it is not wrong in a marital union to have sex when no children are produced because of infertility, as that is the natural order of things and the way God intended. Even if you don’t believe in God, heterosexual sex is the natural order of things, the way we were created naturally to be.
F
Fayle
Guest
So celibacy is unnatural too, right?
H
hellopeople
Guest
It is kind of unfair though that heterosexual can have loving intimate relationships with the opposite sex, but homosexuals can be in a loving relationship with the person they love (because it is immoral according to the church). So it is definitely different than a heterosexual avoiding lust.
- Status