Homosexuality and evolution

[Believer1997]

I do not believe that homosexual behaviour will ever lead to the end of the species.

Animals only reproduce the natural way.

I'm not sure what you point is Nebual.

If the majority of the population were homosexual, how would the species reproduce enough members in order to survive?

I supose that so long as enough heterosexuals in the group mated that would be all that was required. Do you know of such a species?

There are the Bonobos. The females engage in extensive homosexual behaviour and yet they still remain receptive to and seek males for mating.

The Bonobo is endangered and is found in the wild only in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Why are they endangered?

[Ovedya]

Because it would cast the homosexual population in a bad light...Hollywood isn't going to make the gay agenda appear to be aggressive. Although it is.

There have been many homosexuals who throughout their lives concealed the fact that they were gay. Such people may even be the majority. You would agree that your statement really only applies to the activists in The Gay Movement? Not all homosexuals are agresively persuing some agenda.

Are you saying "the majority" of homosexuals at one time concealed their homosexuality, or are you saying that there is a homosexual majority in America, and that they are only concealing it?

[Believer1997]

I do not believe that homosexual behaviour will ever lead to the end of the species.

Animals only reproduce the natural way.

I'm not sure what you point is Nebual.

If the majority of the population were homosexual, how would the species reproduce enough members in order to survive?

I supose that so long as enough heterosexuals in the group mated that would be all that was required. Do you know of such a species?

There are the Bonobos. The females engage in extensive homosexual behaviour and yet they still remain receptive to and seek males for mating.

The Bonobo is endangered and is found in the wild only in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Why are they endangered?

"

The exact number of bonobos that exist in the wild is unknown, but due to rainforest destruction and poaching, the species has disappeared from much of its historic range. To add to these threats, a civil war has had an inestimable impact on remaining populations

." -- <

http://www.zoosociety.org/Conservation/Bonobo/>

Humans are responsible for the declining numbers of great apes. Does that answer your question?

Actually, it doesn't answer all of them - but I'll find out about these fascinating animals. Blessings to you Hitchey - still praying!!

[nebula]

I do not believe that homosexual behaviour will ever lead to the end of the species.

Animals only reproduce the natural way.

I'm not sure what you point is Nebual.

They cannot, like humans, artificially inseminate themselves.

If the majority of the population were homosexual, how would the species reproduce enough members in order to survive?

I supose that so long as enough heterosexuals in the group mated that would be all that was required. Do you know of such a species?

There are the Bonobos. The females engage in extensive homosexual behaviour and yet they still remain receptive to and seek males for mating.

OK, so what is that? Females rubbing their pubic region with each other?

Homosexual relations are more than that - they are a partnering. Your scenario of the bonobos is not the kind of partnering humans engage in. Human lesbians are not known to seek males for mating.

And your bonobo scenario doesn't include men having such relations with each other.

[nebula]

*Cough* Hitchey - I appreciate your scientific arguments, but please keep in mind this is a family-friendly board. *Cough*

[ParanoidAndroid]

No, I don't think that. You are assigning values to my statements that I neither expressed or hinted at. A rather fraudulent debate tactic on your part. I have known and worked with quite a few of them and am well aware of the fact that they think about other things too.

I never said they were.

Why do you insist on assigning motives to me that never expressed?

You suggested that if you sat around all day fantasising about stealing my wife from me would you be guilty of adultery. Using that example in the context of our discussion made it appear you have similar thoughts concerning homosexuals - why else would you share this example? If you used it to make that point, then my comment was valid. If you are not using it in this sense, it is a Red Herring.

Of course, feel free to expand on your comment and tell me the intentions you had in the post - it seemed pretty clear that this was your intention.

That doesn't change the fact that it is sin to desire homosexual relations at all, whether your life is centered on them or not.

And for that, we have only your opinion that it is so - the Bible only ever comments on the actions. You are the one assigning value to the thoughts when the Bible itself speaks only of the action. Yes, sin begins in the heart - but that argument goes for heterosexual sex outside of marriage just as much as towards homosexuality.

What I see is a faulty argument based on false assumptions. Homosexuality is not an "urge" and no amount of time you spend calling it an "urge" will change that.

I have already produced enough Scripture to back up the fact that just like other sins, homosexuality begins the heart. Whether a person is consumed with it day and night is irrelevant and has nothing do with my position. The fact is, that sin no matter what sin you are talking about, homosexuality or adultery, murder or thievery, all begins in the heart. Sin is conceived in the heart. Jesus made that point very clear, like it or not.

