Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2644 replies to this topic

#1    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,109 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 02 June 2013 - 01:51 PM

I was influenced in starting this thread due to an ongoing debate on the subject of Homosexuality and how the church sees this form of sexuality

Yet there are a number of things stated by individuals that need to be clarified.

1st, is homosexuality really a sin as seen by the church or is it merely a fallacious interpretation of the bible?

2nd Can homosexuality be a sin if it is determined by biology and or genetics?

3rd can we consider homosexuality a sin if it is not in fact determined by biology and or genetics, but is merely a choice based on inclination due to society and or sexual imprinting?

If our sexuality is in in any way determined by biology and or genetics, then I think one cannot consider it a sin since a sin as we classify it is an action made by choice on following a specific path or action, if it is actually embedded in our very fabric, we can no more judge it than we can judge people for breathing, but if it is a sociological factor that determines sexuality, can it then be considered a sin?

Your thoughts are welcome...

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#2    ShadowBoy86x

ShadowBoy86x

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012

Posted 02 June 2013 - 01:54 PM

this has been talked about so much, when it gunna end already


#3    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,109 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 02 June 2013 - 01:56 PM

View PostShadowBoy86x, on 02 June 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

this has been talked about so much, when it gunna end already

I doubt it will ever end... until we know what it is and how it is caused.

Until then it will remain central to peoples lives in one way or another.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#4    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,861 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004

Posted 02 June 2013 - 02:08 PM

View PostJor-el, on 02 June 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

1st, is homosexuality really a sin as seen by the church or is it merely a fallacious interpretation of the bible?

This is something I find odd. The bible has more mentions about divorce being a sin and yet many churches have now stopped teaching that (or at least toned it don due to knowing that in reality, divorces can and do happen for all kinds of reasons).

With homosexuality, it's mentioned a handful of times and at least one of the main references is a mistranslation, and other references could be said to be done to pagan practices rather than human sexuality.

Quote

2nd Can homosexuality be a sin if it is determined by biology and or genetics?

No, absolutely not and that should absolutely be taken into account. Reality should allways take presedance..

Quote

3rd can we consider homosexuality a sin if it is not in fact determined by biology and or genetics, but is merely a choice based on inclination due to society and or sexual imprinting?

Again, I think this can be said as no.

Attraction is a strange thing and we don't really have a choice in the matter. Let's put it this way. If you are attracted to omeone of the opposite sex (a woman) could you turn that attraction off? By the same token can you turn attraction on to a woman you're not attracted to? If the answer to both of those is no, then why act like someone else should do so because of religion?

Quote

If our sexuality is in in any way determined by biology and or genetics, then I think one cannot consider it a sin since a sin as we classify it is an action made by choice on following a specific path or action, if it is actually embedded in our very fabric, we can no more judge it than we can judge people for breathing, but if it is a sociological factor that determines sexuality, can it then be considered a sin?

Your thoughts are welcome...

That is the point I always try and make. Since sexuality seems very much an inbuilt trait labelling it as a sin seems, like you say, as silly as judging someone for breathing.

To me, as said in the other topic, labelling love as a sin, just sounds incredibly silly and stupid and, to be honest, it makes no sense whatsoever.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#5    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010

Posted 02 June 2013 - 02:20 PM

' biblical' sins are an illusion. What is taboo in one culture may be perfectly normal in another. As western society sheds the influence of middle eastern mythology, the only 'sins' we will keep are the common sense ones. No killing, lieing, stealing etc etc.

I imagine homosexuality is a complicated psychological and biological factor that will be a different mix In the individual. This is what heterosexuality is aswell. No different really were all human and I imagine it's in the best interests of evolution to spread our preferences out as wide as possible. Even if that means some evolutionary dead ends. this would ensure the best gene diversification.

I can assure you my interests in woman are not a choice. If I could turn it off at times I would. I imagine it's the same for a homosexual person ( besides the turning off part). It's silly to call it a sin based on what amounts to primitive social dogmas.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#6    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 24,119 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005

Posted 02 June 2013 - 02:29 PM

I accept the current scientific consensus - that homosexuality (as well as heterosexuality) is a complex interaction between genetics and environment (including, but not limited to, the environment in the womb).  For the most part, we don't choose our environment so for the most part we don't therefore "choose" our sexuality.  However, in  very rare circumstances I have see evidence that a willing decision to change environment has also changed the sexuality of the person in question.  It's not a matter of "conversion therapy" (a barbaric belief by any standard), rather the organic change of a person over the course of years and years.

This is not always the case, it would be fair to say that most of the time a person remains "homosexual" throughout their life.  But on occasion it does happen.  It's an organic process of change.  It's not one day I wake up and "suddenly" feel different, it's something that happens after years of environmental change.  I've read stories of such change and therefore know that such exists.  Whether a gay person wants to change..... different story entirely.  I won't condemn a person for their belief, I'm just sharing what I see....

