Homosexuality as a sin against both worldviews

[cholland]

Am I missing something, or is homosexuality not only an affront against most of the major religions, but also against natural selection? How does an evolutionist justify the insertion of a homosexual gene in the natural selection process, considering it is its enemy?

From my point of view, homosexuality is a sin not only according to the Christian Bible, but also against the evolutionary worldview. You EITHER hold one of the two and are inconsistent:
1. I'm a Christian, but decided to cherry pick the Bible and/or disobey it.
2. I'm an evolutionist, but decided somehow homosexuality is not an attack on the natural selection process.

OR you hold one of the two and are consistent:
1. I'm a Christian and homosexuality is an offense against God.
2. I'm an evolutionist and homosexuality is an offense against the natural selection process.

The only worldview I see that can justify homosexuality is nihilism. But of course, they can justify rape, murder, etc. as well.

[Bust Nak]

If we were to be consistent here, you must be able to show ANYTHING about the laws of thought other than the laws themselves, right?

Wrong, that makes no sense. I can show you the truth of these laws without referring to anything Aristotle has writen. But you can't show the truth of what you say about homosexaulity being a sin without referring to what was written in the Bible.

If not, I don't see how an atheist without a multiple personality disorder could on the one hand demand to SEE God and on the other hand arbitrarily believe in the laws of thought without SEEING them.

Are you suggesting the existence of God is self-evident?

[Jarte]

OK, you believe that lust is bad. Now show that love toward someone of the same sex is more lustful than love toward someone of a different sex.

I am not saying any form of lust greater than another because it isn't but I was simply trying to explain that one reason homosexuality is the same problem that plagues heterosexuals that being lust.

Love can be shown in ways that are not sexual. For as a Christian I am commanded to love my neighbor that doesn't mean to hold sexual lust for the person I love. The word love has been corrupted by popular culture to mean something that it is not. Love should mean having a deep personal feeling of affection(in an non-lustful manner).

Yes but what does this have to do with our subject? Are you saying that homosexuals are more lustful than heterosexuals? If not, what is your point?

I said that lust is one problem of both sides and no both sexualities are probably equally lustful.

[cholland]

If we were to be consistent here, you must be able to show ANYTHING about the laws of thought other than the laws themselves, right?

Wrong, that makes no sense. I can show you the truth of these laws without referring to anything Aristotle has writen. But you can't show the truth of what you say about homosexaulity being a sin without referring to what was written in the Bible.

I won't hold my breath.

If not, I don't see how an atheist without a multiple personality disorder could on the one hand demand to SEE God and on the other hand arbitrarily believe in the laws of thought without SEEING them.

Are you suggesting the existence of God is self-evident?

I'm saying you can't begin with "God does not exist" and then ask someone to prove his existence. Similar to you can't begin with "The Laws of Thought do not exist" and then ask someone to prove them.

[Uijboo]

Within the genome there is much complexity, and genes don't always work solo. It sometimes takes a collaboration of genes to produce a noticeable trait, and sometimes the trigger for those genes to turn "on" or "off" is environmental. There is a study that demonstrated that the more a woman has boys, the more stress hormones she produced, effecting subsequent boys and giving each one born next a higher statistical chance of homosexuality than the last. Hormones in this instance may be the trigger. In some instances of genetic disease, or trait, the code isn't activated until both parents are carriers (which may take hundreds of years for a single family tree to activate). The point being is that the gay gene(s) may be passed on dormant, or activated later, or passed without an ingredient in the gay gene recipe for unknown amounts of time.

Now, we shouldn't assume homosexuality would die off, we can imagine a very fertile woman having lots of strong young boys. Right? All of them are brought up into a wealthy family, and all marry at a good age and pass on the gene (non-activated/partial/etc.). The youngest has always had feelings for men, but due to societal pressures he always dismissed them. He would eventually marry for convenience, possible by arrangement, and have lot's of boys of his own. He may even have lived in a time or place where he could openly be homosexual while still being required to produce progeny. He could be royalty as well, and harbored genetic defects from inbreeding (which should also be considered a "sin" but due to his wealth continues for more generations then would be usual), but despite his dual traits he still impregnates a few maids and passes on the gene (non-activated/partial/etc.).

This is but one colorful scenario where homosexuality (along with other historical examples of genetic disease) are passed on, and given other factors related to natural selection (like those mentioned by Quoth p6 post57), it's not unreasonable to assume that homosexuality would never be "cut" from mammalia because in it's complexity it doesn't significantly affect fitness.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Am I missing something, or is homosexuality not only an affront against most of the major religions, but also against natural selection?

Humans. Homosexuality is an "affront" against some humans thinking they know better how a person oughta get on with their life than the one sittin' there livin' it. Thus, this "affront" is itself an affront to all who hope that freedom of thought and action, among consenting adults, is more important than who's bumping genitals with who, or whom, 'pending on your education.

Natural selection doesn't have thoughts on the issue, but merely acts as it may.

How does an evolutionist justify the insertion of a homosexual gene in the natural selection process, considering it is its enemy?

Only those opposed to something consider that others need to "justify" that something they're opposed to.

I don't justify homosexual genes the same way I don't justify the superstitious, ill-informed based oppression of my fellow humans.

From my point of view, homosexuality is a sin not only according to the Christian Bible, but also against the evolutionary worldview. You EITHER hold one of the two and are inconsistent:
1. I'm a Christian, but decided to cherry pick the Bible and/or disobey it.
2. I'm an evolutionist, but decided somehow homosexuality is not an attack on the natural selection process.

