Box Turtle Bulletin

There are also some very hidden, very homophobic assumptions in these arguments– that gay people really don’t care about the rest of humanity, that we don’t care about children, that we are only interested in pleasure, that we are indifferent to family life in the pursuit of pleasure, that we have no parenting instincts, and on and on and on.

There is a concomitant set of assumptions paralleling these: that only hets DO care about humanity, that only hets can and should have children, can care for them properly, and on and on and on.

Personally, I’m not particularly fond of the heterosexual penchant for irresponsible reeproduction. i suspect that if heterosexuality disappeared tomorrow, the human race would continue on, but it would not be subject to 7 billion people on the planet. more children would be wanted, less produced for no other reason that heterosexuals CAN.

John

Gay people represent a small minority of the population. 90 plus percent are heterosexual. These heterosexuals have been reproducing at a rate that has strained the resources of the planet (food, fresh clean water). Add to that the large amount of fossil fuels this huge human population is pumping into our atmosphere, changing the atmosphere and weather which can further endanger the planetary resources.

A few gay people in the population not having kids isn’t the primary threat to this planet. For that matter, flat or falling population rates in some European countries aren’t the primary threat to the species. Our unchecked overpopulation and resource depletion as well as the proliferation of nuclear weapons are a far greater threat to the survival of this species.

In fact, the anti-gay hatemongers should be thanking gay and straight couples that aren’t reproducing for not making the overall situation worse.

Jason D

the argument “if everyone were _____ there’d be no _____.” is overly simplistic, and doesn’t work in most other situations.

For example, if everyone watched football, there’d be no one left to actually play the game. Or keep the rest of our infrastructure, commerce going during those games — therefore NO ONE should watch football.

I don’t know where anyone got the idea that something is only good, useful, morally acceptable if everyone does it.

AJD

The if-everyone-was-gay argument is just a moot point because, obviously, everyone is not gay, and gay people constitute probably no more than 5 percent of the population.

Fred

The argument is surprisingly old. It was as intellectually weak then as it is now.

‘If then merely out of regard to population it were right that paederasts should be burnt alive monks ought to be roasted alive by a slow fire.’ – Jeremy Bentham written in 1785 but not published until 1978.

banshiii

short version.

gay Penguins. I’m sure this is a lifestyle choice.

over population.
the cause of a good many of the earths ills.

Alex

This is a good article, Gabriel. But I would add that while the “homosexuality goes against nature” argument is flawed in several ways, many people use it do not look at the issue in terms of evolution – because they reject evolution altogether. I’m speaking of course about evangelical Christians.

Evangelicals believe that any expression of love and sexuality outside of the “man and woman in marriage” paradigm goes against God’s original design and is therefore unnatural.

I have asked a few evangelicals how this explanation accounts for homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom (btw I love your short version, banshiii), and all they can say is that when Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, every aspect of creation fell with them.

I only bring this up to present another side of the “homosexuality is unnatural” argument, not to propose that it can be logically debated against; it can’t. Someone who genuinely believes the evangelical explanation is not going to be swayed by things like scientific evidence and common sense.

Timothy Kincaid

Gabriel,

One other aspect of this thinking is sort of a gut-level paganism.

Although most who make such an argument probably come from a Christian background, the underlying presumptions are more akin to Mother Earth or Nature Goddess worship. It is the anthropomorphization of the reproduction process and assigning it intention, authority, and power.

Though Christians may not want to admit it, demanding that sexuality be “according to the dictates of Nature” (i.e. heterosexual and reproductive) is little more than the practice of a fertility cult.

Josh

I responded to these types of arguments by telling people that homosexuality does exist in the animal kingdom in respect to sex and pair bonding.

Also studies have shown that there are differences in the brains of heteros and homos in respect to the amygdala, commissure, and hypothalamus and that studies have shown that homosexual sheep have the same differences in their hypothalamus as homosexual people do.

Also traits/genes can be adaptive or non-adaptive (neutral or maladaptive).

Non-adaptive traits can be co-morbid with adaptive traits and can thus be passed on that way.

For example, schizophrenia occurs at about the same rate in every generation even though most schizophrenics are male and don’t reproduce. It is believed that genes/brain development associated with schizophrenia are connected to those that promote creativity.

Of course I am NOT comparing schizophrenia to homosexuality. I’m just trying to tell the fundies that a trait can occur at a stable rate in a population even though most of people who express the trait don’t reproduce.

However, gays can and sometimes do reproduce.

Due to homophobia some gays reproduce and/or get married and have children.

And of course gays can use in-vitro and surrogates to reproduce.

The leading explanation for homosexuality is the hormone disruption theory…

Evey fetus begins in a proto-female state. If the fetus is male then the Y-Chromosome activates the release of androgens to make the brain and gentitals of the fetus masculine. However, brain tissue seems to naturally resist this process so there is a natural variation of men with highly masculine brains to low masculine brains. Conversely with female homosexuality their brains are somewhat masculine.

This is consistent with the twin studies and even the Kinsey continuum.

There was even a study with fruit flies where scientists changed their sexual orientation by modifying genes that regulated brain development.

Laura

Unfortunately using the evolution argument oversimplifies the point. Humans are part of a community and each person plays a role. There have been studies that show when overpopulation occurs in the wild, same-sex mating coupling will increase. The theory is that this keeps the community healthy by reducing stress and helps them to survive as a community. Individuals as well as communities are part of the evolutionary process and the strongest community will survive and increase chances for the individuals within.

