Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[Etritonakin]

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.

According to many verses in the bible, we are to strive AGAINST the NATURAL tendencies we might have to do that which is transgression of the LAW.
It can be said that it is "natural" for us to kill, steal, lie, covet, fornicate, etc., but we are to strive against the tendencies to do so.

God did not set out to make happy and content humans who live a few years and then die, but perfect immortal beings with extreme creative power -willing and able to obey universal law.
That requires our willing participation and choice.

Our "carnal" mind is animalistic -which is sufficient (though often cruel and unpleasant) for life forms which are incapable of understanding higher law or thinking beyond their present situation and form.
However, humans are unique in that their mental capacity far exceeds their present physical ability.
We are capable of incredible feats and dreaming of inhabiting the universe -and even changing our physical nature by self-design.

Even from a scientific perspective, it is clear that we are destined to be more than what we are -and it is also clear that our ambitions require obedience to laws which are not "natural" to us.

In order to work together -to unify in order to accomplish greater things, we must refuse natural tendencies and essentially self-program.
That programming must be based on that which is good for others as well as ourselves -and what will create the best future.

The best imaginable future is living forever in peace, happiness and cooperation.
Otherwise, we focus on more immediate and selfish things -which may make us more comfortable in the short term, but also cause problems and keep us from long term benefits.

IDEALLY and OPTIMALLY, it is most advantageous for a child (the future) to be raised with both male and female parental influences in a committed monogamous relationship -and to be taught law which will allow for the best imaginable future.

Therefore, the tendencies of parents are less important than the well-being of the next generation -and the tendencies of the individual are less important than the well-being of all.

While it is true that -biblically -sexual issues will no longer be issues when we are made immortal, choosing to apply God's law to our present sexuality is in preparation for obeying the law of love forever -and also create the most ideal and optimal situation for all now.

However.... Just as sexual issues will no longer be issues when things change, changes to sexuality can affect how the law is to be applied.
For example... If the law applies to the originally-intended state of distinct males and females -and for whatever reason some are not now distinct males and females, then the individual must be considered in applying the law as possible.

In choosing to apply God's law (should one be of such a mind), it does not matter if one was "born that way" -UNLESS that means one was actually born being both male and female to some degree -and still the law must be applied as possible.

If one tends to be attracted to the SAME sex -AND would keep the law -one must essentially self-program to be happy keeping the law. If one truly has issues with not being one distinct gender, then those specific issues must be considered when self-programming and applying the law as possible.

Attraction can be affected by many factors -and tendencies and attraction regarding gender can be changed by will.

Though it is possible that being not distinctly male or female might also affect tendencies of attraction, it would be one of a great many factors.

In short, we are not simply supposed to be what we are -but actively make ourselves what we should be.

As for homosexuality being a blessing in terms of population... that is not correct -especially from a biblical viewpoint. Biblically, the population of the earth will be decimated by war, famine, disease, etc. -leaving perhaps ten percent to live on as humans to repopulate during the first thousand years of the reign of Christ on Earth. Homosexuality (SAME sex relations) do not have much of an effect on population -and obeying the law is far more important for one's future -as living forever requires God.
Furthermore, once we are immortal, we will be given improved bodies with extreme power -and will have all the room in the universe.

The heavens as well as the earth were "formed" "to be inhabited" -so we will have plenty of "space"

In order to make the universe different than our experience on Earth -a huge horrible mess -we must obey universal law.

 

[Nous]

Of course sexual orientation is variable, but this doesn't preclude detectable, neurological configurations associated with common orientations along the continuum.

So now you are claiming that sexual orientation is changeable and occurs along a continuum? How does that work with the "detectable neurological configurations" that you are referring to?

Are you familiar with the studies referenced in your links above? Did you read the links that you posted above, or the studies referenced in them? Neither of those studies was premised on or concluded that sexual orientation is changeable or exists along a continuum. Right?

 

[sealchan]

Fortunately, the path to understanding is clear. Mechanistic evolution dictates that homosexuals are not meant to propagate and are inferior regarding survival.

