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

[jack63]

I found the book painful on some levels, but it put major questions in my heart about how I viewed homosexuality. The author did not write the book with a Christian agenda. If the book is wrong, how? It is one thing to have a different personal experience…Ok…I believe you. Show a counter study. Show a problem with the study.

I’m sure it is not the answer you want, but I’m not sure what you want…

 

[Rau]

I get that it is complicated. People should not be condemned or made to feel terrible about how God made them.

Who has suggested that?

The thing is that this Ted talk presents point of view (i.e. homosexuality is exclusive and is a form of birth control) that is least compatible with Catholic teaching

Which Catholic teaching is compatible with the idea that homosexuality is exclusive and a form of birth control?

The question seems to show you’re searching for some type absolute statement. I can’t give that even if I wanted to…

The question I asked simply called on you to elaborate on your own statements.

 

[jack63]

Elaborating…

Are you suggesting that if the inclination is exclusive, catholic teaching on sexuality doesn’t make sense?

No.

I have no idea what else you’d what me to say.

 

[HarryStotle]

TK421:

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.

That is not the question. The question is whether homosexuality is immoral or not if there is evolutionary cause.

But to respond to your question, explain why evolution justifies marriage then between a man and a woman, but not two women, or two men? Your comment is a red herring. Sure, evolution may not justify homosexual marriage, but it doesn’t justify heterosexual marriage then either.

Your underlying assumption appears to be that if a behaviour or mode of being comes about as the result of evolution it is de facto morally permissible.

That seems to be your assumption despite that you phrase it as a question.

The question is whether homosexuality is immoral or not if there is evolutionary cause.

Unfortunately, that would be an instance of what is called the is-ought problem or naturalistic fallacy. Merely because something is does not, thereby, establish that it ought to be morally accepted – even if some arbitrary threshold of 10% is achieved.

The ought question is one of morality not biology, evolution, or even survival.

So, to answer your implicit question: an evolutionary cause does not mean anything regarding the morality or immorality of homosexuality. That has to be argued on moral grounds, not genetic outcomes.

Genetics/evolution might (although it doesn’t currently) explain homosexuality (the condition of being attracted to the same sex) but justifying homosexual behaviour is a different question, as is whether same sex marriage is morally justified. The answers to both of those come as the result of moral deliberation, not evolutionary change.

If some gene mutated such that 10% of human beings became murderous to everyone around them, we wouldn’t claim murder is thereby justified as a moral behaviour. We might excuse those afflicted with that gene from being morally culpable, but that isn’t the same as accepting murder as a moral act going forward.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

‘Never in any circumstances’ amounts to a whole lot of ‘could care less’ as far as I’m concerned.

That is apparent - you don’t care to confront the issue.

I don’t have an issue to confront.

 

[Rau]

"This Ted talk [“Homosexuality- it’s about survival, not sex”] argued that homosexuality exists as an evolutionary means of birth control…

…and it argues rather more than that too,

Having watched this Ted talk (which is given by a father of 4 children, the eldest of whom is gay), one can’t help see a father who has worked hard to come up with a rationale for homosexuality that (in his mind), makes it all seem exactly what’s needed and in our best interests. Apparently Mother Nature knew that his family (having a first child mind you!) stood in need of the attributes of a gay child! An analogy is drawn with Queen ants selecting whether the hive needs soldiers or workers.

It is an interesting talk though!

 

[MarkRome]

I read a “dear Abby” type column recently where a man wanted to know how to explain his relationships with his brothers to strangers. He was living with his six brothers and having sex with two of them.
Part of the response given was “why did his parents have so many children and contribute to the water shortage.” I kid you not.

 

[o_mlly]

Sexuality is not an abstract or academic matter for most people. In fact, it seems to me that sexuality is the opposite, a rather strong and primal drive.

It seems the latest posts have decoupled the topic from evolution-explains-homosexuality → moral to homosexuality-normal → moral. Of course, statistically, the latter claim is invalid; homosexuality is not the norm but deviates substantially from the heterosexual norm.

