• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

sealchan

Well-Known Member
The truth of God and the Universe typically, in my view, lies somewhere in the middle of what science or religion has to say about it. Some Christians would argue that God made men and women different to fulfill the role of biological procreation. Most scientists would agree although many would find God an unnecessary addition to the equation.

However, when it comes to homosexuality where the supposedly God given orientation of sexual interest appears to not fit in with the plan for sex taking place in the context reproduction of the human species and of an exclusive life long partnership of caring and loving and mutual sexual interest not brought on by some other psychological disorder (according to the APA), then some Christians cry foul (sin) and condemn "the behavior".

Unfortunately for those Christians more and more science is demonstrating the nature of God's creation and forcing rational people to change their minds about their understanding of God's Will. I came across an article on CNN which describes the result of a study which further indicates the genetic or congenital nature of homosexuality:

Having older brothers tied to being gay, if you're a guy - CNN

Apparently statistical analyses have pointed to an increased likelihood that men with older brothers would turn out to be gay. Such studies led back to the experience of the mother as the likely cause for the increased chance of a child to have a genetic configuration for homosexuality. In these cases homosexuality cannot be a sin as it is a genetic identity and as such for those of faith, a God given trait of that person.

On the science side of things this brings up a challenge for many who see evolution operating exclusively through the DNA and its random mutations. Here it is the presence of anti-bodies in the mother's blood due to a previous experience of the mother (giving birth to a male) that alters the genetic (or genetic expression) of the next male child in her womb. This shows that the experience of an organism can influence the gene level characteristics of that organisms offspring. This breaks the rule that only random mutation is important but the environmental experience of the parent can also be important to the character of the offspring.

This kind of Lamarckism is often derided by evolutionists but it appears that there are scientific studies which are uncovering some Lamarckian mechanisms for evolutionary development. Perhaps these mechanisms can help reduce some of the speed of species development issues that are evident and that "trouble" evolutionary biologists. Trouble, of course, in the sense of evolutionary biologists love such troubles as they are often a short route to great advances in evolutionary theory and not as some creationists try to pose them as fundamental problems for evolutionary theory.

So between homophobia and strict non-Lamarckism lies the truth about what I would call God's plan for us, that we be diverse (Tower of Babel), fruitful and have dominion over the Earth. Often our punishment is our reward in humanities' pursuit of knowledge, a sentiment shared by many religions with respect to the price and privilege of the advance of human knowledge respecting nature and God's creation. What is sin from one perspective (homosexual marriage) is a blessing from another (the basis for a family without the necessity of adding more people to a rapidly over-populating planet.

God is more subtle than any Biblical interpretation or scientific theory can fully describe, but we can use both in sync to help us have meaning and lead better lives.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Adding God to the equation addresses the spiritual aspect rather than the physical aspect. The gag reflex if you will. The scriptures don't say homosexuality is wrong for any other reason that it being "detestable".
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Adding God to the equation addresses the spiritual aspect rather than the physical aspect. The gag reflex if you will. The scriptures don't say homosexuality is wrong for any other reason that it being "detestable".

Yes and I'm blurring that distinction here in preference to addressing some of the more common rationalizations I have heard from people notwithstanding whether that was good or justifiable Biblical interpretation.

Paul, I believe, in the New Testament definitely comes down against homosexuality but he also was against sex in general. His apocalyptic views didn't pan out either and so Christianity has had to move on from Paul else it would now be extinct altogether.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes and I'm blurring that distinction here in preference to addressing some of the more common rationalizations I have heard from people notwithstanding whether that was good or justifiable Biblical interpretation.

Paul, I believe, in the New Testament definitely comes down against homosexuality but he also was against sex in general. His apocalyptic views didn't pan out either and so Christianity has had to move on from Paul else it would now be extinct altogether.

Who told you Christianity had to move on from Paul?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Who told you Christianity had to move on from Paul?