Given that we are facing issues with overpopulation and depletion of resources, I would say that not reproducing is a good thing (or at least a slowed rate of population).

And yes, if everyone were gay, there wouldn’t be anyone left. But that just isn’t the case. To the person who is worried about that I would have to ask, “well if everyone were gay, would you then become gay?” As hard as we try to recruit, I don’t think we’re going to see that happen.

Josh

I meant due to natural variation in brain development in the womb there is a continuum of men ranging from very masculine to very effeminate.

And the same with women depending on the regulation of hormones and brain development in the womb.

There definitely seems to be a natural continuum. As a teacher I’ve noticed there are always males of every gradation between very masculine and very feminine and its the same with the females.

Of course natural variation tends to follow the bell or normal curve with fewer people at the extremes and most people in the middle.

Teachers of all people should be able to get this as there are always at least a handful of gay and lesbian students.

Of course gay men can have somewhat feminized brains without being effeminate in body build and mannerisms. Some will, some won’t. Its all a part of the natural variation that exists.

Same for lesbians, some may have a somewhat masculinized brain but may not be “butch” in terms of appearance.

Craig

It is *not* “unnatural” or “counter to evolution” for some members of a species not to reproduce.

There are many “social” species in which not all members of the species reproduce (or even attempt to do so):

ants and bees are the two that most quickly come to mind. Recent reports indicate that in some of these species, “worker” members of the society will even attack other “worker” members who attempt to reproduce.

There are also other “pack animal” species in which very few males ever reproduce, due to being left out of the pack or never becoming the alpha male of the pack.

(and then there are all of those “surplus” FLDS boys with no one to marry…)

Priya Lynn

Gabriel said ” if everyone were a woman, humanity would also end, but that doesnâ€™t make being a woman wrong.”

Oooo, that’s a gem! Can’t wait for an opportunity to use it.

David C.

Evolution, as commonly understood, is an emergent property of the totality of biological systems on this planet and is certainly not beholding to any human tradition.

Animal behavior is unregulated by human moral traditions, and though homosexuality has been observed in many species on earth, science has yet to identify any extinctions that are traceable to homosexuality in the animal kingdom. On the other hand, science has identified many instances where the activity and propagation of man has caused and continues to cause many extinctions.

The unchecked propagation of mankind is the greatest threat to the stability of the overall ecosystem of this planet. Is it so unreasonable to conclude that homosexuality has survival benefit not only with respect to our species, but the rest of those on this planet?

Naturality cannot be used as a reason to deny rights to gay people. Evangelicals try to recruit science in their irrational push to marginalize, demonize, and condemn gay people. That trick will never work, and they might as well admit that it is only belief and superstition that motivates them. These are things that science must have no part of.

Ben in Oakland

“The unchecked propagation of mankind is the greatest threat to the stability of the overall ecosystem of this planet. Is it so unreasonable to conclude that homosexuality has survival benefit not only with respect to our species, but the rest of those on this planet?”

Great argument. so it turns out that homosexuality is adaptive.

Priya Lynn

Further to that David C, its well documented in nature that many species go through a boom/bust phase of reproducing until they outstrip the capacity of the environment to support all individuals and then go through a catastrophic bust as the burgening population depletes food and other resources. This is clearly what is happening with humans and there is no reason to think we’ll be spared a catrastophic bust in population as we continue to reproduce beyond the capacity of the environment to support us.

Ephilei

“if everyone were a woman, humanity would also end, but that doesnâ€™t make being a woman wrong.”

Long live hermaphrodites!

Other things that are not natural:
Deodorant
Farming
Medicine
Electricity
Shoes

Or, if you want to take the biblical approach:
“These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.” (Jude 19)

Stefano A

David C:

Evolution, as commonly understood, is an emergent property of the totality of biological systems on this planet and is certainly not beholding to any human tradition.

Animal behavior is unregulated by human moral traditions….

Indeed!

The anti-gays in their arguments frequently (dare I say “always”) conflate/confuse natural laws for normative laws.

Stefano A

Other things that are not natural:
Deodorant
Farming
Medicine
Electricity
Shoes

Don’t forget “charging interest”.

After all, wasn’t it St. Augustine (or was it Aquinas?) who begain this line of argument by declaring that charging interest was “unnatural” because money doesn’t naturally reproduce.

gordo

More unnatural things:

Epidurals – the daughters of Eve were supposed to bear their children in pain.

Rob Lll

Timothy, your comment above is very interesting and raises a point I had never considered before (and which I suspect has occured to few, if any, religious conservatives).

However, I also think it has to be pointed out that the neo-pagan community is in general FAR more gay-friendly than many Christian denominations. I’ve encountered many homophobic Christians, but I can’t ever remember meeting an anti-gay Wiccan, Goddess worshipper, or whatever.

I’m not saying they don’t exist and understand you weren’t implying otherwise, but I just thought it needed to be said.

David

It always amuses me how the die hard evangelicals, who are so horrified by the teaching of evolution, suddenly and expediently turn into Darwinites when it comes to gays.

grantdale

If this “you don’t contribute to the survival of humanity” accusation is thrown, I nearly always find it best to ask what they think I should be doing INSTEAD of being in a gay relationship.

