It seems that the homosexual has no real world to live in. As far asAlthough I think that homosexuality could possibly be explained by Darwinists today, it can never be argued that this predisposition will advance the species. If homosexuals are evolutionists, then arguing that "they're born that way" doesn't help advance their cause.
worldviews go, neither theism nor atheistic views account for homosexuality.
The naturalists rely on the principle of "survival of the fittest" to
assist in supporting their evolutionary view. If, for the sake of argument
naturalism was true, the homosexual would have been sifted out of existence (first, do to the inability to procreate and secondly do to the short life expectancy among male homosexuals). This is just some fodder for further thought.
D.L.DeAguiar
Of course, I haven't seen the benefit in that argument no matter what they believe. Even if one were to grant that homosexuals are born with that proclivity, it doesn't prove that we should therefore embrace it. Bipolar disorder, for example, has a genetic component. Alcoholism can also be attributed in specific cases to a genetic predisposition. Does this mean we should accept it? Or does it mean that these with such a predisposition need to take more care and work harder to avoid the pitfalls of their genetics? A little clear thinking in this area will go a long way in our talk with others about this subject.
Certainly, unfettered Darwinism would tend to sift out species engaging in same-sex practices exclusively, but that seldom happens in brute nature. The natural drive is to continue the species. Even the primates closest to humans that engage in those acts don't do it for long.
ReplyDeleteThe natural drive to propagate the species poses a dillemma to gay advocates: either they can't help to do what they do, having less choice in the matter than brute animals (and go against the evolutionary imperative), or, they can choose what they do, at least part of the time and if they can, then they ARE NOT WHAT THEY DO, at least part of the time.
The consequence of this dillemma should be distasteful for gay advocates: homosexual behavior cannot be justified by appealing to nature; nor can homosexuality be used as the sole, immutable, defining quality of a homosexual person. Homosexuality, then, is subject to choice, and choice does not define a person.
The disorder, then, lies on the preference of a person to choose to engage in gay sex or not. Modern society is choosing more and more to consider this preference a "right" and not a disorder of the will (What's "the will" anyway?-they may ask). Outside of the state of nature, the only chance for people with an exclusive homosexual orientation to survive is to build a legal state protecting their lifestyle choice.
Throw them back to a minimal hunter-gatherer social organization (what many consider the human "state of nature") and see if the Darwinian imperatives increase their chances of survival.
It seems that the gene used to produce the homosexual “predisposition” had to at one time have evolved from another. It doesn’t seem to render it-self consistent with what I thought was integral to evolution, the concept that a thing evolves from a weaker to a stronger state. For a gene to leave out the natural demanding desire to procreate to further itself, to me seems de-evolutionary, also I thought evolution came through the struggle of adapting, a constant morphing to adjust itself with its surrounding. If this were the case what surrounding would have to be necessary in order to morph a gene from a heterosexual to a homosexual proclivity. Now it may be that I am not understanding these “evolutionary principles” the way they are meant to be understood. If that is the case sorry for wasting your time, and scrap the whole thought. But I would like to know the correct way to understanding these principle and others that may exist.
ReplyDeleteD.L.DeAguiar
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAdding to your excellent post, homosexuality does fit nicely into the moral relativism that necessarily accompanies Darwinianism. See for example Dick Chenney's comments about gay marriages. An acceptance of evolutionary dogma leads to the belief that man, and his desires, are the standard for good and evil, thereby justifying homosexuality and other immoral behaviors.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mr. DeAguiar, it should be noted that the homosexual way of life does not preclude heterosexual activity. As analogies between humans and "other" primates are the cup of tea in much of this rhetoric, an overall favoring of promiscuity can be seen in animals such as the bonobo. Thus, homosexual activity could render one evolutionarily fit because of its enhancement of one's enjoyment of life. A happy person is a person with high fecundity. Of course, that is a simple argument that flies in the face of human experience (e.g., rock stars).
ReplyDeleteJAD
The terms homosexual and heterosexual were not invented until the 19th century so I dont think you will find any information before that time. Homosexuality and heterosexuality were both considered deviant orientations in the medical language of the early 20th century. Procreation is not considered to be the sole purpose of sex. Maybe homosexuality has a social role and not a reproductive function that might be beneficial. The social condemnation of homosexuality may play a role in the survival and propagation of gay genes to survive since gay people are encouraged to marry and have children.
ReplyDeleteGenetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)
"It can never be argued that this predisposition will advance the species."
