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

[historyfan81]

Yeah…i wished I could have come sooner

 

[Gorgias]

Copulation means “to couple”. Body parts fit in all kinds of places.

Actually, that’s its etymology, not it’s definition. The etymology of a word is not necessarily how it’s used in the target language.

 

[Jesuslover]

Morality is subjective and dependent on context. This is born out in the Bible

How can you use the Bible to defend moral relativism? Either the Bible is the Word of God and is always true or it’s not true. And by the way, killing is not always a mortal sin. Killing in legitimate defense is perfectly licit (CCC 2265).

 

[Thom18]

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?"

Let’s first debate whether the statement is true or not before we try to argue how it could still be immoral. If it’s false that homosexuality is a type of evolution in the human species, then we’ve wasted valuable time debating a non-issue.

 

[historyfan81]

Like I said if homosexuality is a mutuation then its one that does not help.

As in evolution the most important function is to pass your genes to the next generation.

Homosexuality prohibits this , so there is no evolutionary advantage to have the “homo sexual mutuation”
If it is biológical its just a random mutuation that does not benefit a species

 

[TK421]

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.

50% or more is extremely high, but you have to consider:

A) How many men had sex with another man while they were an adolescent or a teenager
B) How many men were normalized and exposed to the behavior at a very young age

And then like you said:

C) How many men went along with it out of pressure. Lesbianism was much less common in ancient Greece but that is because for the most part women did what they were told and men exhibited dominance politically, socially, sexually, militarily, etc. If a married woman had relations with another woman instead of being faithful to her husband she could be killed, but the rule did not apply to men.

If people are habitually exposed to homo-eroticism at an early age, then they are indeed very likely to express openness to it as an adult as well. They don’t need to fall into the small percentage of people with very strong homosexual tendencies. An average person can be this way.

And we see the same thing developing with transgenderism. The antiquated and unscientific defense from the LGBT community - that people are purely born that way - only applies to a small minority of people with very strong tendencies. There is a much, much larger pool of people who exist on a spectrum who might start to express transgender behavior if they are habitually exposed to it as small children. It’s not either/or.

And this is a large reason why Asian, Islamic, and African countries are experiencing a Renaissance in growth while post-Christian Europe and N. America is gradually sliding into 2nd place. Large numbers of people are growing up emotionally disturbed, not starting families, not having children or having children who are also likely to grow up emotionally disturbed. Less and less people are privileged to enjoy a stable nuclear family and grow up in an environment that maximizes their chances to have a healthy sexual mindset. This doesn’t even get into the epidemic of pornography and how this is physically rewiring the neurological structure of men and women in a way that makes them more asocial and emotionally incapable of sustaining a healthy long-term relationship. The damage from this single issue very likely surpasses the damage caused by the opioid epidemic.

The fact is: science is on the side of the Catholic Church. It always has been. The secular liberal left has to rely heavily on an appeal to emotion in order to proliferate their policies, or cherrypick certain facts while sweeping other ones under the rug. LGBT acceptance was ushered in on a wave of pseudoscience and half-truths. Granted, American conservatism frequently does this as well, but not so much on this particular issue.

 

[Dolphin]

It does not follow that what is biological must also be moral

 

[pbuckley21442]

I just wanted to say thank you for this explanation. I do believe this but i just did not know how to put it into words. I watched a video by Father Mike Schmitz called Beyond no: what the Catholic church teaches about same-sex attraction and it was very enlightening. I also heard that he has a book but I have not gotten the chance to read it yet. Also I just wanted to say that I will pray for you so that you may always have the strength to bear your cross and follow the Lord. I hope that one day everyone may realize the Truth and that we are all called to love one another no matter what. God Bless.

 

[goout]

This is the original discussion:

Because God says it is immoral. No further debate is required.

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.

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.

Are you able to acknowledge that the sexual complementarity of human male/female is uniquely essential, without feeling pressured by moral or religious absolutes?
If you can acknowledge that human sexuality between male and female is uniquely essential to human existence, do you find that of any value?