A lot of things...reason, God, experience...I'm not saying that we should dismiss Paul altogether but some of his teachings are at odds with what has actually happened in God's creation and with what human experience and moral awareness would have us understand among other things. Paul's teachings do not have to be perfect to be spiritually instructive or inspired by God. God has always worked with the less than perfect to communicate His will. Paul is no exception as he himself has eloquently said.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
A lot of things...reason, God, experience...

Paul talked more about the resurrection of the dead than any Apocalypse. Peter is the one who talked about the destruction of the Earth and everything in it. Neither the Apocalypse or the resurrection are in any way discredited. So I really have no idea what you're talking about. Somebody just taught you wrong or you jumped to your own conclusion to conform to the world.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The truth of God and the Universe typically, in my view, lies somewhere in the middle of what science or religion has to say about it. Some Christians would argue that God made men and women different to fulfill the role of biological procreation. Most scientists would agree although many would find God an unnecessary addition to the equation.

However, when it comes to homosexuality where the supposedly God given orientation of sexual interest appears to not fit in with the plan for sex taking place in the context reproduction of the human species and of an exclusive life long partnership of caring and loving and mutual sexual interest not brought on by some other psychological disorder (according to the APA), then some Christians cry foul (sin) and condemn "the behavior".

Unfortunately for those Christians more and more science is demonstrating the nature of God's creation and forcing rational people to change their minds about their understanding of God's Will. I came across an article on CNN which describes the result of a study which further indicates the genetic or congenital nature of homosexuality:

Having older brothers tied to being gay, if you're a guy - CNN

Apparently statistical analyses have pointed to an increased likelihood that men with older brothers would turn out to be gay. Such studies led back to the experience of the mother as the likely cause for the increased chance of a child to have a genetic configuration for homosexuality. In these cases homosexuality cannot be a sin as it is a genetic identity and as such for those of faith, a God given trait of that person.

On the science side of things this brings up a challenge for many who see evolution operating exclusively through the DNA and its random mutations. Here it is the presence of anti-bodies in the mother's blood due to a previous experience of the mother (giving birth to a male) that alters the genetic (or genetic expression) of the next male child in her womb. This shows that the experience of an organism can influence the gene level characteristics of that organisms offspring. This breaks the rule that only random mutation is important but the environmental experience of the parent can also be important to the character of the offspring.

This kind of Lamarckism is often derided by evolutionists but it appears that there are scientific studies which are uncovering some Lamarckian mechanisms for evolutionary development. Perhaps these mechanisms can help reduce some of the speed of species development issues that are evident and that "trouble" evolutionary biologists. Trouble, of course, in the sense of evolutionary biologists love such troubles as they are often a short route to great advances in evolutionary theory and not as some creationists try to pose them as fundamental problems for evolutionary theory.

So between homophobia and strict non-Lamarckism lies the truth about what I would call God's plan for us, that we be diverse (Tower of Babel), fruitful and have dominion over the Earth. Often our punishment is our reward in humanities' pursuit of knowledge, a sentiment shared by many religions with respect to the price and privilege of the advance of human knowledge respecting nature and God's creation. What is sin from one perspective (homosexual marriage) is a blessing from another (the basis for a family without the necessity of adding more people to a rapidly over-populating planet.

God is more subtle than any Biblical interpretation or scientific theory can fully describe, but we can use both in sync to help us have meaning and lead better lives.


You have a strawman version of evolution. And an oversimplified look at what causes homosexuality. There could be many causes. One possible cause is a variation that increases the average number of children that a woman has. Males with that gene are more likely, not guaranteed, to be homosexual. Since one man can take more than one woman (at least sexually) that means a mutation that increases female fecundity but gives a higher percentage of gay men can be a positive mutation when one looks at the net effect.