ReplyDeleteActually, someone has done just that:
http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/gaybrain.htm
It's a very intriguing article, I would suggest reading it the whole way through.
The Moral Law Against Homosexuality
ReplyDeleteBy: Dr. Ashish Mishra
Christian Apologist & Teacher
(This article was written in response to a piece published in the TCP Magazine, which invoked a national debate on the legalization of Homosexuality.)
Dear Sir,
With reference to your question on the legalization of Homosexuality, I would like to posit a few arguments against the aforementioned topic which I believe should be given serious thought as it not only affects the life of an individual profoundly but also puts to arrest the heartbeat of a morally cognizant society.
Perhaps, the most debated questions on Moral degeneration evidenced in sexual orientation seem to lose their fervor and have become more or less acceptable in our society. The moral practices and behaviors of an individual have become a matter of mere personal choice and the most heinous immoral acts are talked about in euphemisms. Freedom of expression has become a pretext to do what one feels is right and any claim of the supernal that interferes in our self proclaimed morality is ridiculed and attacked.
The pivotal question that I would like to posit here is, "Is it logical to assert that Moral choices have a basis only in our feelings and that Moral Truth is relative?" I would like to mention here that Freedom is not the same as autonomy. You do not become a law unto yourself. In the words of Zig Zagler, " Everyone talks about freedom. If you remove a train from the track, it’s free to go anywhere but does it really get anywhere?" Freedom has been much abused and the malady of the postmodern mind has been that it assumes itself to be highly intelligent in denying any sort of moral accountability and renders itself clueless when moral degeneration causes havoc in the society.
"We have created vulnerability out of our freedom", said Malcolm Muggeridge years ago. The cry for Freedom of thought, speech and expression blows its trumpet vociferously. Nevertheless, we continue to lecture our university students on Relative Morals. When such a student bludgeons a fellow student and commits all kinds of dastardly acts and unblushingly informs us that Moral choices are personal and are based on the feelings of an individual, we wonder what went wrong. It is only when some maniac someday renders us handcuffed to enjoy our Freedom do we complain that Freedom can’t be arbitrary. The cry to find the Truth is still a haunting specter in the deepest recesses of the human heart. “What is Truth”? This is perhaps the loftiest question ever asked in the history of mankind.
The greatest trial for truth is recorded in the Bible in the Book of John, chapter 18: 33-38. In a melodramatic scene, Pontius Pilate, the Governor asks Jesus Christ a few questions and pretends to be a seeker of Truth.
"Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said to him, Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, “Do you say this thing of yourself, or did others tell you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you to me: what have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom is not of this world.” Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered; “You rightly say that I am a king. In fact, to this end was I born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice." (John 18:33-38). Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" and then walked away.
There is a profound message hidden in this entire episode. The question that now emerges is not just about the revelation of Truth but the question really is that do we even want to know the Truth. G.K. Chesterton said, "Truth must be stranger to fiction because we have made fiction to
suit ourselves." Ladies and gentlemen, today we do not want Truth to be True. We have made morals conducive to our desires and have given over to our self styled morality. Perhaps like Pilot we do ask what Truth is but do not want to wait to get an answer. Do we honestly want the Truth or just walk away from it when it comes before us?
Morality can only be understood when we have the knowledge of a transcendent being, the moral lawgiver who is the person of God. Morality has no basis in the absence of God. Often times skeptics claim that morals are relative. If that argument is scrutinized it crumbles to its own presuppositions because with this line of reasoning we would have to answer some other concomitant questions. Would it be reasonable for someone to take a butcher's knife and chop a baby into pieces? If not, the skeptic has to answer "Why not?" If morals are relative then why can’t this act be justified? The Truth however is that within our hearts echoes a voice that bears witness that this act is wrong. But wait a minute, if you claim there is something as wrong or evil, then you are assuming that there is something such as good. If there is good and evil, there is a moral law based on which you deduce that some things are good and some are evil. Now, if there is a moral law, there has to be a moral lawgiver. That’s something that the skeptic is often trying to disprove and not prove. So, we see that morals can only be seen in the light of the fact that there is a moral lawgiver, the very person of God.
The questions of homosexuality can be viewed from different vantage views but the moral argument evidently preempts any other arguments in its favor. The Truth that God gives us is that people are not merely objects but are bodily vessels, which are meant to be used by God to display His glory and splendor. Sexuality is an expression of God's love and therefore its sanctity must be maintained and be enjoyed legitimately. This gives an individual a self worth and the value and identity of Being.
