I'm a gay guy. Should I marry a woman?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s not the opinion of one of the most famous biologists, Edward O. Wilson, who is a professor emeritus in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. In his book On Human Nature (Harvard University Press, 1978), he says (pp. 143-144):
There is, I wish to suggest, a strong possibility that homosexuality is normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficial behavior that evolved as an important element of early human social organization. Homosexuals may be the genetic carriers of some of mankind’s rare altruistic impulses…

Homosexuality is above all a form of bonding. It is consistent with the greater part of heterosexual behavior as a device that cements relationships. The predisposition to be a homophile could have a genetic basis, and the genes might have spread in the early hunter-gatherer societies because of the advantages they conveyed to those who carried them. This brings us to the nub of the difficulty, the problem most persons have in regarding homosexuality to be in any way “natural.”

How can genes predisposing their carriers towards homosexuality spread through the population if homosexuals have no children? One answer is that their close relatives could have had more children as a result of their presence. The homosexual members of primitive societies could have helped members of the same sex either while hunting and gathering or in more domestic occupations at the dwelling sites. Freed from the special obligations of parental duties, they would have been in a position to operate with special efficiency in assisting close relatives. They might further have taken the roles of seers, shamans, artists, and keepers of tribal knowledge. If the relatives - sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, and others - were benefited by higher survival and reproduction rates, the genes these individuals shared with the homosexual specialists would have increased at the expense of alternative genes. Inevitably, some of these genes would have been those that predisposed individuals towards homosexuality.
Click to expand...
 
One thing I’ve never understood is why, if homosexual behavior is against the natural law and against His commandments, did God create so many of his other creatures with this behavior? As E.O. Wilson says in his book, On Human Nature (p. 143-144):
Homosexual behavior is common in other animals, from insects to mammals, but finds its fullest expression as an alternative to heterosexuality in the most intelligent primates, including rhesus macaques, baboons, and chimpanzees. In these animals the behavior is a manifestation of true bisexuality within the brain.
Click to expand...
And as for homosexuality reducing the population, since the Catholic Church mostly advises gay people to be celibate, that’s hardly going to increase the population.

And do you think that just because a small percentage of the human population is homosexual, that humans might risk their position as the dominant species?
 
One thing I’ve never understood is why, if homosexual behavior is against the natural law and against His commandments, did God create so many of his other creatures with this behavior? As E.O. Wilson says in his book, On Human Nature (p. 143-144).
Click to expand...
To play devil’s advocate…

Actually, this is perfectly compatible with Catholic theology, once we better understand the nature of Original Sin. Things found in the natural world – from diseases in animals to earthquakes and other natural evils – are simply part of the creation, how God formed it. God placed the original humans in the “garden,” meaning that humans were not supposed to experience the same kind of limitations elsewhere in creation. And one day, in the Resurrection and “New Heaven and New Earth,” this paradise state will be brought to fulfillment for humanity.

But because of Original Sin, mankind was not so much punished as it was withdrawn from the special relationship, grace, and gifts of God. So mankind was again left to the level of the natural world. And so not only homosexual attraction, but all kinds of psychological and biological states, conditions, and limitations were “introduced” (or, rather, allowed), since man lost the special grace and protections not owed to him (they were supernatural and preternatural).

It would seem to be odd if we understand Original Sin as introducing an array of new illnesses and physical evils in the ENTIRE created order. But that is not what Catholic teaching says – or at least not what it requires. Rather, the Fall made humankind susceptible to nature as it was.

So yes, homosexuality is part of nature, in the sense that it is found in animals (and humans are animals). But, man in “paradise” was not supposed to be limited to mere nature. God granted gifts and graces not owed to natural man. And in the Resurrection, we again will have these gifts in a glorified state.
 
Last edited:
Darwin didn’t really understand how genes work in any sort of detail. That wouldn’t really be widely known even among most scientists until the 20th century. As Wilson points out, gay people don’t have to reproduce to spread their genes since their relatives can do it for them.
 
@(name removed by moderator) See my post above^^

Even if evolution did produce homosexuality in animals (including humans), that would be no threat to Catholic teaching.

Original Sin, properly understood, does not require the notion that ALL physical evils and limitations were introduced after the Fall. Rather, it merely caused mankind* to be susceptible to what was already in creation/nature.