You truly do not see how contradictory your statement is, do you?

The principle is laid out in scripture that all sinful feelings begin in the heart.

No, that is not what I said.

Any time you entertain temptation in heart and mind, you are committing sin. It is not a sin to be tempted. It is not sin for a sinful thought to pop into your head. The sin is when you toy with it, consider it, fanatasize it and act it out in your mind.

It is not a sin to recognize a beautiful woman. It is a sin to undress her with your eyes or to imagine her in an immoral situation with yourself.

Completely agreed - that is exactly right. So why is this criteria suddenly changed for gays? It may not be a sin to recognise a beautiful person of the same sex - but mentally undressing them or imagining immoral positions with them is a sin. What is wrong with that statement as applicable to gays as well as straights?

God created humans to be sexual creatures and the sexual urge or desire is not in and of itself sinful. Any perversion of it, is. Homsexuality is a perversion of that urge as much as adultery or other kinds of fornication are.

Homosexuals need deliverance, not someone to run interference and helping them to make excuses for their sin. Homosexuality is a sin whether it is in the heart or it is committed in the flesh.

I'm not making excuses for sin. I'm questioning whether the Bible considers just having homosexual feelings a sin, or is it simply when it is acted on (whether in the flesh or in the heart alone). The Bible says nothing of the homosexual condition, only the acts (and by association any fantasies one might have that explore those acts). It's acceptable for heterosexuals to have heterosexual feelings provided they do not dwell on them and fantasise through them. I do not see a difference in applying the same criteria to homosexuals.

Which is why I asked for biblical passages that discuss the homosexual condition (having homosexual thoughts). You cannot provide them; you can only provide your assumption that it must be wrong because you disagree with it.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Nebula -

Hi Nebula, I was just wondering if you had had a chance to read through my response ...

Sorry I haven't responded, but I realized the debate took a turn that would require my divesting myself into research in which I haven't been able to find the time to divest in.

My apologies if that seems rude, but that's where I'm at.

Fair enough. I can understand not having the time to respond fully to arguments that require time devoted to research. I do hope you get a chance to look further into it before continuing to make use of Leviticus 18 and 20 as blanket-statements against homosexuality.

All the best, Neb

~ PA

[Guest shiloh357]

You suggested that if you sat around all day fantasising about stealing my wife from me would you be guilty of adultery. Using that example in the context of our discussion made it appear you have similar thoughts concerning homosexuals - why else would you share this example? If you used it to make that point, then my comment was valid. If you are not using it in this sense, it is a Red Herring.

I did not say anything about sitting around all day and doing nothing else but fantasizing about stealing your wife. The amount of time I spend thinking about it is irrelevant.

The point I was making had to do with the issue of sin originating in the heart. Biblically speaking, it is just as much a sin for me to fantasize about such things as it is to carry them out in the flesh.

I was drawing the obvious correlaton that just like EVERY other sin, homosexuality is a sin that begins in the heart. It is just as much a sin for a homosexual to entertain sexual pleasure with a member of the same sex as it is for him to carry out the deed in the flesh. The amount of time he spends doing that is irrelevant. Sin is sin whether you spend 5 seconds or 5 hours.

And for that, we have only your opinion that it is so - the Bible only ever comments on the actions. You are the one assigning value to the thoughts when the Bible itself speaks only of the action.

No it is not my opinon. The Bible is very clear that sinful actions begin with sinful desires. (Matt 5:28, Matt. 15:18-19; Mark 7:21-22; James 1:14-15).

Yes, sin begins in the heart - but that argument goes for heterosexual sex outside of marriage just as much as towards homosexuality.

Yeah and I have made that clear over and over. I have never treated hetroxexual sins any differently. In fact I have used the hetrosexual sins to make the case against homosexuality. Adultery and homosexuality are both sins, God hates both equally, they both begin in the heart, they are both perversions and it is just as much a sin to desire an adulterous affair as it is to desire a homosexual one.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ May 4 2009, 03:51 AM)

What I see is a faulty argument based on false assumptions. Homosexuality is not an "urge" and no amount of time you spend calling it an "urge" will change that.

I have already produced enough Scripture to back up the fact that just like other sins, homosexuality begins the heart. Whether a person is consumed with it day and night is irrelevant and has nothing do with my position. The fact is, that sin no matter what sin you are talking about, homosexuality or adultery, murder or thievery, all begins in the heart. Sin is conceived in the heart. Jesus made that point very clear, like it or not.

You truly do not see how contradictory your statement is, do you?

