Is homosexuality a sin?

[falconbane]

Im going to take an atheistic approach for a moment here. Not something I do very often, but still, Im going to do it nonetheless.

As stated in Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, The driving force behind evolution is survival.

Do not claim an atheistic approach or use Richard Dawkins as reference, it's insulting (or painful in ignorance).  Using Richard Dawkins to represent Atheism would be similar to me using John Hagee or Rush Limbarf as a representatives of christianity.


What the Selfish Gene failed to include is that homosexuality is often related to sexual bias as well as shared-gene propagation (ie, hives, packs, etc..), which is a much much larger picture than individual since it involves the entire pedigree (could arguably be lineage as well).  Homosexuality can help preserve a population depending its criteria and social traditions (unfortunately for human, it's lynching, hate crime and whatnot, usually instigated by religions).

A flock of sheep with homosexual individuals will often become expendable members to protect said flock.
A pair of homosexual penguins will adopt and rear an orphaned chick.
Groups of primate with homosexual individuals will have expendable resource for their offsprings as well as a higher rate of survival due to non-breeding members not competing for resources.
This list can get pretty long :\

Turning homosexual is neither a step down or step up the evolutionary chain since it already exists in nature in many quantifiable studies as opposed to any religious claims or someone pulling a statement from the ass.

[BluePriest]

PLEASE NOTE, THAT POST WAS PURELY ARGUMENTATIVE PURPOSES. NOTHING MORE. NOT MY BELIEF, BUT MERELY SPEAKING FROM A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT.

Sorry for the wording of "turning homosexual" I didnt mean it like that. Ill fix that. I actually meant it as being born homosexually. I dont even know why I put down turning.

Personally, I dislike that you say "turning" homosexual as it is hardly something most people would willingly do, as it would put them into one of the most prosecuted, discriminated and hated groups in the world.  Even, so, if the argument is the lack of ability to reproduce, how about:
- Sterile heterosexuals? Should they not be allowed to be?
- Elder people/(other reason) whom have lost fertility?
- Any non-child-bearing sex (basically, using a condom, birth control, oralsex, etc)?

I never said that homosexuals shouldnt be allowed to be. I merely said that by pure evolutionary standards, it isnt something that helps towards the ability of reproduction.

Turning homosexual is neither a step down or step up the evolutionary chain since it already exists in nature in many quantifiable studies as opposed to any religious claims or someone pulling a statement from the ass.

There is no reproduction, and so instead of increasing the reproductive Capability : Lifespan it actually decreases it. Just because it exists already in nature, doesnt mean it is evolutionarily benificial. It just means its one of those things that evolution hasnt dealt with yet.

I also dont agree with evolution btw, however, like I said, this is only for argumentative purposes.

[Belthus]

The word "sin" is religious. So if you want to know whether X is a sin, you have to specify which religion, and most likely which sect/denomination. From a purely descriptive POV, all we have to do is look at the statements put out by various groups. If Southern Baptists say X is a sin, then they consider X to be a sin. And on down the line.

Apart from religion, is homosexuality wrong? Nonreligious people overwhelmingly say no. For example, here is a recent Pew poll (http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Majority-Continues-To-Support-Civil-Unions.aspx) question:



Anti-gay religious people sometimes make secular arguments against homosexuality, but people who are secular generally are not persuaded. When religion as a motivating passion isn't there, the person is unlikely to be anti-gay.

[SeddyRocky]

Thank you for the correction.

"There is no reproduction, and so instead of increasing the reproductive Capability : Lifespan it actually decreases it. Just because it exists already in nature, doesnt mean it is evolutionarily benificial. It just means its one of those things that evolution hasnt dealt with yet. "

Actually, homosexuality (if it should become a larger phenomenon) could very well be one of the things to save the human race from overpopultating. Several species (mainly fish and amphibic ones, as they are the ones with the ability to do so) change sex once their population has reached its peak, to prevent overpopulating an area. Humans, not being able to change sex by ourselves (surgery to do so has not been around for long) just like many higher evovled life forms, have homosexuality. The Earth can, according to studies, support around 5 billion people. Since we are waaay past that mark, homosexuality is not a perfect, but a rather good evolutionary solution. Homosexual individuals do not add to the population, but can take care of children of heterosexuals (thus supporting the population without adding to it, making for a better whole). So while homosexuality would not be profitable to small populations, overgrown ones like ours would benefit greatly from not labeling homosexuality as a sin.

Abouve statement is of course from a non-religious viewpoint. I can understand why homosexuality would be ruled a sin to, for example, the early christians (Adam and Eve would not have gone far without each other... but then again, I guess God could just have used some more dust and ribs....). But in our modern days, I believe that we should not label homosexuality as a sin any more than we should lable most of the (to me) riddiculus prohibitions of the holy books.

[Boingo]

it's a sin according to the bible
now whether you believe the bible is something else

Ok, so it's a sin according to the bible (& probably the Quaran?)
However, are the Holy Books the only decider of what is or isn't a sin?
As BluePriest has stated, that regardless of the bible, it is 'wrong' in his opinion.

The question of what is a sin is a religious one.  As a self-professed atheist, why do you even bother debating it?  If you want to rephrase the question "Is homosexuality wrong?" then it'd open up the discussion to other views.

If homosexuality is such a sin, why ever do so many priests like young men?

Where did you get the notion that priests cannot sin?  Are they not also human?

The vast majority of priests don't practice a purely chaste life.

With that kind of claim, you'd think there would be some sort of evidence to back it up.  Tip to the wise:  any sentence in a debate forum that begins with "The vast majority of..." is usually bullshit.