Sexual desire is not an either/or proposition – an abstract matter or a primal drive – but rather both. Unlike animals, in humans, the sexual urge is both a primal drive and an intellectual act.

The passions (or primal drives) move one to act. The object of this un-willed urge is then judged by the intellect as proper or not to the passion’s urge (Aristotle’s “worthy vs. unworthy act”). The judgment is sent to the will. The moral agent wills to act or dismisses the urge to act accordingly.

If the apprehended object is one’s spouse of the opposite sex then, and only then, may the intellect judge the object proper to the passion. Otherwise, the urge must be dismissed as disordered (caused by concupiscence – that original sin thing again).

If one argues that only the passions determine the morality of our acts then we are ruled by our feelings and not our reason. The result would be chaos – if it feels good, do it.

If one holds that the homosexual may act on sexual passions alone then why not everyone? Can one who believes so give a principled argument against fornication, adultery, incest, or bestiality? I think not.

 

[buffalo]

That’s patently untrue. There are two reasons why a couple have sex. One is because it feels good and the other to conceive. The desire to conceive is completely separate from the urge to have sex. I assume that you are not married as you would have known that.

Is your claim that if the reproductive act was very painful we would engage to such a high degree?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Baseless appeals to the will of God are not sound responses

You mean like the baseless statement that says:

homosexuality exists as an evolutionary means of birth control (by reducing conflict amongst the males for the females)

That’s not an argument, that’s an hypothesis.

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

What you have is an hypothesis that can’t be proven. Why should I care about it?

If you are denying the timeless teachings of the Church to promote the acceptance of sodomy, then I’m afraid there is no “we”. I have no problem adhering to the teachings of the Church. They don’t change.

 

[Freddy]

If one argues that only the passions determine the morality of our acts then we are ruled by our feelings and not our reason. The result would be chaos – if it feels good, do it.

If one holds that the homosexual may act on sexual passions alone then why not everyone? Can one who believes so give a principled argument against fornication, adultery, incest, or bestiality? I think not.

This is part of the problem. This tendency to moral superiority from an unfortunately not insignificant proportion of posters. ‘When we have sex the intellect has judged the object proper to the passion. But when gay people have sex they are just mindlessly rutting and have no control over their animal passions’. Throw in a ‘disgust’ emoticon and the argument is done and dusted.

So many people, when they think of gay sex, firstly and automatically think of two men. It’s rarely two women. Then I’m pretty certain they are picturing something sordid and dirty. A one night stand with drunken participants simply satisfying basic instincts.

It would never occur to them that it might, for example, involve two middle aged women who have been together for twenty loving years in a monogamous relationship.

If anyone wants to argue against casual sex, or dangerous and risky sex then let’s hear it. If anyone wants to make a point that one night stands are not a great idea then bring it on. If anyone wants to warn about stds then let’s hear it. If you have a point about sex being more rewarding in an intimate and long standing and comitted relationship then I’m sure you may have some worthwhile points to make.

But if your main point, before you do any of that, is to point out your moral superiority to anyone who doesn’t agree with you, the rest of whatever you have to say will be treated with the respect it deserves.

 

[buffalo]

It would never occur to them that it might, for example, involve two middle aged women who have been together for twenty loving years in a monogamous relationship.

Have you ever read the 4 Loves by CS Lewis?

 

[goout]

This is part of the problem. This tendency to moral superiority from an unfortunately not insignificant proportion of posters.

The irony is striking. When a simple and foundational case is made for recognizing one basis for sexual morality using observation and reason, you and others resort to cliches like “moralizing” and “religious presuppositions”.

So you are in fact injecting moral opinion into a discussion. (without addressing the reasoning behind it…which is also blindly religious…ironically)

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

This is part of the problem. This tendency to moral superiority from an unfortunately not insignificant proportion of posters.

