How can homosexuality be immoral or contrary to natural ends if there is a genetic/evolutionary/biological reason for it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDefaultMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheDefaultMan

Guest
Got this from reddit. "This Ted talk [“Homosexuality- it’s about survival, not sex”] argued that homosexuality exists as an evolutionary means of birth control (by reducing conflict amongst the males for the females) and that the more sons a mother will have the more likely homosexuality chances will increase for the sons.

How can we still argue that homosexuality is immoral/contrary to the procreative faculties if there is an explicit genetic/evolutionary/biological reason for it?"

PS: It seems as though most, if not all of the people who have replied so far are ignorant of Thomistic ethics and philosophy in general. If you do not have any understanding of Thomism then you might as well not reply. Baseless appeals to the will of God are not sound responses.
 
Last edited:
There may or may not be a genetic/evolutionary purpose for it, but that purpose isn’t creating facsimile marriages that parallel the marriage between a man and a woman. What you wrote doesn’t seem to account for female homosexuality, though the same would apply.
 
Last edited:
You could use the same argument to support bestiality.

There is no evolutionary necessity of birth control.
 
TheDefaultMan said:
How can we still argue that homosexuality is immoral/contrary to the procreative faculties if there is an explicit genetic/evolutionary/biological reason for it?"
Click to expand...
Is there any sin in the book (name just one) that doesn’t in some way relate to an evolutionary/biological component?

Society isn’t built on base instincts and desires. It is built on ethics and reason.
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
Your comment is a red herring.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Life can’t exist without procreation. You don’t need to look very hard to justify relations between members of the opposite sex.

And no, homosexuality is not “immoral”. It’s a state of being.
 
Last edited:
TheDefaultMan said:
How can we still argue that homosexuality is immoral/contrary to the procreative faculties if there is an explicit genetic/evolutionary/biological reason for it?"
Click to expand...
There is no genetic/evolutionary/biological reason for it. It is a result of original sin and just with all disordered sins, it needs to be rejected. God created man male and female.
 
Last edited:
This is actually the best reply so far. There really could be some other evolutionary reason that just isn’t shown in homosexuals today.

Still I think it conflicts partially because it shows some biological direction towards homosexuality, which would seem to entail, from a Thomistic point of view, that homosexuality isn’t a perversion but rather a fulfillment of natural ends

And also yes it does deal with females, though to a lesser extent, because female homosexuals would also reduce conflict amongst females.
 
Last edited:
Maybe not. I haven’t read Thomas Aquinas except for blips and blurps.
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
You could if 10% of all people fit into that category. But statistically, such sexual deviance do not fit into the same range. You’d also have to demonstrate it in terms a normal sexual relationship (in other words, in a room of 50 men and 50 women, there will still be homosexuals). And we would all agree bestiality is damaging to society.
Click to expand...
What do percentages have to do with it?
Why is bestiality damaging to society?
 
Last edited:
Not really. There aren’t as many people practicing bestiality as there are homosexuals, which is why there isn’t as much need of a genetic/biological explanaition for them.
 
Base instincts??? Desires??? I’m not talking about “base instincts” or “desires” but rather on biological functions that tend to point to some end (as Thomists put it). And I’m just pointing it out because it seems as though under Thomistic analysis homosexuality isn’t a perversion of natural ends at all, but rather a fulfillment of them (to an extent of course)
 
First of all, I’m not merely appealing to evolution to argue for ththe morality of these acts (in fact, I’m not even arguing for them yet, I just want to arrive at the truth) but rather I’m appealing to natural law theory, and how under biological evidence it seems to suggest that homosexuality is natural and not a perversion of natural ends
 
jan10000 said:
The question was about homosexuality being immoral if there is evolutionary benefit. You basically said it doesn’t matter, gay marriage is still wrong. That is what my “red herring” comment is addressing.
Click to expand...
What? Do you know what ‘red herring’ means?

And yes, that is exactly what I said. I literally answered the question as directly as possible. Just because something has an evolutionary component doesn’t mean that it is moral.
 
You probably should read him in depth, along with his defenders like Ed Feser and Oderberg. He’s by far my favorite philosopher and he’s also the favorite philosophy of the Church (Angelic Doctor hehe)
 
I’m going to stop talking to you now. You aren’t making any sense to me.
 
@jan10000 You’re pretty smart. Can you give a reply to my reply?
 
TheDefaultMan said:
An evolutionary component itself wouldn’t show it to be moral, but if an evolutionary component were to show a strong biological directedness (ie pointing towards a final end) then under Catholic Thomistic ethics it would have to be considered moral
Click to expand...
But they don’t need to have sexual relations with each other. They simply need to not compete with the heterosexual mainstream, at least that’s what you said about the TED Talk. It doesn’t seem like a very good argument because the homosexual females and homosexual males cancel each other out and the level of competition is almost the same.

Besides, homosexual people have continued to marry and have sex with people of the opposite sex for thousands of years, throughout human civilization.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of things that happen because of genes or natural processes, like cancer. Singling out a genetic basis for homosexuality ( which is hypothetical at this point) doesn’t mean it’s morally correct or beneficial. The effects of a fallen world are manifested in us in many different ways. God specifically created sex for man and woman. As humans we are made in the image of God, that means we are made to reflect how God operates within himself. Homosexuality simply doesn’t reflect the image of God in us.
 
Last edited:
Homosexuality is condemned in Scripture and by the Church. You can try to twist your own view of St.Thomas to make excuses for sins, but you will be departing from the Church and leading people to hell.
 
TheDefaultMan said:
Legit please stop I don’t think you’re educated enough about philosophy to be making these arguments.
Click to expand...
I’d prefer if you explained the position in your own words. You posted on a public internet forum after all, not having a conversation with seminarians. It’s pretty restrictive if you only want people that studied Thomism in depth to participate in the thread.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top