Jesus Christ died a horrible death on the cross for homosexuals and heterosexuals, then rose from the dead, proving that as we trust in Him, we receive eternal life.

See! That was an easy, simple distinction. Evolutionists are anti-homosexual by definition, Jesus is pro-homosexual by definition.

Evolution isn't for or against anything but believers in scientific theories or religious dogmas are. in this case we could imagine an atheist who concluded that homosexuality was an abberation that was dangerous to the survivability of a species because it created members of that species who would deplete resources without promising offspring.

However, this would be an extremely short-sighted view. Homosexuality can be seen to have survival value and I think that the article, while not speaking to it directly, suggests it if one understands how a population of a species will tend to wax and wane when it has a limited supply of food at its disposal. For those not familiar with this...as a species consumes readily available food it can support a larger population. As the population grows it eventually reaches a point where the food becomes scarce. This reduces the survivability of the species. The population diminishes. As long as the food supply wasn't annihilated then it will gradually recover until that species can once again grow its numbers. And so on and so on...

How does homosexuality play into this? Specifically the mechanism the article indicates is that if a mother has had a male child then a biochemical situation results which tends to increase the likelihood that the next male child is homosexual. This introduces a "dampening" factor into the growth of the species. If there is a plentiful food supply and the human race can grow its population BUT as each parent finds it is more and more able to produce more children given the food supply, it is less and less likely that parent will produce more male offspring with an interest in mating with a female and producing more children. Each individual mother then has a built in biological dampening mechanism to prevent a too strong positive feedback loop of population growth under the circumstances of a plentiful food supply. A homosexual member of the species, especially if they are able and willing to fulfill the role of a care-giver, is an asset to that species because they are not as willing to voluntarily create children.

This sort of evolutionary mechanism would work for any organism that reproduces through a male and female sexual union. The value is that this species won't grow so quickly that it could potentially completely destroy a food supply and critically destroy the ability of that species and other connected species to exist altogether. This sort of feedback mechanism sounds like something that would have evolved very early in organisms with very short lifespans and very simple, depletable food supplies.

Of course Jesus is pro-homosexual, but many Christians including St. Paul are not.

 

[sealchan]

So now you are claiming that sexual orientation is changeable and occurs along a continuum? How does that work with the "detectable neurological configurations" that you are referring to?

Are you familiar with the studies referenced in your links above? Did you read the links that you posted above, or the studies referenced in them? Neither of those studies was premised on or concluded that sexual orientation is changeable or exists along a continuum. Right?

Its fairly simple and all part of the systemic nature of...well, Nature!

The origin of sexual orientation does not have to be any more binary than does sexual orientation itself. Sexual orientation might change if the biochemical reactions in an individual changes sufficiently. It might change (or appear to change) under duress when a controlling society requires individuals to conform and forcefully administers medical and chemical interventions on non-conforming individuals. Everything that happens in a body happens in a complex, adaptive system of parts working in self-sustaining and mutually influential ways. DNA is only one factor in this equation. The psychological is built on the biochemical which is orchestrated (but not fully controlled) by the DNA. How DNA is "expressed" is controlled by factors sometimes outside the control or influence DNA itself.

 

[sealchan]

According to many verses in the bible, we are to strive AGAINST the NATURAL tendencies we might have to do that which is transgression of the LAW.
It can be said that it is "natural" for us to kill, steal, lie, covet, fornicate, etc., but we are to strive against the tendencies to do so.

God did not set out to make happy and content humans who live a few years and then die, but perfect immortal beings with extreme creative power -willing and able to obey universal law.
That requires our willing participation and choice.

Our "carnal" mind is animalistic -which is sufficient (though often cruel and unpleasant) for life forms which are incapable of understanding higher law or thinking beyond their present situation and form.
However, humans are unique in that their mental capacity far exceeds their present physical ability.
We are capable of incredible feats and dreaming of inhabiting the universe -and even changing our physical nature by self-design.

Even from a scientific perspective, it is clear that we are destined to be more than what we are -and it is also clear that our ambitions require obedience to laws which are not "natural" to us.