So you are in fact injecting moral opinion into a discussion. (without addressing the reasoning behind it…which is also blindly religious…ironically)

C’mon, goout - gimme a break. This is nothing except a thread about morality.

“If one argues that only the passions determine the morality of our acts then we are ruled by our feelings and not our reason. The result would be chaos – if it feels good, do it.”

And the trite assumption that ‘if it feels good then do it’ is a universal mantra espoused by all who don’t follow a specific teaching of a specific religion is nonsensical. Too risible to even be considered a debating point. It’s simply a lazy throw away line. But one which some seem to think is actually a basis for an argument.

 

[o_mlly]

If anyone wants to make a point …

I haven’t seen one in this post yet …

‘if it feels good then do it’ is a universal mantra espoused by all who don’t follow a specific teaching …

Is that your point: those who engage in homosexual acts do so because they follow a different teaching? If so, what is the teaching? Or are they simply antinomian?

 

[Freddy]

Is that your point: those who engage in homosexual acts do so because they follow a different teaching? If so, what is the teaching? Or are they simply antinomian?

I’m not in a position to speak for all gay people. Neither are you. But we can agree that most gay people see nothing wrong in having sex with someone they love.

Rather than nonsensical arguments that suggest that it’s not a great idea just to ‘do what you want’ or that this piece of bodily architecture must only be used in certain prescribed ways, it would be better to admit that all arguments against gay sex are ultimately based on religious beliefs and then take it from there.

Not much chance of that however.

 

[Rau]

This is part of the problem. This tendency to moral superiority from an unfortunately not insignificant proportion of posters. ‘When we have sex the intellect has judged the object proper to the passion.

If you see it as morally superior, that’s your call. I think we just conclude by observation that sexual acts of certain kinds are at odds with our bodies.

I’m pretty certain they are picturing something sordid and dirty. A one night stand with drunken participants simply satisfying basic instincts.

Trotting our this does no favours to your case. No one engaged in the discussion has suggested any such imagery.

It would never occur to them that it might, for example, involve two middle aged women who have been together for twenty loving years in a monogamous relationship.

Nor has anyone denied the reality of this scenario. Just questioned the appropriateness of adding a sexual dimension to the relationship.

 

[Rau]

But we can agree that most gay people see nothing wrong in having sex with someone they love.

Most may not have come to that realization - though some have. No doubt a greater number do see the incongruity of two persons of the same sex engaging in sexual acts.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

This is part of the problem. This tendency to moral superiority from an unfortunately not insignificant proportion of posters. ‘When we have sex the intellect has judged the object proper to the passion.

If you see it as morally superior, that’s your call. I think we just conclude by observation that sexual acts of certain kinds are at odds with our bodies.

I’m pretty certain they are picturing something sordid and dirty. A one night stand with drunken participants simply satisfying basic instincts.

Trotting our this does no favours to your case. No one engaged in the discussion has suggested any such imagery.

Give me a break, Rau. How many times have you seen people bringing up what they consider to be comparative cases and raising incest and bestiality as part of an ‘argument’.

Imagine you’re in a bar and some guy mentions that his niece is gay. What do you think the probable outcome would be if someone started telling him that’s she’s perverted and bringing up incest and bestiality to prove their ‘point’.

Is that the way people should conduct themselves? Honestly?

And so parts of the body are designed for the purpose of conception. Is that the sum total of the argument? Well, some people would like you to believe so. And it’s such a risibly nonsensical viewpoint that responding to it only grants it some faux credibility.

 

[Thorolfr]

No doubt a greater number do see the incongruity of two persons of the same sex engaging in sexual acts.

I kind of doubt that most gay men think in this way. For them, it feels perfectly natural to have sex with another man. They don’t have deep intellectual thoughts about “incongruity” when they’re looking at another gay man they find sexually attractive. Some gay men have never even had sex with a woman before and haven’t been all that interested in learning about female sexual anatomy. Sex with a man is the only kind of sex they’ve ever known or thought about.