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

[goout]

Have a good evening Freddy.
It is good that you are here.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

goout:

Why do you stand on a religious soapbox when someone wants to have a reasoned discussion?

Because all the arguments against gay sex are based on the religious teachings of your church.

Well, no they are not.

It says that God doesn’t want it to happen. Let’s face it, if there was zero mention of homosexuality in the bible or if it was entirely indifferent to it then arguments about disease or the natural compatability of various body parts wouldn’t be needed.

Not so.
Been so many threads I can’t remember where I made the case from common sense, or natural law, or sane observation (pick whichever language you find easiest to parse…). I think it was upstream here.

But if the arguments were based on what you considered to be ‘common sense or natural law or sane observation’ then there may well be an agreement to disagree and everyone gets on with life. None of those reasons would necessarily lead to a conclusion that gay sex is morally wrong. Which is the whole box and dice. It’s morally wrong from a religious viewpoint. That is not deniable in any sense.

If the secular argument is ‘it causes stds’ tgen the response would be then it’s ok if if doesn’t. If the secular argument is this part shouldn’t go there then the response is that Catholic couples do exactly the same (except they are meant to complete the process in a natural way). If the secular argument is that men and women alone are naturally created to fullfill the the life giving process of childbirth then the response is that not all Catholics can have chikdren either.

There is a reasonable response to all arguments that aren’t religious in themselves. And if the argument is religious then so be it. Admit to it and the person with whom you are discussing the matter can take it from there.

 

[SeekSalvation]

Is homosexuality immoral? Is it a mortal sin? I think you’ll find your answers here:

Gen 1:27 – God made them male and female
Gen 19 – the homosexuals of Sodom destroyed
Lev 18:22 – homosexuality called “abomination”
Lev 20:13 – death penalty for homosexuality
Rom 1:27 – called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1 Cor 6:9 – active homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God
1 Tim 1:9-10 – homosexuals called “sinners”

 

[goout]

Is homosexuality immoral? Is it a mortal sin? I think you’ll find your answers here:

Gen 1:27 – God made them male and female
Gen 19 – the homosexuals of Sodom destroyed
Lev 18:22 – homosexuality called “abomination”
Lev 20:13 – death penalty for homosexuality
Rom 1:27 – called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1 Cor 6:9 – active homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God
1 Tim 1:9-10 – homosexuals called “sinners”

That’s not helpful to a non-believer.

 

[Freddy]

SeekSalvation:

Is homosexuality immoral? Is it a mortal sin? I think you’ll find your answers here:

Gen 1:27 – God made them male and female
Gen 19 – the homosexuals of Sodom destroyed
Lev 18:22 – homosexuality called “abomination”
Lev 20:13 – death penalty for homosexuality
Rom 1:27 – called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1 Cor 6:9 – active homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God
1 Tim 1:9-10 – homosexuals called “sinners”

That’s not helpful to a non-believer.

Perfect timing though. You have to admit.

 

[SeekSalvation]

SeekSalvation:

Is homosexuality immoral? Is it a mortal sin? I think you’ll find your answers here:

Gen 1:27 – God made them male and female
Gen 19 – the homosexuals of Sodom destroyed
Lev 18:22 – homosexuality called “abomination”
Lev 20:13 – death penalty for homosexuality
Rom 1:27 – called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1 Cor 6:9 – active homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God
1 Tim 1:9-10 – homosexuals called “sinners”

That’s not helpful to a non-believer.

What’s your point? Not to present God’s words because a non-believer won’t accept it? What if just one non-believer does? Than it was worth showing that one person what scripture says!

 

[goout]

goout:

SeekSalvation:

Is homosexuality immoral? Is it a mortal sin? I think you’ll find your answers here:

Gen 1:27 – God made them male and female
Gen 19 – the homosexuals of Sodom destroyed
Lev 18:22 – homosexuality called “abomination”
Lev 20:13 – death penalty for homosexuality
Rom 1:27 – called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1 Cor 6:9 – active homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God
1 Tim 1:9-10 – homosexuals called “sinners”

That’s not helpful to a non-believer.

Perfect timing though. You have to admit.

yes, if you’re looking for confirmation bias.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

goout:

SeekSalvation:

Is homosexuality immoral? Is it a mortal sin? I think you’ll find your answers here:

Gen 1:27 – God made them male and female
Gen 19 – the homosexuals of Sodom destroyed
Lev 18:22 – homosexuality called “abomination”
Lev 20:13 – death penalty for homosexuality
Rom 1:27 – called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1 Cor 6:9 – active homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God
1 Tim 1:9-10 – homosexuals called “sinners”

That’s not helpful to a non-believer.