In order to work together -to unify in order to accomplish greater things, we must refuse natural tendencies and essentially self-program.
That programming must be based on that which is good for others as well as ourselves -and what will create the best future.

The best imaginable future is living forever in peace, happiness and cooperation.
Otherwise, we focus on more immediate and selfish things -which may make us more comfortable in the short term, but also cause problems and keep us from long term benefits.

IDEALLY and OPTIMALLY, it is most advantageous for a child (the future) to be raised with both male and female parental influences in a committed monogamous relationship -and to be taught law which will allow for the best imaginable future.

Therefore, the tendencies of parents are less important than the well-being of the next generation -and the tendencies of the individual are less important than the well-being of all.

While it is true that -biblically -sexual issues will no longer be issues when we are made immortal, choosing to apply God's law to our present sexuality is in preparation for obeying the law of love forever -and also create the most ideal and optimal situation for all now.

However.... Just as sexual issues will no longer be issues when things change, changes to sexuality can affect how the law is to be applied.
For example... If the law applies to the originally-intended state of distinct males and females -and for whatever reason some are not now distinct males and females, then the individual must be considered in applying the law as possible.

In choosing to apply God's law (should one be of such a mind), it does not matter if one was "born that way" -UNLESS that means one was actually born being both male and female to some degree -and still the law must be applied as possible.

If one tends to be attracted to the SAME sex -AND would keep the law -one must essentially self-program to be happy keeping the law. If one truly has issues with not being one distinct gender, then those specific issues must be considered when self-programming and applying the law as possible.

Attraction can be affected by many factors -and tendencies and attraction regarding gender can be changed by will.

Though it is possible that being not distinctly male or female might also affect tendencies of attraction, it would be one of a great many factors.

In short, we are not simply supposed to be what we are -but actively make ourselves what we should be.

As for homosexuality being a blessing in terms of population... that is not correct -especially from a biblical viewpoint. Biblically, the population of the earth will be decimated by war, famine, disease, etc. -leaving perhaps ten percent to live on as humans to repopulate during the first thousand years of the reign of Christ on Earth. Homosexuality (SAME sex relations) do not have much of an effect on population -and obeying the law is far more important for one's future -as living forever requires God.
Furthermore, once we are immortal, we will be given improved bodies with extreme power -and will have all the room in the universe.

The heavens as well as the earth were "formed" "to be inhabited" -so we will have plenty of "space"

In order to make the universe different than our experience on Earth -a huge horrible mess -we must obey universal law.

The Book of Science says that a child must be born of a male and a female...where in the Bible does it say that a child must be raised by a male and a female?

I think that you are overly restricting what you interpret as God's Law (and not the law of Jews or early Christians made for the communities in which they were living and under the circumstances in which they struggled).

 

[Etritonakin]

The Book of Science says that a child must be born of a male and a female...where in the Bible does it say that a child must be raised by a male and a female?

I think that you are overly restricting what you interpret as God's Law (and not the law of Jews or early Christians made for the communities in which they were living and under the circumstances in which they struggled).

I'm not sure what you mean by "must". I was speaking of ideal and optimal situations -whether scientifically or biblically. The present overall situation causes children to be raised in all sorts of situations. Some situations which are not ideal are not extremely detrimental from a strictly human viewpoint, but being raised by one's own biological mother and father is ideal/optimal. Science and the bible should have no trouble agreeing upon that.

If one wants to please God, one "must" keep sex within a male/female marriage, and also ideally raise one's children in such a situation if and as possible. We can generally decide whether or not to keep sex within such a relationship, but it is not always possible to decide how any particular child will be raised. The world is not as it should be, so the ideal is not always possible.
We are still responsible to keep the law and make the best possible decisions.

Keeping the commandments of men is in vain if one wants to obey God.
We can't simply make up rules ourselves and say that they are the law of God.
The Ten Commandments -upon which all the laws and judgments are based -includes one concerning honor of mother and father -so it is obviously ideal biblically. There are many other scriptures to support this.
Some judgments under the law apply to circumstance, but the law itself applies to any circumstance. Obeying the law changes circumstance for the better.
Allowing circumstance to change the basic law is detrimental.

