Post Reply
Page 1 of 26  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 26 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Myth of Homosexuality
7 years ago  ::  Jan 12, 2008 - 11:18PM #1
JosephBaileyOne
Posts: 564
There is no denying that homosexual activity has been with humanity for centuries but the concept of homosexuality as a worldview, philosophy of life, and so forth has only developed in the last 50 years or so.  Yet, can there be such a thing?  No. 

Presently there are two main competing views (and some sythesis sometimes) of life's origins and subsequent development.  Creation by God or Evolution is how life originated and developed up to now.  In both paradigms, there is one primary objective that humans must do and that is reproduce (or go forth and be fruiful).  The abolute command, either by God's command in Genesis 1:27-28, or from Natural Selection, or some unkown as yet combination of the two is clear that heterosexuality is how the humans species is to reproduce.   Now with a clear mandate it is no wonder that humanity was organized around a male-female family unit and that restrcitions were made concerning appropriate sexual conduct.  After all, continuation of the species was at stake.

So, what has changed in 2008?  Homosexuality is one of the hottest button issues in the political arena.  Further, let us make clear here that it is all about a certain type of sexual activity that is at issue here and not some high-minded notion of love and tranquility.  For without certain sex acts, the issue is moot.  The current mantra teaches that the Bible should be trashed or reinterrupted but what about Evolution?  Where are the biologists who will want to trash the Bible but will not dare challenge this notion of "homosexuality?"  It is Evolution that makes clear that Natural Selection is how a species wins out so how can such a thing as a "gay gene" be explained as anything but a mutation?  It cannot in any way contribute to the betterment of a species to survive and in the game of survival of the fittest that Natural Selection dictates, it has no function.  Thus, its existence (presuming that homosexuality is thought to be genetic in any way) flaunts the laws of Evolution.

There is no denying that any two men, two women, or groups of them may engage in certain sex acts and that is all it is, experimentation, and as such that is not the issue here.  No, the issue is the development of a mindset that has become a worldview and that forces itself onto society and seeks to upend that society and reshape without any merit to its claim.  Civil unions, sure, go ahead as that is all about some legal junk anyhow.  However, the teaching that one is "homosexual" is wrong because if one accepts Evolution then it is clear that homosexuality is a socially constructed phenomenon and should be treated as such.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 5:54AM #2
JosephBaileyOne
Posts: 564
Save the personal attacks for someone who wants to hear it and stick to what I write.  Your righteous diatribe about prejudices is not going to distract from an important question.  Bringing up referreed articles from a science journal is exactly what I sought, like what you mentioned or the research that came of out a Dutch study two years ago about brain wiring of homosexuals.  I explicitly stated that if homosexuality was in way genetic that it had to be due to mutations.  Furthermore, please do not do what the liberal rant is of attacking the messenger and starting the name calling so as to avoid the question at hand.  Your last paragraph is just childish and not needed.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 9:41AM #3
Kwinters
Posts: 21,940

JosephBaileyOne wrote:

There is no denying that homosexual activity has been with humanity for centuries...



If you're going to make empirical claims, then you have to consider all the relevant evidence available.  There are other animals which engage in homosexual behaviour, not just humans.  This suggests that homosexuality is biologically, not psychologically, driven:

Gay animals out of the closet?

First-ever museum display shows 51 species exhibiting homosexuality

From male killer whales that ride the dorsal fin of another male to female bonobos that rub their genitals together, the animal kingdom tolerates all kinds of lifestyles.

A first-ever museum display, "Against Nature?,"  which opened last month at the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum in Norway, presents 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality.

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.

..The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the "laws of nature" can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition. "A main target for this project was to get museums involved in current debate; to show that museums are more than just a gallery for the past."

To learn more, see LiveScience's Top 10 presentation, Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 9:45AM #4
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707
Some animals eat their offspring.

Let's do the same.
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 10:24AM #5
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707
Some animals eat their mates after finishing up.  Let's do the same.
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 10:26AM #6
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

KWinters wrote:

First, one cannot assert homosexuality is against nature if homosexual acts are found within nature.

