JaronK

Well, even if we're assuming homosexuality were a recessive trait, it would still be effectively lethal for evolutionary purposes of homosexuals didn't ever reproduce, and would thus disappear eventually unless it provided some benefit (bisexuality may indeed provide significant benefits, and it's possible that the two are linked).

Either way, having 20% of the population not reproduce will not lead to the extinction of the species... in fact I strongly doubt 80% of any species successfully reproduces for a variety of reasons.

JaronK

PhilosopherJay

Hi IamJoseph,

It is fine indeed to find someone who understands the thinking of God so well.
I wonder if this logic regarding homosexuals also applies to this law from Deutoronomy 25:

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

If 20% of the women continue to seize a man's private parts while helping their husbands in a fight, will eventually all women seize the private parts of the men their husbands are fighting in the next generation?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham

Suppose only 1 in 1000 people had children. Suppose further that 99.9% of those chidlren were gay and would not reproduce. Now suppose each person that does have children has 1001 children.

What is the rate of population decline in such a scenario? Hopefuly, you can see that population would still be increasing. It doesn't only matter how many people choose not to reproduce, it also matters how many children people who have children, have on average. I think it's 2.3 in the US, which means every 3 familys with kids could have 1 nonreproducing child among them, and population would not decline.

IamJoseph

Gay is not a moral/ethical issue. Its an existential one, like no other, making it far more precarious than incest. Its not debatable.

JaronK

First you claim it's math. When your math is shot down as being totally wrong, you run away and pretend nothing happened, and give us this existential nonsense.

Homosexuality does not destroy species. It's prevalent in many species around the world, and well documented. While incest can introduce horrific genetic disorders, homosexuality cannot. All it does is reduce the likelyhood of reproduction somewhat for a small fraction of the population (namely, the completely homosexual fraction, since any amount of bisexuality removes the issue entirely).

You're right, it's not up for debate... it's not a threat at all. And we've just given the math to prove that. Face it, a certain percent of the population really is gay, and yet the population is not in decline. The data does not support your assertion at all, in fact it proves the opposite.

JaronK

storytime

The laws against homosexuality among Israelites in those ancient days served the purpose of promoting birth rates, as the Israelites were not a large community of people as compared to the surrounding countries. Higher birth rates increased the production of children for war. And the Israelites were commanded to make war against other countries in order to acquire land. Moses was building an army, who would be called "a terror" to other people.

Keith&Co.

Wrong.
Suicide is a moral ethical issue.
If allowing homosexuality led to an increase in homosexuality and thus, as you claim, destroyed the species, then the moral discussion or the ethical concerns about whether or not the species deserves to be saved would certainly apply, same as the moral/ethical components of suicide, but on a grander scale.
Which makes the tolerance of homosexuality a moral/ethical issue.

Inbreeding among socially or physically isolated breeding pools, like some royals can be shown to allow recessive traits to flourish, especially counter-survival ones like being a 'bleeder.'
Feel free to show anything comparable for successive generations of any homosexual community...

It's certainly not supportable.

semiopen

It may deserve mentioning that the ancients didn't understand the nature of homosexuality.

Therefore, I'm not clear on the reasons for the condemnation of it that we see here.

Someone who is homosexual has no more control over his sexuality than a heterosexual. What point does a condemnation have? Is the person who argues against homosexuality a more moral or righteous person?

People have a requirement to live morally. How would a righteous creator respond to those who torment people because of sexual preference? Perhaps this is covered under the widows and orphans commandments.

JaronK

Maybe, maybe not. Why outlaw man on man sex if those men are also having families and having sex with women? I could see outlawing pure homosexuality, or requiring that men create families, but beyond that, it's hard to say what the motivation was.

JaronK

storytime

I suppose the only other explanation would be that the lawgivers(Moses and Aaron) thought it against nature, the natural order of things. Paul in NT expresses such in his reasoning of same sex couples. But at the beginning of Israel when she was becoming established as "a people" with laws, it was a notion of priority in the future existance[life of Israel] that persuaded Moses to give those laws. And Moses needed lots of little Israelites to train as warriors. Also, maybe Moses thought that one day he could have a large enough Israelite army to attack and conquer Egypt.

The laws were so strict that any who didn't obey were killed "so as to keep evil out of Israel."