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.
Even a mere desire for someone of the same sex is a mortal sin. People have tendencies to want to commit certain sins, and no matter the reason, our reaction is to reject sin, plain and simple.
 
TK421 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is by far the most intelligent thing you’ve said so far, but I still think it’s a problematic response considering that you agree that it is ALMOST the same (the competition level, I mean), so this grants that there may be a mismatch, even slightly, of competition. This alone could usher in a reason for the existence of homosexuals to balance it out
 
Last edited:
Well if I did have access to serious Thomist philosophers then I’d ask them instead, but I don’t. So the best option that I have in my disposal is to post on a public platform in hopes that there happens to be someone who knows a lot about this.
 
Think of cancer. You could make the same argument in terms of population control.
Click to expand...
I am not making an argument for population control. There is no evolutionary necessity for birth control/population control.
Of course there is. Menopause and puberty, for one. And the most obvious, you can’t get pregnant while you are pregnant.
Click to expand...
First, none of these are activities which is what the OP is about. Secondly, none of these are biologically designed for population control. In fact, puberty is designed for exactly the opposite reason- to develop the human reproductive organs to procreate.
 
TheDefaultMan said:
but I still think it’s a problematic response considering that you agree that it is ALMOST the same (the competition level, I mean), so this grants that there may be a mismatch, even slightly, of competition. This alone could usher in a reason for the existence of homosexuals to balance it out
Click to expand...
But that’s making it sound more and more ridiculous. If the human species was geared solely towards reproducing as quickly as possible, there would be more like a 9/1 ratio of the sexes.

Let’s just brainstorm some other things that could eliminate somebody from the competition (homosexuality, by the way, isn’t necessarily one of them, because up until relatively recently in human history, homosexual people still married and had children with the opposite sex):

Sickness
Infertility
Being undesirable

Also,
TheDefaultMan said:
This is by far the most intelligent thing you’ve said so far
Click to expand...
This is rude.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if this message board isn’t causing scandal to allow such grave errors to be posted without erasing and correcting them.
 
We live in a fallen world and humans carry many defects. We are called to self mastery over deviant attractions.
 
TheDefaultMan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I had a friend who was living a very hedonistic life and currently have a friend whose ex wife was involved in some very strange things. Sadly, that leads me to believe there are far more people practicing bestiality than we know. It’s just not ‘out’ or normalized like homosexuality.

Sixty years ago, few people admitted they were practicing homosexuality and similarly today, people are practicing bestiality and plenty of other things but just not talking about it.
 
This entire thread and the question of morality is based on the assumption that a TED talk is accurate. Since I don’t buy the premise, I wouldn’t buy the conclusion. This is like asking IF the moon is made of green cheese, should we invest in rockets to send there to bring cheese back to sell? and proceeding to have a serious debate about it. Well, the moon isn’t made of green cheese, so what’s the point of such a discussion. And if someone believes it is, they should establish that as fact before moving on to what’s to be done about it.

Almost, perhaps every person I’ve known who is gay sooner or later tells me about some childhood trauma, or something inappropriate going on in the home, whether abuse, sexual abuse, porn, whatever.

A last comment. As I scroll through, I see quite a few disparaging remarks made about people’s intelligence. If there’s a solid argument to be made, it can be done without insulting other members of the forum.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Even a mere desire for someone of the same sex is a mortal sin. People have tendencies to want to commit certain sins, and no matter the reason, our reaction is to reject sin, plain and simple
Click to expand...
Not really. It’s not a mortal sin, for example, for an unmarried person to feel sexual desire towards another. It becomes a sin when it becomes lust. Likewise, a gay person would simply have to not dwell on their desire just like the rest of Catholics.
 
MarkRome said:
There is no evolutionary necessity for birth control/population control.
Click to expand...
Moreoever, evolution counts on competition because isn’t that the point? The best will reproduce more and thus improve the quality of the population?

So in evolutionary terms, homosexuals of both sexes would be flawed members of the species unable (more or less) to reproduce and thus out of the evolutionary game altogether.
TK421 said:
Let’s just brainstorm some other things that could eliminate somebody from the competition (homosexuality, by the way, isn’t necessarily one of them, because up until relatively recently in human history, homosexual people still married and had children with the opposite sex):

Sickness
Infertility
Being undesirable
Click to expand...
 
