Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
Jor-el

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?

2,645 posts in this topic

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...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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..

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?

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' 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.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If love is a sin, then sure.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible clearly says its a sin.

Can you point out to me where it does so?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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:

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 Bøckman, 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.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

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

Edited by Seeker79
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take the Bible to heart, yes; it is a sin.

Personally, I look to nature oftentimes to help me better understand the world around me. Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom which means to me that it's a natural biological phenomena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely wrong:

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

Not wrong at all, none of those species would exist without sexuality that reproduces that species, that is why heterosexuality is in fact considered the norm in nature, not the other way around. So the question is legitimate. All you have demonstrated is that homosexuality exists in multiple species, something that is not even denied here.

Can any of those species, including mankind exist without heterosexuality playing a major part in their genetic or biological make-up?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can any of those species, including mankind exist without heterosexuality playing a major part in their genetic or biological make-up?

Why should that make any difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Absolutely, the term aberration is not a moral judgment, it is an indicator of a minority compared to the majority.

But contrary to what many seem to believe, we are not divorced from nature. We are separated from the natural elements yes, but we are still inextricably linked to nature by our very biology.

Many species display homosexual characteristics, but again even within those species, they are a minority, which leads me to the question I asked, what could cause the aberration?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, the term aberration is not a moral judgment, it is an indicator of a minority compared to the majority.

But contrary to what many seem to believe, we are not divorced from nature. We are separated from the natural elements yes, but we are still inextricably linked to nature by our very biology.

Many species display homosexual characteristics, but again even within those species, they are a minority, which leads me to the question I asked, what could cause the aberration?

It's believed that homosexuality exists as a form of population control from Mother Nature :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, the term aberration is not a moral judgment, it is an indicator of a minority compared to the majority.

But contrary to what many seem to believe, we are not divorced from nature. We are separated from the natural elements yes, but we are still inextricably linked to nature by our very biology.

Many species display homosexual characteristics, but again even within those species, they are a minority, which leads me to the question I asked, what could cause the aberration?

I really dislike the term aberation because of it's negative connotations.

Perhaps.

In genetics, the usual way that minor differences come up is due to genetic mutations or recessive genes. Usually those are passed on from parent to child, but since that i not really possible here it largely remain a question mark.

But I ask you: does it matter what causes it? And why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should that make any difference?

The difference lies not in a moral judgment but in an evolutionary stance, evolutionary dead ends get us nowhere.

It's believed that homosexuality exists as a form of population control from Mother Nature :yes:

Ok, that is an acceptable idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wrong at all, none of those species would exist without sexuality that reproduces that species, that is why heterosexuality is in fact considered the norm in nature, not the other way around. So the question is legitimate. All you have demonstrated is that homosexuality exists in multiple species, something that is not even denied here.

Can any of those species, including mankind exist without heterosexuality playing a major part in their genetic or biological make-up?

That's not the point sexuality has many other functions besides reproduction. Bonding, social cohesion, physical and psycological health through release of endorphins, stress reduction. This is proven science. a chemical called Oxitossin is released during sex that is a nuritransmitter Responsible for bonding. There is so much more to it than simple reproduction. A simple course in human sexuality at your local JC will get you all this information. But yes if you want to take a robotic biological view of the world even eating and crapping is about reproduction, so is a fevor, walking, smiling, talking, peeing, blinking, sneezing, coughing, and breathing. ;)

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dislike the term aberation because of it's negative connotations.

Perhaps.

In genetics, the usual way that minor differences come up is due to genetic mutations or recessive genes. Usually those are passed on from parent to child, but since that i not really possible here it largely remain a question mark.

But I ask you: does it matter what causes it? And why?

In my view it is an important part of the answer. If it is genetics at play and we can isolate the mutation, then we can alter it in the future and eliminate it. But the question would remain, would people then want the cure, so to speak?

We seem to want to cure many different types of genetic mutation that causes problems of one kind of another, can we classify this separately because of the emotional issues attached to the subject?

Is homosexuality a problem at all?

It seems to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno but to me the word "aberration" carries a negative connotation and is a loaded word that therefore should be avoided in objective discussion of topics like this. Criminal behavior is "aberrant" The roots are "abnormal" and "errant." Not words that add anything to this topic.

If one wants to emphasize the minority nature of the behavior (which I suppose is a statistical given, but one wonders as to the deep reality), then use "minority." However, I don't see where whether it is minority or not is relevant to its legal or moral status.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.