Can Religion Survive Being Wrong About Homosexuality?

[Quiddity]

I don't see why it wouldn't. Science has no intention to dwell in morality, so I don't see how any new ideals can be any different from past movements.

 

[Popeyesays]

"Sexual preference" and "Gender Identification" are two different things, folks. Gender Identification happens in the brain of the fetus at about eight weeks into the pregnancy. It's determined by how the baby-to-be reacts biochemically to the hormones and hormone precursors in the infant's body. Sometimes the genes play games with these reactions and when that happens a child is born with ambiguous genitalia, pseudo-hermaphroditism, true hermaphroditism, or some kind of gender dysphoria at about one birth in one hundred..

Preference toward same sex or different sex is a reaction to one's development after birth, not before it.

Regards,
Scott

Ambiguous genitalia means that the physical formation of the genitalia is not clear. Pseudo-hermaphrodotism results from a male fetus being resistant to the androgyne hormones (testosterone) and the physical male changes never happen. So the child is born outwardly female but with no uterus and no ovaries (tesicles are somewhere in the body, undescended.) True Hermaphroditism is when the individual has both testiuclar tissues and ovarian tissue in the same body.

Gender dysphoria is the belief that one has been "born" into the wrong gender, when the physical changes of the fetus do not match the changes within the brain.

 

[Yerda]

People will acdopt any ad-hoc assumptions in order to preserve the ideals most precious to them. I catch myself doing it all the time, and I consider myself a sceptic.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

It currently looks as if it will one day be proven (as much as anything can be proven) that homosexuality is determined at birth. Consequently, many religious leaders in Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism will be proven wrong about homosexuality. So, will they or their religious views survive? Will being proven wrong on this issue, and issue that they have made so much of, weaken their moral authority on other moral issues? What do you think?

Of course. Religion has been wrong about nearly everything. It's still here.

 

[Sahar]

So if scientific evidence contradicted the Quraan, it would be the scientific evidence (that is gathered through a process involving the scientific method) and not the Quraan (a mere holy book) that would be wrong?

1- God and science can not be contradicted.
2- If scientific findings contradicted a religion, this would mean either this religion is not truly from God or the imperfect humans had not reached the truth yet but after 20-30 years they might find new evidences which abrogate the original findings and this already happens.
3- As for the Quraan; Quraan can not be contradicted with science b/c it's 10000% from God. And if it seemed for a while that there is contradiction, this would be the problem of the imperfect human not the perfect Quraan. And it has been always the muslim's duty to think, search and try to understand everything inside and around him and this will prove how God is great.

4- Quraan didnot talk about whether you are created as a gay or not yet it talks about engaging in a prohibited ACT. Act involves your own CHOICE. For example if a heterosexual (= NORMAL) MUSLIM is 60 years old and for some reasons he could not marry and still he can't, does this justify his ACT of comitting fornication?! In the eyes of Islam, the answer is NO.
So if a true MUSLIM found himself sexually attracted to the same sex, he would have to do one of two things; either to search for a treatment (which is better) or to live as he is without involving in sexual relations with the same sex.

5- Suppose they found that homosexuality is genetic or caused by any other reasons during the embryo life, so what??! Many disturbances are genetic and many others are caused due to unhealthy maternal medium for the fetus. Should we consider those "disturbances" as normal cases just b/c they are genetic or something? of course not!
Sexual attraction to the same sex is abnormality and disturbance regardless of being genetic or not. Any findings that say it's genetic will not change anything and i will consider it as any other genetic diseases.
I don't understand how come you want to consider the abnormal normal???!!!

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't understand how come you want to consider the abnormal normal???!!!

Can you even possibly conceive how insulting your comment is?

 

[Sahar]

????
I have no intentions to insult anybody!!

 

[Green Gaia]

????
I have no intentions to insult anybody!!

Calling us abnormal is insulting.

 

[Sahar]

Sorry if i hurt anybody's feelings!
I don't know if this will make anything better or make it worse but:
I don't consider the sexual relations of the same sex is normal but i didn't call anybody "abnormal", my concern is about the ACTs not the persons.
And i know that those persons are living very normal life but when it comes to their sexual acts i disagree.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

my concern is about the ACTs not the persons.

Yet you classify a sexuality as normal:

For example if a heterosexual (= NORMAL) MUSLIM

 

[Green Gaia]

Sorry if i hurt anybody's feelings!
I don't know if this will make anything better or make it worse but:
I don't consider the sexual relations of the same sex is normal but i didn't call anybody "abnormal", my concern is about the ACTs not the persons.
And i know that those persons are living very normal life but when it comes to their sexual acts i disagree.

Their sexual acts aren't any of your business.

 

[standing_alone]

3- As for the Quraan; Quraan can not be contradicted with science b/c it's 1000000000000000000000000000000000000% from God.

Please don't present faith as fact. Thank you. There is no evidence for your God's existence, let alone that he's responsible for penning any autobiographies.

I don't understand how come you want to consider the abnormal normal???!!!

Maybe because in this case (homosexuality), I don't find the "abnormal" to be abnormal at all.

 

[Sunstone]

Let's stick to the topic of whether religion can survive being wrong about homosexuality, and not turn this thread into just another exchange on whether homosexuality is right or wrong, please.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Their sexual acts aren't any of your business.

I respectfully disagree. Some sexual acts do cause harm to individuals and communities... eg., incest, sex with children and minors, rape, etc.

Some religions - sometimes representing very large groups of people - agree that certain sexual acts threaten the state with the wrath of God. While alien to the Western individualist mindset, this is a very real concern to many people who feel that they should justify their baseless religious claims with science (eg., what is 'natural').

If somehow homosexuality is proven to be natural (IMHO, progress is being made daily on this) and compatable to religions (eg, does not in fact bring the wrath of God), then such acts are none of our business. Imposing such a view without clearly demonstrating its rationale is just as dogmatic as the religious claim against it.

If, however, homosexual acts can destroy the home and the state (which it most certainly does in patriarchal states because it ruins inheritances, alliances, and marriages) and brings the wrath of God, it most certainly is our business.

 

[standing_alone]

Let's stick to the topic of whether religion can survive being wrong about homosexuality, and not turn this thread into just another exchange on whether homosexuality is right or wrong, please.

Sorry Phil.

To go back to the topic, I think those religions that are wrong about homosexuality will survive despite being wrong. Religions have been wrong about plenty of other things and have had no problem surviving. As long as there are people willing to believe holy books over science, religion will survive.

 

[Green Gaia]

If somehow homosexuality is proven to be natural (IMHO, progress is being made daily on this) and compatable to religions (eg, does not in fact bring the wrath of God), then such acts are none of our business.

Well, you know I come at this from this perspective, I cannot comprehend the other.

But, I won't derail Phil's thread anymore.