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

It's not hard to understand diversity in biological organisms. All life ocupies a bell curve of traits. Without it life could not exist. This is why you finish your course of antibiotics and don't cut it short ;)

On every issue there will be Somone on the far right or left of the bell curve. It's not bad it's nature. It's not going anywhere and is one of the very mechanisms that allow for evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;)

That is exactly the point, you seem to be able to justify our sexuality in terms that are in fact acceptable to society, hence all those different positive points, but they all are genetic imperatives that supplement the principle one, reproduction.

Put another way, love is the excuse your brain and hormones give you to reproduce. This is science at its most basic level. All our drives, thoughts and ideas revolving around sexuality are justifications for the basic imperative of reproduction.

We have divorced sex from reproduction artificially, but our bodies continue to function in the same way they always did.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is homosexuality a problem at all?

It seems to be.

it's not the homosexual with the problem now is it? If we want to cure the problems associated with homosexuality we have a much better and easier solution than gene therepy. ;) Which by the way is slowly already happening.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I consoder that to be the big reason why we shouldn't find the cause of homosexuality, because people like you would suggest finding a cure to it.

Gay people alive today would not want the cure, but religious people that believed it was a sin would and would likely lobby to make the cure mandatory.

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?

Where would it end? Once we start meddling with genetics in such a way what would next be considered a mutation? Hair colour/ Eye colour? Blood type? Cognitive ability? Where would it end?

Is homosexuality a problem at all?

It seems to be.

it seems to be a problem, mostly beccause religious people make it a problem. it shouldn't be a problem though.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea it is a little scary. The small people are disappearing, as are those with the Downs Syndrome and the deaf and the blind. Soon gays will also disappear. So will fat people and skinny people and people with this or that "deformity."

Often these groups are sub-cultures with a complex of things to offer over and above the thing we notice. Theatre of the blind, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is exactly the point, you seem to be able to justify our sexuality in terms that are in fact acceptable to society, hence all those different positive points, but they all are genetic imperatives that supplement the principle one, reproduction.

Put another way, love is the excuse your brain and hormones give you to reproduce. This is science at its most basic level. All our drives, thoughts and ideas revolving around sexuality are justifications for the basic imperative of reproduction.

We have divorced sex from reproduction artificially, but our bodies continue to function in the same way they always did.

So we have divorced food from reproduction aswell. Why don't you give up those burgers and live on alge. It's very easy to cultivate and it had everything you need. Homosexual people have not divorced anything. They are simply following their chemistry exactly how they were evolved to do. As I have shown you sexuality has many other functions for a positive happy life other than just babies.

Television and Internet forum posting has nothing to do with reproduction either, we should find the genes that send us down thus useless pastime and change them so we can better focus our energies on our children. Don't you see how silly it is.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never personally found the homosexuality of others to be a problem to my life. When we start altering genetics, where do we stop? Do we change skin colour and point out that black people used to be slaves to white people and therefore white people are superior? Seems like a slippery slope to me...

If you believe in God, you have to believe that he/she also created homosexuality for whatever reason. It's right there in the animal kingdom. Don't tell me Satan is leading the poor animals into temptation too...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea it is a little scary. The small people are disappearing, as are those with the Downs Syndrome and the deaf and the blind. Soon gays will also disappear. So will fat people and skinny people and people with this or that "deformity."

Often these groups are sub-cultures with a complex of things to offer over and above the thing we notice. Theatre of the blind, for example.

Diversity is part of what makes us human. I think it's pretty dangerous to mess with genetics because it'll just lead to a world with 'perfect people' that'll all be uniform with llittle individuality or personality.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a sin only in the eyes of the religious. But funny how we have had the kick racism out of football campaigns, but nobody wants to start one about kick homophobia out of football, which would be very appropriate considering the 2022 world cup has been given to Qatar and they made it quite clear what their views are on homosexuality.

Amazing how one minutes its a sin, but as soon as money is involved people shut their mouths.