 

[Nous]

The origin of sexual orientation does not have to be any more binary than does sexual orientation itself.

All of the studies cited here and all of the biological or genetic studies I've seen assume the sexual orientation is binary. And there is only a slight difference between the two groups. E.g., the difference in average fecundity of the maternal aunts of hetero vs. homo was, I think, about 0.5--less than one child. The sample used for these data was representative of humans generally but was a small sample from southern Italy. The offspring data are further confounded by the fact that the birth rate is much lower in modern technological societies than it used to be in agrarian cultures.

As noted above, if sexual orientation is not binary, then the findings of all the studies that assume it's binary are false or unreliable. It would be no different than going to a high school and dividing the colors of all the students' shirts into either "light" or "dark" and finding a correlation with grades (say, students wearing "light" shirts have a GPA that is one-tenth higher than those wearing "dark" shirts). That correlation would disappear if one classified all the different shirt colors into red, yellow, blue, black, white, green, purple, etc.

Sexual orientation might change if the biochemical reactions in an individual changes sufficiently.

There is no evidence for this.

The idea that sexual orientation among humans is an immutable biological or genetic trait is ridiculous. There is no way to salvage the idea. It's refuted by the fact of the various historical cultures where same-sex sexuality was commonly engaged in by most everyone (or most males, at least) and even celebrated.

 

[sealchan]

Where in the Bible does it say that a male and a female should be the parents of a child? Does it say that is the ideal even if one of the parents is dead? Does it say that it is better that a child be parent-less than it is to be raised by relatives or even willing strangers? Is love more important or biology? Is the order of birth more important or inner knowledge and Godliness?

The Bible is all about finding the good in a provisional situation. Difficult choices raise up the need for moral laws but those laws always leave questions unanswered because circumstances are more creative than any book of laws can adequately address.

So does the Bible state that a male and a female should be the parent of a child or is this an ideal that you interpret based on your own personal point of view?

If Godliness and Love can be found in a same sex couple then why can we not recognize this sacred relationship as marriage and support their efforts to raise children who might not have a living or willing or safe parent otherwise? Why focus exclusively on what might seem obvious (but not stated explicitly in the Bible) and not recognize the provisional value of a much larger supply of loving and capable parents? Why this insistence that somehow biological sex orientation of parents is an important factor of a child well raised?

Sounds like homophobia wearing a suit and tie to me. Biblically based homophobia is no better than any other kind of homophobia. I do not believe it to be God's will, only man's belief. Given that men wrote down what other men chose as being inspired by God, then we must all retain our God given sense of compassion and empathy when we read and understand what has been written. Not doing so is abdicating the use of the organs (brain and heart) that God gave us to use.

 

[sealchan]

All of the studies cited here and all of the biological or genetic studies I've seen assume the sexual orientation is binary. And there is only a slight difference between the two groups. E.g., the difference in average fecundity of the maternal aunts of hetero vs. homo was, I think, about 0.5--less than one child. The sample used for these data was representative of humans generally but was a small sample from southern Italy. The offspring data are further confounded by the fact that the birth rate is much lower in modern technological societies than it used to be in agrarian cultures.

As noted above, if sexual orientation is not binary, then the findings of all the studies that assume it's binary are false or unreliable. It would be no different than going to a high school and dividing the colors of all the students' shirts into either "light" or "dark" and finding a correlation with grades (say, students wearing "light" shirts have a GPA that is one-tenth higher than those wearing "dark" shirts). That correlation would disappear if one classified all the different shirt colors into red, yellow, blue, black, white, green, purple, etc.

There is no evidence for this.

The idea that sexual orientation among humans is an immutable biological or genetic trait is ridiculous. There is no way to salvage the idea. It's refuted by the fact of the various historical cultures where same-sex sexuality was commonly engaged in by most everyone (or most males, at least) and even celebrated.

