- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Doug, I have covered some of this already. I’m more interested in where animals have affectionate homosexual pairings, than the ones enforced by brute force and mistaken identity. You’re completely right about the nastiness of the animal kingdom as in example for certain things. Nature red in tooth and claw, and all that… cwald wrote:Brown wrote:I still can’t buy “nature” as an argument in favor of homosexuality. Just because animals do something does not make it acceptable for us. …
Okay, that is true, we are expected to be more civil than the common animal. We do not accept rape and murder, like what happens in the animal kingdom. That is true.
So, do we just ignore the fact that other species in the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual behavior, and tell our gay friends that their sexual orientation is a choice and that if they act on their inclinations, they are little more than “animals” and only following thier animal urges at the expense of their humanity?
Do you see the problem with that? What the biologists are saying, is that sexual attraction is not black and white – male attracted to females, and females attracted to males. Sometimes, in the animal kingdom it doesnt’ work that way, so it’s only logical and reasonable to conclude that its doesn’t always work that way in the human animal as well. The chemistry doesn’t always work the same way in everyone.
I do think we ignore the animal kingdom and decide what we want as a society of humans. I don’t think we tell our gay friends to act or not act based on what apes or turtles do. We wouldn’t tell that to a person prone to violence or any other animal trait, and we shouldn’t for someone based on sexual desires, either.
The nature thing is easy to take the other way, too. Homosexuality is far from the norm in the animal kingdom. Should we change our laws, customs, and societal structure based on something a small percentage of animals do? I would say the animal kingdom in large is showing us that heterosexuality is the natural method and same-sex attraction is an aberration.
Again, I am not saying how I feel about it one way or the other, just saying I don’t think nature makes a good case.
Christians in general (of any denomination) have fixated on homosexuality being wrong, as well as masturbation, pornography, divorce – some of it a cultural thing, others because of what is says in either the old or new testaments. “Touching oneself in a sexual manner” I don’t think is mentioned in the bible or in any standard work but culturally it has become a part of the lds church’s “law of chastity”. I once dated a new order Mennonite woman and it was wrong to marry a divorced person, but in the LDS faith marrying a divorced person is very culturally acceptable in spite of what Christ taught about divorce in the bible and the book of Mormon.
The United Church have allowed gay’s to be priests – again it may stated in the bible homosexuality is wrong but culturally the United Church has accepted gay people culturally amongst it’s membership, even into it’s leadership.
Brown wrote:I do think we ignore the animal kingdom and decide what we want as a society of humans.
The nature thing is easy to take the other way, too. Homosexuality is far from the norm in the animal kingdom. Should we change our laws, customs, and societal structure based on something a small percentage of animals do? I would say the animal kingdom in large is showing us that heterosexuality is the natural method and same-sex attraction is an aberration.
Okay.
It sounds like you have no problem with the LDS church stance on the gay issue, and that the restrictions and rhetoric about homosexuality will not be causing you angst. Nothing wrong with that. I think you are certainly in the majority on this one as far as church membership is concerned.
As I said several times, I am only arguing against the nature logic and not stating my own opinion on any gay issues. Brown wrote:Homosexuality is far from the norm in the animal kingdom. Should we change our laws, customs, and societal structure based on something a small percentage of animals do? I would say the animal kingdom in large is showing us that heterosexuality is the natural method and same-sex attraction is an aberration.
Homosexuality is actually EXTREMELY common in nature, that’s my point. Male dogs regularly try and mount other males, I’ve seen it myself.
(NOTE: PLEASE read this comment carefully and slowly, without any pre-conceived assumptions. I took forever to try to word it as precisely as possible, since it includes some very complex, controversial things.)If we’re going to talk about nature, it’s important to be precise – and also to be as comprehensive as possible. That is NOT easy with this topic, but I’m going to try to say a few things as concisely as I can.
Homosexuality is common in nature, but it leads to the death of the creature that is truly HOMO-sexual; BI-sexuality is extremely common in nature and contributes to the continuation of the species. From a purely scientific perspective, true homosexuality has no long-lasting impact on the species – other than consuming resources in a way that doesn’t contribute to the propagation of the species. It is never-ending as far as mortality is concerned (no idea about outside of this earthly life), since it is a naturally occuring result of heterosexuality, but it has no inherent “increasability” in and of itself. It can’t propagate itself – and self-propagation is an important aspect of Mormon theology.
There is a very valid scientific argument that homosexuality is an abberation that is self-correcting – since true homosexuality does not include the ability to recreate. There is no propagation of the species with true homosexuality; homosexuality arises from heterosexual intercourse – exclusively. Therefore, from a purely scientific standpoint, homosexuality can be described as an important aspect of evolution – in that it kills off genes that are not involved in the propgation of the species. That’s a fascinating concept to contemplate – and it can be taken in multiple directions, positive and negative from a social standpoint.
