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.
I agree that human sexuality is a spectrum. I don’t agree that homosexuals haven’t been having homosexual sex since the beginning of time, and at the current rates. They just were private and quiet about it.
 
I think it’s completely ludicrous if you actually think people were engaging in homosexual sex just as frequently in 21st century America, 13th century Europe, or 1st century Rome.

For the majority of people who are more fluid in their sexuality, that tendency never develops in a monogamous society. If there is a society where sex is being flaunted and objectified (such as in modern pornography, which from the 1980s to the present has become exceedingly more violent and appeals to every and any fetish) then those tendencies are going to flourish and mature. Do you realize in ancient Greece the rate of homosexual behavior in men was thought to be around 50%? That isn’t an accident or a coincidence. It was created by the environment at the time.
 
Last edited:
There are animal brothels in Germany and as long as it is believed you’re not harming the animal than it isn’t illegal.
 
Last edited:
The frequency of homosexual relations ranges from 1-2% to over 50% depending on the time & culture. The “I was born this way” argument is invalid except for a small minority of people with a strong homosexual disposition. The facts are in: the social & cultural environment affects the frequency of homosexuality by radically wide margins and anybody who has studied this issue knows this, and that is because the average person is not binary.

I don’t even know why decreasing competition is supposed to be a good thing. So they don’t fight over partners? Do you know the statistics on fighting & domestic abuse in the homosexual community?
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
God doesn’t say that, the authors of the Bible - who may be inspired by God - claim that. Several Christians analyze those words differently these days.
Regardless, if you base your justification on absolutism and presuppositions, I agree you do not need to participate in the discussion.
Click to expand...
It is not a claim. It is the truth.
The Bible is the word of God, written down by those inspired by God to write it down.
 
JMMJ said:
40.png
Vico:
In that case the right manner of copulation is still to be observed and there is no proper set of copulatory organs between same sexes, therefore expressions of same sex attraction would yet exclude such acts.
Click to expand...
I know plenty of gay people who would say otherwise. Copulation means “to couple”. Body parts fit in all kinds of places.
Click to expand...
But not properly.
 
When a society stops ordering sex towards its natural end of unity & procreation between a man and a woman, the effects on spiritual health, mental health, and economic health are catastrophic. We’re just beginning to see them take effect, but they have begun to take effect and many societies are in the process of being usurped and replaced by healthier societies where monogamy is more common.

I need to read up more on Thomism, but I think “evolutionary benefit” and “natural end” are not quite the same thing. Evolutionary mechanisms operate on one principle: the preservation of the gene. That’s it. Lots and lots and lots of undesirable outcomes happen along the way. A person can grab a comprehensive medical encyclopedia and find thousands of genetic disorders.
 
Last edited:
JMMJ said:
I know plenty of gay people who would say otherwise. Copulation means “to couple”. Body parts fit in all kinds of places.
Click to expand...
This is a mistreatment of the use and meaning of the word copulation. Gay people do not “copulate” when they have sex.
 
Like…
Ears? Armpits?
What about knotholes in trees?
Beehives?

Are you having trouble observing order in nature? And if you can’t observe order in nature, how are you going to advocate for things like stewardship for the environment?

How about feeding the hungry? Please make us a case for feeding the hungry without an appeal to order in nature.

If you can’t acknowledge well ordered human nature in something as basic as human sexuality, you are going to have a tough time making reasoned arguments about anything.
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
40.png
thistle:
Because God says it is immoral. No further debate is required.
Click to expand...
God doesn’t say that, the authors of the Bible - who may be inspired by God - claim that. Several Christians analyze those words differently these days.
Regardless, if you base your justification on absolutism and presuppositions, I agree you do not need to participate in the discussion.
Click to expand...
Let’s leave any religious considerations aside for a second:

Can you agree that human existence is primary to anything else human? Like this discussion for instance…if you and I don’t exist, we are not having this discussion.
How about human rights? If human beings don’t exist, human rights have no meaning, right?

Are we in agreement so far?

How do human beings come to exist? Is there any other configuration of human physicality that will accomplish the good end of human existence, other than male/female?

Did I just refer to religious absolutes or religious presuppositions? Scripture?
No.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
How about feeding the hungry? Please make us a case for feeding the hungry without an appeal to order in nature.
Click to expand...
Ummm, empathy? No religion or god required to feel empathy and act on it.
 
No. I was answering your question about feeding the hungry.
 
Last edited:
JMMJ said:
No. I was answering your question about feeding the hungry.
Click to expand...
How so?
Let me repost.
goout said:
Let’s leave any religious considerations aside for a second:

Can you agree that human existence is primary to anything else human? Like this discussion for instance…if you and I don’t exist, we are not having this discussion.
How about human rights? If human beings don’t exist, human rights have no meaning, right?

Are we in agreement so far?

How do human beings come to exist? Is there any other configuration of human physicality that will accomplish the good end of human existence, other than male/female?

Did I just refer to religious absolutes or religious presuppositions? Scripture?
No.
Click to expand...
You answered:
JMMJ said:
Ummm, empathy? No religion or god required to feel empathy and act on it.
Click to expand...
I specifically framed my response outside the bounds of religious considerations, yet you resorted to a rebuttal of religious considerations. That made me think you were responding to someone else.
?
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
‘Ah, yes. I heard about you two. You’re the couple whose son is a pervert. Welcome!’
Click to expand...
Hate the sin, love the sinner. That applies to all of us.
JMMJ said:
It stands to reason that if someone is seeking authority in their lives to make choices so they don’t have to, then they get to church and that isn’t what they find, they leave.

It doesn’t have to do with sexuality.
Click to expand...
You’re simplifying, obviously. I am a convert and was not “seeking authority” when I converted, actually I naturally chafe at authority. I was seeking the answer to philosophical questions, which is not the most common reason but not uncommon. And sexuality is a powerful force that can influence decisions in a person’s life in any area, and whether or not they submit to a moral code certainly has a lot to do with it.
TK421 said:
Do you realize in ancient Greece the rate of homosexual behavior in men was thought to be around 50%?
Click to expand...
That seems incredibly high. I understand it was an accepted practice in ancient Greece, along with pederasty. I believe if it really was half of men then many of them were not entirely thrilled about it but caved to cultural pressure. Personally I have encountered this attitude as well in our own times: “Don’t knock it till you try it,” and “don’t be homophobic” as if to insinuate that distaste or repugnance for something is the same as hate or fear. This is really manipulative. It seems difficult for some men who have SSA and have completely bought into the “Pride” movement to understand that some men genuinely have no sexual interest or appetite for their own sex; but this is not a phobia.
 
Last edited:
Evoltionary wise Homosexuality does not help if it as a genétic mutuation it does not benftit the individual or the species since there is a halt to the most important function of passing down your genes and make a next generation
 
historyfan81 said:
Evoltionary wise Homosexuality does not help if it as a genétic mutuation it does not benftit the individual or the species since there is a halt to the most important function of passing down your genes and make a next generation
Click to expand...
Your post addresses the false assumption in the OP and could have saved a lot of bandwidth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top