Same sex marriage

[Superfund]

This post is directed to Christians.

Having no in depth knowledge of evolutionary science is not a hindrance in understanding that evolution is a fact and to have a grasp on what goes on in nature, things like predation and survival. And, seeing that Human beings must deal with the libido dominandi(the lust to dominate) which must also be inherited from nature, that and the accompanying mentalities and action is to be found everywhere in society just pick up a news paper. It makes sense to me in an evolutionary way to see all this. So it is fantastic that we have such a better understanding of the natural world and from it I just want to try a bit of deductive reasoning.

In looking into the growing aversion that people are having towards perceived intolerance of 'Christians' towards same sex couples and 'gays' I am going to suggest that it is in fact evolution that sponsored the problem.

To start consider, would it be true in a purely naturalistic sense that in pre civilization times, a stretch of about 100 000 years homosexuality was not tolerated by early humans?(pre-civs.) It seems to me pre-civs could not tolerate homosexuality for sound naturalistic reasons. It goes like this, for example; Pre-civs by in large lived in small isolated communities. If the worlds population was less than 2% around the time of Jesus how much smaller was it pre civilization? If such a community suffered some disaster a raid by another tribe or some other natural disaster and a significant number of their woman perished that was it for the whole shebang.. They can't keep their numbers up and the community dies. So then is it such a stretch to realize that in evolutionary terms pre civs could not tolerate homosexuality for similar reasons? Because if they can't keep their numbers up .. They die. Small isolated communities perhaps often on the move had to take whatever measures necessary to survive and reproduce.

So if you accept that as a fact is it also not such a stretch to see how and also why then the intolerance of homosexuality has persisted from pre-civ's into civilization? It makes a certain sense in a purely naturalistic framework and "homophobia" can then be understood in a properly basic way even if it makes no moral sense.

So then why has society become tolerant, now, to the point of allowing same sex marriage? What is the source of it? 100,000 years and beyond of conditioning is no easy thing to change in such a short time. Relative to the rest of history and keeping evolutionary theory in mind a VERY short time. So then what evolutionary advantage is there in homosexuality? I can think of the overpopulation of society perhaps? But I can't think of anything else on naturalism. One might also say well because we know now because science has shown homosexuality in nature However the 'gay animal' theory is flawed. Sheep are apparently the only consistent evidence for it and every other animal studied may have same sex going on but its not consistent. A group of animals is observed and there is same sex activity, then the same type of animals in a different group are observed and there is none at all, or the animals engaging in same sex are also reproducing. There is far more evidence of bisexuality in animals than purely same sex animals. Like with humans the purely same sex instance of animals is very very low and sporadic, there are probably far more potentially bisexual humans than same sex ones. The point is though does either of these reasons have anything like the momentum to sponsor change we are seeing after 100 000's of years of conditioning? I don't see how.

Now if you are an atheist you may be perfectly happy with a naturalistic /secular humanist view on this issue that's fine I'm not trying to start an argument here. (Although I can't see how any kind of secular humanism has anything like the momentum.)What is curious for me however is how some Christians stumble over this. In Jesus's time when intolerance of homosexuality was just a given it is astonishing that the gospel specifically makes no condemnation of it. And there are scriptures (in the new testament) that while not directly affirming or condemning homosexuality they can be understood to encompass it. For example Mat 19:12 - "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Now this is a simple matter of associating being a eunuch to reproduction. If you are going to miss the Joy of having a family and children if you can accept it do so. Given the omission of condemnation for homosexuality in the gospel why couldn't that be interpreted positively for gays? It is really quite a simple matter of having a heart. Also Mat 18:6 - "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Same sex people become aware from a very early age, and if that child is interfered with it causes that child and then that adult significant suffering and distress. How is not morally wrong then to tell a child that their natural affection and expression is wrong? Because they don't appear to conform? Conform to what? The natural order sponsored psychological conditioning? Again Mat 19:14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Similarly this must be inclusive of same sex oriented children and adults how can it not.?

Christ's radical revolution against the cruelty of the natural order is just undeniable it does not matter if you believe in God or not, in evolutionary terms the historical Jesus sponsored a radical mutation of the mind over the natural order. That revolution must also include the natural order intolerance of homosexuality that comes from 100 000 years of pre civilization evolution. To say that Christ's radical revolution of love does not extend to certain people is just absurd for it undermines the whole thing. It behoves Christians to know what it is that Christ has done, We are talking about the very foundation of science and the very backbone of free western secular society.