When analyzing evolution on must look at the effects to a population and not to the effects on an individual. That is why the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia can be a positive mutation. That mutation greatly increases the survivability to the malaria parasite. In areas where malaria is endemic it is a positive mutation because more children die where malaria is a severe problem if no one has that mutation than in populations where that mutation exists. Fewer deaths is clearly a positive trait.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Yes and I'm blurring that distinction here in preference to addressing some of the more common rationalizations I have heard from people notwithstanding whether that was good or justifiable Biblical interpretation.

Paul, I believe, in the New Testament definitely comes down against homosexuality but he also was against sex in general. His apocalyptic views didn't pan out either and so Christianity has had to move on from Paul else it would now be extinct altogether.
Christianity has been moving in the direction you suggest, more so in other English speaking free nations other than US. Church of England for example allows women priests and other churches in Europe that see God as gender nuetral. There is still some contention but there are definitely denominations that are more accepting of homosexual marriage, not as open with allowing as priests. The US could be headed in the direction of a more secular Europe (and Canada for that matter) but a lot of conservatives obviously don't want that.

List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality - Wikipedia
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
The truth of God and the Universe typically, in my view, lies somewhere in the middle of what science or religion has to say about it. Some Christians would argue that God made men and women different to fulfill the role of biological procreation. Most scientists would agree although many would find God an unnecessary addition to the equation.

However, when it comes to homosexuality where the supposedly God given orientation of sexual interest appears to not fit in with the plan for sex taking place in the context reproduction of the human species and of an exclusive life long partnership of caring and loving and mutual sexual interest not brought on by some other psychological disorder (according to the APA), then some Christians cry foul (sin) and condemn "the behavior".

Unfortunately for those Christians more and more science is demonstrating the nature of God's creation and forcing rational people to change their minds about their understanding of God's Will. I came across an article on CNN which describes the result of a study which further indicates the genetic or congenital nature of homosexuality:

Having older brothers tied to being gay, if you're a guy - CNN

Apparently statistical analyses have pointed to an increased likelihood that men with older brothers would turn out to be gay. Such studies led back to the experience of the mother as the likely cause for the increased chance of a child to have a genetic configuration for homosexuality. In these cases homosexuality cannot be a sin as it is a genetic identity and as such for those of faith, a God given trait of that person.

On the science side of things this brings up a challenge for many who see evolution operating exclusively through the DNA and its random mutations. Here it is the presence of anti-bodies in the mother's blood due to a previous experience of the mother (giving birth to a male) that alters the genetic (or genetic expression) of the next male child in her womb. This shows that the experience of an organism can influence the gene level characteristics of that organisms offspring. This breaks the rule that only random mutation is important but the environmental experience of the parent can also be important to the character of the offspring.

This kind of Lamarckism is often derided by evolutionists but it appears that there are scientific studies which are uncovering some Lamarckian mechanisms for evolutionary development. Perhaps these mechanisms can help reduce some of the speed of species development issues that are evident and that "trouble" evolutionary biologists. Trouble, of course, in the sense of evolutionary biologists love such troubles as they are often a short route to great advances in evolutionary theory and not as some creationists try to pose them as fundamental problems for evolutionary theory.

So between homophobia and strict non-Lamarckism lies the truth about what I would call God's plan for us, that we be diverse (Tower of Babel), fruitful and have dominion over the Earth. Often our punishment is our reward in humanities' pursuit of knowledge, a sentiment shared by many religions with respect to the price and privilege of the advance of human knowledge respecting nature and God's creation. What is sin from one perspective (homosexual marriage) is a blessing from another (the basis for a family without the necessity of adding more people to a rapidly over-populating planet.

God is more subtle than any Biblical interpretation or scientific theory can fully describe, but we can use both in sync to help us have meaning and lead better lives.
Just to be clear, are you using out-of-date data from the APA, saying that they consider homosexuality a mental disorder? Because, more than 30 years ago, they corrected that incorrect notion.

