I imagine people are homosexual for a variety of reasons, but I think the most common is an honest, natural sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex. I admit there are probably a few who can swing both ways, and pick up the lifestyle for a sense of community or something, but I think that’s a definite minority.
I don’t agree with this one: “Clearly, homosexuality, from a christian perspective is abnormal and sin.”
I don’t see it as any worse than praying with a hat on. Homosexuality isn’t in itself harmful to anyone. Therefore, not immoral. Therefore, not sin.
I think the loving thing to do is be non-judgmental of homosexuals as a rule. Like I said before, a small minority may take up the lifestyle by choice, but I think we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That is the loving and rational thing to do, in my humble opinion.
Yeah Dr. Dove, that was a bit of logic based on non-Christian premises in defining sin. For that logic to work you need secular premises – and “sin” secularly is a harmful word so it won’t work out either way.
I’ve settled on a conclusion that there are (generally and somewhat sterotypically speaking) two types of homosexuals and how they come to be, 1-genetically/biologically and/or 2-social/emotional/pyschoglogical.
One thing I have never been able to understand is how the whole thing works emotionally, especially for homosexual men. Do gay men have some mutated sexuality that attracts them to the anatomy of a man, their ass, and so on? Or is the ass just being substituted for the intended organ on a man who sexually feels like a woman? But if it’s the case that gay men are men with female sexuality, what about that makes them want to penetrate anyone?
I can’t wrap my mind around it and am sort of glad.
And oh yeah – evolutionarily speaking, I don’t think homosexuality has to be bad for the species. Indeed, homosexuals won’t reproduce if they follow their urges and so on.
I’ll use the word ‘evolution’ but for the record I don’t think the current theory explains biology enough to allow many things we observe in biology, but it’s a convenient word. A population of humans might have been more competitive with other groups if its weaker males, or if some or all of its weak and average males, were not interested in mating with the women – but still contributed to the group.
Take a dog pack as an example – only the alpha male and female breed. Their might be 20 or more dogs but the other non-alpha 18 stick to caring for the alpha’s puppies and otherwise contributing to the pack. If some hanky-panky occurs that female will likely be exiled or have her puppies eaten. And the sex drive of the males can often be problematic.
So in a group a 20 humans, it might be advantageous if only the smartest and strongest male mated with all the women (since people only have litters of 1) while the other men relieved each other’s desire – and could thus stay focused on protecting and caring for the group.
Of course clean cut evolution could account for this. But it can’t account for a lot of things we are starting to be able to see.
Raging Kitty Design