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.

[spiritualrevolution]

Sex was made for one man and one women married in a healthy relation to act upon thier love for one another by creating another human being.

So what if two women could create a child together? What if two men could create a child together? They have already fused to female eggs together in mice, sooner o later they'll do it in humans.

It is not 5000 years ago. Our knowledge of reproduction, and our technology has changed. Society has changed and the world is overpopulated. You cannot know truly what "God's" purpose for you is, and "sex" could just be evolutionary motivation to reproduce, which you confuse with "God's" purposes, if any existed, which you can only guess at.

I think your "God" placed homosexuals on earth to show that love can overcome anything, even gender, and you need to get over the fact that homosexuals are more blessed than you.

[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.

[cholland]

It seems that the basic question is focused on trying to understand how homosexuality could come from evolution. There are many studies that do look at some of this stuff. But I will try to sum what I have seen quickly.

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.

Now the third option, how do we determine if they are gay or not, or is it a choice? Such as George Zimmerman in the news...is he Hispanic, white, white-Hispanic? Is Barrack Obama black, white, black-white, black-black-white?

[Haven]

Sex was made for one man and one women married in a healthy relation to act upon thier love for one another by creating another human being.

Do you have any evidence or argument to back up this assertion?

Also, do you feel all sex between married heterosexual couples that is not done for the purposes of procreation is sinful? Is simply "making love" wrong?

[Jarte]

Sex was made for one man and one women married in a healthy relation to act upon thier love for one another by creating another human being.

Do you have any evidence or argument to back up this assertion?

Also, do you feel all sex between married heterosexual couples that is not done for the purposes of procreation is sinful? Is simply "making love" wrong?

Evidence?

Well, men have certain parts and women have certain parts each has a designed purpose(I wish not to explain myself any further).

No "making love" as you put within a married couple is not sinful I simply gave the main purpose a secondary purpose of sex was to provide a physical pleasure to us to in an indirect way represent the pleasure we will receive in heaven.

[Autodidact]

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.

Maybe, but then you would have to question what exactly is the gay gene. How can a straight mother have it? If she doesn't then how does she pass it onto her children?

In any case, I think science have a lot of evidence that it isn't purely genetic.

Think of it (crudely) this way: A gene for liking sex with men. The mother has it, and therefore bears more children. If it's carried on the X chromosome, and she bears a son, then even if recessive, her son will inherit that gene, and so be more prone to sex with men. That's the hypothesis, anyway.

Science doesn't have a lot of evidence either way, but twin studies seem to indicate that it has a sizable heritable component.

[Autodidact]

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?

[Autodidact]

No not based on lust but such an act is not the purpose God made us for. I was arguing lust is a detractor to such a circumstance because sex is lustful expression and the whole idea of homosexuality is in the end to act upon that lust in a sexual manner. A loving relationship between men can happen without its purpose whether directly or indirectly sexual.

No, it's not, any more than the whole idea of heterosexuality is in the end to act upon that lust in a sexual manner. The whole idea of homosexuality is the same as the whole idea of heterosexuality, just directed at a different gender.

Sex was made for one man and one women married in a healthy relation to act upon thier love for one another by creating another human being. But like all things of man we corrupted a beautiful miracle of God into a sin of lust for often times the physical characteristics of another.

This is preaching, not argument.

In the end though heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual sex are of equal cosequence as is all other sins. My main point is not to condem those who are homosexual but urge them to seek God because God loves you more than any other being could possibly compare too. I am as much a sinner if not more of a sinner than any other fellow human being whether gay or straight. But it is by the grace God offered me and wishes to offer you that such shortfallings are overcome. If I somehow offend anyone I am sincerely sorry and will offer a personal apology upon request all I wish to do is demonstrate the love God has for you threw me.

Please stop preaching and support your argument with factual assertions and logic.

[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?

[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