The issue that separates humans from “animals” is the ability to alter nature – or to push it to previously unknown boundaries, per se. What happens if homosexuality is “unbound” from its natural restrictions – if those who perhaps would increase the tendency toward the spread of true homosexuality by using alternative methods of insemination are able to do so? Would the rate of true homosexuality increase as a result? If those who are bi-sexual to some degree are encouraged in their formative years to see themselves as exclusively homosexual, will that cause a future increase in the rate of homosexual activity and a descrease in the rate of heterosexual activity (by eliminating such activity in those who would have engaged otherwise)?
These are some of the really complex questions that are part of a comprehensive discussion of homosexuality in nature – and it’s why I can’t dismiss out-of-hand those who argue that accepting homosexual intercourse as fine and dandy for anyone who wants to engage carries potential danger from a strictly biological / social standpoint. (and “the impact on family” is part of that standpoint) I have a much easier time dismissing arguments that truly homosexual individuals shouldn’t engage in ANY sexual activity – and the really interesting argument is that “true” homosexuals SHOULD engage ONLY in homosexual activity in order NOT to spread their genes in an “unnatural” manner. Again, this is a really, really hard discussion to have in our current political environment without being labeled as an extremist – since most people would tune out LONG before any deep discussion could occur.
I think those of us who don’t like blatant discrimination against and hatred of homosexuals sometimes dismiss WAY too quickly some of these scientific issues – even as I also wish those issues didn’t lead to discrimination and hatred. It’s just SO hard for most people to step back and really consider such a complex, multi-faceted, emotionally charged issue openly and fully and in an unbiased manner.
I’m not going to argue you point necessarily Ray, but I think it is even more complicated than you describe. T here ARE reasons why natural selection would allow homosexual beings to propagate and exist, genetically speaking.I understand the argument about the whole Natural Selection doesn’t work when it comes to homosexuality – and that over time the homosexual genes would be selected out of existence because only heterosexual genetic codes get passed on…because I understand biology, teach genetics, and I use to have that same kind of thinking in the past before science really started to understand the nuts and bolts of the issue. BUT, it DOES work in natural selection. The facts are these, FEMALES (moms) who produce homosexual men, have more offspring (ratio) than females who produce heterosexual men. (BYU professor Bradshaw talks about this in his podcast, and it is a scientifically proven fact.) This explains why the genes continue to exist, even though homosexuals cannot pass on the traits directly through reproduction. The question is WHY? We don’t know for sure, but many, MANY scientists believe that women who are having multiple offspring of males, develop, over time, a kind of immunity or defense to the foreign XY chromosome configuration of their male fetuses that they are getting from their male mates. This immunity they are developing to “fight” the foreign Y chromosome in their bodies, evolves and adapts over multiple pregnancies, that messes up the molecules produced by the Y chromosome that is responsible for producing testosterone. Which explains the SCIENTIFIC FACT, that there is a direct correlation between homosexual men and the number of older brothers in the family. Ratio speaking, homosexual men have more older brother siblings than heterosexual males do.
Their is similar explanation dealing with females – and how cholesterol is converted into testosterone (which is not even debated because it is so common and proven science that no one even questions it anymore) – but I’m not going to get into that tonight.
I guess to me, this entire issue and thread about homosexuality in nature, is not so much an argument about the origins of homosexuality,
but more about the LDS idea that the “behavior and tendencies can be changed and corrected.”To me, that is ludicrous talk. It is NATURAL, and those who have these “tendency” could no more change or correct their sexual orientation than the heterosexual guy/gal could if he was told he was sinning and needed to be homosexual. I agree with everything you just said, cwald. Remember, I said homosexuality can’t propagate itself – BUT heterosexuality DOES propagate homosexuality and always will. It absolutely is natural.
To kind of add to what cwald said: Prior to recent medical advances, children born with the inherited disease, sickle cell anemia (SCA), would die long before being able to reproduce. Yet strangely, SCA is a very common disease in people of African and Mediterranean descent. These children never reproduce, so why wouldn’t the autosomal recessive gene that causes SCA be eliminated from the gene pool? It turns out that if you’re a carrier of the gene (meaning you only have one sickle cell gene, but you’re not affected by the disease) you have a much greater chance of living through a bout of malaria. Sure, on average 1 in 4 of your kids will have SCA if you marry another carrier, but you might survive malaria and be able to have 8 children. It turns out that the survival benefit, in areas overrun with malaria, outweighs losing lots of kids to SCA. As a result, there has been a positive natural selection for the sickle cell gene.
Is there a similar story in homosexuality? I think yes.
-Greg
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.