Is homosexuality a sin?

[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.

That statistic is from a non-Catholic researcher.  You are welcome to provide a different source of reliable data if you like.

As a side note, why did you not call into question other statements such as "the vast majority of...." and "there is a strong tradition of paedophilic tendencies..." that were offered without any basis whatsoever?

It is well-understood that the last chic prejudice in the US is anti-Catholicism.  What I'm coming to understand is that this phenomenon is not restricted to the US.

I'm catholic, i'm conservative, and i'm strait, and I don't think that homosexuality is any kind of issue whatsoever. I'm not trying to undermine catholics in this thread,  i'm trying to call attention to biased information - I didn't read the whole thread, I saw your website, I questioned it, simple as that. To be honest this thread disgusts me I'm trying to stay away but it's interesting to see what people say

[johannhowitzer]

If you want to talk biology, marriage is a natural outgrowth of a woman's desire to have a man who will stick around and take care of the family.  On the male side of things, it is also a natural tendency throughout the ages to declare undying love for a woman, write songs about her, etc. - marriage is just taking that one step further, cementing that promise.

Now, I respect people wanting to save themselves for marriage (it is a very logical and furfilling path, which I see no reason to smudge) but why do you have to state that you have no sympathy for those who demand gratification (ok, demand is not exactly a nice style, but still). Is it not possible to accept others way of life AND be happy with your own?

Setting my beliefs on the issue entirely aside, I think you misunderstood.  When I hear people talk about how so-and-so says having sex outside of marriage is wrong, and they don't like that because they should be able to do whatever they want, that's pretty demanding.  That's what I was talking about.

In fact, when I see someone religious debating someone who isn't religious, usually the non-religious person's beef boils down to "too many rules."  In other words, "I want to do these things, so your religion is inconvenient."  Often the question of whether it's TRUE or FALSE isn't even considered, and that's sad.  People should believe things because they find them to be more likely true than false, not because they permit a desired experience.  I'm almost certainly being a hypocrite, though - it's an ideal, and I'm sure there's not a human alive who achieves it.

[SeddyRocky]

If you want to talk biology, marriage is a natural outgrowth of a woman's desire to have a man who will stick around and take care of the family.  On the male side of things, it is also a natural tendency throughout the ages to declare undying love for a woman, write songs about her, etc. - marriage is just taking that one step further, cementing that promise.

I can agree with the bolded part on an evolutionary side.  But the undying love (or love as a concept at all) and writing songs part probably don't go that far back, seeing as most marriages until modern days have been arrenged by the womans (or mans) parents.

Now, I respect people wanting to save themselves for marriage (it is a very logical and furfilling path, which I see no reason to smudge) but why do you have to state that you have no sympathy for those who demand gratification (ok, demand is not exactly a nice style, but still). Is it not possible to accept others way of life AND be happy with your own?

Setting my beliefs on the issue entirely aside, I think you misunderstood.  When I hear people talk about how so-and-so says having sex outside of marriage is wrong, and they don't like that because they should be able to do whatever they want, that's pretty demanding.  That's what I was talking about.

Ah then I understand. That is one of the reasons for why I do not belong to a religion currently. I cannot stand by all the values that a religion has, and I don't see any reason to make a half-hearted effort. So, although on different sides of the issue, I think we can agree on that point. (Note that the demand for something to be allowed/not allowed is usually what sparked the many denominations in christianity. Unless one is Orthodox Roman Christian, one belongs to a demanding branch of christianity.

In fact, when I see someone religious debating someone who isn't religious, usually the non-religious person's beef boils down to "too many rules."  In other words, "I want to do these things, so your religion is inconvenient."  Often the question of whether it's TRUE or FALSE isn't even considered, and that's sad.  People should believe things because they find them to be more likely true than false, not because they permit a desired experience.  I'm almost certainly being a hypocrite, though - it's an ideal, and I'm sure there's not a human alive who achieves it.

In my opinion, "believing" something simply because it fits your "desired experience" is not really belief at all... Belief is, as you stated, what you believe to be true. Not what you believe to be convenient.

[johannhowitzer]

Ah then I understand. That is one of the reasons for why I do not belong to a religion currently. I cannot stand by all the values that a religion has, and I don't see any reason to make a half-hearted effort. So, although on different sides of the issue, I think we can agree on that point.

That's... remarkably logical.  Respect has been gained in my eyes, sir!  But I'm not sure we're on different sides of the issue - I suppose it depends on which issue you mean.  In discussions of this nature I usually keep my personal beliefs about anything out of the thread, so you're probably assuming something here.  Which side of what do you think I'm on?