Because this accusation is primarily a religious one, it was almost invariably be suggested that I instead be celibate.

And then I ask: how does celibacy contribute to the survival of humanity?

The accusation evaporates.

Apart from all that… we’re gay, not infertile. Between us two, UPS and an army of lesbians I’m sure we could populate a significant city if we felt so inclined. Or so thoughtless.

(‘Debating’ evolutionary processes with a bible-literal Christian is about as productive as asking an atheist to ‘debate’ the nature of God.)

grantdale

ps: thanks, once again, Gabriel. Look forward to #4 and #5!

Topher

While some people may be averse to trusting the latest in scientific research, researchers have been probing the very question of why homosexuality – which studies show is at least in part genetic – continues to exist today, when at first glance it would seem that natural selection would weed these genes out.

“Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals”, a November 2008 article published by Zietsch et al. in “Evolution and Human Behavior” discusses how homosexuality may be evolutionarily favored. Essentially, gays tend to have relatives who are more fecund than those who are straight themselves. The crux of the argument is explained in layman’s terms at http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295

Thus, the comments above which question whether to draw moral statements from an evolutionary fact of life are great. But if that doesn’t convince them, the science is also looking to back up the idea that the presence of homosexuality may be an evolutionary advantage, rather than a disadvantage!

David

Just one quibble, that someone touched on lightly: Regarding “If you insist on the fact that gay people can only reproduce with the stuff they have in the cave, then of course humanity would end if everyone were gay. ”

This is simply wrong. Lots of gay men have had sex with women and produced children, lots of lesbians have had sex with men, producing children. In fact, that is exactly what homophobes demand of GLBTQ – live and have sex as if you were straight, or failing that, be celibate and subject to ridicule (an old maid, for example).

If every heterosexual were raptured to Hades tonight, gay men and lesbians, not to mention bisexuals, could certainly repopulate the earth, and some would certainly chose to do so. It would take no special equipment – just the ability to fantasize.

And unlike the sexuality demanded of us by homophobes, such reproduction would at least be consensual rather than coerced.

Though Christians may not want to admit it, demanding that sexuality be â€œaccording to the dictates of Natureâ€ (i.e. heterosexual and reproductive) is little more than the practice of a fertility cult.

I am not familiar with non-Catholic uses of natural law, but this “fertility cult” concept you mention doesn’t apply. As I understand Catholic teaching, the reason why homosexual behavior (not a same-sex orientation itself) is opposed to natural law is that humans are made in the image of God. Sex has a natural purpose, as do both male and female genitalia. To use them in any way outside of hetero sexual relations, the intended or natural purpose, is to mar that image of God within us and misuse what is considered to be a gift from him. Since the main purpose of sex is considered to be reproduction, all acts closed to the possibility of life are to be avoided. IOW, masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, using one’s genitalia with anyone or anything other than what they are primarily intended for during sex is verboten. This gets conveniently forgotten when only hetero sex is discussed, but the traditional definition of sodomy did mean just about everything other than penis-into-vagina sex.

I don’t agree with all of this reasoning but I believe if we are going to respond than it must be with a clear understanding of what they believe and why instead of what is essentially a caricature.

Btw, glad to see that Topher posted a link to the study I had in mind when reading this post.

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/

Oh one more thing: what I stated about Catholic teaching on natural law and sex is also why contraception is verboten in such an understanding.

There is an interesting gay Catholic website called Pharsea that deals with much of this in more detail:

Timothy Kincaid

I think that many – if not most – conservative evangelical Christians do believe in “microevolution”, at least on a simplistic level.

They know that one can inherit traits or features from a parent. And they intuit that if none of a child’s near ancestors or relatives have features resembling the child, then perhaps its time to take a closer look at the milkman. To their way of thinking, if none of a child’s near ancestors or relatives were gay, then they didn’t get this trait by inheritance.

Interestingly, to some extent they may be right. Some studies have shown that homosexuality (at least male) does indeed run in families (on the mother’s side).

But where they get confused is that they insist that homosexuality – unlike, say, a large nose – must be directly linear. They conveniently overlook the “bachelor” uncles who moved to the big city.

Timothy Kincaid

John,

Protestants tend not to turn much to Natural Law. When an evangelical conservative Christian talks about “it’s unnatural”, they are generally not referencing Natural Law.

grantdale

John: thanks for reminding people of (one of) the key differences with the heavily-coded “natural law” in RC use.

Alas, the “all acts closed to the possibility of life are to be avoided” still begs the question: why does the act of lifelong celibacy get a free pass on this measure?

Surely if men and women, and male and female genitalia, are ‘designed’ for a PURPOSE… who the heck is anyone to wilfully refuse to use them for that purpose? Isn’t that just as much a slap in the face for the maker???

(Rhetorical questions people, I know what they say. No need for an answer.)

David

John

The following two sentences of your create a paradox:
I am not familiar with non-Catholic uses of natural law, but this â€œfertility cultâ€ concept you mention doesnâ€™t apply. . . . Since the main purpose of sex is considered to be reproduction, all acts closed to the possibility of life are to be avoided.”

If the first is true, then the second is false, if the second is true, the first is most certainly false, since the second absolutely describes a fertility cult.