Because homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual expression.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The truth of God and the Universe typically, in my view, lies somewhere in the middle of what science or religion has to say about it. Some Christians would argue that God made men and women different to fulfill the role of biological procreation. Most scientists would agree although many would find God an unnecessary addition to the equation.

However, when it comes to homosexuality where the supposedly God given orientation of sexual interest appears to not fit in with the plan for sex taking place in the context reproduction of the human species and of an exclusive life long partnership of caring and loving and mutual sexual interest not brought on by some other psychological disorder (according to the APA), then some Christians cry foul (sin) and condemn "the behavior".

Unfortunately for those Christians more and more science is demonstrating the nature of God's creation and forcing rational people to change their minds about their understanding of God's Will. I came across an article on CNN which describes the result of a study which further indicates the genetic or congenital nature of homosexuality:

Having older brothers tied to being gay, if you're a guy - CNN

Apparently statistical analyses have pointed to an increased likelihood that men with older brothers would turn out to be gay. Such studies led back to the experience of the mother as the likely cause for the increased chance of a child to have a genetic configuration for homosexuality. In these cases homosexuality cannot be a sin as it is a genetic identity and as such for those of faith, a God given trait of that person.

On the science side of things this brings up a challenge for many who see evolution operating exclusively through the DNA and its random mutations. Here it is the presence of anti-bodies in the mother's blood due to a previous experience of the mother (giving birth to a male) that alters the genetic (or genetic expression) of the next male child in her womb. This shows that the experience of an organism can influence the gene level characteristics of that organisms offspring. This breaks the rule that only random mutation is important but the environmental experience of the parent can also be important to the character of the offspring.

This kind of Lamarckism is often derided by evolutionists but it appears that there are scientific studies which are uncovering some Lamarckian mechanisms for evolutionary development. Perhaps these mechanisms can help reduce some of the speed of species development issues that are evident and that "trouble" evolutionary biologists. Trouble, of course, in the sense of evolutionary biologists love such troubles as they are often a short route to great advances in evolutionary theory and not as some creationists try to pose them as fundamental problems for evolutionary theory.

So between homophobia and strict non-Lamarckism lies the truth about what I would call God's plan for us, that we be diverse (Tower of Babel), fruitful and have dominion over the Earth. Often our punishment is our reward in humanities' pursuit of knowledge, a sentiment shared by many religions with respect to the price and privilege of the advance of human knowledge respecting nature and God's creation. What is sin from one perspective (homosexual marriage) is a blessing from another (the basis for a family without the necessity of adding more people to a rapidly over-populating planet.

God is more subtle than any Biblical interpretation or scientific theory can fully describe, but we can use both in sync to help us have meaning and lead better lives.
When one speaks of either a biological or genetic component or cause of "homosexuality," one really needs to define what one means by "homosexuality," since these days we know that there is a great deal of same-sex sexual behavior among non-human animals.

Frankly I doubt that there are many, if any, Kinsey 6s or 0s among humans.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Paul talked more about the resurrection of the dead than any Apocalypse. Peter is the one who talked about the destruction of the Earth and everything in it. Neither the Apocalypse or the resurrection are in any way discredited. So I really have no idea what you're talking about. Somebody just taught you wrong or you jumped to your own conclusion to conform to the world.

Well, Paul taught that marriage is only a means to prevent sin right? Don't get married, don't have sex at all...what would that have done to the Christian community if his followers would have followed his ideal of no sex?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Just to be clear, are you using out-of-date data from the APA, saying that they consider homosexuality a mental disorder? Because, more than 30 years ago, they corrected that incorrect notion.

Because homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual expression.

My apologies...my sentence may have been a bit convoluted...I was thinking of the APA position that came out clearly that there was no association between homosexuality and psychological disorder as they define it.