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#7    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011

Posted 02 June 2013 - 02:42 PM

View PostJor-el, on 02 June 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

I was influenced in starting this thread due to an ongoing debate on the subject of Homosexuality and how the church sees this form of sexuality

Yet there are a number of things stated by individuals that need to be clarified.

1st, is homosexuality really a sin as seen by the church or is it merely a fallacious interpretation of the bible?

2nd Can homosexuality be a sin if it is determined by biology and or genetics?

3rd can we consider homosexuality a sin if it is not in fact determined by biology and or genetics, but is merely a choice based on inclination due to society and or sexual imprinting?

If our sexuality is in in any way determined by biology and or genetics, then I think one cannot consider it a sin since a sin as we classify it is an action made by choice on following a specific path or action, if it is actually embedded in our very fabric, we can no more judge it than we can judge people for breathing, but if it is a sociological factor that determines sexuality, can it then be considered a sin?

Your thoughts are welcome...

The Bible clearly says its a sin.


#8    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 24,119 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005

Posted 02 June 2013 - 02:44 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 02 June 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Except for slavery, slavery is fine.
Interesting view.  I will agree that if slavery as it existed at the time this text was written I may perhaps agree.  Unfortunately, slavery unavoidably links itself to the African-American slave trade which is a total corruption of what the slavery system originally was.

I'm not saying the slave trade of the 1st Century Romans was "perfect", but in comparison it is markedly different and worthy of distinction between the slave trade we tend to link it to.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#9    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010

Posted 02 June 2013 - 02:51 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 02 June 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Interesting view.  I will agree that if slavery as it existed at the time this text was written I may perhaps agree.  Unfortunately, slavery unavoidably links itself to the African-American slave trade which is a total corruption of what the slavery system originally was.

I'm not saying the slave trade of the 1st Century Romans was "perfect", but in comparison it is markedly different and worthy of distinction between the slave trade we tend to link it to.
Yup, no use leaving those perfectly good women or children to fend for themselves after I slaughtered their men in war. Their better of being exploited by me than falling prey to what is out there. Seriously as gruesome as it sounds it probably was the sensible option back then. Native Americans had similar practices.

Edited by Seeker79, 02 June 2013 - 02:51 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#10    Odd Requiem

Odd Requiem

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Joined:27 Feb 2013

Posted 02 June 2013 - 02:53 PM

If love is a sin, then sure.

-I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.//

#11    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,109 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 02 June 2013 - 03:04 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 02 June 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

This is something I find odd. The bible has more mentions about divorce being a sin and yet many churches have now stopped teaching that (or at least toned it don due to knowing that in reality, divorces can and do happen for all kinds of reasons).

With homosexuality, it's mentioned a handful of times and at least one of the main references is a mistranslation, and other references could be said to be done to pagan practices rather than human sexuality.

No, absolutely not and that should absolutely be taken into account. Reality should allways take presedance..

Again, I think this can be said as no.

Attraction is a strange thing and we don't really have a choice in the matter. Let's put it this way. If you are attracted to omeone of the opposite sex (a woman) could you turn that attraction off? By the same token can you turn attraction on to a woman you're not attracted to? If the answer to both of those is no, then why act like someone else should do so because of religion?

That is the point I always try and make. Since sexuality seems very much an inbuilt trait labelling it as a sin seems, like you say, as silly as judging someone for breathing.

To me, as said in the other topic, labelling love as a sin, just sounds incredibly silly and stupid and, to be honest, it makes no sense whatsoever.

So the question is, if it is genetic as you seem to believe, do think that it is caused by what exactly?

Sexuality in all species tends to exist for one reason alone, reproduction. The biological processes involved in hormones tend to exaggerate these tendencies signifying a time for reproduction, humans are not an exception from what I can see although culturally we have divorced reproduction from sexuality, the truth is that it is an artificial separation that simply does not exist in nature.

As such can one say that homosexuality, in nature is actually a biological aberration and not actually biological diversification?

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#12    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,109 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 02 June 2013 - 03:05 PM

View PostGiant Killer B, on 02 June 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

The Bible clearly says its a sin.

Can you point out to me where it does so?

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#13    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,109 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 02 June 2013 - 03:09 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 02 June 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

I accept the current scientific consensus - that homosexuality (as well as heterosexuality) is a complex interaction between genetics and environment (including, but not limited to, the environment in the womb).  For the most part, we don't choose our environment so for the most part we don't therefore "choose" our sexuality.  However, in  very rare circumstances I have see evidence that a willing decision to change environment has also changed the sexuality of the person in question.  It's not a matter of "conversion therapy" (a barbaric belief by any standard), rather the organic change of a person over the course of years and years.

This is not always the case, it would be fair to say that most of the time a person remains "homosexual" throughout their life.  But on occasion it does happen.  It's an organic process of change.  It's not one day I wake up and "suddenly" feel different, it's something that happens after years of environmental change.  I've read stories of such change and therefore know that such exists.  Whether a gay person wants to change..... different story entirely.  I won't condemn a person for their belief, I'm just sharing what I see....

