Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[Arthur Brain]

There's nothing about any causes in the wikipedia article.
You're just speculating.

Well, if it's not natural then why do most people experience such 'during the night' at some points in life dude?

How about you explain it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well that's why I asked why they would seek marriage, if they never intended to have sex.
We're getting into the purpose of marriage, now.

I believe being open to the possibility of children is a necessary part of, and prerequisite to sacramental marriage.

'The purpose of marriage'?

So if a fertile couple opt into such a commitment to each other with no intentions of producing offspring is there something fundamentally immoral about that in your view?

 

[Eeset]

Ok, thank goodness for that but why would the human body be designed for such...nocturnal emissions?

Target practice. Be careful where you aim that thing.

 

[Rusha]

'The purpose of marriage'?

So if a fertile couple opt into such a commitment to each other with no intentions of producing offspring is there something fundamentally immoral about that in your view?

Ah back to the "the purpose of marriage is to bear children ..................."

Except when they, heterosexual couples can't ... or won't. Oh, but THAT's different .... lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

'The purpose of marriage'?

It depends on who you ask. For sexual anarchists like you, annab and Rusha, marriage is to mock and do everything possible to destroy. God-haters do that don't cha know.

 

[kmoney]

Yet we use the word "taste" to refer to all sorts of preferences.
I'm not the only person to ever consider one's "taste" in partners similar to one's "taste" in other areas of life. It's quite a common comparison.


And just for fun...

Yes, people talk about tastes in partners but usually gender is not part of that. Gender is more foundational.

 

[kmoney]

I didn't compare musical taste to sodomy.

I compared musical taste to romantic parter taste.
Not in the sense that one affects the other, but that both tastes are formed gradually over time - mostly through the choices we make, as well as our culture, beliefs, values, and experiences.


A man might have a "taste" for certain romantic partners (ie, blondes, well-educated).
Just as he may have a "taste" for certain musical genres.

How did those tastes develop?
He certainly wasn't "born that way."

Would you truly say that you grew to be attracted to women because of gradual choices you made? If so, what kind of choices?

 

[kmoney]

Yes.

Remember, Selaphiel's claim was that, because homosexuality has survived in the species, it must have been selected for, and serve a useful purpose.

Follow?


But this line of reasoning does not work.
Not all traits that have survived in the species serve a useful purpose.

For example - schizophrenia, depression, pica.

You could apply Selaphiel's claim to all of those conditions as well.
"Schizophrenia still exists in the species, therefore it serves a useful purpose."

Really?

I think it would depend on what causes it, if it's heritable. And perhaps 'useful purpose' can carry only a limited meaning, in that the trait doesn't prevent the individual or community from continuing.

 

[kmoney]

Again - if you had chosen, based on some moral principle, not to expose yourself to that type of music (barring accidental exposure), would you still have developed a taste for it?

Or would your moral choice, have prevented you from developing such a taste?

Would you say that ALL tastes are developed? Your line of reasoning sounds like you would have to say that people would never like anything in the initial experience. Maybe it doesn't start as negative, but at least neutral. That they'd have to make the choice to continue experiencing it in order to develop a positive taste for it. I don't think that's how things work. Some tastes are developed, but I also think there are innate preferences that aren't really chosen or developed.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It depends on who you ask. For sexual anarchists like you, annab and Rusha, marriage is to mock and do everything possible to destroy. God-haters do that don't cha know.

I've as much interest in destroying marriage as I have for reading car maintenance manuals, that is to say none.

Don't cha know.

Berk.

 

[MrDante]

Here Art: From the index on page 1 of my WHMBR! Part 4 thread.

Organizations that help men, women and youth overcome same sex attractions

http://www.narth.com/

http://www.therapeuticchoice.com/

http://www.pfox.org/

http://ex-gaytruth.com/

http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/aboutexoduss4.php

http://www.voices-of-change.org/

http://www.samesexattraction.org/organizations.htm (35)

If I can help just one person overcome his or her sexually confused/immoral lifestyle, I've made quite an accomplishment as a follower of Christ.

It's commendable that you would want to stop the confused and immoral people working in these organizations

 

[glassjester]

If so, what kind of choices?

Probably the choice to emulate the positive marriages of my parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles.

I'd wager that a child decides that, well before he experiences any sexual desires.
How old are kids when they start "playing house?"

If the immediate and extended family has positively modeled true marriage, if the child has been raised to value family, recognize and respect authority, and base his actions on his determinations of right and wrong (as opposed to determining right and wrong, based on his own actions), all by the age of reason (probably age 7 years - adolescence), then by the time sexual desires arise, homosexuality has already been precluded.


Truthfully, if I was brought up to value homosexuality (I'm looking at you, Ancient Greece), I probably would engage in it. A disgusting thought, but can any of us confidently and sincerely claim otherwise?


Could anyone honestly say that every man in Classical-Era Athens had the "bisexual gene?" No way. They were just taught (as children) to value that type of sexual relationship, and to pass that value on to children.

It's not in the DNA. It's in the culture.

 

[glassjester]

'The purpose of marriage'?

So if a fertile couple opt into such a commitment to each other with no intentions of producing offspring is there something fundamentally immoral about that in your view?

Yes.

From the catechism:

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.163

 

[glassjester]

Yes, people talk about tastes in partners but usually gender is not part of that. Gender is more foundational.

Do we not choose our sexual partner?

I cannot agree that a man chooses a woman to love, but does not choose to love a woman.

 

[glassjester]

Well, if it's not natural then why do most people experience such 'during the night' at some points in life dude?

How about you explain it?

Of course it's natural.
As opposed to what? Supernatural?
I was joking about the succubus.

I did explain it earlier.
I will do so again.

A man or woman has an erotic dream.
It's not an actual sexual encounter, however
his or her genitals don't know the difference.
They react accordingly.

Just as a man or woman can have a scary dream.
It's not an actual dangerous encounter, however
his or her sweat glands don't know the difference.
They react accordingly.


If you're going to make the assumption that a man needs to rid himself of excess semen, you'll need at least one piece of scientific evidence. Do you have any?

Simply stating that it happens to lots of people, says absolutely nothing about its cause.

 

[patrick jane]

Of course it's natural.
As opposed to what? Supernatural?
I was joking about the succubus.

I did explain it earlier.
I will do so again.

A man or woman has an erotic dream.
It's not an actual sexual encounter, however
his or her genitals don't know the difference.
They react accordingly.

Just as a man or woman can have a scary dream.
It's not an actual dangerous encounter, however
his or her sweat glands don't know the difference.
They react accordingly.


If you're going to make the assumption that a man needs to rid himself of excess semen, you'll need at least one piece of scientific evidence. Do you have any?

Simply stating that it happens to lots of people, says absolutely nothing about its cause.

I think wet dreams happen when there IS a build up of sperm

 

[glassjester]

I think wet dreams happen when there IS a build up of sperm

Evidence?

 

[patrick jane]

Evidence?

From WebMD - Semen can build up inside your body. One way that semen gets released is with a wet dream.

http://teens.webmd.com/boys/wet-dream-faq

 

[glassjester]

From WebMD - Semen can build up inside your body. One way that semen gets released is with a wet dream.

http://teens.webmd.com/boys/wet-dream-faq

I can't find any sources that even say it's possible for the prostate to have a "build up" of semen. Everything I'm reading says it's produced constantly and gradually, and dead sperm are simply broken down and recycled just like dead blood cells.

 

[glassjester]

Otherwise guys that get vasectomies would be in big trouble, no?