Secondly, animals don't randomly eat their young.



By all means, let's do the same.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 3:00PM #7
Ken
Posts: 33,859

JosephBaileyOne wrote:

There is no denying that homosexual activity has been with humanity for centuries but the concept of homosexuality as a worldview, philosophy of life, and so forth has only developed in the last 50 years or so.

There is no such concept. Never has been, never will be.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 8:09PM #8
artemis01
Posts: 925
Oh, boy.  Another fascinating thread featuring more blather about a topic that is inexplicably frightening to large numbers of people despite the utter lack of evidence of any kind of threat whatsoever to anybody.

Gosh, I can't wait to see what happens.....
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 8:42PM #9
artemis01
Posts: 925
(I always find it absolutely fascinating when Christians, of all people, take the "if it's not reproductive, it's useless" tack.

Let''s consider carefully now, and see if we can think if anybody in Christian history has ever been unmarried and childless....

Oh, gee.  I  really think there might have been.  Christ, St. Stephen, St. Paul, Thomas Aquinas and hundreds of other philosophers and theologians, all  Catholic clergy from the Middle Ages onward, and almost  every monastic who ever lived,  including St. Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa.

What a bunch of useless individuals, eh?  Mutants, no doubt.)
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 10:08PM #10
SquirleyWurley
Posts: 1,970
I can only appeal to a search for truth.  Truth involves a willingness to look at one's conjectures about other people, for instance, and to be willing to be corrected by observations that contradict our conjectures, if necessary, or to listen and see if someone is saying something contradictory and to reject arguments that are shown to be invalid.

One thing I admire about the first post in this thread, is that it is full of statements that can be explored with an eye on reason and evidence that could challenge the views presented.  I am wary of accepting any and all conjectures about homosexuality, myself, and this tends to lead me to dislike the slogans and political arguments that are typically made on various sides, even when those slogans and arguments are coming from people who are 'on my side' when it comes to a particular ethical, social, or political question.

JosephBaileyOne wrote:

the concept of homosexuality as a worldview, philosophy of life, and so forth has only developed in the last 50 years or so.  Yet, can there be such a thing?  No. 



I am not aware of 'homosexuality as a worldview, philosophy of life' etc., even within the last 50 years or so.  But you are implying that someone is positing such a thing, so I'm trying to figure out what you may be observing and I suppose it may be the idea of homosexuality as a positive part of one's life, or else as a 'lifestyle' of some kind.  In that case I generally dislike the term 'lifestyle' and don't know what to make of it whether it is claimed to be a 'religious lifestyle' or a 'secular lifestyle' or a 'black lifestyle' or a 'feminist lifestyle' or a 'wasp lifestyle' -- the term 'lifestyle' seems so fluid and vague as to include anything and everything, and to overlook individual differences.  But it also seems that you may be referring just to the positive evaluation of sexuality (in this case homosexuality) as a part of one's individual life, outside of scriptural pronouncements, and against the 'natural relations of male and female to produce children'

You seem to imply that natural selection commands us to make procreation the most important aspect of our life.  I do not think this accurately reflects the views of scientists re: the role played by natural selection.  As thinking human beings we can invent technologies that go against natural selection, for example, by caring for the weak and the poor.  We can invent medical techniques that allow people to live who otherwise would die according to 'nature's dictates', i.e., in the natural world.  We can decide that sex and procreation are NOT our highest priorities, i.e., that we are not prepared to engage in totalitarian attempts at eugenics on the basis of our understanding of 'natural law' -- ethics is not DICTATED by biology or physics, though it may be INFORMED by such sciences.

it is no wonder that humanity was organized around a male-female family unit and that restrcitions were made concerning appropriate sexual conduct.  After all, continuation of the species was at stake.



I agree.  There are people who will mention the importance of different types of family unit, however.  For example, tribes have survived for apparently many centuries, with mother-uncle parenting, or with communal parenting by the tribe or by all the mothers of the tribe, etc.  Also there's the example of the extended family where grandparents lived with uncles/aunts/parents/children/grandchildren -- the Waltons.  There are other examples.