But what is found in creation/nature does not equate to God’s plan for humanity. For physical death is also found in nature, but that is not man’s ultimate calling.
 
Last edited:
I’m really late to the party but I do want to give you my view.

The previous poster was making a good point about nature and what is “natural”.
There are many animals which can exhibt homosexual behaviours but do they serve a purpose as in the survival of the species? No, that’s why if they only mate with the same sex their genes are not passed on.

Obviously, in 2018 you can have surrogates and all this other nonsense but it is not “natural” it’s man made. You are not participating how it should be in God’s creation by lab creating another human.
The point is nature is not a justification for human behaviour. We are above urges and have more agency over our behaviour.
I’m glad you resist the broader LGBT culture consensus of “you are born this way now embrace it ie gay marriage, transsexualism, women’s rights - abortion… “. It’s a mess.

Truth is we are all born a certain flawed way but that does’t mean we don’t have a choice to forge our future. Unless you are certain that you cannot ever fully love a woman, I wouldn’t bury the idea of marriage. Heck, you haven’t even dated women. I would pray and see how things work out for you on that end. God asks us to try.

However, a word of warning here.
Nothing good ever comes from living out SSA.
If you look at things most people don’t want to talk about like homosexuals in statistics you will see that this culture mostly entails HIV (around 70% of HIV infections in Europe and America affect homosexuals)- why did Grindr at one time disclose HIV statuses???; how about partner statistics? Homosexuals are largely promiscous and NOT in monogamous long term “partnerships” (Bell and Weinberg (1978) this study is older but very well set up), so not really what you said you wanted as in a long and stable “romantic relationship” with another man. I could go on here…of course exceptions exist. They are not the rule! It’s also a human flaw to think you’re the exception…😔

If you look for the truth whatever it may be, you will find it. Please don’t reject it because it seems unfair. God is the truth. God wants what is good for you.
 
Yes, Jesus, by virtue of His Incarnation ELEVATED humanity infinitely above animal behavior, and by our Baptism we enter into the divine life of the Trinity.
 
No,it’s a potential. A SS coupling doesn’t have the potential; it’s terminally incapable of the conjugal union. It can’t be perfected.
 
Last edited:
In the end, it’s what he wanted. Can a debate be stirred up such that it generates a sliver of a new idea for him or a few people who can help him avoid a harder reality.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand why this was directed at me. I never said that just because something is found in creation or animals (again, like death itself) that that means that is what humanity’s ultimate calling is.
 
Golightlyholly said:
I’m really late to the party but I do want to give you my view.

The previous poster was making a good point about nature and what is “natural”.
There are many animals which can exhibt homosexual behaviours but do they serve a purpose as in the survival of the species? No, that’s why if they only mate with the same sex their genes are not passed on.
Click to expand...
Since you were late to the party, I guess you didn’t read what I posted above from the book On Human Nature by Edward O. Wilson, a famous professor in Harvard University’s Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology which explains how the genes of those with homosexual behavior can be passed on:
How can genes predisposing their carriers towards homosexuality spread through the population if homosexuals have no children? One answer is that their close relatives could have had more children as a result of their presence. The homosexual members of primitive societies could have helped members of the same sex either while hunting and gathering or in more domestic occupations at the dwelling sites. Freed from the special obligations of parental duties, they would have been in a position to operate with special efficiency in assisting close relatives. They might further have taken the roles of seers, shamans, artists, and keepers of tribal knowledge. If the relatives - sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, and others - were benefited by higher survival and reproduction rates, the genes these individuals shared with the homosexual specialists would have increased at the expense of alternative genes. Inevitably, some of these genes would have been those that predisposed individuals towards homosexuality.
Click to expand...
 