[falconbane]

If you want to talk biology, marriage is a natural outgrowth of a woman's desire to have a man who will stick around and take care of the family.  On the male side of things, it is also a natural tendency throughout the ages to declare undying love for a woman, write songs about her, etc. - marriage is just taking that one step further, cementing that promise.

I think this has more to do with culture (traditions, rituals, etc...)  than biology since monogamy and polygamy isn't fixed in the animal kingdom; there are animals that are exclusive to one or the other, or a mix of both.  I see marriage as a ritual to fulfill a societal expectation rather than a biology outgrowth, but that truly depends on which field you are looking at it from. 

[johannhowitzer]

Each animal is true to its own tendency, so your point is moot.  The question isn't if other species show different trends, but what our species shows.

Also, societal expectations are themselves an outgrowth of biology, ultimately.  Jeph Jacques, writer of my favorite webcomic, had sage words to share on a related topic, I will have to see if I can dig them up!  But society isn't something that was thrust upon our biological leanings.  It is a RESULT of them.

[SeddyRocky]

Seeing as I know that I am subjective and not objective, I try to show my opinions fairly clear as not to give a misleading impression.

I believe the issue at hand would be Homosexuality (sin or not?) even though we've gone slightly offtopic. And I am speaking from the viewpoint that it is not, mainly because I believe that if God created all beings, he also created homosexuals. And God doesn't make mistakes. Also I think that the God that created mankind would have everlasting love for all his children, and being with someone of the same sex is not comparable to for example murder or thievery (considered traditional sins).

"Also, societal expectations are themselves an outgrowth of biology, ultimately.  Jeph Jacques, writer of my favorite webcomic, had sage words to share on a related topic, I will have to see if I can dig them up!  But society isn't something that was thrust upon our biological leanings.  It is a RESULT of them."

 johannhowitzer: You do make a very good point there, I feel a bit silly for not thinking of it.

*edit: I have drawn the conclusion that your stance is Homsexuality = sin from your statements, but that could of course be a prejudicial (is that a word? I think you get what I mean) thing of me to do. I apologize if I have acted rashly based on loose connections.

[falconbane]

Each animal is true to its own tendency, so your point is moot.  The question isn't if other species show different trends, but what our species shows.

Also, societal expectations are themselves an outgrowth of biology, ultimately.  Jeph Jacques, writer of my favorite webcomic, had sage words to share on a related topic, I will have to see if I can dig them up!  But society isn't something that was thrust upon our biological leanings.  It is a RESULT of them.

Societal expectations actually falls in the field of sociology.  Otherwise I can just as easily claim that biology is moot since since it's just a outgrowth of chemistry. 

"Our" species shows all of the listed examples. 
AIP have been found to show trends of homosexual tendencies (more research is under way, don't want to cause any flame war with this xD).
Various religions support/supported polygamy (also, insert royalties).
Few religions support monogamy.

I agree that traditions are the results of our biology, but it's a question about the chicken or the egg, did societal expectation create the need for "marriage" after completing the courtship ritual?  Or did marriage was merely come about as the evolution of the tradition of courtship rituals, as an add-on?  We have to remember, rituals/social behaviours are strange things to look at since they are sometime independent (even detrimental) to individual survival (group survivor is another can of worm all together, same type of worm, just a bigger can >.<).  Remember, you were referring to it as a biological "desire" for a woman to want a man to stick around to provide.  Why won't a woman want an individual/group of anyone of any sex around to provide?  Here's where your "biology outgrowth" hit a wall with lesbians or transsexuals.  Gays/Lesbians do want to "marry", but is it a biological function or societal expectation?  Can couples be together without "marriage"? 

Your reference to the declaration of love from men through the ages is very biased since you only ever saw/studied a Patriarch society, it would not (and did not) make sense in a Matriarch society.  Another example of societal expectation I would say 

[johannhowitzer]

*edit: I have drawn the conclusion that your stance is Homsexuality = sin from your statements, but that could of course be a prejudicial (is that a word? I think you get what I mean) thing of me to do. I apologize if I have acted rashly based on loose connections.

I have never used the word "sin" here.  No apology is necessary, most people assume I take one side or another.  I prefer to keep my personal beliefs a mystery in most cases these days - it prevents my logic being viewed through the lenses of my worldview.  Neither side can "claim" me, people have to respond only to my reasoning.    It's proven very effective!