3 people like this

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.

It is relevant when you consider biology and genetics. Aberrant means to "depart from the accepted standard".

As such that means that there is such a thing as an accepted standard and within nature, that is heterosexuality.

Is this a moral judgment? NO, it is being purely factual using language that is purely factual. But if you want I can use "minority", although minority does NOT mean departing from an accepted standard, which is the point here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam is about 50 years behind Christianity on this and 500 years behind on most everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consoder that to be the big reason why we shouldn't find the cause of homosexuality, because people like you would suggest finding a cure to it.

Gay people alive today would not want the cure, but religious people that believed it was a sin would and would likely lobby to make the cure mandatory.

So in fact you fear the idea that it can become considered a disease purely from a sociological and biological perspective?

Religion would have nothing to do with it at all, if it was ever found to be alterable using gene therapy as has already been mentioned, you would not want the cure?

Where would it end? Once we start meddling with genetics in such a way what would next be considered a mutation? Hair colour/ Eye colour? Blood type? Cognitive ability? Where would it end?

Surprise surprise, it is already being done, eugenics is the future whether we accept it now or not, and I hate the concept so I' am not one that is defending it.

it seems to be a problem, mostly beccause religious people make it a problem. it shouldn't be a problem though.

Is that so?

So why did Communist Russia and Hitlers Third Reich have it in for homosexuals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in fact you fear the idea that it can become considered a disease purely from a sociological and biological perspective?

Religion would have nothing to do with it at all, if it was ever found to be alterable using gene therapy as has already been mentioned, you would not want the cure?

I fear that it could be considered a disease and as treated as such absolutely yes. Do you not?

Religion would serve as motivation for finding a 'cure'. It's religous groups that consider it to be a disease now.

I would not want a'cure'. I would fight against it. Before we attempted to 'cure' gay people... by force. I have no desire to see that happening again. No way. Not in my lifetime.

Surprise surprise, it is already being done, eugenics is the future whether we accept it now or not, and I hate the concept so I' am not one that is defending it.

It sounds like you are to me.

Is that so?

So why did Communist Russia and Hitlers Third Reich have it in for homosexuals?

They had it in for anyone that wa against them. The reich had ideas on 'genetic perfection' which meant anyone outside that was conidered aberrant worthy of destruction. (I alway found it odd that their idea of perfection was blonde hair etc and Hitler himself well...)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7457641

Homosexuality is considered a normal sexual variance.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to ask at what point does what someone does in their life (aside from harming others and or breaking the law) belong between them and their god (or beliefs or non beliefs) and not up for anyone else's judgment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is relevant when you consider biology and genetics. Aberrant means to "depart from the accepted standard".

As such that means that there is such a thing as an accepted standard and within nature, that is heterosexuality.

Is this a moral judgment? NO, it is being purely factual using language that is purely factual. But if you want I can use "minority", although minority does NOT mean departing from an accepted standard, which is the point here.

Jor el, this is current data on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated—various studies point to different, even conflicting positions—but research suggests that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation.[1][2] Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are more popular,[1] and biological factors may involve a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[3] These factors, which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation, include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take is that it's all of the above and more. People see Homosexuality as many things, but only you individually can interpret it for yourself. Am I going to tell someone they can't love a person? Do I have the right to tell someone its wrong to love someone of the same sex? Is ok for someone to tell you how to live your life and to also explain that if it's not done the way they explain it then your going to completely burn? I just had a deep conversation about this with a friend, and TBH I personally believe it's about accepting something your not familiar with, and then supporting someone because you love them. It comes right down to looking back at yourself really...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think condemning people for their harmless behavior is a sin. Some, I suppose, gain satisfaction from deciding some population of society are sinners, and therefore should be excluded from their exclusive club and tortured for eternity. I consider this a rather harsh punishment for anyone. This attitude is expected of vicious dictators, of course, but it worries me that this stance exists in the general population.

