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.

[Shermana]

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.

Clearly, their scientism must twist and turn to support their humanistic sympathies. In the real world of Evolution, there's no fluffy reasons to support those who are not a total advantage to the well being of the species. That's a purely humanistic idea and construct. They want to not only have their cake, eat it, but decorate it with frosting and then shout and whine at anyone who disagrees, even from a scientific standpoint.

"Love"? If anything is anti-evolution, it is the human will to love. Lve makes human beings choose sexual partnmers that are worthless.

I can't explain how much I love this statement. I want to frame it. This is one of the best things I've ever read on this forum. You have won the gold prize of cold, harsh truth summarized as neatly as possible. "Love" is anti-evolution. "Love" causes genetic mistakes and bad marital arranagements. The pre-arranged marriage system is far, far, far, far superior to producing healthy offspring and stable marriages in the evolution game. All this "love" fluff is just that, fluff. Pure humanist fluff. But apparently the "Scientism" world view can take a few breaks when it comes to humanist fluff.

There is no such thing as "love" in evolution. Nothing in nature supports human love, or shows it as anything worthwhile.

You sincerely deserve a medal for stating this unstated truth, no sarcasm.

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.

The idea that sex is for more than recreation is also another purely humanistic construct. Maybe Dolphins do it too, but they also rape and murder for pleasure, so....

[Flail]

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.

Perhaps if we are to fully evolve as intellectual beings and to insure our collective survival, we must learn tolerance for our differences, as to skin color, ethnicity and sexual orientation. To 'kill off' those who have differences from the norm is arrogant brutalism, animalism and boorishly stupid.

As an aside, it seems to me that the non- believers focus on the loving relationships of homosexual couples and their human rights and equality, while Christians just can't keep their minds and noses out of the bedroom....is this a Christian fetish?

[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.

Perhaps if we are to fully evolve as intellectual beings and to insure our collective survival, we must learn tolerance for our differences, as to skin color, ethnicity and sexual orientation. To 'kill off' those who have differences from the norm is arrogant brutalism, animalism and boorishly stupid.

As an aside, it seems to me that the non- believers focus on the loving relationships of homosexual couples and their human rights and equality, while Christians just can't keep their minds and noses out of the bedroom....is this a Christian fetish?

Quite the opposite actually. The Nazis attempted to evolve our species by creating a super race, but it was BECAUSE of the tolerance for our differences that this was hindered. How does the evolutionist not applaud the attempt to destroy the weaker humans especially supposed genetic mutations such as homosexuals? As has been pointed out before, there is no room for "loving relationships" in natural selection. It is a cold and heartless process.

The love that Jesus and the Apostles taught is very anti-evolution. There is no cold, power driven, survival of the fittest mentality...such as "whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either."

[Shermana]

The idea that sex is for more than recreation is also another purely humanistic construct. Maybe Dolphins do it too, but they also rape and murder for pleasure, so....

Ahem...that should read "more than PROcreation". The idea that sex is for recreation is the totally humanistic idea. And if anyone wants to use the dolphin as an example, that's a really bad idea: Dolphins do in fact rape and murder for fun. 14 people a year meet a terrible watery grave after being grabbed by the Dolphin's arm-like...appendage and dragged to their cave.

[Neari]

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.

Perhaps if we are to fully evolve as intellectual beings and to insure our collective survival, we must learn tolerance for our differences, as to skin color, ethnicity and sexual orientation. To 'kill off' those who have differences from the norm is arrogant brutalism, animalism and boorishly stupid.

As an aside, it seems to me that the non- believers focus on the loving relationships of homosexual couples and their human rights and equality, while Christians just can't keep their minds and noses out of the bedroom....is this a Christian fetish?

Quite the opposite actually. The Nazis attempted to evolve our species by creating a super race, but it was BECAUSE of the tolerance for our differences that this was hindered. How does the evolutionist not applaud the attempt to destroy the weaker humans especially supposed genetic mutations such as homosexuals? As has been pointed out before, there is no room for "loving relationships" in natural selection. It is a cold and heartless process.

The love that Jesus and the Apostles taught is very anti-evolution. There is no cold, power driven, survival of the fittest mentality...such as "whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either."