You are using false logic. The studies aren't completely invalidated if one or more of its theoretical assumptions are incorrect. A study is a process of accumulating data and interpreting it with respect to one or more hypotheses. Conclusions drawn from studies are often only partially correct because perfect and complete understanding is never a reasonable goal. That is as erroneous and simple-minded as people who believe that science is wrong if it ever appears to contradict the Bible because they believe the Bible is perfect.

You analogy of the colored shirts is a good one to work with. If the data showed what the hypothesis indicated then it would be "true". But no one who understands the process of science would let that be the end of the matter. The statistical correlation then should be double-checked against other studies which attempt to replicate it. Large sample sizes often give the lie to what seems like a significant finding in a smaller sample size. Also a statistical correlation which does not indicate a causal relationship. So the conclusion of the first study could be valid within the context of a process that is always ready to second guess any rational conclusions it comes to. It may seem true and be a valid conclusion in one study...only to be dismantled by another study. Nothing wrong here.

That tenth difference would need to be demonstrated to be statistically significant as it seems like that is a slight difference and not significant at face value. The study that classified the shirts differently would have to define the relationship between the concepts of light and dark and how that relates to the colors before you could conclude whether that second study invalidates the first. That relationship might be subject to interpretation and also controversy making such comparisons spurious.

If the light-dark hypothesis was shown to be significant in one study then other studies should either verify it or conflict with it. Sometimes this shows up an error in the hypothesis, sometimes it is a fluke in the sample. It always takes a series of studies to approach the truth or to leave one in a quandry, not just one study as you seem to suggest. All of this is par for the course for scientific study and to be expected from any particular study.

So your criticism uses an extreme to try and invalidate something that seems to have a growing history of substantiation without claiming any exclusivity (to my knowledge). Now just remove your binary thinking regarding where homosexuality must come from and you will be in line with scientific reasoning.

 

[Nous]

The studies aren't completely invalidated if one or more of its theoretical assumptions are incorrect.

False. If sexual orientation is not binary, then the findings of all the biological and genetic studies that are premised on the assumption that sexual orientation is binary are unequivocally false or unreliable. Further, I have not seen any study that was premised on or that found a biological or genetic correlation for 3 categories of sexual orientation (hetero-, homo- and bi-).

 

[Valjean]

Fortunately, the path to understanding is clear. Mechanistic evolution dictates that homosexuals are not meant to propagate and are inferior regarding survival.

What ?

! Where'd you come up with this?
The ToE describes many different reproductive strategies. The optimum does not always include each female reproducing. There are many species where only a single female in a group reproduces, with the rest of the group performing various supportive roles.
You need to brush up on your biology, I think.

Some of the biological studies have been referenced above. All of these studies are premised on the idea that sexual orientation is a binary biological or genetic trait.

Hogwash!
Do you really think researchers are so ill informed?

If it were true that sexual orientation is a biological or genetic trait that governs sexual behavior, then all the same-sex sexual activity among non-human animals needs to be explained.

Sexual orientation and libido are multifactorial, influenced by neural anatomy, neural physiology, psychology, sociology, culture, opportunity, &c. No-one researching sexuality is unaware of this.

So now you are claiming that sexual orientation is changeable and occurs along a continuum? How does that work with the "detectable neurological configurations" that you are referring to?

Researchers generally choose subjects self identified as being unambiguously oriented one way or another. Subjects must unambiguously display the trait/s being researched or the study would yield invalid results, if any.
Mixed, outlying or ambiguous subjects just wouldn't be suitable for studies looking for specific, identifiable traits.

...Neither of those studies was premised on or concluded that sexual orientation is changeable or exists along a continuum. Right?

Wrong. If you're looking for specific traits affecting orientation they're likely to be clearest at the ends of the continuum. Mixing in the variation found in the whole population would make it more difficult to identify specific differences. It would be a badly designed study.

 

[Valjean]

An interesting article on the subject:
The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

 

[Etritonakin]

Where in the Bible does it say that a male and a female should be the parents of a child? Does it say that is the ideal even if one of the parents is dead? Does it say that it is better that a child be parent-less than it is to be raised by relatives or even willing strangers? Is love more important or biology? Is the order of birth more important or inner knowledge and Godliness?

