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

[niceatheist]

You made the claim of lesser value. Is sex between a sterile couple of lesser value as well?

 

[goout]

No I don’t think it’s that unique. Children can be conceived by unmarried couples, through rape and adultery, through polygamous marriages.

It is good to eat. People should eat! We should support eating!!

Nice atheist:
yea but some people eat too much
other people are born without intestines
other people just want to drink all day
other people starve themselves to death through anorexia
others can’t tolerate gluten

Eating is not all that good.

can you see the vacuousness of your rebuttal?

 

[niceatheist]

No because I think your analogy is silly

 

[goout]

No because I think your analogy is silly

Exactly!
Now are we getting somewhere?

 

[goout]

You made the claim of lesser value. Is sex between a sterile couple of lesser value as well?

please
quote
my
post
where
i
said
that.

 

[Maximus1]

I cannot comment on the theory, but to the extent of a biological proclivity it seems plausible that there would be a biological advantage. More plausible is that it is not a disadvantage.
I find the " Thomism " attempt tenuous at best.
This doesn’t mean that " disordered" isn’t an unfortunate choice of words considered popular meaning.
Genesis does not begin at 3, it begins at 1. Genesis 1 assures that all that is created is good/ very good. Human Dignity identifies the place within God’s plan.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

other faiths don’t even care about claims rooted in Natural Law.

Marriage, ie., a publicly made commitment between man and woman is a thing nearly everywhere in the world, and has been for thousands of years. It’s obvious why that is a thing. Because the only sustainable way to raise a family is through a committed stable couple, and a stable community. So, even though the term “natural law” may not be used - the idea behind it is pretty much everywhere.

The whole premise of the OP is how homosexuality in men may actually facilitate the stability of the family of the eldest son. So, implicitly, that theory is an evolutionary one which suggests the stability of the family is so important as to have a necessity for homosexuality.

 

[Ender]

Genesis 1 assures that all that is created is good/ very good. Human Dignity identifies the place within God’s plan.

Except no one actually understands it quite like you suggest, otherwise no one would even take an aspirin to cure a headache or try to cure cancer. I think we can all agree that there are things in the world that are…disordered.

 

[o_mlly]

He compared homosexual acts to beastiality. … there’s a special level of fear and venom reserved for the LGBTQ community, to the point where there sexual acts have been compared to bestiality on this very thread.

If you read through the threads, you will find that both the fear and venom you reference emanated from the LGBTQ’s supporters and was directed at the Christians who dared ask for a principled argument that could condone homosexual acts and proscribe bestial acts. Rather than provide the rational argument requested, the LGBTQ’ers claimed victim status and attacked the questioners with the typical, “How dare you!” non-response.

The (intellectual) proposition put forward before the descent to emotionalism was from post #162 et ff:

Is the homosexual act innocuous, or does it reduce the probability or even deprive one or the other partner or the community of the human need to successfully reproduce? Is not that need to reproduce identical to the evolutionary goal of specie survival and flourishing? Yes and yes.

The argument shows that the homosexual act satisfies only a human want (pleasure) and does so by frustrating the human need to reproduce. As such, the act is immoral. …

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 would appreciate an intellectual answer rather than the ad hominem that I am a homophobe. I’ll then rejoin the conversation.

 

[flamingpuppet]

Yes. And as if TED talks are immune from bias, logical flaws, bad research, etc. etc.
I’ll take GOD talks (i.e. Sacred Scripture) over TED talks, 24/7.
The puppet has spoken.

 

[Ender]

If you assume a person is made with a sexual propensity, that person is made that way and is good. God does not make evil.

People are born with all sorts of propensities. That a person is naturally inclined toward something says nothing whatever about whether that something is good or evil. I guess that’s why we are called to rise above our temptations, and not simply to embrace an “it’s all good because God made me this way” rationale.

So the issue is one of being " born" gay or not.

No, it’s really not. If your argument was valid then people “born” gay would be morally justified in their homosexual behavior, but someone not “born” that way would not. In other words, morality in this case would not be absolute but would be determined by who commits the act rather than by the act itself.

 

[Rau]

No I don’t think it’s that unique.

This is sometimes called the “Black is white” response.

 

[niceatheist]

The human need to reproduce itself can be governed. Priests remain celibate, for example.

But I come from a more utilitarian stance. It comes down to this; it’s none of your business, and using Aristotlean ethics as a cover for essentially telling sexually active homosexuals that what they’re doing is simply giving into animalistic passions without equal condemning sterile heterosexual couples for the same apparently animalistic pleasures is deeply unfair, and more than a little biased.

 

[Freddy]

Please everyone take note: nothing is said here about any religion whatsoever (hi Freddy and Jan!), and nothing negative was said about homosexuality.
Do we agree?

We do. Well, at least I do. And I don’t think that anyone would have too much to argue about in that post. It’s just that some repeat what you just said and then take it further and say that therefore homosexuality is wrong.

 

[Rau]

It’s just that some repeat what you just said and then take it further and say that therefore homosexuality is wrong.

Never mind whether it is wrong. What astounds me is that some will not admit that the homosexual inclination (sexual attraction) is at odds with the evident nature of men and women - that evidently they are “designed” for each other, and other configurations are at odds with the (physical) nature of the participants.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s just that some repeat what you just said and then take it further and say that therefore homosexuality is wrong.

