Is homosexuality a sin?

[BluePriest]

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?

Wait, Im confused...

A flock of sheep with homosexual individuals will often become expendable members to protect said flock. Lets refer to the homosexual sheep as sheep ABCD. E-Z Is the rest of the sheep. ABCD Die protecting the flock. How Noble of them. Now lets say for a second that ABCD were not homosexual. They were heterosexual. Now, They still died protecting the sheep, however, they also left behind Aa Bb Cc and Dd to the rest of the flock. Therefor, theres more sheep. That is better results.
A pair of homosexual penguins will adopt and rear an orphaned chick.[/b] Why couldnt a heterosexual pair do the same [/b]
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. So basically overpopulation? Correct? Theyd still compete for resources, but they wouldnt have offspring, So they wouldnt need as much. So instead of competing for offspring for young, they dont compete quite as much, but still have to compete, and yet, they dont have someone past themselves they are competing for. And btw, doesnt this sorta contradict the penguin argument? So are they adopting them or not?
This list can get pretty long :\

Umm.. isnt that what this is? I dont see ANY sources listed here, I at least took it from a book that I read, and said what the book is.

Give me sources, and then Ill have more evidence. Because it looks like you were the one just saying things to try to prove a point. For fun though, I bolded responses to each thing

[mokasu]

OK, homosexual is not a sin, breaking the law is a sin.

"Most" Guy's Point of View: "i don't care if she likes other chicks, shes hot! "
                                                                         OR
                                            "Damn...your gay? We have to stop hanging out....  "

"Most" Girl's Point of View: "Awww....I never knew you were gay...maybe we should hang out more  "
                                                                                        OR
                                                                            "Ewwwwwwww........... ???"

It depends on who you,and how well u understand the reason of homosexuality. Most people don't choose to be homo...

[BluePriest]

OK, homosexual is not a sin, breaking the law is a sin.

"Most" Guy's Point of View: "i don't care if she likes other chicks, shes hot! "
                                                                         OR
                                            "Damn...your gay? We have to stop hanging out....  "

"Most" Girl's Point of View: "Awww....I never knew you were gay...maybe we should hang out more  "
                                                                                        OR
                                                                            "Ewwwwwwww........... ???"

It depends on who you,and how well u understand the reason of homosexuality. Most people don't choose to be homo...

Ha! That funny. It is true to a certain extent too. Bolded part only.

[johannhowitzer]

Many people who believe homosexuality is wrong don't distinguish between homosexual desires and homosexual behavior.  I believe homosexual behavior (intercourse with a person of the same sex) is wrong, but I believe the desires by themselves do not cause the person to be at fault.  In the same way, a person who has the desire to steal something is not at fault - a person who acts on that desire is.

[Belthus]

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.

The trend is pretty clear. If you broke out atheists and agnostics from the unaffiliated believers, is there any doubt that fewer atheists and agnostics would condemn homosexuality?

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.

You have to look at all three columns. As people get more liberal, they start saying it's not even a moral issue. Conservatives say morally wrong, moderates say morally acceptable, liberals say not a moral issue.

[falconbane]

Double Post 

[falconbane]

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?

Wait, Im confused...

It (replacing your implied "homosexuality" with "religion") just means its one of those things that evolution hasnt dealt with yet.

Clear now?
---------------------------------------


You want recent ones?  Or studies that have been piled up since 2002?   

Kin Selection Hypothesis - Psychological Science, 2010 (most recent one afaik, however, similar research on various species has been done in the past decade)
Gay Sheep Research - Oregon Health & Science University, School of Medicine 2000, 2002, 2004, 2007 as well as affiliated research done elsewhere  (or just ask sheep farmers, they are probably the most unbiased since it is their livelihood and that gay rams are causing them problem)
Do Gay have a Choice? - Scientific American Mind, May, 2009
The Evolution of Sex - Scientific American Mind, 2009 (can't remember if it was March of the Penguin or Planet Earth, one of them has references to the gay penguins rearing orphans.... or end up killing them, also many instances in zoos with gay penguins but it does not count as research in my book)
Bonobo Apes - Don't think I need to reference this, do I?
Transsexuals - Biological Psychiatry 2008 (or was it 2007?)
The Third Gender - Scientific American Mind, 2010 (and documentaries of the same name)
Albatross - Taiaroa Head Royal Albatross Centre (New Zealand)
These are the ones I can remember/have on hand atm, in regards to the selfish gene, please look at the paper written in 1980 on it and then try to follow the subsequent papers and studies.