Further, historically, the Catholic/Christian concept of “Nature” is directly evolved from the Roman Goddess Nature, and so, yes, all Christian religious claims regarding about what is natural, are idolatry.

Bear in mind that Paul’s remarks regarding ‘unnatural’ – the phrase para physin, was used to describe the way God grafted the gentiles onto the covenant made with Israel, as well as the act of trimming one’s beard, or cutting one’s hair, and then, used to describe long hair on men.

The Scripture actually sends a very mixed message about what is natural, especially if you consider all of the many unnatural miracles – like raising the dead, parting the red sea, turning water into wine.

David

The unnatural-ness of miracles is actually a good direction to take with conservative Christians who make the ‘its unnatural’ claim.

Raising the dead is certainly not natural, so if being unnatural automatically equates to sin, evil, wrong – Jesus sinned by raising Lazarus, and the Christ is sinles, so Jesus could not have been the Christ.

If it was not sin for Jesus to raise Lazarus, then unnatural cannot equate automatically and in all things to sin, since Jesus is an example; that Christians are exhorted to ‘be like Christ’.

I like pointing out to conservative Christians posting the ‘its unnatural’ argument that computers are not natural, nor are the telecomm cables and equipment that enable them to post to the internet. Written language is not natural either. So, if unnatural automatically equates to sin . . .

posting on the internet is just like having gay sex.

PSUdain

Wasn’t there also a study published recently suggesting that male homosexuality and the associated genetics may be a sexually antagonistic trait, one which benefits one sex in the area of reproduction but harms the other? I believe it found that females with a gay brother tended to have more children than those with non-gay brothers.

Don’t have links for you, but I recall reading this a few months ago.

Josh

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n9_v140/ai_11315232

There are a lot of interesting studies on the biological basis of homosexuality…

Homosexuality and the hypothalamus..

Homosexuality and the amygdala…

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Homosexuality and the commissure…

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=49673

Again, homosexual sheep have the same differences in hypothalamus that homosexual humans have…

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

Homosexuality and Twins….

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html

Homosexuality and X-Chromosome…

http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1993/806/1

Homosexuality and Birth Order…

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20060626/birth-order-may-affect-homosexuality

Homosexuality and the Animal Kingdom…

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

http://www.nhm.uio.no/againstnature/index.html

Homosexuality, fruit flies, genetics, and brain hormonesâ€¦.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm

Andrew

According to the records taken by the Census bureau in 2000 (based on same-sex households with children under age 18), there were close to 1,000,000 children living in same-sex households in the United States – and that was before the gayby boom of the past 10 years… Gays and lesbians not only have no problems multiplying when we see fit, we make better parents because our children are the products of choice not the sloppy use of contraceptives. And, more importantly, we spend a lot of time cleaning up after our family- and community-members who have more children than they are fit to raise – we serve as adoptive and surrogate parents, not to mention teachers and mentors. Now that sounds evolutionarily advantageous !!

Fred

In reply to John. The Catholic Church does indeed preach that non-reproductive sex is wrong. However they do not take their beliefs to their logical conclusion that if and when a woman discovers she is not fertile (or isn’t any more) she should refrain from all further sex with her husband. There are an awful lot of Catholic women out there beyond the menopause so this is hardly a rare combination of circumstances that the Church could be forgiven for having overlooked. The only conclusion I can draw is the church does not actually believe what it preaches.

PSUdain. There was indeed a paper published recently which using mathematical modelling examined the theoretical possibility that particular version(s) of particular gene(s) might improve reproductive success in the female but lead to homosexuality in the male (or an increased chance of it). This result was that such version(s) of genes would confer an overall reproductive benefit so long as they occured relatively infrequently in the gene pool. Please see here

Houndentenor

The reason no intelligent person takes on these arguments is that they are not based on logic. No one thinks everyone should be gay. Even if they did, that’s not how it works. A small percentage of people are homosexual. Always were, always will be. It hasn’t hurt our ability to survive as a species in the last million years and in fact we are now at the point where maybe a few more gays might curb the overpopulation problem.

But the problem with arguing with people who say such things is that these aren’t the reasons they are anti-gay. These are rationalizations that they have thought up to convince themselves that they aren’t just hateful assholes. Which they are.

mark m

The other piece is what is called “parental investment”. Since we share some DNA with our siblings, and our entire family to a lesser extent, there is a theoretical evolutionary advantage to a small percent of the population focusing it’s energy and time on it’s sibling’s kids instead of it’s own. Modern day example: since I don’t have children, i am able to help my niece go to a very good school… she has a better chance of survival because I don’t have kids of my own to invest in.

Protestants tend not to turn much to Natural Law. When an evangelical conservative Christian talks about â€œitâ€™s unnaturalâ€, they are generally not referencing Natural Law.

I hear some reference it now and then, but you’re right: mostly they give “the Bible says X and that’s good enough for me!” argument.

Alas, the â€œall acts closed to the possibility of life are to be avoidedâ€ still begs the question: why does the act of lifelong celibacy get a free pass on this measure?

Because celibacy is considered to be freely chosen, an act of self-denial for service to God. Celibacy is considered to be a calling, which that right there is why I have problems with Catholic teaching about homosexuals. All are called to chastity but not all are called to celibacy. The paradox in their teaching is that homosexuals MUST be celibate regardless of whether they are called to this or not. That raises paradoxes IMO with their teaching on celibacy and free will.