But I basically do agree with you (even considering these examples), if I modify your position somewhat.  I can say that that it is no wonder to me that male-female bonds have been treated as so important in so many cultures, for so many centuries.  It is certainly natural that a recognition of parentage, a recognition of both biological parents, became the focus of traditions and regulations and norms of various kinds.

Further, let us make clear here that it is all about a certain type of sexual activity that is at issue here and not some high-minded notion of love and tranquility.  For without certain sex acts, the issue is moot.



I'm not sure what you mean here, so I'm not sure if I agree, or where I might agree.  I can tell you that to human beings who happen to engage in a certain type of sexual activity, it can VERY MUCH be an issue of high-minded notions of love and tranquility for them personally in their personal lives.  But your point is well taken that the SPECIFIC FORM of the discussion has as its root a sexual activity.  The reason for that emphasis seems to come from the opposition, however.  It seems to me that if religious opposition to homosexuality did not emphasize the taboo/sinful nature of certain sexual behaviors, and likewise that if in our culture scientists did not look at natural science's contribution in terms of sexual behaviors -- that the field would be more open for individuals to speak in more personal and lofty terms about the issues of the quality of their life and their desire to be treated fairly as equal citizens before the law.

It is Evolution that makes clear that Natural Selection is how a species wins out so how can such a thing as a "gay gene" be explained as anything but a mutation?  It cannot in any way contribute to the betterment of a species to survive and in the game of survival of the fittest that Natural Selection dictates, it has no function.  Thus, its existence (presuming that homosexuality is thought to be genetic in any way) flaunts the laws of Evolution.



Art and science ALSO flaunt what you might wish to call "the laws of evolution", in many regards, as does religion.  Many animals might seem flaunt them also as bower birds for example spend much of their time not on survival or on mating but on building elaborate nests or peacocks groom ridiculously large plumage.  Often nature is very wasteful.  But some of the 'wasteful' aspects of nature are beautiful or quite useful according to standards chosen by human beings.  If we do not value mere survival and procreation as our highest goals, then we cannot REDUCE ethics to Spencer's social darwinism, for example.  The bower bird is competing for the opposite sex, and a bombadeer beetle is warding off predators, but the excess is wasteful, natural selection exacerbated a tendency to a point where it would seem to have been more 'economical' to forego the arms-races between predator and prey, for instance, or excessive tail plumage in certain species of birds.  This is what I have gathered from reading surveys of evolution from biologiests.

Re: homosexuality, I have heard theories that one reason why this existed throughout centuries was because a male who wasn't competing for other females could serve a role as mediator between men and women or as helper to women, and also that it can serve to correct for over-population as needed.  Those are both interesting conjectures, in the sense that at least they show how perhaps there could be some advantage  for keeping a homosexual gene in the gene pool.  But the presence of some homosexual individuals wouldn't threaten the end of the species unless those genes dominated the gene pool, and in any case many traits of individuals are apparently due to a combined effect of many genes, so it isn't so simple as looking for a 'gay gene' as far as I can tell.

the issue is the development of a mindset that has become a worldview and that forces itself onto society and seeks to upend that society and reshape without any merit to its claim.  Civil unions, sure, go ahead as that is all about some legal junk anyhow.  However, the teaching that one is "homosexual" is wrong because if one accepts Evolution then it is clear that homosexuality is a socially constructed phenomenon and should be treated as such.



I have a general tendency to disagree with simplistic labels when it comes to sexual orientation, but nonetheless it does seem that certain potential orientations, certain aspects of sexuality, are so intimate and connected to our biology, that people are not in error to treat homosexual behavior as something that may indeed involve biology, whether it is mutations of genes or whether it is a combination of genes that survive in many species because they don't threaten survival of the species, or whether many aspects of it is socially constructed.

I'm not sure what else you are arguing FOR.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 26  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 26 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook