Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[sealchan]

As the author of the OP and many others on this site and other sites, I often wish that OP authors had special permissions to adjudicate and otherwise award recognition to good vs bad posts, thoughtful conversation vs unthoughtful self-serving statements. Of course, my bias and the bias of any OP author would be merely bolstered by this sort of power but it would help to identify good OP authors from self-serving ones and it would raise the quality of discussion (if bad contributions could be diminished somehow).

Maybe just a special rating icon that only the OP author can use to award points and subtract them per contributor. Then a tally for the OP could be scored. And each contributor could be awarded with best contributor status to a thread. Then the number of such awards would be a thing for that user, to give them some level of status and recognition on the forum.

Just a thought...

And a rather awesome one too...the more I think of it.

Getting scored poorly in a thread might help reduce particular individuals from continually contributing unhelpful dialog as they might not want to see their poor discussion performance in one thread go toward their overall score.

Hmmm...I might be on to something here and this could be something that forum software authors could implement without too much difficulty.

 

[columbus]

Then a tally for the OP could be scored. And each contributor could be awarded with best contributor status to a thread.

How about the posters get to score the OP for vagueness and suitability for derailment?
Tom

 

[sealchan]

How about the posters get to score the OP for vagueness and suitability for derailment?
Tom

That's fair


Posters could also rate the OP author's thread on this measure as one invoking thoughtful conversation or focused discussion. But anyone with their soapbox can come along and derail any thread no matter how focused the OP is.

Could be that the most popular in terms of participation will be those posts which generate the most conflict, but those posts are also ones that are the most divisive.

 

[columbus]

That's fair

Stroke mine and I'll stroke yours.
Deal?
Tom

 

[sealchan]

Stroke mine and I'll stroke yours.
Deal?
Tom

Ummm...okay?

 

[Scott C.]

The truth of God and the Universe typically, in my view, lies somewhere in the middle of what science or religion has to say about it. Some Christians would argue that God made men and women different to fulfill the role of biological procreation. Most scientists would agree although many would find God an unnecessary addition to the equation.

I don't argue with research that shows the nature or origin of homosexuality in humans. I would also agree that if one is born gay, it would not be reasonable to say that they are sinning by simply "being" gay. The LDS Church teaches that regardless of the nature or cause of ones homosexual orientation, regardless of what an individual was dealt by nature, a person should not actually engage in homosexual activity. Therein lies the sin. Heterosexuals are that way by nature, yet there are commandments on when we can have heterosexual sex. I could argue that I am genetically predisposed to have sex with multiple women per day. I know the urge is there. Yet I must control those urges, or I will sin. And yes there are some atheists (or people of other faiths) who also believe that heterosexual chastity is silly, since heterosexuals are wired for sex before marriage and with multiple partners.

I'll make an admission or observation on my evolution of thought as one believing Mormon. Many years ago, I saw homosexuality as a choice. I believed people unadvisedly experimented and over time developed a like for homosexual sex, rather than heterosuxual sex. It became a habit or an addiction which could have been avoided and which can be overcome.

Since I now see that being gay is not a choice, at least not in many cases, it changes my perspective. I have tremendous admiration for gay Mormons who live their faith and choose to be celebate, while not able to choose if they are gay. That requires a lot of self control, patience, and faith. Some would say that celibacy is not healthy, but I do believe that it's the right choice. There are single heterosexuals who believe in abstinence and who are never able to marry for one reason or another. I know it would be very hard for me to be an unmarried heterosexual who abstains my entire life. So, I can certainly see how it would be tough for someone who is gay.

When someone who is gay rejects the idea that God expects him/her to abstain, I can understand it. I don't judge them for it. I can't be sure how I would react if I were gay. When I say that I don't judge them for this decision, what I really mean is "I don't condemn them or look down on them or dislike them, since abstinence is a tall order, but I do neverthless believe that abstinence is what God asks.

I can already hear the strong attacks to what I just said from some of you. And I don't really want to argue about it. I just wanted to put out there how this one Mormon sees it.