The Bible is all about finding the good in a provisional situation. Difficult choices raise up the need for moral laws but those laws always leave questions unanswered because circumstances are more creative than any book of laws can adequately address.

So does the Bible state that a male and a female should be the parent of a child or is this an ideal that you interpret based on your own personal point of view?

If Godliness and Love can be found in a same sex couple then why can we not recognize this sacred relationship as marriage and support their efforts to raise children who might not have a living or willing or safe parent otherwise? Why focus exclusively on what might seem obvious (but not stated explicitly in the Bible) and not recognize the provisional value of a much larger supply of loving and capable parents? Why this insistence that somehow biological sex orientation of parents is an important factor of a child well raised?

Sounds like homophobia wearing a suit and tie to me. Biblically based homophobia is no better than any other kind of homophobia. I do not believe it to be God's will, only man's belief. Given that men wrote down what other men chose as being inspired by God, then we must all retain our God given sense of compassion and empathy when we read and understand what has been written. Not doing so is abdicating the use of the organs (brain and heart) that God gave us to use.

Godliness is based on the will of God. As it is biblically specified (you can do your own research) that same sex couples are not Godly, it cannot be argued that Godliness can be found in that specific situation according to the bible.

If a same sex couple does other Godly things encouraged in the bible, those things are Godly.

While this or that may seem right to a man, it is the actual will of God which will determine our future beyond this life -and sometimes during this life.

Biblically, those who are called to obey the will and law of God in this time -and do so -rather than relying on their own reasoning or will -will have some advantage during this time and after this life. Those who do their own will and rely on their own understanding (which is not of the perspective of God) will not have a part in the "better resurrection" -or the "first resurrection". All others will have an opportunity to live forever later, but obeying the will of God rather than one's own will makes a difference.

It has nothing to do with one's own ideas about homosexuality or homosexuals -and one is to work out their own salvation -not that of others. One should certainly not treat anyone badly, judge another, etc., but apply the law to their own lives.
If any are not convinced they should do so, that is between them and God.

The way I like to think about it is this.... If I were born you (or anyone), I would be you right now. I would be exactly as you are right now -so why should I think you are wrong for being who you are at this point?
All could make better decisions with what they have now, but all will realize more and more which will allow them to understand more and make even better decisions. We do not stay the same.
All will eventually agree on the universal truth, but none see or understand it all right now.

If any do not believe the bible contains the will of God -or misunderstands what it says concerning the will of God, so be it -but if the actual will of God is contrary to one's beliefs, it can be quite problematic -especially if they have some expectation concerning the promises of God in this time -or when they eventually deal directly with God.

Again, biblically, not all are called during this time -only those called "firstfruits" -and others will choose as they do until they are called to choose otherwise.
One cannot sincerely base their decisions on something if they are not convinced of it -and that is part of being called. All will eventually be called.

God knows the situation he allowed us to experience -but he also calls us OUT of it.
He allowed an imperfect situation -but calls us to be PERFECT.
Some decisions may be adequate for getting through this life, but some will keep us from entering the next until we understand to do otherwise.

Though the law of God does make sense, the will to obey God in and of itself is necessary -regardless of the specific issue.
Man cannot maintain order on one planet. Maintaining order throughout the entire universe requires things greater than we presently do.

We are not to make decisions based on our present state, but rather "put on immortality".
Our future state will not involve sexuality, but our decisions concerning sexuality now will show God our desire to obey him in all things.

There are many immediate situations in which breaking the commandments is much easier and even advantageous in the short term -but that short term gain will equate to loss in the long term.

 

[sealchan]

False. If sexual orientation is not binary, then the findings of all the biological and genetic studies that are premised on the assumption that sexual orientation is binary are unequivocally false or unreliable. Further, I have not seen any study that was premised on or that found a biological or genetic correlation for 3 categories of sexual orientation (hetero-, homo- and bi-).

We will have to agree to disagree, I think. I'm glad that I stand on the side of long-term scientific research AND maintain an open-mind about the flexibility of human consciousness.