I agree that traditions are the results of our biology, but it's a question about the chicken or the egg, did societal expectation create the need for "marriage" after completing the courtship ritual?  Or did marriage was merely come about as the evolution of the tradition of courtship rituals, as an add-on?  We have to remember, rituals/social behaviours are strange things to look at since they are sometime independent (even detrimental) to individual survival (group survivor is another can of worm all together, same type of worm, just a bigger can >.<).  Remember, you were referring to it as a biological "desire" for a woman to want a man to stick around to provide.  Why won't a woman want an individual/group of anyone of any sex around to provide?  Here's where your "biology outgrowth" hit a wall with lesbians or transsexuals.  Gays/Lesbians do want to "marry", but is it a biological function or societal expectation?  Can couples be together without "marriage"?

I am not sure what you're driving at with this, can you boil it down a little more?  Almost looks like stream-of-consciousness.  Remember that the brain is part of our biology, and it is our larger and more complex brain that is the root cause of the increased complexities and mysteries in our social structure compared to that of any other species.  It's hardly chicken-and-egg, since you can have a species without a social structure (we would all be islands), but not a social structure without a species.  Biology and society have built on one another since then, but we know which came first.

Societal expectations actually falls in the field of sociology.  Otherwise I can just as easily claim that biology is moot since since it's just a outgrowth of chemistry.

By all means claim that, you'll only beat me to the punch!  Biology is applied chemistry, sociology is applied biology, so to speak.  Society is built upon emotional/instinctual urges, which have their root in biology.  Biology, in turn, is built upon a very complex application of the principles of chemical interactions.

You're also mixing my points.  I said the point that other species show different tendencies is moot, since we are talking only about our own species.  I know of no religious doctrine that condemns animals for homosexual relations.

I think this has more to do with culture (traditions, rituals, etc...)  than biology since monogamy and polygamy isn't fixed in the animal kingdom; there are animals that are exclusive to one or the other, or a mix of both.  I see marriage as a ritual to fulfill a societal expectation rather than a biology outgrowth, but that truly depends on which field you are looking at it from.

"Our" species shows all of the listed examples.
AIP have been found to show trends of homosexual tendencies (more research is under way, don't want to cause any flame war with this xD).
Various religions support/supported polygamy (also, insert royalties).
Few religions support monogamy.

(Sure it does, though that doesn't open the door for comparison to other species in the context of this discussion.)

The above two quotes appear to contradict each other - first you say marriage is an outgrowth of culture, not biology, then you turn around and tell me only a few religions (which are very complex cultural structures) hold monogamy as the standard.  Do you mean to say polygamous marriage is what culture has established?  Or that some aspect of culture not religious has established marriage?

Your reference to the declaration of love from men through the ages is very biased since you only ever saw/studied a Patriarch society, it would not (and did not) make sense in a Matriarch society.  Another example of societal expectation I would say

Sure it would.  I doubt having women as the dominant gender would discourage men full of hormones from throwing themselves at women, either physically or emotionally.  Can you give us an example of a matriarchal society in which men do not make advances toward women?

[falconbane]

"I am not sure what you're driving at with this, can you boil it down a little more?  Almost looks like stream-of-consciousness.  Remember that the brain is part of our biology, and it is our larger and more complex brain that is the root cause of the increased complexities and mysteries in our social structure compared to that of any other species.  It's hardly chicken-and-egg, since you can have a species without a social structure (we would all be islands), but not a social structure without a species.  Biology and society have built on one another since then, but we know which came first."

The assumption that other animals' social structure cannot be as complex (or more complex) than human is just that, assumption, research is underway on different animals - unfortunately, not enough has completed to be used.  This assumption is based another assumption that "humans are special".


What I'm trying to say is the leave biology out of sociology, since you don't normally dive into "what subject A ate for breakfast" when someone talk about "A's action to kick that ball".  We agree that traditions are the results of biology, but the ritual called "marriage" is a social behaviour which we can separate from biology (since your argument is based on biological desire).  I'm saying, separate the two since biology no longer matters at "this" level.  But your point keep insisting on biology. 

I think I can understand where you misunderstood my chicken and egg question (since it kinda merge with me wanting to separate the biological and sociological part).  So I will clarify.
did societal expectation create the need for "marriage" after completing the courtship ritual?  (sociological phenomena based on societal pressure)   
Or did marriage was merely come about as the evolution of the tradition of courtship rituals, as an add-on? (sociological phenomena based on "female biological desire")

And there are probably doctrines against about any form of homosexuality (there are enough denominations out there to ensure that , or do what my friend did and go up to a pastor and ask if gay dogs are okay to keep)
Also, the inclusion of animals is mainly because other poster(s) refer to homosexuality as "an act against nature".  Hence inclusion of animal is necessary to debunk this point.  The second quote was to answer directly to "Each animal is true to its own tendency, so your point is moot.  The question isn't if other species show different trends, but what our species shows."  I'm showing the trend from history, monogamy wasn't the majority (not sure if it IS majority).  Further reinforcing the point of "not an act against nature".

