Homosexuality is unnatural

[Hostile_Dialect]

@kanicbird

In the strictest religious sense same gender couples can’t have sex with each other, they can have sodomy.

Heterosexual couples (triples, quadruples, etc.) can have sodomy too. Why aren’t the churches viciously battling to end oral sex? Where are the “faith-based initiatives” to create laws against adultery? If those things don’t have a place in contemporary democratic society, why do same-sex-marriage bans have a place in it?

@kanicbird

Well it could never directly result in procreation, but can certainly indirectly lead to it, as foreplay or lead to intercourse at a later time/day, but the couple has to be a sexually mature heterosexual couple for this to work that way.

You mean the couple has to be a sexually mature opposite-sex couple, and anyway the Bible says that sodomy is sodomy. Any further rationalization invalidates your claim that homosexuality is wrong by God’s law, as you’re wandering away from that law as we speak.

@Autolycus

I honestly am trying to produce a rational defense of the Church’s beliefs, but I think I am being forced to fall back on the tried-and-true “Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered” argument that is brought up so often.

You claim it’s brought up “so often” and that it’s both “tried” and “true”, but I’ve never heard it before. How does it go? By the way, how on earth is sex between people of the same gender not unitive?

@Autolycus

Please keep in mind that, contrary to how it may seem, the Catholic Church is a firm believer in Truth (“The Truth shall set you free,” along with several other influential verses in the Gospel of John.)

You mean, the Catholic Church is a firm extoller of what it claims is “Truth”, without giving any regard to viable means of proving or disproving it.

@Autolycus

Hell, I didn’t even want to bring up this topic for discussion.

Then why did you? You were the one who brought it up. You should be thankful you got out of the Pit without being flamed mercilessly; how you did that, I have no idea, but you did. So you don’t get to bitch about how someone called your bluff in a kinder, gentler forum.

@Magiver

You are worse off in the sense that you cannot reproduce

Homosexuals can reproduce just as well as heterosexuals; your “point” doesn’t mean anything.

The following is the argument I wrote for the Pit thread, before I saw this one:

If Leviticus states that homosexuality (specifically, “lying with a man as [you would] with a woman”) is a sin, and also that wearing more than one fabric at once is a sin (19:19), and that the penalty for both should be the same (a public stoning), why is one considered irrelevant while the other is considered outdated and ignored by modern Jews and Christians?

@crowmanyclouds

OKay, so it’s unnatural, ‘against Divine Law’, for; people who have become sterile due to accident or illness, post menopausal women, and people with fertility problems to have sex?

Leviticus says that it’s also literally against divine law to touch a menstruating woman, or to touch anything that’s touched her or her menstrual blood without washing it first. That part of God’s will was conveniently forgotten when the (supposedly) holiest members of our society decided they didn’t care that much anymore.

[Autolycus]

@fetus

1. You claim it’s brought up “so often” and that it’s both “tried” and “true”, but I’ve never heard it before. How does it go? By the way, how on earth is sex between people of the same gender not unitive?

2. You mean, the Catholic Church is a firm extoller of what it claims is “Truth”, without giving any regard to viable means of proving or disproving it.

3.Then why did you? You were the one who brought it up. You should be thankful you got out of the Pit without being flamed mercilessly; how you did that, I have no idea, but you did. So you don’t get to bitch about how someone called your bluff in a kinder, gentler forum.

1. It’s not brought up in common society often; I meant in Catholic circles. Sorry for the confusion. And I never said homosexual sex is not univtive. I said it’s not procreative.

2. Aquinas, Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Kreeft, and many others would beg to differ. While the viable means might not agree with you, they are most certainly more than what you give Catholicism credit for.

3. I originally brought it up because people were complaining about the lack of a debate in the original pit thread about Wildfire. It was probably a bad idea, and I should have kept my big mouth shut, but since the damage was done, here I am. Forgive me for “bitching.”