Golightlyholly said:
However, a word of warning here.
Nothing good ever comes from living out SSA.
If you look at things most people don’t want to talk about like homosexuals in statistics you will see that this culture mostly entails HIV (around 70% of HIV infections in Europe and America affect homosexuals)- why did Grindr at one time disclose HIV statuses???; how about partner statistics? Homosexuals are largely promiscous and NOT in monogamous long term “partnerships” (Bell and Weinberg (1978) this study is older but very well set up), so not really what you said you wanted as in a long and stable “romantic relationship” with another man. I could go on here…of course exceptions exist. They are not the rule! It’s also a human flaw to think you’re the exception…😔
Click to expand...
Both catholic1seeks and I have SSA, so, are you trying to tell us that just by our very nature, by acting on our sexual attractions, we would get HIV, be promiscuous and not be able to have a long-term monogamous relationship? By using the same kind of logic, since in 2010, 68% (22.9 million) of all HIV cases and 66% of all deaths (1.2 million) occurred in sub-Saharan Africa and 60% of those people with HIV were women, can we conclude that there is something intrinsically bad about black women acting on their heterosexual attractions? Of course we can’t conclude that because such a conclusion would be based on faulty and ridiculous logic, the same kind of faulty and ridiculous logic that you’ve used in your argument above.
 
I missed this thread a long time ago.

My (now) ex husband did this. He is gay. Basically he used me and it nearly ruined my life. It was devastating to me. My goals in life (of being a dedicated and loving mother and wife) were destroyed when he left me. He lied to me, used me, and eventually left me because he couldn’t live the lie. Plus, it was a big financial hit. I won’t be able to retire at 65… maybe ever.

So you are asking if you should lie and use another human being for your own desires, possibly ruining that person’s life. Answer me this, would you want someone to do this to you? Do you really want to do this to someone else? Someone, who loves you?

If what you really want is simply human companionship, why not get a room mate? Maybe live with an elderly person who also needs companionship. Or perhaps a lesbian who also wants companionship, but not a sexual relationship.

Whatever you do, I pray it’s the right thing for you and for others. Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Let me be blunt here. People are not addressing your concerns because you seem to only care about your concerns. It seems like the points addressing how your potential spouse would fare in this marriage seems to be of no concern for you. Sure romance is not the only thing but it is a nice to have. You seem to view marriage more as a hedge against loneliness and it is not guaranteed that marriage can shield you from that. I know too many lonely married people.

What will happen when you get married and you still get lonely?
 
Provided you are honest up front and she still says yes, than you can get married. Be honest though and keep in mind you can still get lonely even if you are married.
 
That’s a very interesting quote but there is a notable lack of actual evidence.
  1. Is there a “gay gene”? None has been found. Thomas Bouchard, who led the Minnesota Twin Study, found two pairs of identical twins with one or both being homosexual. One pair were both homosexual, the other pair had one homosexual and one heterosexual (albeit with a homosexual relationship in his teens). There just isn’t the information to say.
  2. Is there any evidence for “gay parenting” in primitive societies? None that I’m aware of, in either the historical or anthropological records. Nor is there evidence of homosexuals taking on shamanic roles. There are still functioning primitive and shamanic societies; none show such practices. There are homosexual practices within primitive societies, such as the “men’s cults” of Papua New Guinea. However these involved older men forcing younger men to perform sex acts for magical reasons. The men still married later on.
  3. If there were homosexual parenting genes then we would expect to see them continue into recent times (by genetic standards - evolution is still happening). For instance, the Bajau sea people have evolved larger spleens within the last 1000 or so years (source) so if the “gay gene” provided benefits then we’d expect to see “gay parenting” within that time period across societies where homosexuality is now present. We don’t though.
As far as I am aware, we simply do not know what causes homosexuality or why. Professor Wilson provides an interesting hypothesis but the lack of evidence suggests he is wrong.

As for the question of SSA lifestyle - note that Golightlyholly did not talk about “nature” but “culture” instead - so this is about statistics. Not every homosexual will contract HIV; however there is a much greater chance a person will contract it if they are homosexual. Unlike Africa, which lacks condoms and suffers from folk beliefs, homosexuals in the West have access to the best sexual health in the world and still contract the majority of HIV. That is partly because homosexual sex is naturally more dangerous, because the anus can tear leading to fecal matter and bacteria entering the blood, and partly because the lifestyle tends to be more hedonistic, such as “chem sex” parties. So no, it is not certain that by acting on your (homosexual) sexual attraction that you would get HIV, be promiscous, or be unable to have a long term monogamous relationship. However, Golightlyholly is correct that living a homosexual lifestyle would make all of these more likely.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top