Never mind whether it is wrong. What astounds me is that some will not admit that the homosexual inclination (sexual attraction) is at odds with the evident nature of men and women - that evidently they are “designed” for each other, and other configurations are at odds with the (physical) nature of the participants.

I don’t think I’ve seen a post where that has really been in dispute. But I will still emphasise that people are making the jump from ‘this isn’t a normal state of affairs’ to ‘this is wrong’ (and then some insisting in going a step further by drawing comparisons with other acts).

How about we summarise the main points?

Is homosexuality the norm? No.
Is the relationship between a man and a woman the ‘default’ and biologically normal one? Yes.
Does that in itself make homosexuality wrong? No.
Does the bible condemn homosexuality? Yes.
Does that therefore mean that some Christians believe it’s immoral? Yes.
Do gay people have a choice about their feelings to members of the same sex? No.
Are gay people allowed to get married? Yes.
Do some Christians consider the marriages to be invalid? No.
Does the church consider certain sexual acts performed by gay people to be immoral? Yes.
Is it anyone’s business what gay people do in the privacy of their own homes? No.
Do heterosexual people indulge in the same form of sexual acts as gay people? Yes.
Does the church consider those acts to be immoral? Yes.

Does anyone think that anything there is controversial by any stretch of the imagination?

 

[Freddy]

The human need to reproduce itself can be governed. Priests remain celibate, for example.

But I come from a more utilitarian stance. It comes down to this; it’s none of your business…

This is the coup de grace in any of these types of discussions. Which amount to nothing more than ‘You’re gay? Well, I hope you’re not having sex!’

There’s a very succinct and colloquial response to that. Which paraphrased into a more family friendly form is: ‘Thanks awfully for your concerns but I’m afraid that’s no business of yours’.

 

[Thorolfr]

Rau:

Freddy:

It’s just that some repeat what you just said and then take it further and say that therefore homosexuality is wrong.

Never mind whether it is wrong. What astounds me is that some will not admit that the homosexual inclination (sexual attraction) is at odds with the evident nature of men and women - that evidently they are “designed” for each other, and other configurations are at odds with the (physical) nature of the participants.

I don’t think I’ve seen a post where that has really been in dispute. But I will still emphasise that people are making the jump from ‘this isn’t a normal state of affairs’ to ‘this is wrong’ (and then some insisting in going a step further by drawing comparisons with other acts).

How about we summarise the main points?

Is homosexuality the norm? No.
Is the relationship between a man and a woman the ‘default’ and biologically normal one? Yes.
Does that in itself make homosexuality wrong? No.
Does the bible condemn homosexuality? Yes.
Does that therefore mean that some Christians believe it’s immoral? Yes.
Do gay people have a choice about their feelings to members of the same sex? No.
Are gay people allowed to get married? Yes.
Do some Christians consider the marriages to be valid? No.
Does the church consider certain sexual acts performed by gay people to be immoral? Yes.
Is it anyone’s business what gay people do in the privacy of their own homes? No.
Do heterosexual people indulge in the same form of sexual acts as gay people? Yes.
Does the church consider those acts to be immoral? Yes.

Does anyone think that anything there is controversial by any stretch of the imagination?

I liked your summary, although I would like to point out that some Christians do consider same-sex marriages to be valid, so the answer to your question would be “Yes.” In fact, clergy in some Protestant denominations perform same-sex marriages. These include some pastors in the following denominations: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Rau:

Freddy:

It’s just that some repeat what you just said and then take it further and say that therefore homosexuality is wrong.

Never mind whether it is wrong. What astounds me is that some will not admit that the homosexual inclination (sexual attraction) is at odds with the evident nature of men and women - that evidently they are “designed” for each other, and other configurations are at odds with the (physical) nature of the participants.

I don’t think I’ve seen a post where that has really been in dispute. But I will still emphasise that people are making the jump from ‘this isn’t a normal state of affairs’ to ‘this is wrong’ (and then some insisting in going a step further by drawing comparisons with other acts).

How about we summarise the main points?

Is homosexuality the norm? No.
Is the relationship between a man and a woman the ‘default’ and biologically normal one? Yes.
Does that in itself make homosexuality wrong? No.
Does the bible condemn homosexuality? Yes.
Does that therefore mean that some Christians believe it’s immoral? Yes.
Do gay people have a choice about their feelings to members of the same sex? No.
Are gay people allowed to get married? Yes.
Do some Christians consider the marriages to be valid? No.
Does the church consider certain sexual acts performed by gay people to be immoral? Yes.
Is it anyone’s business what gay people do in the privacy of their own homes? No.
Do heterosexual people indulge in the same form of sexual acts as gay people? Yes.
Does the church consider those acts to be immoral? Yes.

Does anyone think that anything there is controversial by any stretch of the imagination?

I liked your summary, although I would like to point out that some Christians do consider same-sex marriages to be valid, so the answer to your question would be “Yes.”

My bad. The question was meant to be 'Do some Christians consider the (gay) marriages to be invalid. I corrected the post. Thanks.

 

[Rau]

people are making the jump from ‘this isn’t a normal state of affairs’ to ‘this is wrong’

then some insisting in going a step further by drawing comparisons with other acts).

While those comparisons are crass, I outlined the nature of that “comparison” in objective terms earlier.

Does the church consider certain sexual acts performed by gay people to be immoral? Yes.

The inclinations of the participants is not a factor.