There is no contradiction except the one you are contriving in your mind.

Completely agreed - that is exactly right. So why is this criteria suddenly changed for gays? It may not be a sin to recognise a beautiful person of the same sex - but mentally undressing them or imagining immoral positions with them is a sin. What is wrong with that statement as applicable to gays as well as straights?

Because being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is at its core a perversion of God's plan. It is a sin from its very inception. It is something a man or woman needs deliverance from. God created us to be hetrosexual. If a person feels homosexual attraction then there is a problem that needs to be addressed and fixed as such attraction is not part of God's plan.

I'm not making excuses for sin. I'm questioning whether the Bible considers just having homosexual feelings a sin, or is it simply when it is acted on (whether in the flesh or in the heart alone). The Bible says nothing of the homosexual condition, only the acts (and by association any fantasies one might have that explore those acts). It's acceptable for heterosexuals to have heterosexual feelings provided they do not dwell on them and fantasise through them. I do not see a difference in applying the same criteria to homosexuals.

Which is why I asked for biblical passages that discuss the homosexual condition (having homosexual thoughts). You cannot provide them; you can only provide your assumption that it must be wrong because you disagree with it.

No, I provided the scriptural principle that if God calls the act a sin, then it follows that desiring the sin is just as sinful and Jesus lines that up for us in several places. A condemnation of the act, would be a condemnation of the desire to commit the act. Just a few pages back I brought up the issue that the law of Moses did not cover every issue and that since the laws were considered behavioral paradigms, we must extrapolate from the commandments that do exist to address the issues the law does not directly exist. You agreed with that, but when I apply that principle to homosexuality, suddenly you disagree with it. You need to make up your mind about where you stand.

Put a different way.

Let's again say you are married. You are walking in the part or at a shopping mall and your wife notices you constantly looking at other women. How do you think that would make her feel?? It won't matter that you are not "acting" on it. Just the fact you are obviously guilty of the wondering eye is enough for her to be seriously upset and worried about what you WILL do when she is not around.

This is more than simply noticing an attractive woman. That you cannot help. I am talking about lingering looks, not just passing glances.

[ParanoidAndroid]

I was drawing the obvious correlaton that just like EVERY other sin, homosexuality is a sin that begins in the heart. It is just as much a sin for a homosexual to entertain sexual pleasure with a member of the same sex as it is for him to carry out the deed in the flesh. The amount of time he spends doing that is irrelevant. Sin is sin whether you spend 5 seconds or 5 hours.

Agreed - but that applies to heterosexuality as well. You are adding an extra stipulation that even being attracted to the same sex is a sin - and that is not something backed up in the Bible (ie, nothing is said about that at all, either for or against).

Yeah and I have made that clear over and over. I have never treated hetroxexual sins any differently. In fact I have used the hetrosexual sins to make the case against homosexuality. Adultery and homosexuality are both sins, God hates both equally, they both begin in the heart, they are both perversions and it is just as much a sin to desire an adulterous affair as it is to desire a homosexual one.

But you ARE treating it VERY DIFFERENTLY. You are stating that heterosexual sexual fantasies are wrong, but it is wrong to even have a homosexual feeling of any kind, whether one fantasises about said feeling or not. That stipulation makes it a very different kettle of fish.

And that is what I am referring to here - I do not know if you realise you are doing this. If you did realise, I cannot see how you would still be trying to argue that it is "just the same" as other forms of sexual sin, because there is clearly a very big difference - at least insofar as you portray it. Hence the reason I said what you are saying is contradictory - if one is ok to have feelings as long as they do not turn into fantasy, but the other is wrong to even have it, you cannot claim they are "just the same", can you?

Because being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is at its core a perversion of God's plan. It is a sin from its very inception. It is something a man or woman needs deliverance from. God created us to be hetrosexual. If a person feels homosexual attraction then there is a problem that needs to be addressed and fixed as such attraction is not part of God's plan.

Then if this is so, tell me where in the Bible it says that - the Bible only ever speaks out about the action itself. You are imprinting your own views on homosexuality and saying that it must be a perversion.

No, I provided the scriptural principle that if God calls the act a sin, then it follows that desiring the sin is just as sinful and Jesus lines that up for us in several places. A condemnation of the act, would be a condemnation of the desire to commit the act. Just a few pages back I brought up the issue that the law of Moses did not cover every issue and that since the laws were considered behavioral paradigms, we must extrapolate from the commandments that do exist to address the issues the law does not directly exist. You agreed with that, but when I apply that principle to homosexuality, suddenly you disagree with it. You need to make up your mind about where you stand.

