How Many Abers Actually Like To Watch...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Homosexuality
54 Answers
Why do most religions consider homosexuality a sin worthy of death and eternal punishment?
Never really understood the 'reason' behind this way of thinking.
Ive had a few homosexual friends over the years and they have been great people to know. Its a fact that they havn't 'chosen' their sexuality any more than Ive 'chosen' mine. We are what we are.
Why would God (of whatever religion) who supposedly created an unimaginably large and diverse universe care a jot about what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their bedroom?
To date there have been over 600 species of animals that have shown to exhibit homosexual behaviour so why are humans any different?
Would very much like to hear from any religionists on this site (or anyone for that matter)
Thanks
Never really understood the 'reason' behind this way of thinking.
Ive had a few homosexual friends over the years and they have been great people to know. Its a fact that they havn't 'chosen' their sexuality any more than Ive 'chosen' mine. We are what we are.
Why would God (of whatever religion) who supposedly created an unimaginably large and diverse universe care a jot about what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their bedroom?
To date there have been over 600 species of animals that have shown to exhibit homosexual behaviour so why are humans any different?
Would very much like to hear from any religionists on this site (or anyone for that matter)
Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No simple religious answers yet, what a surprise.
I view homosexual people the same as transgender ones. They have some sort of hormonal dysfunction, probably occurred in the early stage of development and is irreversible. It doesn't make them any less of a human and deserve the same respect.
I have never observed proper homosexuality in other animals but it is prevalent in many when members of the opposite sex are absent. It serves to protect them in numbers and make them more efficient obtaining food in teams.
I view homosexual people the same as transgender ones. They have some sort of hormonal dysfunction, probably occurred in the early stage of development and is irreversible. It doesn't make them any less of a human and deserve the same respect.
I have never observed proper homosexuality in other animals but it is prevalent in many when members of the opposite sex are absent. It serves to protect them in numbers and make them more efficient obtaining food in teams.
@naillit
Old_Geezer already gave the answer I wanted to give, that is that non-procreative activity was, in ancient times, perceived as a threat to a tribe which is locked in perpetual conflict with neighbouring tribes.
I would expand on this by adding that, the Darwinian term 'fitness' was never about physical fitness (the modern understanding of it); the fastest runners, for example, might also have the highest levels of hunger or thirst and thus be the first to keel over in a prolonged drought. Instead, Darwin referred to "degree of fit" to the environment, the objective measure of which was reproductive success.
With two competing species, in a restricted environment (his Galapagos Islands visit inspired this line of thinking) there is no need for physical combat, one only needs to reproduce faster than the other in order to dominate local resources and squeeze the competitor out (ie without really trying). *
Humans simply shortcut this process and Neanderthals are no more (give or take some interbreeding, by all accounts). Even chimpanzees have the organisational ability to send foraging parties onto some other group's 'patch' and have been observed to dish out violence if they encounter a rival unsupported by its fellows.
So, why kill sexual transgressors? Why not imprison them? Back in primitive times, food was scarce and the death penalty was the logical solution to not wasting food on citizens rendered unproductive by incarceration. Prisons were to contain people held for ransom (eg POWs) or who had got into debt.
* Footnote:
In practice, Galapagos finches diversified their beak shapes so that they each exploited different food sources best and -avoided competition- with each other,
hence dozens of species survived, where you would expect there to be barely room to support one.
I mean, you'd expect a creator to be content with just one (of each "kind", to use a creationist buzzword).
Old_Geezer already gave the answer I wanted to give, that is that non-procreative activity was, in ancient times, perceived as a threat to a tribe which is locked in perpetual conflict with neighbouring tribes.
I would expand on this by adding that, the Darwinian term 'fitness' was never about physical fitness (the modern understanding of it); the fastest runners, for example, might also have the highest levels of hunger or thirst and thus be the first to keel over in a prolonged drought. Instead, Darwin referred to "degree of fit" to the environment, the objective measure of which was reproductive success.
With two competing species, in a restricted environment (his Galapagos Islands visit inspired this line of thinking) there is no need for physical combat, one only needs to reproduce faster than the other in order to dominate local resources and squeeze the competitor out (ie without really trying). *
Humans simply shortcut this process and Neanderthals are no more (give or take some interbreeding, by all accounts). Even chimpanzees have the organisational ability to send foraging parties onto some other group's 'patch' and have been observed to dish out violence if they encounter a rival unsupported by its fellows.