I take it as a matter of fact that sexual orientation is neither a psychological issue or any kind of moral issue.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
You have a strawman version of evolution. And an oversimplified look at what causes homosexuality. There could be many causes. One possible cause is a variation that increases the average number of children that a woman has. Males with that gene are more likely, not guaranteed, to be homosexual. Since one man can take more than one woman (at least sexually) that means a mutation that increases female fecundity but gives a higher percentage of gay men can be a positive mutation when one looks at the net effect.

When analyzing evolution on must look at the effects to a population and not to the effects on an individual. That is why the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia can be a positive mutation. That mutation greatly increases the survivability to the malaria parasite. In areas where malaria is endemic it is a positive mutation because more children die where malaria is a severe problem if no one has that mutation than in populations where that mutation exists. Fewer deaths is clearly a positive trait.

Hi Subduction Zone (whom I recognize from another forum)

My bone to pick with evolution may be out-dated...back in my college days I had a neurobiology professor who reflected a strict anti-Lamarckian attitude which I didn't have any particular reason to reject. But I had read a book that hinted at possible Lamarckian mechanisms. In the last year or so I have read a couple of articles (in Science News or CNN that point to what I take are legit scientific publications) that suggest some non-random mutation sorts of mechanisms such as the one this article points out. I'm a firm believer that evolution is basically correct but I think that it has some major discoveries ahead of it in the area of how speciation occurs.

As far as the benefit of having homosexual male offspring...i don't doubt that historically a population, perhaps a social population, of mammals might benefit from having an adjustable re-population rate through the frequency of the birth of males would be advantageous. If a population can moderate its growth by capping the occurrence of one of the sexes and its desire to create children then the boom-bust predator-prey cycles can be moderated perhaps.

In the case of humanity we have plenty of children in need of good, safe homes and non-heterosexual couples or families should be seen as a great resource for those children in all ways imaginable including their legal rights to formalize their commitment. As a Christian I regret that the Bible has been an instrument used to argue against this.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
When one speaks of either a biological or genetic component or cause of "homosexuality," one really needs to define what one means by "homosexuality," since these days we know that there is a great deal of same-sex sexual behavior among non-human animals.

Frankly I doubt that there are many, if any, Kinsey 6s or 0s among humans.

I'm not an expert on this matter...but I know that evidence shows that there are biological and apparently even possible genetic differences in homosexual vs heterosexuals. I understand that there can also be a behavioral/psychological dimension. My wide ranging post was more about qualifying attitudes towards homosexuality than it was about defining homosexuality.

I appreciate your qualifications here in case anyone else was unaware of the complexities.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm not an expert on this matter...but I know that evidence shows that there are biological and apparently even possible genetic differences in homosexual vs heterosexuals.
So do you believe that sexual orientation is binary--one is either "homosexual" or "heterosexual"?

If you don't believe that, go back and examine the evidence you are referring to. See if those studies are premised on the assumption that sexual orientation is binary.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hi Subduction Zone (whom I recognize from another forum)

My bone to pick with evolution may be out-dated...back in my college days I had a neurobiology professor who reflected a strict anti-Lamarckian attitude which I didn't have any particular reason to reject. But I had read a book that hinted at possible Lamarckian mechanisms. In the last year or so I have read a couple of articles (in Science News or CNN that point to what I take are legit scientific publications) that suggest some non-random mutation sorts of mechanisms such as the one this article points out. I'm a firm believer that evolution is basically correct but I think that it has some major discoveries ahead of it in the area of how speciation occurs.

As far as the benefit of having homosexual male offspring...i don't doubt that historically a population, perhaps a social population, of mammals might benefit from having an adjustable re-population rate through the frequency of the birth of males would be advantageous. If a population can moderate its growth by capping the occurrence of one of the sexes and its desire to create children then the boom-bust predator-prey cycles can be moderated perhaps.

In the case of humanity we have plenty of children in need of good, safe homes and non-heterosexual couples or families should be seen as a great resource for those children in all ways imaginable including their legal rights to formalize their commitment. As a Christian I regret that the Bible has been an instrument used to argue against this.