 

[buffalo]

American Psychological Association Course Correction: Sexual Orientation and ‘Gender Identity’ Not Fixed After All​

Dr. Diamond tells LGBT activists near the end of her YouTube lecture, “I feel as a community, . . . those with same-sex attraction . . . have to stop saying, ‘Please help us. We’re born this way, and we can’t change’ as an argument for legal standing. I don’t think we need that argument, and that argument is going to bite us in the . . . rear end . . . because now we know that there’s enough data out there, that the other side is aware of as much as we are aware of it.” In other words, Dr. Diamond says, “Stop saying ‘born that way and can’t change’ for political purposes, because the other side knows it’s not true as much as we do.”

https://www.aoiusa.org/american-psychological-association-course-correction-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-not-fixed-after-all/

 

[Neithan]

Ultimately it’s just the effects of original sin and concupiscence reasserting itself in a culture that has rejected grace. As the psychological damage and physical illness from immorality spreads, it will be more difficult to deny the cause.

 

[JMMJ]

Actually, that’s its etymology , not it’s definition . The etymology of a word is not necessarily how it’s used in the target language.

It actually is a definition right out of the dictionary… “A joining together or coupling”

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Actually, that’s its etymology , not it’s definition . The etymology of a word is not necessarily how it’s used in the target language.

It actually is a definition right out of the dictionary… “A joining together or coupling”

I’m looking at the definition on the Merriam-Webster site:

Definition of copulate​

intransitive verb

: to engage in sexual intercourse

Moreover, in their section on the etymology, we find:

History and Etymology for copulate​

Latin copulatus , past participle of copulare to join, from copula — see COPULA

So… I’m gonna stick with “etymology, not definition”.

(BTW – I Googled the text of your definition, and found it on the dictionary.com website. I found it there… as the alternate definition. What was the primary definition? “sexual intercourse.” QED.)

 

[goout]

Gorgias:

Actually, that’s its etymology , not it’s definition . The etymology of a word is not necessarily how it’s used in the target language.

It actually is a definition right out of the dictionary… “A joining together or coupling”

You seem to be claiming that any penetration of a bodily orifice is the same as sexual intercourse between a man and woman. Is that correct?

Or are you just insisting on how the word is use for the sake of defining the word the way you think it ought to be defined? If so, why? And if so, what word would you use to recognize the uniquely ordered sexual complementarity of a man and woman?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Bestiality is acknowledged animal cruelty and is against the law

What does evolution tell us about animals doing things to other animals without their consent?

You won’t find answers to moral questions about homosexuality on the Discovery Channel. And folks who try to justify homosexual activity based on the Holy Canon of Almighty Evolution are barking up the wrong tree. (Pun intended)

 

[Rau]

I know plenty of gay people who would say otherwise. Copulation means “to couple”. Body parts fit in all kinds of places.

There is only one form of coupling consistent with the full functioning of the sexual faculty.

 

[Rau]

Morality is subjective and dependent on context. This is born out in the Bible (it is a mortal sin to kill - unless God commands you to). Context is everything.

Morality in the sense you use the term is context dependent. It is only absolute when the act in focus specifically opposes what we understand to be divinely forbidden. All killing is not divinely forbidden. But the intentional killing of an innocent person is forbidden to us - absolutely. This is where Catholics part company with some others, who claim that there are no absolutes of this kind.

 

[Freddy]

If you can acknowledge that human sexuality between male and female is uniquely essential to human existence, do you find that of any value?

That’s akin to asking if having children has any value. Of course it does. But does that mean that everyone should have children? Of course it doesn’t.

 

[goout]

goout:

If you can acknowledge that human sexuality between male and female is uniquely essential to human existence, do you find that of any value?

That’s akin to asking if having children has any value. Of course it does. But does that mean that everyone should have children? Of course it doesn’t.

you
completely
missed
the
point

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

goout:

If you can acknowledge that human sexuality between male and female is uniquely essential to human existence, do you find that of any value?

That’s akin to asking if having children has any value. Of course it does. But does that mean that everyone should have children? Of course it doesn’t.

you
completely
missed
the
point

Maybe because you didn’t make one. But you did ask a question to which there was an obvious answer. Was there no implication? I guess we can see if we answer the question directly.

‘If you can acknowledge that human sexuality between male and female is uniquely essential to human existence, do you find that of any value?’

‘Yes’.

Where are you going from there?