If the first is true, then the second is false, if the second is true, the first is most certainly false, since the second absolutely describes a fertility cult.

Um…no, not at all. If one subscribes to the Catholic understanding of this, at least as currently articulated, this has nothing to do with fertility cults and everything to do with using what is considered to be a gift from God properly. As for the rest, I’m not trying to defend the teaching just seeking to have it articulated and responded to correctly. Check out that Pharsea link, I do believe you would enjoy some of what you find there.

If it was not sin for Jesus to raise Lazarus, then unnatural cannot equate automatically and in all things to sin, since Jesus is an example; that Christians are exhorted to â€˜be like Christâ€™.

Interesting argument, but this doesn’t follow IMO. Jesus is believed to have two natures, hypostatically united in One Person. His divine nature is capable of raising Lazarus from the dead, a ‘natural’ thing for him to do, without impacting his human nature.

However they do not take their beliefs to their logical conclusion that if and when a woman discovers she is not fertile (or isnâ€™t any more) she should refrain from all further sex with her husband. There are an awful lot of Catholic women out there beyond the menopause so this is hardly a rare combination of circumstances that the Church could be forgiven for having overlooked. The only conclusion I can draw is the church does not actually believe what it preaches.

I’ve raised examples like these before myself. Mostly what I get is that any sex that takes place still remains open to the possibility of life, even if a miracle is needed for conception to occur.

AdrianT

The website http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html gives a number of interesting hypotheses relating to the evolutionary reasons for homosexuality â€“ including social cohesion.

But there are a number of other points to consider –

First, Humans evolved to enjoy sex (cf. Jared Diamond, â€˜why sex is funâ€™ who theorises that female hominid ancestors evolved to hide menstruation signs, as a survival mechanism.) We donâ€™t do it just to reproduce. From a darwinian perspective, gay sex is no less productive than wearing a condom, choosing to have oral or anal sex, masturbation, choosing not to have sex for instance: the kind of behaviour that everyone engages in about 99.99% of the time. There are other explanations for homosexuality â€“ it appears throughout the animal kingdom â€“ such as increasing fertility.

Second, we have evolved bigger brains, which have the capacity for imagination, allowing human beings to fantasise more than other species. Moreover, our brains have evolved so much (to the horror of our genes I guess), they have the power to override the basic survival instincts. (look at all the leisure pursuits and campaigns we get involved in). We should be thankful we have. Nature is not a beauty contest: it is a bitter fight to the death.

Third: Humans do not survive by just passing on their DNA. Perhaps the most important thing to consider is that, since the first cave paintings 40,000 years ago, and since the evolution of language, the key to manâ€™s survival, is its ability to pass on ideas: what Richard Dawkins calls â€˜Memesâ€™ (see his book â€˜The Selfish Geneâ€™, chapter 11). Similarly, to argue IVF is not natural is also nonsense. The technology is also the product of naturally evolved brains â€“ and thus a direct result of evolution.

People who use evolution as an argument against homosexuality, make false assumptions of the definition of â€˜fittestâ€™, when talking about survival of a species. In the complex society that we have developed, â€˜fittestâ€™ means the propensity for being co-operative (being responsible, caring citizens, contributing to the economy, the advances in science and technology, to the arts, or even just the taxes â€“ mainly nurture!) (It could be also asked, what Darwinian good do churches do? No one lives in them, they cost huge amounts of money, effort and time to build, after all.)

Fourth, (as David C said), consider the negative impact of passing on DNA: Since there are 4 times as many people on the planet than can reasonably be sustained at present consumption levels: it is imperative for the survival of the species, that not everyone should reproduce!

We have to get over literal interpretations of Biblical texts â€“ they are dangerous for our survival; A society that went forth and multiplied would starve, succumb to disease, or resort to world war to fight for scarce resources. Similarly, a society that believed it had â€˜dominionâ€™ over other life forms (actually, viruses have that), would see that as justification to carry on destroying the eco-system.

A beautiful quote on talkorigins.com sums it up: â€˜The acceptance of homosexuality has nothing to do with evolution. It comes from the recognition that homosexuals, like all people, deserve real love, not just lip service about love.â€™

Finally, â€˜What is the purpose ofâ€¦â€™ is a dangerous question when it comes to evolution. Purpose, design are human inventions. We are here because we are here, because we are here. Itâ€™s for us to make the most of our short time, to be amazed at the universe we live in, least of all, interfere in what people do in bedrooms.

That’s my opinion anyhow…. x A

CPT_Doom

Two other items to add to the already incredibly intelligent discussion (have I mentioned this is a great site?):

1. On the “if everybody were gay…” argument – this also implies that gay and lesbian people are trying to recruit straights to become gay. That could only occur if homosexuality were NOT a biological phenomenon distinct from heterosexuality. If you believe in homosexuality as a recessive trait, and therefore rare, it is mathematically impossible for everyone to turn homosexual.

2. The intersex – I stimied a couple of “fundie-lite” relatives with the existence of the intersex. First I got them to agree that all children – even those with genetic “defects” – were part of God’s overall plan. Then I dropped the existence of those people who are not clearly male or female – are they still children of God? Then if God created humanity so that some of us are neither male nor female, then insistence on only male/female pairing cannot be right – it must be a mistake of man (because God cannot make a mistake).