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...
I think I’d first argue that it hasn’t been proven (or even demonstrated) that “there is an explicit evolutionary/biological reason for it”. At best, we have a claim that asserts a correlation between ‘homosexuality’ and ‘reduced birth rate’. It’s pretty much a tautology, on the face of it. Is it something that rises to the level of an “evolutionary means of birth control”, though? I think that I would argue that “homosexuality”, as such, is a modern invention – that is, ‘orientation’ (as such) is a modern notion; prior to the modern age, there was awareness of acts much moreso than orientation.

In addition, any effect on population, I would think, would be far outstripped by other factors – mortality rates for adult males, as well birth mortality rates (remember, the claim being made is that, the more sons a mother has, the more likely it is that subsequent sons will have a fully homosexual orientation; of course, that means that she has already birthed a few sons who will contribute to the population, so it outstrips the putative ‘birth control effects’ of the additional son!)

So, I think your premise is poorly founded, and as such, we can stop right there.

But, for the sake of argument, it seems that what you’re really asking is this: “if we take a philosophical approach along the lines of Thomas’ way of approaching problems, and attempt to apply it to the context of a God-directed evolutionary process, how can we resolve the conflict between the notion that God’s revelation condemns homosexual activity as immoral and the claim that homosexual activity is part and parcel of God’s plan of evolution?”

You can see the difficulties in such a question already, can’t you? Besides the presumption of the evolutionary effects of homosexuality, you’re also claiming that God causes and/or wills sin.

He doesn’t.

You might ask the question in this way, instead, replacing “part and parcel of God’s plan” with “something that God allows, and which doesn’t thwart His plan of evolution”. In that way, the question answers itself: God allows humans to make their own choices, virtuous and vicious. He neither wills nor causes vice. Yet, “all things work for good”; He allows sin, but it does not overcome His plan for humanity.

Taken in that sense, this is a rather trivial question, with an obvious answer. 🤷‍♂️
Baseless appeals to the will of God are not sound responses.
Click to expand...
That’s the whole point, though, isn’t it? Thomistic evolutionary theory would ground itself in the will of God. Homosexual activity is outside that will, but does not thwart it. Is there something more subtle that you’re attempting to ask?
would seem to entail that homosexuality isn’t a perversion but rather a fulfillment of natural ends
Click to expand...
That there is a putative effect does not imply that there is an intended cause (or even desired end!), which is what you seem to be implying here.
 
TheDefaultMan said:
Do you know what you’re talking about at all?
Click to expand...
Some charity might go a long way here; it’s a good default approach. 😉
TheDefaultMan said:
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
Click to expand...
You seem to be conflating “natural law” with “things that happen in nature”. They’re not the same thing. 😉
TheDefaultMan said:
Well if I did have access to serious Thomist philosophers then I’d ask them instead, but I don’t.
Click to expand...
Perhaps serious Thomist philosophers only make themselves available to other serious philosophers, and not to rude posters on internet fora… 🤔
 
Evolution ? So with regard to humans, our sexual orientation would not change because of evolution, because we have a brain. We can see and know if the population is out of control.
 
TheDefaultMan said:
"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) …
Click to expand...
Murder would also be a means of birth control – either of male competitors or the infants themselves. The latter being in effect today.

Does not evolution give primacy to acts conducive to the survival of the species as opposed to acts conducive to the survival of the individual? Arguably, homosexuality does nothing for the species survival. Since the genes of homosexuals are not replicated, these individuals as a sub-species are doomed to extinction.

The goodness of an act is to found in its fulfilling its purpose. Unnatural in its essence, the homosexual act serves no purpose except the transient release of sexual tension. That in itself, does not pass evolutionary muster as an act that extends the life of the individual or the species.
 
That’s what I’m talking about, deliberate desires. I shouldn’t have used the term ‘mere.’
 
What started out as a phenomena before Judaism and the new covenant [Christianity] became one of many crosses to carry afterward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top