What "attack" can there be on a process that has so far repulsed all attacks ag'in it?

Evolutionary theory doesn't require that an act or thought or genetic process be always beneficial, but that there it sits. So, homosexuality may, might, upon the coordinated lining up of all the planets, be a detriment to the ultimate survival of the species. I'd caution against accepting such a notion based on here we still are and for as far back as we have reliable records, homosexuals have been a-homosexualin', and heterosexuals have been a-heterosexualin' (and sometimes some of the other if so many homosexual hating but turning out to be a-doin' it themselves preachers are considered).

OR you hold one of the two and are consistent:
1. I'm a Christian and homosexuality is an offense against God.
2. I'm an evolutionist and homosexuality is an offense against the natural selection process.

I contend your use of terms such as "affront", "justify", "enemy", "sin", and your insistence that folks gotta hold to the limited worldviews you present is indicative of one who hasn't studied the issue beyond their own biases.

"I'm an evolutionist and homosexuality is something that occurs in nature."

See how I did that? No need to use such inflammatory or disparaging rhetoric as you have, and my worldview remains as consistent as any I'm aware of.

The only worldview I see that can justify homosexuality is nihilism. But of course, they can justify rape, murder, etc. as well.

Such a condition is indicative of one who can't see past their own nose.

[Goat]

Can you show why?? Somehow, I don't think you can show ANYTHING about God.

I'm still waiting for you to show me why the laws of thought. If we were to be consistent here, you must be able to show ANYTHING about the laws of thought other than the laws themselves, right? If not, I don't see how an atheist without a multiple personality disorder could on the one hand demand to SEE God and on the other hand arbitrarily believe in the laws of thought without SEEING them.

Sorry, but could you clarify what you mean. That did not make sense at all.

I have no idea what you mean by 'laws of thought'.. .. making things up as you go along?

Here ya go chief: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

And what does that have to do with the rather bigoted declaration that homosexuality has against both worlds, and the fact you can't show ANYTHING about God? Honestly, the law of thought is just a logical tool that is made up to help describe things.. and there is nothing about the declaration that 'homosexuality is against both world views' , or 'you can't show anything about God' in any of the laws of thought...

[Furrowed Brow]

oops wrong thread

[cholland]

Can you show why?? Somehow, I don't think you can show ANYTHING about God.

I'm still waiting for you to show me why the laws of thought. If we were to be consistent here, you must be able to show ANYTHING about the laws of thought other than the laws themselves, right? If not, I don't see how an atheist without a multiple personality disorder could on the one hand demand to SEE God and on the other hand arbitrarily believe in the laws of thought without SEEING them.

Sorry, but could you clarify what you mean. That did not make sense at all.

I have no idea what you mean by 'laws of thought'.. .. making things up as you go along?

Here ya go chief: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

And what does that have to do with the rather bigoted declaration that homosexuality has against both worlds, and the fact you can't show ANYTHING about God? Honestly, the law of thought is just a logical tool that is made up to help describe things.. and there is nothing about the declaration that 'homosexuality is against both world views' , or 'you can't show anything about God' in any of the laws of thought...

I'll break it down. You want me to show you anything about something immaterial, eternal, and true (God) without using the thing itself (God's words). Substitute [The Laws of Thought] for "God" and [The Laws of Thought as communicated in the wikipedia article] for "God's words". So until you can figure out a way to prove the Laws of Thought true WITHOUT using the laws themselves, I don't see how you can ask me to do the same.

[Goat]

Can you show why?? Somehow, I don't think you can show ANYTHING about God.

I'm still waiting for you to show me why the laws of thought. If we were to be consistent here, you must be able to show ANYTHING about the laws of thought other than the laws themselves, right? If not, I don't see how an atheist without a multiple personality disorder could on the one hand demand to SEE God and on the other hand arbitrarily believe in the laws of thought without SEEING them.

Sorry, but could you clarify what you mean. That did not make sense at all.

I have no idea what you mean by 'laws of thought'.. .. making things up as you go along?

Here ya go chief: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

And what does that have to do with the rather bigoted declaration that homosexuality has against both worlds, and the fact you can't show ANYTHING about God? Honestly, the law of thought is just a logical tool that is made up to help describe things.. and there is nothing about the declaration that 'homosexuality is against both world views' , or 'you can't show anything about God' in any of the laws of thought...

I'll break it down. You want me to show you anything about something immaterial, eternal, and true (God) without using the thing itself (God's words). Substitute [The Laws of Thought] for "God" and [The Laws of Thought as communicated in the wikipedia article] for "God's words". So until you can figure out a way to prove the Laws of Thought true WITHOUT using the laws themselves, I don't see how you can ask me to do the same.

This is a Red herring. I never said anything about 'the laws of thought'..

Rather than show that your claim is true, you want me to support a claim I never made??

[Quath]

Other than the third study, they don't really answer the question of natural selection. The gene would never pass on because they do not reproduce (at least not in great numbers). All of your theories are (shot in the dark) theories, but they all assume they pass on the gene which they don't.

At least we can assume that homosexuality is some sort of genetic mutation that will die off rapidly, right? Again assuming they do not reproduce in great numbers.

We know from identical twin studies that there is no single gay gene. It seems to be a collection of genes along with some environmental influences (such as the mother's uterus).

So these genes do get passed on because they do not cause 100% gayness. And in cases where people are gay, homosexuals may help out family members which share many of these genes.