 

[sealchan]

I don't argue with research that shows the nature or origin of homosexuality in humans. I would also agree that if one is born gay, it would not be reasonable to say that they are sinning by simply "being" gay. The LDS Church teaches that regardless of the nature or cause of ones homosexual orientation, regardless of what an individual was dealt by nature, a person should not actually engage in homosexual activity. Therein lies the sin. Heterosexuals are that way by nature, yet there are commandments on when we can have heterosexual sex. I could argue that I am genetically predisposed to have sex with multiple women per day. I know the urge is there. Yet I must control those urges, or I will sin. And yes there are some atheists (or people of other faiths) who also believe that heterosexual chastity is silly, since heterosexuals are wired for sex before marriage and with multiple partners.

I'll make an admission or observation on my evolution of thought as one believing Mormon. Many years ago, I saw homosexuality as a choice. I believed people unadvisedly experimented and over time developed a like for homosexual sex, rather than heterosuxual sex. It became a habit or an addiction which could have been avoided and which can be overcome.

Since I now see that being gay is not a choice, at least not in many cases, it changes my perspective. I have tremendous admiration for gay Mormons who live their faith and choose to be celebate, while not able to choose if they are gay. That requires a lot of self control, patience, and faith. Some would say that celibacy is not healthy, but I do believe that it's the right choice. There are single heterosexuals who believe in abstinence and who are never able to marry for one reason or another. I know it would be very hard for me to be an unmarried heterosexual who abstains my entire life. So, I can certainly see how it would be tough for someone who is gay.

When someone who is gay rejects the idea that God expects him/her to abstain, I can understand it. I don't judge them for it. I can't be sure how I would react if I were gay. When I say that I don't judge them for this decision, what I really mean is "I don't condemn them or look down on them or dislike them, since abstinence is a tall order, but I do neverthless believe that abstinence is what God asks.

I can already hear the strong attacks to what I just said from some of you. And I don't really want to argue about it. I just wanted to put out there how this one Mormon sees it.

Yes, you call out an assumption of mine and argue nicely against it...namely that even if we are genetically predisposed to homosexuality then that is still not a sufficient reason to justify performing the act. We are, after all, able to reconsider whether or not we act under the influence of our instinctual desires. Well said, nicely argued.

I would counter that with...

We are only able to counter our instinctual desires to an extent. Our very ability to summon up willpower and delay gratification of instinctual desires is limited by our ability to gratify our instinctual desires themselves. Absolute denial of one's sexuality, abstenance, as you say is difficult and a failure to perform that not to be lightly condemned. Different people have differing abilities in this regard for a wide variety of reasons. So long as that instinctual desire can be met by the individual in a way that is consensual and does not interfere with the rights of others to pursue their particular form of happiness I see no need to legislate legally or spiritually against such behavior. Sexual gratification is part of a bond between two people that can create a firm foundation for love and caring and is an ideal environment for the raising of children, even if not one's own. There is not too much such love in this world and to speak against it would diminish the world's capacity to raise the next generation into a knowledge of God's will.

Although I profess to believe in the Bible I do not do so without reservation. I won't get into the specifics on that, but I have chosen to believe that just as heterosexual sex is in integral part of the love and intimacy that God has chosen for a man and a woman to share and is part of what binds them to each other in a way that they can confidently appreciate that bond over and above any other temptations, I think that homosexuals have been given the same gift by God and that their bodies and instincts and genetics allow them the same in their same sex manner.

My simple argument as to how to "second guess" what the Bible appears to teach is to hold in view the reality of God's creation and realize that the Bible is written down by imperfect humans with personal and cultural biases. Recognizing this resolves many issues with Biblical interpretation which, in the end, if not addressed will create an erosion of good sense and the inspiration of faith in those whose hearts are pure and whose openness to God intact.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The burden of proof is on the person claiming that, " humans are morally flawed, commit moral sin, cannot make utopia

God can't either, apparently.

The LDS Church teaches that regardless of the nature or cause of ones homosexual orientation, regardless of what an individual was dealt by nature, a person should not actually engage in homosexual activity.

I would argue it's not the gender of the person you're having sex with that's the problem. I believe the ability to consent should be the deciding factor, plus the risk of harm (but then again, as long as people know the safe words, whatever floats your boat).