[Sage_Rat]

@Autolycus

While the viable means might not agree with you, they are most certainly more than what you give Catholicism credit for.

God said so?

God has changed his mind on several topics of morality (slavery, equality of women, impossiblity of being a wealthy saint, religious crusade, etc.) Why do you think he won’t change it on this one?

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Autolycus

It’s not brought up in common society often; I meant in Catholic circles

That doesn’t answer my question. How does the argument go? What is it? I don’t understand your summary of it.

@Autolycus

And I never said homosexual sex is not univtive

My bad.

@Autolycus

Aquinas, Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Kreeft, and many others would beg to differ

I don’t believe their means for finding truth were viable. FTR, there are plenty of figures of equal or greater stature–Plato, Aristotle, etc.–who I also believe did not own viable means for finding truth. I don’t think the circular reasoning employed by Aquinas and his ilk is any more than I’ve given Catholicism credit for. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

@Autolycus

I originally brought it up because people were complaining about the lack of a debate in the original pit thread about Wildfire. It was probably a bad idea, and I should have kept my big mouth shut, but since the damage was done, here I am. Forgive me for “bitching.”

Fair enough, but there’s no shortage of debate on the SDMB over all things sexual–there just wasn’t any actual debate in Wildfire’s thread. You’ve lurked and posted enough that I would expect you to see the difference; but, that said, you’re handling this all remarkably well. I just hope you’ll give the whole matter more thought than “Oh well, I can’t prove my side, so I’ll wait until someone can”. I mean, you seem to be an intelligent guy; if you can’t defend this position, I don’t think it’s your fault, I think it’s the position’s fault. MMV, but please give it some serious thought. I was once religious too…

[enigm4tic]

If Leviticus states that homosexuality (specifically, “lying with a man as [you would] with a woman”) is a sin, and also that wearing more than one fabric at once is a sin (19:19), and that the penalty for both should be the same (a public stoning), why is one considered irrelevant while the other is considered outdated and ignored by modern Jews and Christians?

GG Christianity, thread over. I’ve never seen the “biblical pick and choose” point more succinctly and effectively stated, especially with such a total non-issue like wearing two different fabrics originally having the same punishment as homosexuality.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@enigm4tic

GG Christianity, thread over. I’ve never seen the “biblical pick and choose” point more succinctly and effectively stated, especially with such a total non-issue like wearing two different fabrics originally having the same punishment as homosexuality.

Thanks. (I do see a typo in my argument, though–“one considered irrelevant” should read “one considered still relevant”. Whoops!)

[Der_Trihs]

@Der Trihs

People appear to be born homosexual; homosexuals have detecable physical differences in brain and body.

@pool

Do they? A cite would be nice. (bolding mine)

Here’s a few news stories on the subject :

Lesbians have differences in the inner ear

Difference in the size of the hypothalamus between straight and gay men

Statistical correlations between finger length and homosexuality

[Slypork]

@Der Trihs

Here’s a few news stories on the subject :

Lesbians have differences in the inner ear

Difference in the size of the hypothalamus between straight and gay men

Statistical correlations between finger length and homosexuality

Would this mean that homosexuality is a form of genetic abnormality? Since humans can only reproduce sexually and there is no evolutionary benefit to homosexuality it could be interpreted that homosexuals have a recessive genetic structure that eventually would be weeded out. If that was the case eventually there would be no homosexuals because only heterosexual people would be breeding. And what would happen to showbiz then?

Seriously, if they really are physically different from heterosexuals then some (Og help me for Godwinizing this) Nazi type could say, “Aha! This proves that they are not human! They are a sub-species of Homo sapien called Homo sapien fruitius and therefore are not protected by human rights laws.”

[Sage_Rat]

@erie774

Would this mean that homosexuality is a form of genetic abnormality? Since humans can only reproduce sexually and there is no evolutionary benefit to homosexuality it could be interpreted that homosexuals have a recessive genetic structure that eventually would be weeded out. If that was the case eventually there would be no homosexuals because only heterosexual people would be breeding. And what would happen to showbiz then?

