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.

[Furrowed Brow]

If God hates homsexuals then why did He make them in the first place?

The most economical answer is that he wanted someone to hate, and he wanted his followers to have someone to hate too.

Am I alone in thinking the OP's projection of feelings of gay hate, plus the invocation of Nazism, and the invitation to people who accept evolutionary theory to gather round and hate gayness kind of a weird brew.

[Goat]

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.

Homosexuality is not an "attack" at all. It's a personal choice of lifestyle. How in a free country do you determine that someone else choosing to live their life in a way that is different from the way you have chosen to live your life, is an attack on anything? My own children are well grown and gone now, but I never noticed that the existence of homosexuals in the world was ever a threat to my family. No homosexuals ever attacked us. I notice that there have been homosexuals throughout history, and I also notice that the human species is in no imminent danger of extinction. So how is homosexuality a threat to anything? If you don't like homosexuals then don't associate with homosexuals. You are perfectly free to not do that in a free country. And don't you find it ironic that the Christians are the ones at the forefront of this campaign of hatred and intolerance? If God hates homsexuals then why did He make them in the first place?

I disagree. It is not a personal choice of lifestyle. It is an integral part of WHO someone is. The only ones that have a choice in the matter of 'lifestyle' are the ones that are bisexual... although they can not control who they fall in love with, or who they are sexually attracted to.. they can control which impulses they respond to.

[Flail]

If God hates homsexuals then why did He make them in the first place?

The most economical answer is that he wanted someone to hate, and he wanted his followers to have someone to hate too.

Am I alone in thinking the OP's projection of feelings of gay hate, plus the invocation of Nazism, and the invitation to people who accept evolutionary theory to gather round and hate gayness kind of a weird brew.

Agreed. Equating homosexuality with nihilism (the rejection of all moral principles) is reprehensible and appalling. There is a wonderful lesbian couple in our community who are the paragon of virtue; charitable, kind and dedicated to helping others. They volunteer constantly to causes for the needy. Both of them are widowed and are in their late 40's. I intend to tell them (since they have often dealt with such hatred here in the BibleBelt) that many of the Christians in this forum think that their love and committed partnership with one another is an abomination, an affront to God and mankind and the equivalent of the rejection of all moral principles. I will report their response here. How anyone could claim such beliefs while spouting adherence to Jesus teachings is beyond me, and serves to demonstrate that weird holy men can indeed turn a philosophy of love into one of ignorance and hate.

[Autodidact]

There are several misconceptions, beginning with the idea that there is something called an "evolutionist," which is a worldview somehow as contrasted with Christianity. In fact evolution is a scientific theory, like germ theory or atomic theory. You either accept scientific theories or not. Some people who reject it do so purely based on their version of Christianity, but that does not change the fact that it is a scientific theory, and therefore there is no such thing as something being a sin against it.

Maybe you're asking how homosexuality could possibly be genetic since it is somewhat counter-reproductive? That's a very different question, but if you're interested, it is one we could talk about.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality from a Humanist standpoint -- in fact, opposing gay rights is far more of a "sin." Evolution is a scientific theory that is descriptive, not prescriptive. There is no such thing as a "sin" against evolution, any more than there could be a "sin" against gravity or electromagnetism.

How does the homosexual gene survive in natural selection?

wiki:
Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers.

Well, it's an interesting question, IMO. I don't think there is a single homosexual gene, and I proceed on the assumption that there is no reason the answer should be the same for men and women.

One possibility I find likely for men is that there is a gene on the X chromosome which makes some women highly interested in sex with men. Their male offspring are then more likely to be homosexual. In other words, it's vestigial in males, and is really about female fertility. I'm not saying that we know this, but it is a likely explanation, supported by data from one study, that is worth exploring.

In women, it makes sense to me that when there is a shortage of male co-parents, (but, for biological reason, no shortage of male sexual partners), if a woman is capable of forming a pair-bond with another woman, her children (and her, actually) are more likely to survive to reproduce. So I think many women have this capacity, and in only a few extreme cases is it exclusive. That is, exclusive lesbians are relatively rare--less than 1% of the population.

Also these female/female pair bonds are likely often called upon to raise nieces and nephews (as often happens today) which still passes on their genes, although not directly.

[Autodidact]

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.

No, not at all. That doesn't make sense at all.. at least number 2.

And not coming from the concept of nihilism either.

Actually, homosexuality is a zero sum game in regards to evolution. It is actually enjoyable to watch the garden-variety materialist squirm with discomfort when the realization of evolution destroys their poilitcal agenda.

From a viewpoint of 'compassion and respect for individuals and diversity' say that what two loving adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my business.

"Love"? If anything is anti-evolution, it is the human will to love. Lve makes human beings choose sexual partnmers that are worthless. There is no such thing as "love" in evolution. Nothing in nature supports human love, or shows it as anything worthwhile.

You are assuming that sexual behavior is only used for reproduction.. and that is not true.

