This was not uniformly true of all American Indian tribes. You are grossly over-generalizing.
It doesn’t matter. The point is that some did it, so there is an established precedence for tribal cultures accepting homosexuality.
Actually the point is that “many cultures” do not, including ancient Israel, so you have not refuted anything.
Regards,
Shodan
No, the point is that it is not a given that tribal cultures WILL reject homosexuality so the notion that homosexuality cannot have had evolutionary benefits to hunter-gatherers cannot be rejected.
Obviously, it couldn’t have been a significant disadvantage pr none of us would be here.
Anyway, homosexuality is ubiquitous in mammals (not just humans), so there must be something good about it.
You did understand, and thanks. But we’re not talking about churches, because I cannot think of one that condones pre-marital sex but forbids homosexualality. Do you have an example that would make it clearer?
I did not say that homosexuality had no benefits whatsoever; and in any case, it is possible that homosexualty was simply neutral, i.e. it conferred no significant benefits but didn’t really hinder the tribe’s survival either.
But, in order to survive, a culture must successfully transmit itself from one generation to the next. As homosexuals obviously have far fewer children than heterosexuals, and a culture that tolerates too many non-breeders may be placing its own future in danger, it could very well be that there is a limit to the degree of acceptance or tolerance that a culture can grant to homosexuality without seriously handicapping itself in competition with other cultures. This might also apply to heterosexuals who choose not to reproduce.
On the other hand, a culture that goes too far in discouraging or suppressing homosexuality may waste valuable resources attempting to eliminate a harmless minority and may deprive itself of valuable skills and abilities. Consider the case of the British mathematical genius who cracked the German Enigma code in WWII and was hounded to suicide because of his homosexuality.
That’s not the point. No church that I know of is trying to get laws passed saying that you can’t marry someone you had pre-marital sex with. No church is saying that couples’ histories of pre-marital sex should be considered if the couple wants to adopt a child.
I think adultery might be an even better example than pre-marital sex. No church is pushing for laws saying an adulterer can’t get a divorce and marry the person s/he was committing adultery with. No church is pushing for laws saying that someone with a history of adultery should be ineligible to adopt a child. No church that I know of is even saying that currently unenforced laws against adultery should be enforced. They might have various penalties in their community for people who commit adultery, but they aren’t pushing for laws in the broader society to punish adulterers. Yet adultery is considered at least as serious a sin as gay sex- the prohibition on adultery made it into the Ten Commandments, and that on homosexual behavior didn’t.
And look what happened to them!
It seems to me he’s asking why churches tell people that are gay that God hates them and they are going to hell, but doesn’t do the same for other things the church says are sexual sins. It’s hypocrisy if you believe the things they say they do.
Not necessarily. It could be like the sickle-cell thing - something that happens if you get two copies of a gene that, if you only got one copy of it, would be greatly to your benefit. The “carrier queers” pass on the gene but don’t exhibit homosexual behaviour in their own lives, and receive some compensating benefit from the gene. The preceding two sentences may not be true, but they offer an alternative hypothesis to the bald assumption that homosexuality must be good for the species in order to be perpetuated.
And unfortunately, if for the sake of the argument loving God entails abstaining from same-sex activity, you have just begged the question.
Cite? Leviticus doesn’t count because it was washed away by the new covenant.
She’s assuming it for the sake of the argument. She’s not asserting it’s true.
I am not a she. Otherwise you’re spot on. What the hell Diogenes is doing ignoring the words “for the sake of the argument” quite escapes me, for I know for a pretty solid fact that he knows better.
I know it was for the sake of argument. I was just stating what my comeback to that argument would be. I know it’s not your real position.
Sorry about the gender thing. 
No worries, but that’s why I put the text in my “Location” field - more people see what looks like a Latinate name-ending than have read the Out of the Silent Planet series and know that Malacandra is about as definitively male as it gets.
Diogenes, the point is that “A Christian’s only duty is to love God and to love his neighbour” is a useless argument as far as deciding whether or not there’s anything wrong with mansex. Your rebuttal relies on independently establishing that there is not - and in that case, the argument is unnecessary. If love of God requires suppressing any inborn same-sex tendencies, then by failure to suppress such, love of God is being set aside for carnal lust. And if it doesn’t, then it isn’t. But the question of whether Leviticus was washed away by the new covenant is one I’ll not pronounce on.
As someone else has already pointed out, this isn’t so. Take a look at Luke 17:11-19. This is the story in which Jesus heals ten lepers, but only one, a Samaritan, comes back and thanks him. The rest went on about their lives and are never heard from again. Take a look at Matthew 26:51 in which, when the priests come to arrest Jesus, one of his followers pulls out a sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest’s servants. For that matter, later in that same chapter, Peter denies knowing Christ three times. Even in John 4 in which Jesus reveals Himself to be the Messiah to the Samaritan woman at the well, while she does acknowledge Him to be the Messiah, after she does so, there’s no mention of her or what she does with that knowledge.
Gigi, I rather like you and this is not directed at you personally. Still, one of the things that irritates me is when Christians say the Bible says things it doesn’t in order to support their position.
I’m now going to climb out on that limb myself. Greed, malice, and slander are condemned right alongside fornication/sexual immorality, not only by Paul, but by Christ in Mark 7:21-23. Still, these aren’t considered grounds for forbidding people to marry. Indeed, without greed, where would the advertising industry be, and without gossip, where would the entertainment industry be? When Gordon Gecko proclaimed “Greed is good!” in Wall Street, where was the outcry against encouraging immorality?
So is cancer. Therefore…
Regards,
Shodan
Well, if he had phrased it just slightly differently: “Homosexuality is ubiquitous in humans, and therefore cannot have significant evolutionary drawbacks,” which is pretty much what he meant, then your silly little comparison would hold, not that it would tell us anything. (Most) cancer doesn’t have significant evolutionary drawbacks, as it strikes long after the reproductive prime.
Nope, the comparison would hold just fine. Homosexuality does have significant evolutionary drawbacks, insofar as it affects fertility rates. The notion that it might have advantages is speculation. DtC has already dismissed a request for evidence of these possible advantages as a straw man.
Notice that he did not say that homosexuality was neutral, as you misrepresent him to have done, but that it was a good thing, evolutionarily speaking. So this is a bit more than “just slightly different”, it is a different proposal.
Regards,
Shodan