 

[sealchan]

Godliness is based on the will of God. As it is biblically specified (you can do your own research) that same sex couples are not Godly, it cannot be argued that Godliness can be found in that specific situation according to the bible.

If a same sex couple does other Godly things encouraged in the bible, those things are Godly.

While this or that may seem right to a man, it is the actual will of God which will determine our future beyond this life -and sometimes during this life.

Biblically, those who are called to obey the will and law of God in this time -and do so -rather than relying on their own reasoning or will -will have some advantage during this time and after this life. Those who do their own will and rely on their own understanding (which is not of the perspective of God) will not have a part in the "better resurrection" -or the "first resurrection". All others will have an opportunity to live forever later, but obeying the will of God rather than one's own will makes a difference.

It has nothing to do with one's own ideas about homosexuality or homosexuals -and one is to work out their own salvation -not that of others. One should certainly not treat anyone badly, judge another, etc., but apply the law to their own lives.
If any are not convinced they should do so, that is between them and God.

The way I like to think about it is this.... If I were born you (or anyone), I would be you right now. I would be exactly as you are right now -so why should I think you are wrong for being who you are at this point?
All could make better decisions with what they have now, but all will realize more and more which will allow them to understand more and make even better decisions. We do not stay the same.
All will eventually agree on the universal truth, but none see or understand it all right now.

If any do not believe the bible contains the will of God -or misunderstands what it says concerning the will of God, so be it -but if the actual will of God is contrary to one's beliefs, it can be quite problematic -especially if they have some expectation concerning the promises of God in this time -or when they eventually deal directly with God.

Again, biblically, not all are called during this time -only those called "firstfruits" -and others will choose as they do until they are called to choose otherwise.
One cannot sincerely base their decisions on something if they are not convinced of it -and that is part of being called. All will eventually be called.

God knows the situation he allowed us to experience -but he also calls us OUT of it.
He allowed an imperfect situation -but calls us to be PERFECT.
Some decisions may be adequate for getting through this life, but some will keep us from entering the next until we understand to do otherwise.

Though the law of God does make sense, the will to obey God in and of itself is necessary -regardless of the specific issue.
Man cannot maintain order on one planet. Maintaining order throughout the entire universe requires things greater than we presently do.

We are not to make decisions based on our present state, but rather "put on immortality".
Our future state will not involve sexuality, but our decisions concerning sexuality now will show God our desire to obey him in all things.

There are many immediate situations in which breaking the commandments is much easier and even advantageous in the short term -but that short term gain will equate to loss in the long term.

I appreciate your firm and gentle response. Your Godliness shows through in this.

We will have to agree to disagree. I don't think the Bible is a perfect source of an explanation of God's will. I base this, in part, on my own personal encounter with God which is a topic too involved to include on this thread. In short, my God is a living God and has not changed His mind nor has His mind been fully captured in even the most inspired works of man (aka the Bible). I don't disagree with what the Bible says lightly...in fact it is only because I feel God has called me to help move the understanding of God's Word forward from the aging Bible frozen as it is in time and not permitted to be expanded based on the actual work of God as it has occurred moving forward from the time of the early church.

Thank you again for your respectful opinion. See you out there!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evolution isn't for or against anything but believers in scientific theories or religious dogmas are. in this case we could imagine an atheist who concluded that homosexuality was an abberation that was dangerous to the survivability of a species because it created members of that species who would deplete resources without promising offspring.

However, this would be an extremely short-sighted view. Homosexuality can be seen to have survival value and I think that the article, while not speaking to it directly, suggests it if one understands how a population of a species will tend to wax and wane when it has a limited supply of food at its disposal. For those not familiar with this...as a species consumes readily available food it can support a larger population. As the population grows it eventually reaches a point where the food becomes scarce. This reduces the survivability of the species. The population diminishes. As long as the food supply wasn't annihilated then it will gradually recover until that species can once again grow its numbers. And so on and so on...