Try spreading your genes through the digestive tract. Evolution asserts the worthlessness of same gender sexual couplings. Take for example Darwins Finches (of course all still being birds). There are no descendants of gay Finches. Darwin's Finches are by all reality only straight.

You do know that homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of species, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I disagree. It is not a personal choice of lifestyle. It is an integral part of WHO someone is. The only ones that have a choice in the matter of 'lifestyle' are the ones that are bisexual... although they can not control who they fall in love with, or who they are sexually attracted to.. they can control which impulses they respond to.

People feel the way they feel, granted. Which is what has always made love such a mysterious and inexplicable thing. How a person acts upon those feelings is a matter of personal choice however. Individuals of the same sex who have made the choice to act openly on their feelings have chosen to live a lifestyle which is outside of the norm for the majority. But that should be their right in a free country it seems to me. Of course we COULD put them all inside of electrified enclosures and feed them by air drop, as was recently suggested by one pastor. At least he didn't advocate crucifixion for them one and all, which was very Christian of him.

And then there are those individuals who are not attracted to the opposite sex, who secretly harbor same gender feelings, but who are too ashamed by their cultural upbringing to act openly on those feelings. Those individuals apparently tend to opt for the priesthood.

[connermt]

I disagree. It is not a personal choice of lifestyle. It is an integral part of WHO someone is. The only ones that have a choice in the matter of 'lifestyle' are the ones that are bisexual... although they can not control who they fall in love with, or who they are sexually attracted to.. they can control which impulses they respond to.

People feel the way they feel, granted. Which is what has always made love such a mysterious and inexplicable thing. How a person acts upon those feelings is a matter of personal choice however. Individuals of the same sex who have made the choice to act openly on their feelings have chosen to live a lifestyle which is outside of the norm for the majority. But that should be their right in a free country it seems to me. Of course we COULD put them all inside of electrified enclosures and feed them by air drop, as was recently suggested by one pastor. At least he didn't advocate crucifixion for them one and all, which was very Christian of him.

And then there are those individuals who are not attracted to the opposite sex, who secretly harbor same gender feelings, but who are too ashamed by their cultural upbringing to act openly on those feelings. Those individuals apparently tend to opt for the priesthood.

I would tend to agree. "Lifestyle" seems to be how someone lives their life based on society's view of them at the time. Unfortunately, many equate "lifestyle" entirely with "sexuality" which are two totally different things.
This doesn't mean being gay (attracted to the same sex) is a choice, rather how you live your life is the choice. 'Living your life' encompasses all things, not just your sexuality.
This in itself doesn't make one lifestyle (gay or straight) fundamentally better or worse than the other.
Sexuality seems to run the spectrum of 100% gay/100% straight (of which there are few of each IMO) with the majority being somewhere in the middle. Trying to assign a "lifestyle" to all of these variations would no only be daunting but, seemingly, futile. Unless, that is, one is trying to classify people in an effort to discriminate and hate. When you've gone that far, "in for a penny in for a pound"...

[Flail]

If God hates homsexuals then why did He make them in the first place?

The most economical answer is that he wanted someone to hate, and he wanted his followers to have someone to hate too.

Am I alone in thinking the OP's projection of feelings of gay hate, plus the invocation of Nazism, and the invitation to people who accept evolutionary theory to gather round and hate gayness kind of a weird brew.

Agreed. Equating homosexuality with nihilism (the rejection of all moral principles) is reprehensible and appalling. There is a wonderful lesbian couple in our community who are the paragon of virtue; charitable, kind and dedicated to helping others. They volunteer constantly to causes for the needy. Both of them are widowed and are in their late 40's. I intend to tell them (since they have often dealt with such hatred here in the BibleBelt) that many of the Christians in this forum think that their love and committed partnership with one another is an abomination, an affront to God and mankind and the equivalent of the rejection of all moral principles. I will report their response here. How anyone could claim such beliefs while spouting adherence to Jesus teachings is beyond me, and serves to demonstrate that weird holy men can indeed turn a philosophy of love into one of ignorance and hate.

Report: My lesbian couple responded by calmly shaking their heads while wondering why the manner in which they occasionally found pleasure in expressing their affection for each other was the definitive factor in declaring their relationship an abomination, and why a sacred, loving partnership was labeled by Christians as akin to being devoid of all moral principal. They commented that who they are as individuals and their relationship with one another has very little to do with gender and sex, and that the latter is a matter of extreme privacy in any event. They suggested that Christians against committed homosexual relationships keep their hatred private as well.

[His Name Is John]

I find it ironic that if homosexuality is caused by our genes, then 'coming out' is actually going to kill the homosexuals off. There wont be any closet homosexuals to pass the gay gene on.

[Goat]

I find it ironic that if homosexuality is caused by our genes, then 'coming out' is actually going to kill the homosexuals off. There wont be any closet homosexuals to pass the gay gene on.

Except, of course, the mothers of gay men are much more fertile than normal.. and that key will keep it happening.

That seems to be why that the percentage of homosexuals have pretty much stayed the same through history, despite culture.