There’s no evolutionary benefit to sterility either. Yet, there are many sterile men and women in the world. Evolution doesn’t demand that something be the best to continue propogating itself, it just needs to be not bad enough to hurt the species.

[Sage_Rat]

Point in fact, evolution requires that non-optimal genetic mutations occur. Otherwise any organism would be screwed the instance the environment changed, since there wouldn’t be any variation in the population.

For instance in the case of the moths that were white and changed black when a coal factory started up and made everything nearby sooty (or something like that). They didn’t choose to become black. Rather, there were black moths who were at a disadvantage sans-polution compared to their brethren, but became the saviors of the species when the environment changed. Evolution works based on the idea that any sub-optimal trait could be the potential saving trait in a new situation.

But, evolution is also dumb as a brick. It doesn’t “think”, it just does a scatterblast of everything and sees what sticks. Thus you’ll get some samples that just don’t make no sense any way you cut it.

[BrightNShiny]

@erie774

Would this mean that homosexuality is a form of genetic abnormality? Since humans can only reproduce sexually and there is no evolutionary benefit to homosexuality it could be interpreted that homosexuals have a recessive genetic structure that eventually would be weeded out. If that was the case eventually there would be no homosexuals because only heterosexual people would be breeding. And what would happen to showbiz then?

There are a number of species on the planet in which specific individuals routinely do not reproduce or are less likely to reproduce – hive insects, pack animals, etc. It’s possible there is a benefit to homosexuality. Or maybe not. But a trait making a specific individual less likely to reproduce doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a genetic abnormality–unless you are using the term abnormal to mean less common.

[Slypork]

@BrightNShiny

There are a number of species on the planet in which specific individuals routinely do not reproduce or are less likely to reproduce – hive insects, pack animals, etc. It’s possible there is a benefit to homosexuality. Or maybe not. But a trait making a specific individual less likely to reproduce doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a genetic abnormality–unless you are using the term abnormal to mean less common.

Well, I guess that would be what I mean. The only way for humans to reproduce is sexually. We don’t purposely produce sterile offspring because the only way for the specious to endure is through the production of offspring. We don’t have drone or mule versions of people that are sterile because we are generalized enough that every member of the species can perform multiple roles and specialization is not a benefit. We can’t reproduce through parthenogenesis or budding (that would be so gross) so we are stuck with the horizontal hula.

If a child is born with a congenital condition that leaves them able to function normally in every way but not able to reproduce most likely some doctor would find a name for the condition. If homosexuality is genetically determined (and I think there is a lot of evidence that it is) then could it be considered a congenital defect since it causes people to be born who do not behave in the way the majority of the species does re: reproduction and sexual expression?

I don’t believe it is but there was a lot of controversy about the so-called “gay cure” that they talked about using on gay rams. That idea was shown in X-Men 3 with a mutant cure. We have to be careful about how things get discussed on this subject.

[Polycarp]

If so (and at present I don’t believe one can concede it), the implication is that there is a survival advantage. Remember that evolution is geared to the survival of genes, not necessarily to the individual species member bearing them. If there is some advantage to a human society in which some members are same-sex oriented and hence rarely if ever reproduce, over one in which all members are opposite-sex oriented, then evolution will select for the former. The genes which produce the homosexual orientation will be preserved (a) through the occasional reproduction of a gay person (not all of whom are Kinsey-6 exclusively gay) and (b) through the preservation of the relevant genes in close relatives of the gay people. The idea that people who are not oriented to the care of their own family will have time and freedom to come to the aid of others in the community has been bruited in this regard many times before.

