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

[o_mlly]

Not every member of a species need reproduce for the species as a whole to survive. In many species, some members are designed not to reproduce. For example, worker ants are sterile and don’t reproduce and yet ant colonies don’t die out as a result. Although there are obviously a lot of differences between humans and ants, there is also no need for every human to reproduce.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/07/asexual-ants-may-be-having-sex-after-all

Are those ants by design sterile, asexual, or simply celibate because the queen rejects them? Whichever correctly describes the sexually inactive ants, I believe there is no evidence that those ants engage in homosexual acts.

Implied in the OP’s claim is that a homosexual “gene” is a product of evolution and its persistence in the humans protects us from over-population.

Leaving aside for the moment that no evidence of a homosexual gene exists, the natural selection process that underlies evolution theory occurs as a result of the struggle for existence and, in the case of sexual populations, the struggle for mating opportunities. Homosexual actors do not seek to mate. As a result the persistence of homosexual actors must be explained by means other than evolution. Free choice and original sin remain the better explanation.

 

[Thorolfr]

As a result the persistence of homosexual actors must be explained by means other than evolution. Free choice and original sin remain the better explanation.

It doesn’t really make sense to mix science and religion in talking about issues like this. An argument involving evolution is a scientific argument. It might not explain homosexuality, but it would be better to find another scientific explanation for it instead of proposing original sin as an explanation since that is not something that is open to a scientific analysis or investigation of any kind. It’s merely a matter of belief.

 

[Rau]

The church has a very narrow definition as to what is considered ‘natural’.

Some would contend that any arrangements of body parts which “fit” must constitute a natural act. Others contend that anything agreeable to the parties is good. Contrasted with this, I can understand why the Church’s interpretation might seem narrow!

 

[Hume]

As the current point of evolution is the genome, the “science” on homosexuality is still quite “iffy”.

In our species, if you don’t reproduce then your genes don’t proliferate. Eusocial species can get around the individual requirement (ants, termites) but not people.

 

[Rau]

In our species, if you don’t reproduce then your genes don’t proliferate.

Sperm donation provides another avenue.

 

[Hume]

???

Does that just mean “sex, but I’m not, like, into it”?

 

[Rau]

Again, this is a ludicrous statement. So gay marriage then is not wrong - it is the homosexual act that is wrong? Because certainly a marriage is not a sin. How can you do the same thing as me, and it be a sin for me but not for you? This is why people think the Church’s position on homosexuality is just disguised bigotry.

I am having trouble understanding you. The previous poster was explaining that to simply be a person who finds their sexual attractions lie with the same sex, rather than the opposite sex, is not sinful. Rather, it is acts that matter.

So the sexual acts engaged in between 2 men or 2 women are wrong.

 

[Rau]

Does that just mean “sex, but I’m not, like, into it”?

It would seem to be a way for someone with no interest in the opposite sex to propagate his genes.

 

[Jesuslover]

So gay marriage then is not wrong - it is the homosexual act

Gay marriage is a homosexual act. It is a mockery of the Sacrament of Matrimony in the same way thst a black mass is a mockery of the Holy Mass.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Does that just mean “sex, but I’m not, like, into it”?

It would seem to be a way for someone with no interest in the opposite sex to propagate his genes.

I’m in total agreement. Heterosexual coupling is how our species perpetuates genes.

 

[Thorolfr]

Some would contend that any arrangements of body parts which “fit” must constitute a natural act. Others contend that anything agreeable to the parties is good. Contrasted with this, I can understand why the Church’s interpretation might seem narrow!

I think that anything that occurs on a regular basis in nature should be considered “natural” (as opposed to “artificial”). Of course, using that definition, not everything that is “natural” (i.e. exists in nature) would be desirable, but that’s OK.

 

[Jesuslover]

It is a desecration of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony.

 

[Rau]

Then why is a wedding ceremony wrong? What “act” in the ceremony is sinful?

I’ve not claimed any sin here. My own perspective is that marriage is a sexual relationship.

 

[jack63]

My major problem with this thread is that is scientifically questionable.

Honestly, as painful as they are evolutionary biologist Robin Baker(s) books are worth reading. I searched the thread, and his name is not mentioned. This is puzzling. In one of his books he argued that bisexuality (not homosexuality) had potentially some survival advantages in some environments, but true homosexuality was exceedingly rare. I think the statistic he quoted in his book was that 99% of men who have relations with the same sex have relationships with the opposite sex. This is not any different than men who only have relationships with the opposite sex.