Perfect timing though. You have to admit.

yes, if you’re looking for confirmation bias.

And then there’s this confirmation as well:

Both of you have shared that your personal circumstances are such that further exchanges will most likely not move either of you to accept the Catholic, Islamic, and Judaic position…

That, as I have just said, and as I have said many times over on many previous ocassions, is the crux of the argument. That gay sex is against religious teachings. Two consecutive posts that confirm that. And posts with which I have to say I have no disagreement. I fully accept the religious position. I might not go so far as to support it per se but I definitley support o-mlly’s right to hold that view and likewise Seeksalvation’s right as well.

I don’t argue against religious beliefs or the right of people to hold them. What I argue against are positions people take, often based on some religious beliefs, that affect those who are either not religious or hold different religious views.

Going back to the bar scenario, if I mention that my neice is in a ssm and someone says he doesn’t agree with ssm as his religious beliefs lead him to believe it’s immoral then we’re all good. I’ll buy the guy a beer and we can go on to talk about the cricket. But if he tells me that she’s a pervert and starts on about bestiality and incest then the situation will deteriorate very quickly indeed. It’s simply not acceptable.

 

[goout]

Freddy, that confirms your bias. Bias is not necessarily reality.
There are positions that do not even mention religion. You know that. I proposed one.
But you prefer your bias.
Cool. I have stuff to do.
Glad you are concerned about. Glad these discussions add a lot to your life.

 

[Rau]

That gay sex is against religious teachings.

But ask yourself - why is it a religious teaching? In part because we find support in Scripture. But lo and behold - we find support in human reason for its inclusion in Scripture and why it is a religious teaching. Observation and human reason.

What I argue against are positions people take, often based on some religious beliefs, that affect those who are either not religious or hold different religious views.

Should those holding a view (deemed a religious one) not be permitted to communicate it (in a proper manner of course) to others?

 

[Freddy]

Should those holding a view (deemed a religious one) not be communicated (in a proper manner of course) to others?

Naturally.

 

[sainteriksrose]

So…

Catholic answers aren’t allowed? Only those that hosanna this opinion masquerading as a scientific theory?

 

[on_the_hill]

Let’s me be blunt. I’m not reading through this 324 message thread.
I make this statement: I’d read somewhere once that there might be an evolutionary ‘purpose’ to homosexuality. From an evolutionary standpoint, there are times when a gay uncle is a good thing to have in a family. He can play the role of being a strong adult male who can provide for the children and wives of his brothers in their absence, who has a vested interest in the families’ well-being, and who isn’t a sexual rival.

 

[Rau]

I make this statement: I’d read somewhere once that there might be an evolutionary ‘purpose’ to homosexuality. From an evolutionary standpoint, there are times when a gay uncle is a good thing to have in a family. He can play the role of being a strong adult male who can provide for the children and wives of his brothers in their absence, who has a vested interest in the families’ well-being, and who isn’t a sexual rival.

Ok, and so…is there more you were going to say…?

 

[HarryStotle]

TheDefaultMan:

"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,

I suppose death is also an “evolutionary” means of birth control. As are disease, old age, homicide, paralysis, infertility, war, and a host of other phenomena.

Not sure what that would prove, though.

 

[godisgood77]

If homosexuality is ever determined to be biological, then we would have to reconsider our opposition to it.

 

[Rau]

If homosexuality is ever determined to be biological, then we would have to reconsider our opposition to it.

So if a biological cause leads us to be inclined to something (certain acts) the something must be good?

Do not forget that it is certain acts that attract opposition, not inclinations.

 

[Rau]

I suppose death is also an “evoutionary” means of birth control. As are disease, old age, homicide, paralysis, infertility, war, and a host of other phenomena.

Yes, and while those things are without question effective in constraining population growth (which at various times may or may not be a good thing), we do not evaluate their merit solely on the basis of that outcome.

 

[HarryStotle]

If homosexuality is ever determined to be biological, then we would have to reconsider our opposition to it.

Not clear that that follows. Diseases and physiological/genetic conditions are biological but that does not entail they must be accepted as is, or as morally significant. That is not to say such biological conditions do not mitigate culpability, but it doesn’t mean they become acceptable, morally speaking.

 

[Benadam]

Human souls aren’t produced by earthly processes as are all other animal souls. Animal bodies are subject to inherited genetic changes for strengthening the ability of the next generation to survive. Human bodies weren’t meant to be subjected to survival conditions. These changes to the human body happened at the fall. The involuntary movements of the body associated with a body that dies are what brought shame and the need to cover our bodies and hide from God. Now human bodies are subject to inherited genentics for the needs of survival but that’s part of our fallen condition and what we must overcome through Christ who conquered death.