How does homosexuality play into this? Specifically the mechanism the article indicates is that if a mother has had a male child then a biochemical situation results which tends to increase the likelihood that the next male child is homosexual. This introduces a "dampening" factor into the growth of the species. If there is a plentiful food supply and the human race can grow its population BUT as each parent finds it is more and more able to produce more children given the food supply, it is less and less likely that parent will produce more male offspring with an interest in mating with a female and producing more children. Each individual mother then has a built in biological dampening mechanism to prevent a too strong positive feedback loop of population growth under the circumstances of a plentiful food supply. A homosexual member of the species, especially if they are able and willing to fulfill the role of a care-giver, is an asset to that species because they are not as willing to voluntarily create children.

This sort of evolutionary mechanism would work for any organism that reproduces through a male and female sexual union. The value is that this species won't grow so quickly that it could potentially completely destroy a food supply and critically destroy the ability of that species and other connected species to exist altogether. This sort of feedback mechanism sounds like something that would have evolved very early in organisms with very short lifespans and very simple, depletable food supplies.

Of course Jesus is pro-homosexual, but many Christians including St. Paul are not.

You have taken a long time to restate that homosexuals neither propagate, nor add to survivability of a species--except to dampen the species and die off, leaving food for the rest!

 

[Nous]

Some of the biological studies have been referenced above. All of these studies are premised on the idea that sexual orientation is a binary biological or genetic trait.

Hogwash!
Do you really think researchers are so ill informed?

Obviously you haven't read any of the studies, including those you linked to blurbs about. Again, all of the biological or genetic studies are premised on the assumption of a sexual orientation binary. No such studies test a hypothesis about 3 or more categories of sexual orientation.

The study on maternal relative female fecundity:

Fecundity of Paternal and Maternal Non-Parental Female Relatives of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men

. . . we analyzed fecundity in 2,100 European female relatives, i.e., aunts and grandmothers, of either homosexual or heterosexual probands who were matched in terms of age, culture and sampling strategy.​

The LaVay study on brain structure:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e177/ef304d4b89cde6e6779568de7a85dabd390f.pdf

Specifically, I hypothesized that INAH 2 or INAH 3 is large in individuals sexually oriented toward women (heterosexual men and homosexual women) and small in individuals sexually oriented toward men (heterosexual women and homosexual men).​

Researchers generally choose subjects self identified as being unambiguously oriented one way or another. Subjects must unambiguously display the trait/s being researched or the study would yield invalid results, if any.

Hogwash! There is no problem whatsoever in testing a hypothesis that entails 3 (or more) categories of sexual orientation.

 

[Nous]

We will have to agree to disagree, I think. I'm glad that I stand on the side of long-term scientific research AND maintain an open-mind about the flexibility of human consciousness.

So, just as the studies assume, you claim that sexual orientation is binary: everyone is either heterosexual or homosexual?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What ?

! Where'd you come up with this?
The ToE describes many different reproductive strategies. The optimum does not always include each female reproducing. There are many species where only a single female in a group reproduces, with the rest of the group performing various supportive roles.
You need to brush up on your biology, I think.
Hogwash!
Do you really think researchers are so ill informed?
Sexual orientation and libido are multifactorial, influenced by neural anatomy, neural physiology, psychology, sociology, culture, opportunity, &c. No-one researching sexuality is unaware of this.
Researchers generally choose subjects self identified as being unambiguously oriented one way or another. Subjects must unambiguously display the trait/s being researched or the study would yield invalid results, if any.
Mixed, outlying or ambiguous subjects just wouldn't be suitable for studies looking for specific, identifiable traits.
Wrong. If you're looking for specific traits affecting orientation they're likely to be clearest at the ends of the continuum. Mixing in the variation found in the whole population would make it more difficult to identify specific differences. It would be a badly designed study.

You sure said a lot of interesting things, without acknowledging that apart from intervention homosexuals don't bear progeny.

 

[sealchan]

You have taken a long time to restate that homosexuals neither propagate, nor add to survivability of a species--except to dampen the species and die off, leaving food for the rest!

You have taken a short time to say that you don't fully appreciate what I am explaining.

Peace.