If you want a good read on the topic, try this book written by a non-Catholic author:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195145976/qid=1018031507/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_67_2/102-6224020-8904105

Some real facts for you since some wildly inaccurate claims are being laid down in this thread, check out this link http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html) or just some of the quotes below:
1. Pedophilia affects roughly 0.3% of the entire Catholic clergy-- a rate comparable to married men.
2. The profiles of child molesters never include normal adults who become erotically attracted to children as a result of abstinence.

[Artois]

it's a sin according to the bible
now whether you believe the bible is something else

Ok, so it's a sin according to the bible (& probably the Quaran?)
However, are the Holy Books the only decider of what is or isn't a sin?
As BluePriest has stated, that regardless of the bible, it is 'wrong' in his opinion.

The question of what is a sin is a religious one.  Thank you, now what exactly is a "sin"?  As a self-professed atheist, why do you even bother debating it?  Funnily enough, to learn stuff!  If you want to rephrase the question "Is homosexuality wrong?" then it'd open up the discussion to other views.  I never thought of that, but it is a good idea, however, as this is the religious forums, I thought 'sin' was an apt word, however you can use wrongness/abomination/perversion or any other word, it would still make an interesting discussion.

If homosexuality is such a sin, why ever do so many priests like young men?

Where did you get the notion that priests cannot sin?  Are they not also human?
Yes they are.  However, there is a strong tradition of paedeophilic tendencies within the clergy.  Do you have any ideas why this occurs, or why it has been  swept under the carpet for so long?

[bojengles77]

I can't believe this topic actually exists. I NEVER understood the religious qualm with homsexuality. I'm strait, conservative and catholic, and i can't stand it when people refer to homosexuality as sin or perverted, or wrong. Just because some book says it, does that make it right? Muslim texts tell Muslims to kill all infidels - and some of them do. Does this mean murder in the name of religion is right? No. Does christianity telling us that homosexuality is immoral make it immoral? No. It's an excuse to exclude those who are different and an outdated idea.

[Boingo]

If homosexuality is such a sin, why ever do so many priests like young men?

Where did you get the notion that priests cannot sin?  Are they not also human?
Yes they are.  However, there is a strong tradition of paedeophilic tendencies within the clergy.  Do you have any ideas why this occurs, or why it has been  swept under the carpet for so long?

I hate to requote myself quoting someone else, but please re-read my previous post or at least read this part:

Pedophilia affects roughly 0.3% of the entire Catholic clergy-- a rate comparable to married men.

So, I reject your assertion that there's some sort of "strong tendency" within the clergy.  It doesn't seem to be any stronger there than anywhere else.  Check out this article (http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-statute-limitations/8921607-1.html) on teachers and child abuse (albeit not always sexual in nature):  There were an average of 500 teachers per year having their credentials revoked for these offenses, yet many go on to teach/coach in other school districts.  And these are just the ones who (a) get reported and (b) get convicted.

You'd be better to rephrase is as "Do you have any ideas why pedophilic tendencies within adult males occurs?"  I don't have an answer for why people engage in pedophilia.

[Artois]

Fair point Boingo.  Does that 0.3% include those that don't act out on their tendancies?

What is the rate of homosexuality amongst the priesthood/clergy?  Is it above or below the average for all males?

[falconbane]

There is no reproduction, and so instead of increasing the reproductive Capability : Lifespan it actually decreases it. Just because it exists already in nature, doesnt mean it is evolutionarily benificial. It just means its one of those things that evolution hasnt dealt with yet.

It already been proven to be beneficial (don't quote stuff if you don't even know what the Selfish Gene entails).  Instead of selectively quoting studies, look at a wide range of them from reputable sources.  Do you know about hive-types (also known as colony type as well as other names) amount bees/ants/wasps/etc...?  Do you know why wolves in isolation doesn't work as well as pack even if they are not alphas?  Do you know why humans have altruistic tendencies?  If not, I recommend you actually read up a bit (not sure about your libraries, but I know quite a few that carries "Nature"), even National Geographic helps :\     

"...no reproduction, and... decreases it."

Gave me a headache on that one, lifespan does not get affected by reproduction.  Survival rate of offspring increased significantly in groups where members are asexual (apparently it qualifies as a "sin" on the same level as homosexuality in some religions) or homosexual.  Why?  Because related members of a group share anywhere from 50%-90% (depending on species, the number can be revised since this is from 2008), even if an individual doesn't reproduce, they will dedicate resources to assist close family member, as this will ensure propagation of his/her gene.   

Your last statement would be just as valid if I replace homosexuality with religion, all is fair with "pulling unverifiable statements from my ass", isn't it? 

[bojengles77]

Boingo, you're using statistics gathered from a Catholic education center... obviously they support the catholic view and image. That statistic is almost guaranteed to be biased.

[PuppyChow]

The word "sin" is religious. So if you want to know whether X is a sin, you have to specify which religion, and most likely which sect/denomination. From a purely descriptive POV, all we have to do is look at the statements put out by various groups. If Southern Baptists say X is a sin, then they consider X to be a sin. And on down the line.

Apart from religion, is homosexuality wrong? Nonreligious people overwhelmingly say no. For example, here is a recent Pew poll (http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Majority-Continues-To-Support-Civil-Unions.aspx) question:



Anti-gay religious people sometimes make secular arguments against homosexuality, but people who are secular generally are not persuaded. When religion as a motivating passion isn't there, the person is unlikely to be anti-gay.

There's a HUGE problem with that table: no where does it say non religious. It says Unaffiliated, but that just means you're non-denominational.

And if you say "Seldom/never" means non religious, you can still be religious but not attend church. And more of them still think it's morally wrong than morally acceptable.

(Oh and yes, homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't mean it can't be forgiven.)

Would I say it's moral or immoral? I would say neither, because I don't judge people, and I would recommend others don't, either.