There's almost talk every year about Gender-related issues in Nature, Proceedings of National Academy of Science, Science, Scientific American Mind, etc...  look it up at your local library (if it isn't censored out of existent by the fanatic crowd).  Read stuff from the International Society for Behavioral Ecology if you can, there's both argument and counterargument for homosexual behaviours.  Attend post-secondary biology classes help too (I don't want to list books due to two reasons - not all places uses the same book + reading different books is good to understand current scientific consensus).  I haven't include references in other languages since I don't have a translator on hand and the language barrier it imposes.  Now, I would like some reputable science paper that proves your claim of "It (Homosexuality) just means its one of those things that evolution hasnt dealt with yet." as well as your various "claims".

[mokasu]

Many people who believe homosexuality is wrong don't distinguish between homosexual desires and homosexual behavior.  I believe homosexual behavior (intercourse with a person of the same sex) is wrong, but I believe the desires by themselves do not cause the person to be at fault.  In the same way, a person who has the desire to steal something is not at fault - a person who acts on that desire is.

How is it wrong? I don't see any problem with being homo.

[Artois]

Many people who believe homosexuality is wrong don't distinguish between homosexual desires and homosexual behavior.  I believe homosexual behavior (intercourse with a person of the same sex) is wrong, but I believe the desires by themselves do not cause the person to be at fault.  In the same way, a person who has the desire to steal something is not at fault - a person who acts on that desire is.

How is it wrong? I don't see any problem with being homo.

I wonder too, how is it wrong?  Further, is it more wrong, to repress those urges, as they may cause a deep problem later in life?

[SeddyRocky]

Repressed/surpressed urges = Baaaad effects later in life... it the person lives long enough without killing oneself. *Freud forever!*

[PuppyChow]

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.

The trend is pretty clear. If you broke out atheists and agnostics from the unaffiliated believers, is there any doubt that fewer atheists and agnostics would condemn homosexuality?

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.

You have to look at all three columns. As people get more liberal, they start saying it's not even a moral issue. Conservatives say morally wrong, moderates say morally acceptable, liberals say not a moral issue.

You can't break out atheists and agnostics from the unaffiliated believers, because there are no atheists or agnostics in that group. All of them believe in God, but are non denominational.


As to not being a moral issue, that seems to me to be kinda like the people that just don't want to get involved. It's like answering "maybe" to a yes or no question. Imo, conservatives say morally wrong, moderates say not a moral issue, and liberals say morally acceptable. The not a moral issue isn't saying "It's so normal it's not a moral issue; it should obviously be accepted." It's saying "I don't care and/or don't want to talk about it." For the record, I would choose "not a moral issue." I believe it's a sin, but because I don't want to judge people, I'm not going to definitively say what they're doing is wrong.

Your trend may be correct, but that chart does not prove it.

[Artois]

As to not being a moral issue, that seems to me to be kinda like the people that just don't want to get involved. It's like answering "maybe" to a yes or no question. Imo, conservatives say morally wrong, moderates say not a moral issue, and liberals say morally acceptable. The not a moral issue isn't saying "It's so normal it's not a moral issue; it should obviously be accepted." It's saying "I don't care and/or don't want to talk about it." For the record, I would choose "not a moral issue." I believe it's a sin, but because I don't want to judge people, I'm not going to definitively say what they're doing is wrong.

Now that is interesting Puppychow:  You believe it is a sin, but would choose not to judge people on the subject.  That opens up another question, as to what is a sin, and whether they have any moral implications?  (I'm not trying to bait you here, but rather debate!)