I don't think you understood my point about one variation that exists. Females are more prolific that have that mutation. They will have more babies in the usual roughly 50/50 mix. There is no change in the number of males being born. Losing the DNA from a few males is not going to be a loss if women are having more babies.

And there are some other factors in evolution besides mutations. But the problem with Lamarckian views is that there is no mechanism identified yet for passing on traits. Darwin's theory predicted something on the order of DNA and it turns out that he was right. Though epigenetics can play a factor, the basic DNA is still there. But there is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind. I do not see much in the way of evidence for Lamarckism and that is a problem with it.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The truth of God and the Universe typically, in my view, lies somewhere in the middle of what science or religion has to say about it.
Why do you think this? The notion that the truth usually lies somewhere between opposing opinions is facile and, historically, doesn't generally turn out to be the case.
In this case, one side is evidence based and tested, the other isn't even a side, it's a thousand different, untested, folklore-based opinions and legends.
However, when it comes to homosexuality where the supposedly God given orientation of sexual interest appears to not fit in with the plan for sex taking place in the context reproduction of the human species and of an exclusive life long partnership of caring and loving and mutual sexual interest not brought on by some other psychological disorder (according to the APA), then some Christians cry foul (sin) and condemn "the behavior".
Keep in mind, our natural sexual behavior was forged over millions of years living in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Psychological variability enhanced survival and reproductive success. Some individuals were "programed" for hunting, some for planning or tool making, some to accompany foraging women or remain with them in camp for added security. In bands of hunter-gatherers, these variants: ADHD, homosexuality, depression, &c, were beneficial and selective.
Apparently statistical analyses have pointed to an increased likelihood that men with older brothers would turn out to be gay. Such studies led back to the experience of the mother as the likely cause for the increased chance of a child to have a genetic configuration for homosexuality. In these cases homosexuality cannot be a sin as it is a genetic identity and as such for those of faith, a God given trait of that person.
The brother phenomenon has been known for many years. The study in your link is just the latest of many mechanisms known to induce homosexuality, either directly or indirectly.

The "homosexuality is sin" crowd should also be aware that the brains of homosexuals are often physically different from those of heterosexuals. Homosexuals can be identified on CT and fMRI scans. It's not a choice or rebellion against God.
On the science side of things this brings up a challenge for many who see evolution operating exclusively through the DNA and its random mutations. Here it is the presence of anti-bodies in the mother's blood due to a previous experience of the mother (giving birth to a male) that alters the genetic (or genetic expression) of the next male child in her womb. This shows that the experience of an organism can influence the gene level characteristics of that organisms offspring. This breaks the rule that only random mutation is important but the environmental experience of the parent can also be important to the character of the offspring.

This kind of Lamarckism is often derided by evolutionists but it appears that there are scientific studies which are uncovering some Lamarckian mechanisms for evolutionary development.
This isn't Lamarkianism, it's epigenetics. No 'evolutionists' deride it.
We have a lot of unused, "junk" DNA; a lot of programming sequences that are turned off but still functional. We still have genes for gills and tails, in fact, so the existence of sequences that could express homosexuality when turned on should come as no surprise.

So between homophobia and strict non-Lamarckism lies the truth about what I would call God's plan for us, that we be diverse (Tower of Babel), fruitful and have dominion over the Earth.
I think you're trying to fit new facts into a pre-existing world-view, rather than let the facts paint their own picture. Given the facts, why is God or a plan necessary? Where is the evidence for them?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
The "homosexuality is sin" crowd should also be aware that the brains of homosexuals are often physically different from those of heterosexuals. Homosexuals can be identified on CT and fMRI scans. It's not a choice or rebellion against God.
Oh, really? Can they also identify bisexuals, pansexuals (not the same as bisexual), queers (not the same as gay), asexuals, people attracted to trans people, people into BDSM, etc?
 
Top