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

[goout]

The point of the topic is IF homosexuality/bisexuality has evolutionary benefit,

that’s a wildly unsupported assumption

There’s been many lines of discussion here, but the gist of it comes down to Catholicism stating that it is the ACT of homosexuality that is immoral.

I’ll re-ask you a question that you either didn’t see upthread or don’t want to answer:

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.

do you want to address this or not?
Do you really believe that the Catholic Church invented human nature?

 

[goout]

goout:

Can you agree that human existence is primary to anything else human?

This is getting into philosophy, but to cut to the chase - I do not believe in absolute morality.

can you see that this is a non-sequitur?
I make a common sense observation (maybe even a… scientific observation of the world around us?), and you make a tangential comment about morality.

What happened there?

 

[Jen95]

Honestly, I feel that life is too short to spend a lot of time arguing with Jan10000, the"cultural Catholic", and certain others…

 

[jack63]

BUT - maybe to your point - even though I don’t agree homosexuality is immoral, I’m not sure I agree with the topic. For example, is the survival benefit actually homosexuality or NOT acting in a heterosexual way?

Yes…this was my point. There might be a survival benefit to not acting in a completely heterosexual way as we understand it. That was the point of Dr. Baker’s very widely read research. You’d have to have a very clear definition of heterosexuality to have a fruitful discussion though.

From a purely scientific point of view, one would be taking a giant leap into the rabbit hole that ignores major research in this area to say that homosexuality is simply a form of birth control.

 

[PetraG]

The point of the topic is IF homosexuality/bisexuality has evolutionary benefit, why is it considered immoral?

Shouldn’t that be obvious? Let us say that the military practice of wiping out all the males of a conquered population and taking their women as booty enhanced the “Darwinian fitness” of a conquering population. Does that make the practice moral? Let’s hope not. That is hardly the only example one could think of, and they’re all terrible, from eugenics to euthanasia.

We’re not animals innocent of any capacity to know right from wrong, who have nothing to guide us but the instincts that make one family more likely to pass its genes on than another. Let’s not even go there. Heaven forbid it, literally.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

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]

I do know some gay men, usually from an older generation, who were married to a woman at one time. I also know of gay men who dated a woman once and tried to have sex a few times when they were in high school but have only had sexual relationships with men since then. In both cases, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they were truly bisexual. In most of these cases these were men who had never had sex before they got married or dated and even if they knew that they were attracted to men, they were probably desperately hoping that a relationship with a woman would somehow make them straight. They married or dated mostly because of social pressure and expectations, not because they were really interested in having an intimate relationship with a woman. In some cases, the first attempt at straight sex was a complete failure.

Of course some of these men might have been a Kinsey 4 (predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual) or a Kinsey 5 (predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual) who nevertheless usually only had sex with men and never with women once they came out. They aren’t true bisexuals who are equally attracted to both sexes (a Kinsey 3) and have continued throughout their life to have relationships with both men and women and don’t prefer one sex over the other.

And I do know gay men who have never had sex with a woman before and aren’t attracted to women even a little bit. These are definitely a 6 on the Kinsey Scale (exclusively homosexual). I’m sure that much more than 1% of gay men fall into this category.

 

[buffalo]

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.

So Bogus! The Catholic Church well understands natural law.

 

[Thorolfr]

Freddy:

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.

So Bogus! The Catholic Church well understands natural law.

So called “natural law” belongs in the realm of philosophy. There’s nothing scientific about it and it can’t be proven to be true.

 

[buffalo]

So called “natural law” belongs in the realm of philosophy. There’s nothing scientific about it and it can’t be proven to be true.

Science is provisional.

 

[buffalo]

So called “natural law” belongs in the realm of philosophy. There’s nothing scientific about it and it can’t be proven to be true.

Science can definitely prove what the reproductive organs are for. So can common sense.

 

[goout]

buffalo:

Freddy:

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.

So Bogus! The Catholic Church well understands natural law.

So called “natural law” belongs in the realm of philosophy. There’s nothing scientific about it and it can’t be proven to be true.

if you so choose, you can make the assertion that anything belongs in the realm of philosophy.
Philosophy or any other area of discovery (like “science”) depends on sound and sane observation. If you can’t observe the world around you…the results ought to be obvious.

Likewise, we have demonstrated on this thread either an inability, or unwillingness, to affirm basic human nature. Affirmations of basic human nature are characterised as religious presuppositions. It’s understandable that people get tied to positions in a religious sort of way that defies reason. What is more terrifying is the inability of people to simply be good observers of the world around them. The loss of reason does not bode well for civil society.

.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

So called “natural law” belongs in the realm of philosophy. There’s nothing scientific about it and it can’t be proven to be true.

Science can definitely prove what the reproductive organs are for. So can common sense.

But humans and other species have evolved beyond using their bodies only in one way. They belong to complex social organizations that are studies by primatologists and sociologists and anthropologists and zoologists. Sex, for example, is not used only for reproduction, but also for social reasons and this isn’t only true of human beings but also of other primates and other more complex species of animals.