I think this is a rather extremest attitude and egomaniacle, which I consider a mental health issue. I consider these kinds of extremists to be much more dangerous to society than homosexuals.

I consider sexuality to be biological in nature, and therefore condemning people for the structure of their genes amounts to eugenics, which any rational person understands is vile and despicable in any form.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is relevant when you consider biology and genetics. Aberrant means to "depart from the accepted standard".

As such that means that there is such a thing as an accepted standard and within nature, that is heterosexuality.

Is this a moral judgment? NO, it is being purely factual using language that is purely factual. But if you want I can use "minority", although minority does NOT mean departing from an accepted standard, which is the point here.

I hate burst that bit my friend but if homosexuality was not accepted by nature it would not exist not in humans or fish. The only thing that does not accept homosexuality are dwindling groups of people.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going to be messing with genes, I think isolating genetic propensities for intolerance would be a better fix and solve a lot more of humanities problems.

What do you say? Imagine everyone getting along with each others differences.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why did Communist Russia and Hitlers Third Reich have it in for homosexuals?

You need to read about them fully before you make such stupid statements like this. As so rightly pointed out, they had it in for everyone who were not one of them!.

How can you possibly bring in Hitler on this when the main thing he wanted to destroy were the Jews? bringing in Hitler into that is very low and a big disrespect for ALL those who died!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear that it could be considered a disease and as treated as such absolutely yes. Do you not?

Religion would serve as motivation for finding a 'cure'. It's religous groups that consider it to be a disease now.

I would not want a'cure'. I would fight against it. Before we attempted to 'cure' gay people... by force. I have no desire to see that happening again. No way. Not in my lifetime.

Interesting response, do you know that religious people are in fact considered to have a disease, not merely psychological but physical as well, something to do with the brain chemistry.

There are many right now, even on this board who advocate curing the religious.

It sounds like you are to me.

As I once said before, stating a fact is not promoting it.

They had it in for anyone that was against them. The reich had ideas on 'genetic perfection' which meant anyone outside that was considered aberrant worthy of destruction. (I always found it odd that their idea of perfection was blonde hair etc and Hitler himself well...)

The point being that religion did not play any role whatsoever and homosexuals still got clobbered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think condemning people for their harmless behavior is a sin. Some, I suppose, gain satisfaction from deciding some population of society are sinners, and therefore should be excluded from their exclusive club and tortured for eternity. I consider this a rather harsh punishment for anyone. This attitude is expected of vicious dictators, of course, but it worries me that this stance exists in the general population.

I think this is a rather extremest attitude and egomaniacle, which I consider a mental health issue. I consider these kinds of extremists to be much more dangerous to society than homosexuals.

I consider sexuality to be biological in nature, and therefore condemning people for the structure of their genes amounts to eugenics, which any rational person understands is vile and despicable in any form.

For the life of me I cannot fathom anyone saying that any of the 4 sexual expressions are vile and that somehow one is better/normal over another. It is a clear case of misinformation and if an ideology is teaching this I'd get away from the ideology or dismiss it as ignorant.

Edited by Sherapy
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting response, do you know that religious people are in fact considered to have a disease, not merely psychological but physical as well, something to do with the brain chemistry.

There are many right now, even on this board who advocate curing the religious.

And if a cure fr that was found would you not be as much against it as I am for a similar thing?

As I once said before, stating a fact is not promoting it.

You seem to be doing more than that though.

The point being that religion did not play any role whatsoever and homosexuals still got clobbered.

And? Just by pointing out instances where religion was not involved does not change the instances where religions do.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting response, do you know that religious people are in fact considered to have a disease, not merely psychological but physical as well, something to do with the brain chemistry.

There are many right now, even on this board who advocate curing the religious.

As I once said before, stating a fact is not promoting it.

The point being that religion did not play any role whatsoever and homosexuals still got clobbered.

Jor el what is your point?

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.