Homosexuality is in direct opposition to God’s purpose of creating man. It is only in the framework of God’s moral law that we can find the true purpose of our Being. We are designed to desire but our desires must glorify the Creator who has given us His ordinances for completing the expression of our freedom in subjection to His will. Self styled Moralists and Psychologists who pontificate on moral issues can never give you the identity that God has kept for you.
I’m not suggesting a prognosis for this malady and claiming to suggest a panacea for the immoral choices that an individual makes. I am writing this piece to help you view the whole subject of morality in the light of the knowledge of God. The beauty and intimacy of sexuality must be used for the glory of God. When put on the grid of logical consistency and evolved thought process based on pure reason, one cannot deny the existence of God and therefore His moral ordinances become both peremptory and irrefragable.
The undeniable evidence of a Creator and an existing moral law is the conclusive evidence of the imbecility of the euphemism ‘alternative lifestyle’ used by the Post modernist to express his morally deviant behavior.
Alcoholics and those who suffer from a Bipolar disorder are a harm to themselves and others when they are not treated. The homosexuals I know are tax paying, law abding people who contribute to society in positive ways. Comparing them to people with illnesses is an insult and does nothing but encourages more hate speak. Gays aren't going anywhere, no matter what you believe. I suggest you start embracing them and stop trying to will them out of existence.
ReplyDeleteThere is alway's alot of opinion's pro's & con's, but let's be right here. Homosexuality is a deviant act against our morales, for you would not be able to sustain life on earth with mating the same sex.
ReplyDeleteWe have just become numb to society shoving this down everyone's throat to make us Believe it is ok! Our Children growing up are also being told it is ok, well ladie & gentleman it is not ok we are just letting everything demoralize us because we are degenerating. The Bible clearly states: Not to lay with the same Sex for it is an Aboination against God & yourself
it is nothing but perversion & know one wants to own up to it!!
I'm not sure why everyone is so concerned with sustaining the human species. We've been doing great! There's a whole lot of us. I mean, maybe homosexuality is a method of population control. What about asexual people? No one is attacking them for their lack of procreational enthusiasm. What about people who just don't want to have children? Are they also wrong? What about masturbation? There's a whole lot of THAT going on, and it seems like men deliberately wasting human seed is a direct violation of this whole "sustain the species" talk. I mean, you could use that argument to support rape and sex addiction! Evolution has not managed to get rid of them so they must be an asset to our survival right? There are also a lot of unwanted children out there with no place to call home. So despite all the condoms, spermicide, homosexuality and wreckless abandonment of man juice our species not only blossoms but struggles to support the life we already have.
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry folks, the whole anti-bible thing isn't going to hold up in a court of law which should be obvious by now. Throughout history people have used the bible to back racism, slavery, and sexism and it just isn't effective enough. Homosexuals are not protesting for god's grace, they are protesting for equal rights. If you feel these claims for equality are being shoved down your throat, try closing your mouth. Your ranting will just be written down in history along side the other bigots that wined when they lost their slaves and women were able to vote and preach.
THANK YOU...BRILLIANT...ENOUGH SAID.
DeleteNEXT TOPIC PLEASE?
I'm not sure why everyone is so concerned with sustaining the human species. We've been doing great! There's a whole lot of us. I mean, maybe homosexuality is a method of population control. What about asexual people? No one is attacking them for their lack of procreational enthusiasm. What about people who just don't want to have children? Are they also wrong? What about masturbation? There's a whole lot of THAT going on, and it seems like men deliberately wasting human seed is a direct violation of this whole "sustain the species" talk. I mean, you could use that argument to support rape and sex addiction! Evolution has not managed to get rid of them so they must be an asset to our survival right? There are also a lot of unwanted children out there with no place to call home. So despite all the condoms, spermicide, homosexuality and wreckless abandonment of man juice our species not only blossoms but struggles to support the life we already have.
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry folks, the whole anti-bible thing isn't going to hold up in a court of law which should be obvious by now. Throughout history people have used the bible to back racism, slavery, and sexism and it just isn't effective enough. Homosexuals are not protesting for god's grace, they are protesting for equal rights. If you feel these claims for equality are being shoved down your throat, try closing your mouth. Your ranting will just be written down in history along side the other bigots that wined when they lost their slaves and women were able to vote and preach.