Pedophilia: Kids can't consent.
Beastiality: Nonhumans can't consent.
Rape: Victim didn't consent.
Adultery: Spouse didn't consent.
Violent sex: Lover didn't consent to S&M stuff.
Spreading disease knowingly: Others didn't consent if you didn't tell them.

I would add that when AI becomes more sophisticated to allow self-recognition, they should also be included in the value of consent. "Toys", on the other hand, are just toys and ... whatever floats your boat.

When I see Christians lump homosexuality with other things mentioned above, it tells me they don't value consent or they'd know the difference.

There are single heterosexuals who believe in abstinence and who are never able to marry for one reason or another.

What does abstinence have to do with marriage?

 

[Scott C.]

When I see Christians lump homosexuality with other things mentioned above, it tells me they don't value consent or they'd know the difference.

I understand the difference between consent and non-consent. Some sexual sins are worse than others. Rape must be far worse in God's eyes, than two non-married adults having consensual sex. I don't consider homosexual consensual sex to more serious of a sin than heterosexual out of wedlock sex. But for me in my faith, the only sex that is good sex and authorized is between one man and one woman who are married and who consent. All the rest is sin which comes in many shades of gray. That is black and white to me. But hey, I'm a human being. I haven't necessarily followed this law perfectly at every stage of my life. But I do believe it's really important and I commit my personal life to it.

 

[columbus]

I could argue that I am genetically predisposed to have sex with multiple women per day. I know the urge is there. Yet I must control those urges, or I will sin.

There's an important distinction to make here, though.
Yes, you are a male primate and so you're genetically predisposed to rather profligate sex. But you need only look around you and you can see the damage done by irresponsible sex. It's just rife.

That's completely different from gay marriage. That tends to curb the problems, not create them. Lots of people still think that homosexuality causes the dysfunctional behavior so commonly found amongst gay people, but doesn't. It's the treatment we get, starting at a very early age generally. Before we even know we're gay we are taught dreadful things about ourselves and that we can't be happy and ordinary. We often start to define ourselves by our orientation because everyone around us seems to.

Personally, I expect the LDS to be among the first big denominations to accept that marriage is good for most everybody. Largely because they are, as a group, so family oriented. And they already have a mechanism built in for pretty large shifts in official teachings. They did once teach polygamy, now they don't. They used to be institutionally racist, now they aren't. LDS can change much more easily than churches like RCC.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

God can't either, apparently.

Indeed. If God can't do it, what hope do we have?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've read the Bible. This conversation centres around your point of view. You made assertions that if I did a certain thing, a certain result would have occurred. I did the thing, and the result did not occur. In fact, nothing occurred.

I just give because I want to. Not because I expect rewards in return.

Nothing occurred when you gave generously to others? Your glass is truly half-full. I'm so glad that when you left the church, you stopped helping others and became more self-centered with your dollars.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We all "make up" morality as we progress as a civilization. Hence the reason most of us don't keep slaves anymore or stone gay people to death, or torture witches, among other terrible things we used to do in the past that we can find in the Bible.

First of all, why would anyone need evidence from the animal kingdom in a conversation about human morality? I mean, we can see morality on display in the animal kingdom, but that is a different set of morality from our own.

Secondly, if morality is about well-being (and I think it is), then it's not as arbitrary as you make it out to be. We are all physical beings, living in a physical universe which we all navigate within. In any given situation, there are a finite number of actions that can be taken, and we can compare the consequences of each action with respect to well-being (morality). Some of those actions will be better than others (good) and some will be worse (bad). From there, we can try to determine which would be the best course of action, and go from there. To me, this sure beats blindly swallowing dictates from a being that is far removed from ourselves and that never shows itself to us.


So you claim. But there is no way to verify such a thing.

Not to mention that I don't find much of what is written in the Bible to be moral to begin with. I'm not sure what's moral about stoning people to death or bashing babies' heads against rocks. And I'm not sure what you find moral about it. I haven't seen you make much of an effort to demonstrate the morality of the Bible either. Other than, "it's moral because it is."

I also don't see any reason to believe that much of what is dictated within the Bible is moral at all. Not to mention the fact that I don't find blind obedience to be any kind of practice in morality.

My morality is grounded in human well-being which I think is the only thing that actually makes any sense.