 

[buffalo]

But humans and other species have evolved beyond using their bodies only in one way. They belong to complex social organizations that are studies by primatologists and sociologists and anthropologists. Sex, for example, is not used only for reproduction, but also for social reasons and this isn’t only true of human beings but also of other primates and other more complex species of animals.

Now this is philosophy! There is zero evidence for your claim. To maintain your claim that sex is used for social reasons is illogical as the reproductive organs have a specific purpose. If sex was simply used for pleasure and social reasons the organs would be sterile and mostly unnecessary.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

But humans and other species have evolved beyond using their bodies only in one way. They belong to complex social organizations that are studies by primatologists and sociologists and anthropologists. Sex, for example, is not used only for reproduction, but also for social reasons and this isn’t only true of human beings but also of other primates and other more complex species of animals.

Now this is philosophy! There is zero evidence for your claim. To maintain your claim that sex is used for social reasons is illogical as the reproductive organs have a specific purpose. If sex was simply used for pleasure and social reasons the organs would be sterile and mostly unnecessary.

Here’s something about bonobos:

Bonobos form a matriarchal society, unusual among apes. They are fully bisexual: both males and females engage in hetero- and homosexual behavior, being noted for female–female sex in particular, including between juveniles and adults. Roughly 60% of all bonobo sexual activity occurs between two or more females.

Or:

There are hundreds of examples of non-reproductive sex among animals, from albatrosses to koalas. But none of these examples can make people quite so uncomfortable as bonobos do. Two bonobo females having sex looks very different than two female albatrosses sitting placidly on their nest. Bonobo sex looks human…

These primates are so closely related to people that they share 98.7 percent of humans’ DNA. Along with chimpanzees, they are humans’ closest living relatives…

Homosexuality in bonobos is not cultural. When primatolgist Frans de Waal first saw the outlandish sexual acts of bonobos, other scientists remarked that the behavior must have arisen because those bonobos were locked in a zoo. But data gathered from the wild — and wild-born bonobos in captivity — over the past two decades has demonstrated that bonobo sexuality is just part of who they are.

Being Gay Is Natural: Just Ask Bonobos | Live Science

 

[po18guy]

1. Define “immoral” and “moral” the classic sense is not “whatever feels good”
2. Contrary to natural ends - too much of a pun there, huh?
3. Genetics are flawed since the fall. Cancer is “genetics”
4. Evolution? Into a self-extinguishing species?
5. Biologically? Ummmm…“If it fits, you must acquit”? Not!

All such arguments are wearying.

 

[Jen95]

Indeed. Those “highly-evolved” men who use their bodies “in more than one way” have quite the list of medical consequences, do they not? What do those biological facts tell us, I wonder?

 

[buffalo]

Here’s something about bonobos:

Bonobos form a matriarchal society, unusual among apes. They are fully bisexual: both males and females engage in hetero- and homosexual behavior, being noted for female–female sex in particular, including between juveniles and adults. Roughly 60% of all bonobo sexual activity occurs between two or more females.

First off, your claim about 98.7 is not current. It is somewhere between around 80% and 92% depending on the study. In any case close relatives is not a valid argument.

Animals are opportunistic and instinctive with no self control.

Trying to compare humans who have self control and mastery is a losing argument. We clearly understand the proper use of our reproductive organs.

 

[Thorolfr]

1. Genetics are flawed since the fall. Cancer is “genetics”

Occurances of cancer are an inevitable result of how human bodies work. Many cases of cancer are a result of DNA copying errors and some DNA errors or mutations are inevitable when millions and millions of our cells divide and are copied throughout our lives. Some mutations are benefitial to us such as the mutation that allowed some humans to digest dairy products and some are not benefitial and can lead to disease. And some mutations are relativity neutral such as the mutation that has given some of us blue eyes. But without mutations, there would be no evolution. Unless our bodies worked in a completely different, non-genetic, non cellular way at some time in the past, cancer has probably always been with us and with other living species.

 

[Thorolfr]

Indeed. Those “highly-evolved” men who use their bodies “in more than one way” have quite the list of medical consequences, do they not? What do those biological facts tell us, I wonder?

There are undoubtedly “medical consequences” (such as STDs) from having lots of unprotected sex with multiple partners, but this is true of both straight and gay sex. But gay couples in a monogamous relationship (they do exist) suffer no more “medical consequences” than straight couples in a monogamous relationship.

 

[buffalo]

Occurances of cancer are an inevitable result of how human bodies work. Many cases of cancer are a result of DNA copying errors and some DNA errors or mutations are inevitable when millions and millions of our cells divide and are copied throughout our lives. Some mutations are benefitial to us such as the mutation that allowed some humans to digest dairy products and some are not benefitial and can lead to disease. And some mutations are relativity neutral such as the mutation that has given some of us blue eyes. But without mutations, there would be no evolution. Unless our bodies worked in a completely different, non-genetic, non cellular way at some time in the past, cancer has probably always been with us and with other living species.

Incorporating epigenetic and genetic entropy is your claim homosexual desire are a result of degradation of our genome?