I don't see how the two quotes contradict each other, please clarify.  In both case, I'm referring to sociology.  The first quote was to say that marriage should not be only be viewed as biological outgrowth for the sake of this topic (homosexuality), since it's more suited to be view in a cultural perspective.  Second quote is well, I explained that in the previous paragraph.

The now "extinct" Xi-ha (and derivatives) tribe for one, there were others (Caspian regions had a few, along with the complete annihilated kingdom that compose most of India the regions west of it), but not enough recorded history to be usable to support my point.   

[Boingo]

Seeing as I know that I am subjective and not objective, I try to show my opinions fairly clear as not to give a misleading impression.

Well-stated.  We are all subjective to some extent anyway.

I believe the issue at hand would be Homosexuality (sin or not?) even though we've gone slightly offtopic.

Yes, indeed.

And I am speaking from the viewpoint that it is not, mainly because I believe that if God created all beings, he also created homosexuals. And God doesn't make mistakes. Also I think that the God that created mankind would have everlasting love for all his children,
So far this seems to be a reasonable stance

and being with someone of the same sex is not comparable to for example murder or thievery (considered traditional sins).
Please clarify why some things people do are considered sins but not others.  By your own reasoning, if God doesn't make mistakes, and God created murderers, why would we call murder a sin?  In fact, why would we call any action a sin?  Some would point to the concept of freewill, and that God doesn't create sinners rather God allows us the choice to engage in sinful acts or not do so.  In this way, all God's creations are still loved but allowed to make their own choices.

[johannhowitzer]

The assumption that other animals' social structure cannot be as complex (or more complex) than human is just that, assumption, research is underway on different animals - unfortunately, not enough has completed to be used.  This assumption is based another assumption that "humans are special".

Based on brain complexity, we are.  I'm reading a book right now titled "Emotional Intelligence" which starts out by going into neurobiology a bit - one major distinction between humans and animals is a vast difference in the size of the neocortex, the part of the brain that is involved in higher reasoning.  It is the reason we are capable of metacognition, something animals have never exhibited.

Animal societies boil down very quickly to primal needs - sustenance, reproduction, power/authority, survival, etc.  Human society does boil down eventually to those basic needs, but they are often more hidden and covered with layers of psychology.  Animals' desires are very near the surface, being largely unhindered by reason; humans layer things very deep in false motives and logic and ritual.  Example: say you have a dog that loves approval.  If you give it approval, it's immediately going to recognize that and get excited.  I have never heard of a dog suppressing that excitement in order to get MORE approval, whereas humans do this all the time.  A dog would make a terrible poker player, painting notwithstanding.  Among other things, the ability to withhold emotional "tells" is an ability unique to humans that makes our societal interactions more complex and nuanced.

What I'm trying to say is the leave biology out of sociology, since you don't normally dive into "what subject A ate for breakfast" when someone talk about "A's action to kick that ball".  We agree that traditions are the results of biology, but the ritual called "marriage" is a social behaviour which we can separate from biology (since your argument is based on biological desire).  I'm saying, separate the two since biology no longer matters at "this" level.  But your point keep insisting on biology.

I see the problem - you think by biology I mean stuff like hunger, sexual desire, etc.  I did already mention neurobiology before this post, but I guess you missed it... the BRAIN is part of biology.  Your counterexample "A's action to kick that ball" can be boiled down to biological activity in the brain.  Of course it may have societal implications; A may be trying to impress a girl, because society has told him that impressing girls can have a positive effect for him.  This again boils down to a neurobiological trigger in the brain that was created when someone in the past told him this, which in turn owes its origin to that person's brain issuing a neurobiological high-five when impressing a girl worked for him.

Oversimplistic, but to boil down a typical scenario in everyday life completely into its biological origins across history would take a library full of books.  The idea was merely to point out that the origins of marriage as a social construct ultimately CAN be traced back to our biological makeup.  As usual, I think you're trying to make more of it than was there.

And there are probably doctrines against about any form of homosexuality (there are enough denominations out there to ensure that , or do what my friend did and go up to a pastor and ask if gay dogs are okay to keep)

"Probably" is not good enough.  I said "I know of no religion..." which is true, though I am also aware it's possible such a thing exists.  Can you bring me an example?

I don't see how the two quotes contradict each other, please clarify.

I'm sorry, I really can't find a way to make it more obvious.

The now "extinct" Xi-ha (and derivatives) tribe for one, there were others (Caspian regions had a few, along with the complete annihilated kingdom that compose most of India the regions west of it), but not enough recorded history to be usable to support my point.

Nice.