Interesting, and you admit this is subjective, but:

"My morality is grounded in human well-being which I think is the only thing that actually makes any sense."

Why does a human who wishes to rape (it makes them feel good, their well-being is involved) not moral when they disrespect another's right to well-being (not to be raped)?

Why can a human who wishes well-being terminate a living, feeling being inside of them to have well-being?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Earthquakes were a big deal. Very big deal.
Particularly "omenous" if it were in conjunction with a solar eclipse. And happened as Passover was getting underway. During an extremely tumultuous period in the history of Judea.

And it isn't like we would have to sift through centuries looking for it. If Jesus was born within a year or two of 1ad, and crucified within a year or two of age 33, the possible dates can be counted on your fingers.
Sometime, during the last 1900 years, someone would have found some record of such an amazing event.

But, no.
Apparently nobody but the Gospel authors noticed it. And not even all of them found it worth mentioning.
Apparently.

Tom

So, you're saying that earthquakes we cannot find in (legitimate) recorded documents didn't happen? Do you see a problem with your line of "reasoning"?

 

[columbus]

So, you're saying that earthquakes we cannot find in (legitimate) recorded documents didn't happen?

That isn't what I said.

You could respond to what I actually did say instead of this strawman, if your line of reasoning didn't have so many problems.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing occurred when you gave generously to others? Your glass is truly half-full. I'm so glad that when you left the church, you stopped helping others and became more self-centered with your dollars.

Wow, what a cop out.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Interesting, and you admit this is subjective, but:

it's subjective with an objective aspect to it.


It's about as subjective as your view, which you've failed to defend beyond " it's right because the Bible says so."

"My morality is grounded in human well-being which I think is the only thing that actually makes any sense."

Do you disagree that that is what morality is about?

Why does a human who wishes to rape (it makes them feel good, their well-being is involved) not moral when they disrespect another's right to well-being (not to be raped)?

Because they don't want to be raped. Because they don't want their wife to be raped. Because they don't want their children to be raped. And if that's not enough to deter a person from raping another person and they do it anyway, our society will deem them a criminal and lock them up behind bars. Society doesn't look too kindly upon rapists. Neither do other inmates.

What does God do about rapists?

"Feeling good" and "well-being" aren't necessarily the same thing. Maybe you need to read what I said again:

Secondly, if morality is about well-being (and I think it is), then it's not as arbitrary as you make it out to be. We are all physical beings, living in a physical universe which we all navigate within. In any given situation, there are a finite number of actions that can be taken, and we can compare the consequences of each action with respect to well-being (morality). Some of those actions will be better than others (good) and some will be worse (bad). From there, we can try to determine which would be the best course of action, and go from there. To me, this sure beats blindly swallowing dictates from a being that is far removed from ourselves and that never shows itself to us.

Why can a human who wishes well-being terminate a living, feeling being inside of them to have well-being?

Perhaps because that fetus is going to kill them, if carried to term.

 

[columbus]

"My morality is grounded in human well-being which I think is the only thing that actually makes any sense."

What else does make sense? It certainly isn't the shifting moral sands of religious ethics. They change all the time.

Why does a human who wishes to rape (it makes them feel good, their well-being is involved) not moral when they disrespect another's right to well-being (not to be raped)?

The moral calculus here is pretty easy. Rape causes huge and lasting damage to the victim. The perp's benefit is tiny and fleeting. So, the right thing to do for the Human Family, as a whole, is to be really harsh with rapists.
How hard is that to grasp?
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

What else does make sense? It certainly isn't the shifting moral sands of religious ethics. They change all the time.


The moral calculus here is pretty easy. Rape causes huge and lasting damage to the victim. The perp's benefit is tiny and fleeting. So, the right thing to do for the Human Family, as a whole, is to be really harsh with rapists.
How hard is that to grasp?
Tom

You said that much, much better than I did

 

[sealchan]

Some people on forums seem to delight in creating an argument from an incomplete reading of a source of information...kind of like what is going on in politics right now. It is an utter waste of time to argue with such people because they are being emotional rather than rational, subjective and personal rather than cooperative and objective. It is twisting the good aspects of dialog and turning it into an intentionally divisive experience.

Reminds me of a certain character in a certain story early in Genesis.