Maurice Lacunza

Dear Box Bulletin Editor:
RE: Gabriel Arana’s article Anti-gay Arguments We Donâ€™t Bother With (And Should): Part 3
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/

“A more pithy response to the if-everyone-were-gay-then-humanity-would-end argument is:
if everyone were a woman, humanity would also end, but that doesnâ€™t make being a woman wrong.”

Your comment above is the perfect one-liner to the argument that if every one were gay, humanity would end. TOP PRAISES TO YOU. And to think that this idea was just batting around in your head unspoken. That is one of the best things I have heard all year! Thank you for getting out of your head and on the page!

I hope that I can enlighten you also with my words and thoughts about DNA. I learned years ago that whenever we see a recurring trait in the gene pool, it must be essential to survival of the species at large. We know that DNA only codes in, or codes out, traits that promote survival of the gene pool. I think that DNA has thousands of backup plans for expressing itself. If the humans don’t make it, the fish will. That leads us to the Italian study on families of gay men. In brief, the study suggested that DNA passes a maternity gene to BOTH sides of the sexes to insure the survival of the reproductive gene, thus, the chances increase for the survival of the species.

DNA does not mess around with something as important as life. Life itself is at stake here, thus DNA has determined to continue coding in gayality (my word) and if not, we would be coded out. It may be that we carry a backup copy of maternity reproductive gene (as you stated, gays will propogate.) What an ironic twist. DNA promotes a trait that on the surface appears non-propogating, but is essential for the survival of the species.

I didn’t make this stuff up Gabriel. I merely am sharing what scientists already know about DNA.

Thanks for taking the time to read my response. I felt it was important to share these thoughts with you in consideration of your series of articles regarding stupid things people think that we never address! The above thoughts on DNA enlightened me when I learned it. I hope it gives a new twist for you too. Good work.

P.S. You were correct when you stated that DNA does not care about the individual. It is completely about survival of the species at large. However, there is collaberative/anecdotal evidence that DNA even passes on individual traits WITHOUT reproduction, to the families, offspring and ultimately the species at large.

Maurice Lacunza

Elise

â€œA more pithy response to the if-everyone-were-gay-then-humanity-would-end argument is:
if everyone were a woman, humanity would also end, but that doesnâ€™t make being a woman wrong.â€

Clever. But for greater effectiveness I recommend re-phrasing this to be about men. Most of the fundies I know make it clear (even if they never go so far as to say it out loud) that they do indeed think there’s something wrong, or at least less than ideal, about being a woman.

Timothy Kincaid

Andrew and mark m,

I’m certainly not an anthropologist, but I’ve always thought that there was a benefit to the tribe to have some male members who were not fighting over the females or in a rush to get back to them and some female members who might be less likely to have their own children and are thus available to raise orphaned kids. One might suppose that the tribes that carried such in their genetic soup would be more likely to survive.

Fred,

The Catholic Church does indeed preach that non-reproductive sex is wrong. However they do not take their beliefs to their logical conclusion that if and when a woman discovers she is not fertile (or isnâ€™t any more) she should refrain from all further sex with her husband. There are an awful lot of Catholic women out there beyond the menopause so this is hardly a rare combination of circumstances that the Church could be forgiven for having overlooked. The only conclusion I can draw is the church does not actually believe what it preaches.

Actually I think they get around that by saying that the act is open to procreation even if the actors are not.

Houndentener,

These are rationalizations that they have thought up to convince themselves that they arenâ€™t just hateful as***les.

Well… partly.

They are also often rationalizations that otherwise decent people use to avoid having to look too closely at what they really believe. Some folks would be quite troubled if they actually thought about it and we all know that humans will contrive just about anything to avoid internal conflict.

Which is why we need to challenge these ideas. Not to say, “you’re evil, you’re hateful”, but to force good folks to see where they just aren’t all that good. Quite often this is life-changing for them; it causes them to challenge other assumptions as well.

But it isn’t easy. Folks don’t want to confront their own comfortable assumptions or change a basic way of thinking.

Jason D

Interestingly, to some extent they may be right. Some studies have shown that homosexuality (at least male) does indeed run in families (on the motherâ€™s side).

I seem to never be around for these family studies. Baldness, like homosexuality, runs in my family, and BOTH traits seem to be coming directly from my father’s side of the family. Very few men on that side of the family have a full head of hair past the age of 20, I do have a couple “Confirmed Bachelor” uncles in the family history, seems to be one in every generation.

David

“this has nothing to do with fertility cults and everything to do with using what is considered to be a gift from God properly. ”

And since the “proper” use of sex is to make babies – it is a fertility cult. The the value of an act is defined by its ability to lead to reproduction, it is about fertility.

“Interesting argument, but this doesnâ€™t follow IMO. Jesus is believed to have two natures, hypostatically united in One Person. His divine nature is capable of raising Lazarus from the dead, a â€˜naturalâ€™ thing for him to do, without impacting his human nature.”

Nice try, but, it is that divinity that Christians are to emulate, and, Jesus is not the only person to have performed miracles. Essentially, your argument is that there is one standard of right and wrong for the Divine, and a different, even contrary standard for humans. That contradicts Christian theology.

“any sex that takes place still remains open to the possibility of life, even if a miracle is needed for conception to occur.”