The author presupposes that the human tendency to fall "in love" with another member of our species runs contrary to the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. However, it is entirely plausible that love in both the romantic and familial sense evolved as a method of ensuring the survival of one's genes into future generations. Individuals who are "in love" tend to seek the company of the object of their desire and the need for this company often leads to the development of a solid core family structure. In this way, the resulting offspring have two parents available to provide them with the basic needs of protection, shelter, and sustenance. Anthropologist Ted Fischer examines the evolutionary benefits of loving human relationships here.

How does the evolutionist not applaud the attempt to destroy the weaker humans especially supposed genetic mutations such as homosexuals?

One should take care to consider the fact that all genetic traits derive themselves from mutations in the genetic heritage of a species or its predecessor(s). It is perhaps due to a combination of our evolved sense of empathy and certain cultural norms that many human beings tend to reject those propositions which support the destruction of a portion of our species. From an evolutionary standpoint, humans lack a gene which creates an imperative for us to kill members of our species who are different from us. The absence of such a gene, and the presence of our empathetic sense, likely work in concert to make genocidal goals at the very least undesirable and, more often than not, utterly repugnant (so long as overt societal pressures are not allowed to undermine our proclivity for empathy).

[nbas899]

The answer is yes; yes, you are missing something.

I would like, very much, for you to show me how homosexuality is an 'attack' on the 'natural selection process'.

Several studies indicate that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. Indicate, that is, but not prove. But let us, for the sake of debate, assume that it is indeed an effect, at least partly, of genetics. How is it an 'attack' on natural selection? It is not maladaptive, it does not adversely affect the growth of the human race as a species. In fact, overpopulation is often cited as a growing problem (pun intended) regarding we as humans. Moreover, generally speaking, homosexuals are not reproducing. Do you know what that means? That their 'homosexual gene', assuming it exists, is not being passed on by them.

I ask again, HOW is homosexuality an attack on the natural selection process?

Cheers

[Furrowed Brow]

I have not a got a reference at present and think I got this from the New Scientist a few years back. Third sons are statistically far more likely to be gay than if born first or second. I think it was something to do with the hormone levels of the mother during pregnancy. There is also a statistical bias to gayness in cities even after migration is accounted for. There are some pretty obvious explanations for this from an evolutionary standpoint. A third son would be useful to the community, but not so much if he is fighting with his brothers over the same girl. The larger and more densely packed the community the more this trend would be seen. I am not sure how someone who thinks homosexuality is a sin would account for this. Maybe the number three is sinful. That seems just as cogent as any other answer that cant bring itself to accept homosexuality is just another slice of the human community.

How does the evolutionist not applaud the attempt to destroy the weaker humans especially supposed genetic mutations such as homosexuals?

Because today folk who have even a basic understanding of evolution and are able to think clearly and without bias will recognise we all got here by genetic mutation. We are all supposed genetic mutations. And folk reasonably educated about the theory of evolution and who have just the merest inking what it means when Hume said you cant get an Ought from an Is.......tend not to be Nazis and these same folk, the ones open to science and philosophy, I'd like to think will instantly see why phrases like supposed genetic mutations such as homosexuals arise from a place tethered by neither science nor philosophy.

[spiritualrevolution]

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.

... Just because it's against natural selection makes it immoral?

What about if they invented a way for homosexual's to pass on their genes together to children? And if they do, how about we make heterosexuality an offense to God, how about we make heterosexuality an offense to natural selection?

Homosexuality is an offense to nothing.

There is absolutely no reason to be against homosexuality in the modern world, not one reason, moral or otherwise.

And just cause life has no meaning doesn't justify rape, murder. It means that rape and murder are neither moral nor immoral, so nothing or anything can be justified or not justified.

[Bust Nak]

In the real world of Evolution, there's no fluffy reasons to support those who are not a total advantage to the well being of the species.

Total advantage? I have no idea why you think that. Evolution is about trade off, I can't think of any trait that offers an advantage in all situration. Any advantage comes with a corresponding cost.

The idea that sex is for recreation is the totally humanistic idea. And if anyone wants to use the dolphin as an example, that's a really bad idea: Dolphins do in fact rape and murder for fun.

This makes no sense. What relevent does rape and murder have on whether something is humanistic or not?

How is what you said different to: The idea that sex is for recreation is totally dolphinistic idea. And if anyone wants to use human as an example, that's a really bad idea: Human do in fact rape and murder for fun.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?