A Ted talk about the survival advantages of Homosexuality/Bisexuality without mentioning Robin Baker. Really?! This original idea was practically Dr. Baker’s idea…

…it’s just he said true homosexuality didn’t really exist…

Robin Baker (biologist) - Wikipedia

 

[Thorolfr]

I think the statistic he quoted in his book was that 99% of men who have relations with the same sex have relationships with the opposite sex…

…it’s just he said true homosexuality didn’t really exist…

Most gay men I know don’t have sexual relationships with the opposite sex. Maybe they all belong to the 1%.

 

[jack63]

Maybe…it’s just that a Ted talk that ignores one of the major pieces of research in this area is baffling, and in my opinion should be ignored.

Maybe most most men who claim to be homosexual don’t have relationships with the opposite sex these days. Why has this changed since Dr. Baker’s major research was published in 1996? It’s not like he had any Christian agenda. He was a scientist, and he reported what he learned. Maybe gay men just don’t talk about this kind of thing.

 

[Gorgias]

If you agree the Bible is not inerrant, then why do Catholics claim it is the word of God?

You’re really impressively mischaracterizing what I’m writing. Where did I “agree that the Bible is not inerrant”?

So gay marriage then is not wrong - it is the homosexual act that is wrong?

I didn’t address ‘gay marriage’. But, since you bring it up, let’s discuss it:

• On the face of it, ‘gay marriage’ might fit the definition of “a sin of scandal”. This is often misunderstood by many (including Catholics), so let’s make sure we’re clear on what it means. In short, it means that some might be led to think, by virtue of the witness of the public act being made, that it’s a morally virtuous act (when it is, in fact, not). So, it might lead others into sin.
• Additionally, it’s not the ‘marriage’, per se, that’s sinful, but the state of life that (presumably) includes sinful acts – in this case, sinful homosexual acts.

How can you do the same thing as me, and it be a sin for me but not for you?

Not at all sure what you’re trying to say here. If you participate in a homosexual act, it’s a sin for you. If I participate in a homosexual act, it’s a sin for me. What are you trying to say?

Gay marriage is a homosexual act.

No… it’s not. However, it’s reasonable to presume that it’s a public action that gives witness to subsequent sinful acts (and hence, scandal rather than sin in itself, per se).

How am I agitated

Beats me. Clearly, though, you are.

Perhaps you do not know the difference between a sound argument and an INVALID one.

Perhaps. Yet… you’re the agitated one.

you are saying even IF God exists, He is not the source of objective morality

Nope. Not at all. Not sure why you think I’m saying that.
jan10000:

That being said, consider this analogous argument:

1. My mother’s recipe for apple pie is the best ever
2. My mother is alive
3. My mother tells you the recipe
   Therefore, you now are in possession of the best ever apple pie recipe.

The above is a SOUND argument.

LOLOLOL!
You realize that your first premise is exactly the premise you argued against earlier, right? The whole “Susan is pretty” thing you brought up – and which you argued is “not an objective statement” – is now “a sound argument”? Uhh… riiiiiiiiiight.
jan10000:

BUT…is it VALID?

Tell you what: if you can decide whether an argument is sound or not… and not contradict yourself… then we can talk about whether your sometimes-sound-and-sometimes-unsound arguments are valid.

Then why is a wedding ceremony wrong? What “act” in the ceremony is sinful?

Because it’s a witness to a putative assertion that immoral acts are morally sound.

 

[Rau]

Most gay men I know don’t have sexual relationships with the opposite sex.

I wonder to what extent persons who identify as gay have at some point in the past engaged with the opposite sex? [No idea if any such stat has ever been gathered]

Maybe gay men just don’t talk about this kind of thing.

That could be an impediment to researching the question I posed.

 

[o_mlly]

It doesn’t really make sense to mix science and religion in talking about issues like this. An argument involving evolution is a scientific argument. It might not explain homosexuality, but it would be better to find another scientific explanation for it instead of proposing original sin as an explanation since that is not something that is open to a scientific analysis or investigation of any kind. It’s merely a matter of belief.

This is the Philosophy forum, not the Science forum. If experiential data does not explain the phenomenon being examined then other modes of knowing may be used.

The conditional in the OP has been logically defeated; evolution theory not only does not explain homosexuality, it argues against it. The data demonstrates that the occurrence of homosexuality is rare but persistent throughout human history. Perhaps in another thread one might offer another scientific hypothesis that explains the phenomenon but until then the spiritual answer is the best we have.

 

[goout]

The church has a very narrow definition as to what is considered ‘natural’. In fact it has redefined it to fit its own requirements. In which case I feel entirely justified in rejecting it. So ‘human sexuality’ means something different to each of us. There is no common ground.

Please show us where this is “something the Church has narrowly defined”.
Please show us how this is a religious argument.
If you can’t reason through this, then all you have is your assertion. Which is…your own religious argument perhaps?
Here it is again. I’ll quote the whole post again:

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.