As I’ve told Catholics online – if I or my same-sex partner got pregnant as a result of our intimacy, we are just as “open to life” as any heterosexual couple, and perhaps, more so than many. Sure, it would be a miracle of two men conceived together, but gay men are not gay just to avoid making babies.

Of course every Catholic who employs the rhythm method, by any name, is not really open to life, and clearly, none of the celibate priesthood is open to life either.

Essentially, the Catholic teaching on sex is focused on reproduction and fertility, and all the convoluted dogma serves only to disguise something that is as much a fertility cult as the other Roman religions Paul criticized.

CPT_Doom

I seem to never be around for these family studies. Baldness, like homosexuality, runs in my family, and BOTH traits seem to be coming directly from my fatherâ€™s side of the family. Very few men on that side of the family have a full head of hair past the age of 20, I do have a couple â€œConfirmed Bachelorâ€ uncles in the family history, seems to be one in every generation.

Just for the record Jason, a tendancy for a trait to move through one side of a family or the other only holds in the aggregate – none of us can say which side of the family gave us most of our own individual traits (although I do look a heck of a lot like my Dad).

As for baldness, it is a myth that it is maternally derived. Men can go bald if they have one baldness gene from either parent, but women must have baldness genes from both parents – male hormones help “turn on” the baldness gene making men more likely to be bald.

Ben in Oakland

“Essentially, your argument is that there is one standard of right and wrong for the Divine, and a different, even contrary standard for humans. That contradicts Christian theology.”

but that is, in fact, what the whole Bible says, especially the OT.

G murders everyone on earth except Noah and friends, and that’s good.

That is why the Gnostics were highly suspicious of G as actually being G. They though the G of earth was a poor second ocusin, or something like that.

Priya Lynn

Well argued David. I especially liked you point that for many gay couples sex is “open to the possibility of life” even if it takes a miracle for conception to occur.

Ben in Oakland

As my friends Tim and Kurt put it:

We stopped using condoms years ago, and decided to leave it in the Good Lord’s hands”

Paul Ginandes

Leaving aside the question of nature, which also includes rattlesnake venom and shark attacks, just two examples of natural things that would totally suck for humans, therefore being natural isn’t always a good thing. this argument is a logical phallacy , known as the “straw man”. It assumes a condition which is incredibly unlikely as a given. As if we would ever live in a world where everyone were gay. That’s absurd and stupid.

Actually I think they get around that by saying that the act is open to procreation even if the actors are not.

Indeed Timothy, which is curious reasoning IMO.

And since the â€œproperâ€ use of sex is to make babies – it is a fertility cult. The the value of an act is defined by its ability to lead to reproduction, it is about fertility.

David, if using what appears to be deliberate buzz words in making your point is the goal you’ve set, then do not be surprised when you receive a negative reaction from those you are attempting to convince to a more tolerant view of homosexuality. “Fertility cult” to the average Christian will strike them as your comparing their faith to those kinds of ancient pagan cults. It also is a mischaracterization of Catholic teaching, despite its flaws in reasoning. Now if offense or denigration is your goal, then you’ll succeed in those but not in changing their attitude.

No, David. I didn’t expect to be discussing Christology on BTB, but no matter. Your comments here have elements of Monophysitism in separating the natures of Christ. A Catholic hearing this would recoil in horror at what would appear to them to be heresy, even if such wasn’t your intent. You are overlooking the fact that Christians are called to emulate the whole Person of Christ, Divine and human, let alone the doctrine of theosis. Look, this isn’t a matter of I’m right and your wrong or vice versa. If the goal here is to reach folks with a highly-developed theological objection to homosexuality, beyond the “Bible says X” approach, the example here you’ve given isn’t going to work and will instead reinforce negative ideas about gays. You have to deal with folks from where they are coming from and their arguments as they exist, not how you’d like them to be. Otherwise you’re wasting your time.

Sure, it would be a miracle of two men conceived together, but gay men are not gay just to avoid making babies.

I’ve used this example myself at times, but I do think that Pharsea does better with tackling natural law arguments en toto.

Of course every Catholic who employs the rhythm method, by any name, is not really open to life, and clearly, none of the celibate priesthood is open to life either.

I’ve used the first myself in discussions about non-abortifacient contraception & Cahtolic teaching, but the latter will not get you anywhere. Part of the reason why is that freely choosing celibacy for service to God has been part of Christianity for 2,000 yrs now, the primary example to Christians being Jesus.

David

“but that is, in fact, what the whole Bible says, especially the OT.

G murders everyone on earth except Noah and friends, and thatâ€™s good.”

No. That is not what the Bible says, that is interpretation, what some people say. The flood story is an interesting inclusion, because its moral is that God made a mistake, which is at odds with the modern concept of an infallible deity.

David

John

I just want to contrast two phrases of yours:
“David, if using what appears to be deliberate buzz words in making your point is the goal youâ€™ve set, ”
and
“Your comments here have elements of Monophysitism ”

I like irony too. However, it did not to actually refute my point.

There is much value, for people interested in a “highly developed” approach to the issue, in examining Catholic theology regarding sex in light of its overall message – which defines the value of sexual intimacy primarily by reproduction. This view reduces the complexity, nuance, meaning and spirituality of human sexual intimacy to the core, basic act alone, the equivalent of tapeworms spawning, deer in rut, salmon swimming upstream. This degrades all humans, gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered and heterosexual. Pointing out that the whole picture of Catholic teaching on sexuality is degrading to everyone, opens a level of dialogue about homosexuality many hets never have – a personalized, walk in our shoes dialogue.