Put a different way.

Let's again say you are married. You are walking in the part or at a shopping mall and your wife notices you constantly looking at other women. How do you think that would make her feel?? It won't matter that you are not "acting" on it. Just the fact you are obviously guilty of the wondering eye is enough for her to be seriously upset and worried about what you WILL do when she is not around.

This is more than simply noticing an attractive woman. That you cannot help. I am talking about lingering looks, not just passing glances.

I see what you are saying. I agree with the general principle - lust in the heart is wrong. I am not disagreeing. But you are making the assertion that a homosexual cannot even have a feeling without being sinful, while a heterosexual can because it is all peachy and natural - something that is never addressed in the Bible because the Bible only ever addresses the act of homosexuality. Let me try an equation:

Heterosexual = feelings of attraction, ok

Heterosexual = fantasising on attraction, sin

Homosexual = feelings of attraction, sin

Homosexual = fantasising on attraction, sin

That is not something borne out in scripture - since as I have repeatedly stated, the Bible never speaks of the homosexual condition (ie, the feelings one has are never addressed either for or against). Does that clarify

~ PA

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ May 4 2009, 07:01 PM)

I was drawing the obvious correlaton that just like EVERY other sin, homosexuality is a sin that begins in the heart. It is just as much a sin for a homosexual to entertain sexual pleasure with a member of the same sex as it is for him to carry out the deed in the flesh. The amount of time he spends doing that is irrelevant. Sin is sin whether you spend 5 seconds or 5 hours.

Agreed - but that applies to heterosexuality as well. You are adding an extra stipulation that even being attracted to the same sex is a sin - and that is not something backed up in the Bible (ie, nothing is said about that at all, either for or against).

If the act is a sin, then the desire to commit the act is a sin as well. Being attracted to the same sex is a sin because the actions born out of that sin are sinful. The act cannot be separated from the desire that precedes it.

But you ARE treating it VERY DIFFERENTLY. You are stating that heterosexual sexual fantasies are wrong, but it is wrong to even have a homosexual feeling of any kind, whether one fantasises about said feeling or not. That stipulation makes it a very different kettle of fish.

God created hetrosexuality. He intended for people to be hetrosexual. That is the ONLY form of sexuality that is sanctified in the Bible. Furthermore, God only sanctified sexuality to be expressed or desired within the framework of marriage. All other desires for sexual activitity outside the marriage of one man and one woman is sin. That includes homosexuality.

If a person had a desire to be adulterous, that is just as much a sin as having a desire to be homosexual. God hates both desires equally. I don't see how much plainer I can make it.

Hence the reason I said what you are saying is contradictory - if one is ok to have feelings as long as they do not turn into fantasy, but the other is wrong to even have it, you cannot claim they are "just the same", can you?

But that is not what I said. What I am saying is that any sinful desire is wrong. Having romantic feelings for a married woman EVEN if you don't undress her with your eyes is sinful and adulterous. It is all the same. Having romantic feelings for a member of the same sex is just as sinful in God's eyes.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ May 4 2009, 07:01 PM)

Because being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is at its core a perversion of God's plan. It is a sin from its very inception. It is something a man or woman needs deliverance from. God created us to be hetrosexual. If a person feels homosexual attraction then there is a problem that needs to be addressed and fixed as such attraction is not part of God's plan.

Then if this is so, tell me where in the Bible it says that - the Bible only ever speaks out about the action itself. You are imprinting your own views on homosexuality and saying that it must be a perversion.

No, I am following the biblical princple that sin begins in the heart. The Bible condemns the desire to sin as much as it condemns the act. (Matt 5:28, Matt. 15:18-19; Mark 7:21-22; James 1:14-15). The sin of homosexuality begins in the heart just like any other sin.

But you are making the assertion that a homosexual cannot even have a feeling without being sinful, while a heterosexual can because it is all peachy and natural - something that is never addressed in the Bible because the Bible only ever addresses the act of homosexuality.

The Bible in principle condemns ALL sin desires.

You are, in futility, trying to debate a technicality. You are arguing that since homosexual feelings are not directly addressed, then they are not sinful. The problem is that the Bible has laid out the principle that a sinful act is ALWAYS preceded by sinful desire. So since the Bible condemns the sinful act, it doesn't take much brain power to arrive at the understanding that if God condemns the ACT of homosexuality, that He would condemn the feelings and desires that lead up to the act. It is really not that hard to understand PA.

The desires that lead to sin are just as sinful as committing the act.