So It is completely in line with the gospel that gays have the same dignity against the natural order as everyone else. The same as woman. Pre civilization evolution tells us that woman are to be treated like chattel, prize possessions but it is the same revolution of love that sponsors the dignity of a human being... "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.." So there are scriptures in the gospel that Do support gays and also in the apocrypha. In The gospel of Thomas, Jesus says this, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." So it is better that homosexuals 'come out' because they are not just coming out as gays but as human beings.

So Christians please consider that Jesus anger and harshest words were reserved for bigoted religious people, ask yourself this are you loyal to Jesus? or the Pharisee? (Side note Jesus was condemned by religious leaders, thousands of Jews loved Jesus.) Just like the US president set an example with the words I am evolving on this issue.. Christians are not above evolution Christians are about radical evolution/ revolution which is Christs example. So in that the Christian is allowed to hate. It is the sincere and unrestrained hatred of suffering and death. How can we say all well and good but except for 'gays,' it is antithetical to the gospel. Haven't they suffered enough?

John 10:10 "The thief enters only to steal, kill, and destroy. I came so that they could have life—indeed, so that they could live life to the fullest."

[Metacrock]

amen. I don't buy that it destroys marriage. I don't buy that God doesn't love them. we have to show agope to all.

[QuantumTroll]

To start consider, would it be true in a purely naturalistic sense that in pre civilization times, a stretch of about 100 000 years homosexuality was not tolerated by early humans?(pre-civs.) It seems to me pre-civs could not tolerate homosexuality for sound naturalistic reasons. It goes like this, for example; Pre-civs by in large lived in small isolated communities. If the worlds population was less than 2% around the time of Jesus how much smaller was it pre civilization? If such a community suffered some disaster a raid by another tribe or some other natural disaster and a significant number of their woman perished that was it for the whole shebang.. They can't keep their numbers up and the community dies. So then is it such a stretch to realize that in evolutionary terms pre civs could not tolerate homosexuality for similar reasons? Because if they can't keep their numbers up .. They die. Small isolated communities perhaps often on the move had to take whatever measures necessary to survive and reproduce.

While I applaud the sentiment in your post, I don't agree with you on this premise. The breeding rate of a prehistoric human tribe (like any animal) is limited primarily by the number of females getting pregnant. Male homosexuality doesn't factor into this number at all. Neither does female homosexuality in cases of intertribal warfare that includes rape (which has been so commonplace that its effects are seen in the genetic make-up of countries such as Iceland). Moreover, if your premise holds then there would likely be taboos against celibacy as well, but there's not. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to support your claim that prehistoric tribes developed taboos against homosexuality as a result of (cultural) selective pressure.

But oh well. I agree with the main thrust of your post, in fact I think that Jesus would gladly have participated in a gay pride parade, because what was he about if not love for all mankind?

[Superfund]

While I applaud the sentiment in your post, I don't agree with you on this premise. The breeding rate of a prehistoric human tribe (like any animal) is limited primarily by the number of females getting pregnant. Male homosexuality doesn't factor into this number at all. Neither does female homosexuality in cases of intertribal warfare that includes rape (which has been so commonplace that its effects are seen in the genetic make-up of countries such as Iceland). Moreover, if your premise holds then there would likely be taboos against celibacy as well, but there's not. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to support your claim that prehistoric tribes developed taboos against homosexuality as a result of (cultural) selective pressure.

Hi Quantum troll,

I was motivated to write something about same sex marriage as I work with a number of gays at a christian medical facility and have observed peoples different takes on it. While I concede your comments are likely correct there is also to my mind an issue of conformity and the lust to dominate others with conformity perhaps becoming a more expansive issue as larger groups of human live together? Humans try to dominate others by both physical and pschological ways, so on naturalism doesn't that have to reduce to survival somehow? It is interesting to observe that in the psychological way the lust to dominate behaviour Is the behaviour of people who seem to have no idea or insight into what they are doing to at all. Examples of this blindness are everywhere which is perhaps a measure of how deep and insidious this conditioning is and why I considered an ancient origin of it.

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

I agree about Jesus, he would have made mardi gra for everyone.
/peace

[Superfund]

Some extra links;

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford02.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford03.htm

[Superfund]

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/christian ... j0dcf.html