Thoughts on homosexuality and evolution
#1
These are just a few ideas I had floating around my head last night before I fell asleep:

Accepting the theory of evolution as true, for the sake of discussion, liberals must admit that, from a purely biological perspective, there is little difference between homosexuality and bestiality.  I make this claim for two reasons: 1.) Months ago, after President Obama selected Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, liberals in the media and elsewhere threw a hissy fit over statements made by pastor Rick where he compared marriage between same-sex couples to marriage between men and animals. 2.) It's true.

If we accept evolution as true, then from this viewpoint we can call homosexuality a mutation in human genes.  A mutation occurs when something in the development of an organism takes a course it normally wouldn't, and also may not be advantageous to the survival of the species, like mental or physical birth defects.  Homosexuality meets both of these criteria, it is something that does not normally occur among humans, the vast majority of people are straight, and it is not advantageous to the survival of our species, same-sex couples can't reproduce.

Similarly a sexual attraction towards animals is something that occurs rarely among humans, probably less than homosexual attractions, and is not advantageous to the survival of the species, for rather self-explanatory reasons.

So, from a scientific perspective, there is relatively little difference between homosexuality and bestiality.  Of course there are other ways to look at the matter, but to do that we would have to abandon the scientific way of addressing topics that so many liberals wish to restrict themselves to.




Reply
#2
I know a lot of gay men through work and from college (I am not condoning their lifestyle, I actually abhor the subculture that surrounds homosexuals).  I would not stick their disorder in with bestiality but definitely in the same class as a learning disability, or a speech impediment.  Both can be overcome.
Reply
#3
Yes, this is a great inconsistancy in the modern world, however, the core of the modern world is not science, but being anti-God. Science is only used as an excuse when it is convenient.
Reply
#4
Well, that assumes a genetic origin for one. I dont think anyone claims that anymore. The supposed biological origin has to do with intra-uterine hormones, not genes. Only 50% of the time are both identical twins homosexual.

Of course, in reality, it is likely a complex interaction of biological predisposition and environmental factors.

But, scientists have suggested ways that homosexuality could be selectively advantageous, ala the "gay uncle" theory that people with a homosexual sibling reproduce more (because the lower testosterone in one pregnancy correlates with higher fertility for a sibling) or have more of their children survive and reproduce (since the uncle or aunt doesnt have their own kids to care for, they help their nieces and nephews) and so having a homosexual child (as long as it's not all of them) has a selective advantage, and so the theoretical gene or gene complex would be favored for recessive inheritance.

I dont know if I buy that, but you are oversimplifying the dynamics of selective advantage.

Also, I dont think even die-hard materialistic evolutionists suggest that selective advantage is any gauge of moral value. Only Nazis did that.
Reply
#5
People like Peter Singer have already defended bestiality.

Denmark has (or at least did have until recently) "animal brothels."

The creeps are playing for keeps, they're willing to defend even things the vast majority find abhorrent in their quest to normalize sexual perversion.
Reply
#6
Sebastianus Wrote:I know a lot of gay men through work and from college (I am not condoning their lifestyle, I actually abhor the subculture that surrounds homosexuals).  I would not stick their disorder in with bestiality but definitely in the same class as a learning disability, or a speech impediment.  Both can be overcome.

I'm not saying that I agree that bestiality is equivalent to homosexuality, just pointing out that if liberals wish to accept both evolution and tolerance of homosexual behavior as parts of their world view, they must admit that, at least in a scientific sense, homosexuality is comparable to bestiality. 

In my opinion they're both horrid, bestiality to a greater degree perhaps.
Reply
#7
There's difference between calling something something and actually proving it...
Reply
#8
Hotspur Wrote:There's difference between calling something something and actually proving it...

I think he is saying that biologically speaking homosexual acts and bestiality are equal in value.
Reply
#9
Quote:I think he is saying that biologically speaking homosexual acts and bestiality are equal in value.

And thus reducing value to selective advantage? How is that Catholic.

Of course, there is a point in saying that if "anything goes"...if you trivialize sex so it's just about pleasure...than all sex is equally worthless and trivial.
Reply
#10
7HolyCats Wrote:
Quote:I think he is saying that biologically speaking homosexual acts and bestiality are equal in value.

And thus reducing value to selective advantage? How is that Catholic.

Of course, there is a point in saying that if "anything goes"...if you trivialize sex so it's just about pleasure...than all sex is equally worthless and trivial.

I've already clarified that I believe there is a moral difference between homosexuality and bestiality.  What I'm pointing out is that liberals who want to integrate the theory of evolution and acceptance of homosexuality into their world view must admit that from the standpoint of evolution there's little difference between the two, meaning that they are in agreement with Rick Warren on the subject, to a greater or lesser degree.

I don't derive moral claims from biology, nor do many liberals, but those who believe in evolution and sexual libertine-ism should admit that in at least one sense, their worldview equates homosexuality with bestiality.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)