It was kind, I guess, of you to spend more what telling me what to do and what I “really” think, than actually examining what I had provided. It reminded me of the way that homophobes go around telling GLBTQ people what we should do, what our lives are “really” for, what we “really” feel.

Thanks, loads. Really.

David

John

I wouldn’t share any argument that I hadn’t already successfully field-tested. Your results with my suggestions may vary of course, but then, other people’s results with the material at Pharsea may vary from yours.

It takes a variety of approaches, and a variety of counter-arguments for each anti-gay argument, there is no silver bullet that will work on every person who believes ‘homosexuality is sin’.

Ben in Oakland

February 7th, 2009

I think that is what it does say, actually, if not in so many words. We are told continually throughout the OT that G or his agents smite these people or those people, and we are told that G is righteousness, and that his agents enjoy his favor, blah blah blah.

We see Righteousness throughout the OT doing stuff that if the rest of us did it, we would be rightly condemned as immoral, to say the least. I’m not the first pereson to comment on this.

Try googling “Mark Twain” and “pisseth against a wall” and see what you get.

February 7th, 2009

I like irony too. However, it did not to actually refute my point.

I rather think that there is nothing in your mind which you would accept as refutation. Why? Because you refuse to approach this from a mindset that differs from your own, all while ironically seeking to reach the very folks you lob verbal bombs at. How’s that working for you, Dave? We’ve lost in how many states now due to entrenched religious objections? Trying to make it all 50 now, or damn close to it? Your approach certainly will get us there because if you think “sexual immorality” is a problem for these folks, keep up with the ridicule of their faith and suggesting what appears to heresy concerning their most core beliefs about the nature of God and the resistance we’ve seen is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Playing the role of Tom Paine may be fun but without the reason of a Washington, Jefferson or Madison, any revolution (including social ones) are doomed to fall into the mess the French found themselves in a couple of centuries ago. We seem to have a LOT of Paines among gay activists while the more temperant folks are MIA.

Pointing out that the whole picture of Catholic teaching on sexuality is degrading to everyone, opens a level of dialogue about homosexuality many hets never have – a personalized, walk in our shoes dialogue.

Ok, but doing so with poor examples they will find as an attack on their faith in God – which is far more important that any notion of what constitutes “sexual immorality” – is the absolute wrong approach.

It reminded me of the way that homophobes go around telling GLBTQ people what we should do, what our lives are â€œreallyâ€ for, what we â€œreallyâ€ feel.

Cute. Keep preaching to the choir and wondering why we have such difficulties bringing about change.

David C.

February 7th, 2009

We seem to have a LOT of Paines among gay activists while the more temperant folks are MIA.

Well, we’re not entirely missing, John.

I’m not going to speak for your sparring partners above, but I for one have internalized the need to embrace the spirit as well as the letter of what it means to be tolerant. It’s been very hard for gay activists and LGBT people to understand how to approach the faith communities, especially in the face of the strident and often hateful messages coming from Evangelicals in this country and elsewhere, not to mention the apparent recent complacency on the part of the Roman Catholic Church in the murder of homosexuals. It’s hard to blame some of us for conflating the behaviors of believers and their orthodoxy.
~~

Clearly, attacking faith seems only to strengthen that faith. This has been true since before the death of the first martyr. Reasoned arguments framed in secular terms will not penetrate faith, and it should be clear by now that another approach must be taken with believers, such as making the effort to understand the figure and ground of their beliefs, no matter how apparently out of step with modern secular society those beliefs may appear to be. This is why discussions like this one are so critical to the advancement of the gay rights movement.

Catholicism is a highly developed and well articulated structure of principals, and it behooves all of us to take a measured approach when reaching out to its adherents. Throughout John’s remarks has been a thread of exposition of Catholic teaching for the purposes of examining how we might engage Catholics when presenting counter arguments to some standard objections to homosexuality. That’s useful for the purposes of the case I’m making here as well as this discussion.

As John points out, working the buttons of our opponents is likely to produce more vigorous resistance. Taking the time to understand the kind of reasoning and value structures the world views of our opponents depend on can only help us to penetrate and perhaps neutralize or blunt the arguments used against us. That is, after all, the purpose of this discussion.

It is possible to respect the beliefs of others without embracing them, and that respect is essential to counteracting the lies that have been cast in the terminology of, and reasoned with the logic of, those belief systems.

We must unstop our own ears before calling for others to unstop theirs.

Sam

February 8th, 2009

It’s ‘what if’ nonsense. If everybody were gay, humanity would end. But clearly, not everyone *is* gay. It’s a minority for a reason.

Basically, can’t we ever deal with what is, instead of what ought to be? And the problem is ‘what ought to be’ depends on who you’re talking to. It’s much better to let things evolve organically, esp. when one is talking about something so general and abstract as ‘humanity.’ That can’t *possibly* be left in one person’s hands. But humanity is so bizarre and strange and fucked up idealistically that it can’t do that.

Look at how pretty nature is, compared to the cities and towns man creates.

If men are gay, then they are gay, the responsible thing to do is to teach them how to use this power ethically instead of this self-hatred nonsense.