[Miller]

@erie774

Well, I guess that would be what I mean. The only way for humans to reproduce is sexually. We don’t purposely produce sterile offspring because the only way for the specious to endure is through the production of offspring. We don’t have drone or mule versions of people that are sterile because we are generalized enough that every member of the species can perform multiple roles and specialization is not a benefit.

Wolves don’t produce drones, either, but the social structure of the wolf pack allows room for only one alpha male, who gets to mate with all the females, while any other males in the pack (despite being fully functional, biologically) are not allowed to breed at all.

[BrightNShiny]

@erie774

Well, I guess that would be what I mean. The only way for humans to reproduce is sexually. We don’t purposely produce sterile offspring because the only way for the specious to endure is through the production of offspring. We don’t have drone or mule versions of people that are sterile because we are generalized enough that every member of the species can perform multiple roles and specialization is not a benefit. We can’t reproduce through parthenogenesis or budding (that would be so gross) so we are stuck with the horizontal hula.

Some pack animals, such as wolves, are generalists, if I understand how you’re using the term, and yet a specific individual may well never reproduce over its lifetime because of the alpha male/female heirarchical structure (although I understand a bit of cheating happens in some species). On preview, I see Miller has made the same point.

But you’re reasoning seems to still be based on an assumption that for a gene to propogate within humans generally, that it must be propogable by each and every human individually. As Polycarp and points out above, there is no reason to assume this is true.

If a child is born with a congenital condition that leaves them able to function normally in every way but not able to reproduce most likely some doctor would find a name for the condition. If homosexuality is genetically determined (and I think there is a lot of evidence that it is) then could it be considered a congenital defect since it causes people to be born who do not behave in the way the majority of the species does re: reproduction and sexual expression?

This is more of a sociological question I think you’re asking. But I’m not sure why we should define congenital defects based on the percentage of people who exhibit a specific trait.

[gonzomax]

How do priests and nuns figure in the thought processes? They must be unnatural .

[Roboto]

A few inconsistencies:

@Autolycus

Well, let me first humbly preface my argument by stating that it’s far from set in stone, as I sometimes believe homosexuality and the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality in general, are perhaps misguided. Well, I am lucky to have been educated by Jesuits who always placed a high value on thinking for oneself, within reason.

Fair enough. But wait . . .

@Autolycus

I cant prove Homosexuality is unnatural by merely twisting the word around a little bit.

So I guess in a debating contest, I must ceed the floor to a Catholic with more experience than myself. Perhaps I shall ask some of my professors to join the fray.

OR you could form your own opinion having considered all of the evidence, even if that opinion deviates from your Catechism.

I also have a formal Jesuit education . . . they teach you to come to your own conclusions and think for yourself as long as your conclusions and thoughts remain within their teachings. You’re allowed to “wander” under their watchful eye.

If you came to a differing conclusion, then the fiery index finger gets pointed at you, and they’ll tell you you’ve “lost your way” and that you’ll burn in hell.

Correctly rephrased, your prior quote:

@Autolycus

Well, I am lucky to have been educated by Jesuits who always placed a high value on thinking for oneself, within the confines of Catholic teachings.

[Autolycus]

Roboto, I’m not sure what Robot Jesuit college you went to, but Boston College is most certainly not that way. I also dont appreciate having my quotes fucked with…

[boytyperanma]

@Der Trihs

homosexuals have detecable physical differences in brain and body

@Der Trihs

Here’s a few news stories on the subject :

Lesbians have differences in the inner ear

Difference in the size of the hypothalamus between straight and gay men

Statistical correlations between finger length and homosexuality

I don’t feel these back up your claim. None are a reliable way to identify someones sexuality. If all homosexuals had a detectable physical difference, there would be a lot less debate on the subject.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@boytyperanma

I don’t feel these back up your claim. None are a reliable way to identify someones sexuality. If all homosexuals had a detectable physical difference, there would be a lot less debate on the subject.

Prolly because they’d all be killed at birth, or aborted before birth.

I’m not joking, either.