Does scientific consensus explain why then there is a preponderance of heterosexuality in nature (which includes mankind) and not of homosexuality?

Given that these conditions are said to be genetic and influence by environment, why then do we not see nature, in certain geographical areas, take an opposite tack to heterosexuality, merely statistically that would seem likely.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#14    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010

Posted 02 June 2013 - 03:14 PM

View PostJor-el, on 02 June 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:



So the question is, if it is genetic as you seem to believe, do think that it is caused by what exactly?

Sexuality in all species tends to exist for one reason alone, reproduction. The biological processes involved in hormones tend to exaggerate these tendencies signifying a time for reproduction, humans are not an exception from what I can see although culturally we have divorced reproduction from sexuality, the truth is that it is an artificial separation that simply does not exist in nature.

As such can one say that homosexuality, in nature is actually a biological aberration and not actually biological diversification?
Completely wrong:

Quote





List of animals displaying homosexual behavior
Further information: Homosexual behavior in animals

Roy and Silo, two Central Park Zoo male Chinstrap Penguins similar to those pictured, became internationally known when they successfully hatched and cared for an egg.[1]

Couple of two male mallard ducks in a nature reserve in Germany
For these animals, there is documented evidence of homosexual behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting, as noted in researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.

Bagemihl writes that the presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until the 1990s due to possible observer bias caused by social attitudes towards LGBT people making the homosexual theme taboo.[2][3] Bagemihl devotes three chapters; Two Hundred Years at Looking at Homosexual Wildlife, Explaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality and Not For Breeding Only in his 1999 book Biological Exuberance to the "documentation of systematic prejudices" where he notes "the present ignorance of biology lies precisely in its single-minded attempt to find reproductive (or other) "explanations" for homosexuality, transgender, and non-procreative and alternative heterosexualities.[4] Petter B°ckman, academic adviser for the Against Nature? exhibit stated "[M]any researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles". Homosexual behavior is found amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates.[3]

Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have yet to be fully understood. Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in about 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[5][6]Homosexuality in animals is seen as controversial by social conservatives because it asserts the naturalness of homosexuality in humans, while others counter that it has no implications and is nonsensical to equate animal behavior to morality.[7][8] Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behavior. Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. The correct usage of the term homosexual is that an animal exhibits homosexual behavior, however this article conforms to the usage by modern research[9][10][11][12] applying the term homosexuality to all sexual behavior (copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behavior) between animals of the same sex.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries.
Selected images

Mammals

Main article: List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior
Selected mammals from the full list:
Bison[16]
Brown Bear[17]
Brown Rat[18]
Cavy[18]
Caribou[19]
Cat (domestic)[20]
Cattle (domestic)[21]
Chimpanzee[22][23][24][25]
Common Dolphin[26]
Common Marmoset[27]
Dog[28]
Elephant[29]
Fox[30]
Giraffe[31][3][32]
Goat[16]
Horse (domestic)[33]
Human[34][35][36]
Koala[37]
Lion[34]
Orca[26]
Raccoon[38]
Amazon molly[48]
Blackstripe topminnow[49]
Bluegill Sunfish[49]
Char[47]
Grayling[47]
European Bitterling[50]
Green swordtail[50]
Guiana leaffish[51]
Houting Whitefish[47]
Jewel Fish[52]
Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)[50]
Mouthbreeding Fish sp.[49]
Salmon spp.[53]
Southern platyfish[50]
Ten-spined stickleback[50]
Three-spined stickleback[50]

http://en.m.wikipedi...sexual_behavior

I'll spare you the insects, Reptiles, and invertebrate.

Edited by Seeker79, 02 June 2013 - 03:19 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#15    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,861 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004

Posted 02 June 2013 - 03:15 PM

View PostJor-el, on 02 June 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

So the question is, if it is genetic as you seem to believe, do think that it is caused by what exactly?

Sexuality in all species tends to exist for one reason alone, reproduction. The biological processes involved in hormones tend to exaggerate these tendencies signifying a time for reproduction, humans are not an exception from what I can see although culturally we have divorced reproduction from sexuality, the truth is that it is an artificial separation that simply does not exist in nature.

As such can one say that homosexuality, in nature is actually a biological aberration and not actually biological diversification?

I'm no biologist, so I can't say what the exact cause is, be it genetic or some other natural condition.

The problem with that is that we are, as a species, immensely divorced from nature. We do not hunt or forage. We live in houses. We wear clothes. We take drugs to cure us when we're sick. And so on. We are completely divorced from any semblence of what our original natural state once was.

There are some animals that have displayed homosexuality. Some birds have paired with members of the same sex, for intance. So it's not entirely absent in nature.

The thing with humanity is there's no such thing as a 'standard' human. That is to say, there is no example of what a 'normal' human is. As such just about anything could be labelled as an aberation if it's in a minority.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."