So, why kill sexual transgressors? Why not imprison them? Back in primitive times, food was scarce and the death penalty was the logical solution to not wasting food on citizens rendered unproductive by incarceration. Prisons were to contain people held for ransom (eg POWs) or who had got into debt.
* Footnote:
In practice, Galapagos finches diversified their beak shapes so that they each exploited different food sources best and -avoided competition- with each other,
hence dozens of species survived, where you would expect there to be barely room to support one.
I mean, you'd expect a creator to be content with just one (of each "kind", to use a creationist buzzword).
It is important to remember that from and evolutionary perspective it is not just the survival of the fittest individual but also the overall fitness of the population. Something can be detrimental to the individual but good for the population.
Genes can be shared in groups. A gene for a weaker fit in one aspect may be linked to another gene that affords a greater benefit. The progresses and the detrimental gene is tagged along leading to the persistence of an apparently weaker trait.
Sometimes a single copy of a gene can benefit while two are lethal. Cystic Fibrosis is one of the best known examples of this where a single copy of the gen affords resistance to tuberculosis.
It is possible that a reproductive advantage is afforded to the siblings in families where some children are homosexual simply because they got a stronger version or multiple copies of a particular gene.
It may well be that the ongoing presence of any gene that might exist for homosexuality is being selected for because it benefits the population.
Perhaps we should acknowledge that we might all owe some of our collective success to the others who didn't have it so easy as those of us who are born mainstream.
We must also be careful to realise that characterisation of
Genes can be shared in groups. A gene for a weaker fit in one aspect may be linked to another gene that affords a greater benefit. The progresses and the detrimental gene is tagged along leading to the persistence of an apparently weaker trait.
Sometimes a single copy of a gene can benefit while two are lethal. Cystic Fibrosis is one of the best known examples of this where a single copy of the gen affords resistance to tuberculosis.
It is possible that a reproductive advantage is afforded to the siblings in families where some children are homosexual simply because they got a stronger version or multiple copies of a particular gene.
It may well be that the ongoing presence of any gene that might exist for homosexuality is being selected for because it benefits the population.
Perhaps we should acknowledge that we might all owe some of our collective success to the others who didn't have it so easy as those of us who are born mainstream.
We must also be careful to realise that characterisation of
-- answer removed --
Think about it : women are XX, which means they are all women. Men are XY, which means they are half women, so it is inevitable that many men will have a feminine side, which may mean finding men more attractive than women.
Men regard men who prefer men as feminine and weak, because “real” men are supposed to fancy women, who are weaker than men. “Real” men want to be thought of as macho and powerful, so they suppress in themselves any attraction they may have for other men. The more powerful a male’s apparent hostility to homosexuality, the greater his secret fear of finding it in himself.
Procreation would not have been the dominant factor for stone-age tribes, since the tribe would have welcomed ( strong, male) providers and defenders who would not produce extra mouths to feed. Homosexuality thus served as a form of birth control.
What many so-called macho men resent is that homosexuals cannot be controlled by shame ( religion), and can enjoy as much sex as they like without fear of pregnancy and the resulting restriction of freedoms caused by family responsibilities.
So, "Real" men want to control ( and if possible eradicate) homosexuals by means of religion.
Men regard men who prefer men as feminine and weak, because “real” men are supposed to fancy women, who are weaker than men. “Real” men want to be thought of as macho and powerful, so they suppress in themselves any attraction they may have for other men. The more powerful a male’s apparent hostility to homosexuality, the greater his secret fear of finding it in himself.
Procreation would not have been the dominant factor for stone-age tribes, since the tribe would have welcomed ( strong, male) providers and defenders who would not produce extra mouths to feed. Homosexuality thus served as a form of birth control.
What many so-called macho men resent is that homosexuals cannot be controlled by shame ( religion), and can enjoy as much sex as they like without fear of pregnancy and the resulting restriction of freedoms caused by family responsibilities.
So, "Real" men want to control ( and if possible eradicate) homosexuals by means of religion.
Relying on the "don't knock it unless you've tried it" principle, I like to entertain the possibility that the authors of the religious books all had gay relationships ...
And then decided it was not really for them ...
So thought ... Right, if we don't enjoy it, then no one else is going to enjoy it either!
And, thus, forbade it.
And then decided it was not really for them ...
So thought ... Right, if we don't enjoy it, then no one else is going to enjoy it either!
And, thus, forbade it.
