How can homosexuality be immoral or contrary to natural ends if there is a genetic/evolutionary/biological reason for it?

But they don’t need to have sexual relations with each other. They simply need to not compete with the heterosexual mainstream, at least that’s what you said about the TED Talk. It doesn’t seem like a very good argument because the homosexual females and homosexual males cancel each other out and the level of competition is almost the same.

Besides, homosexual people have continued to marry and have sex with people of the opposite sex for thousands of years, throughout human civilization.

2 Likes

There are a lot of things that happen because of genes or natural processes, like cancer. Singling out a genetic basis for homosexuality ( which is hypothetical at this point) doesn’t mean it’s morally correct or beneficial. The effects of a fallen world are manifested in us in many different ways. God specifically created sex for man and woman. As humans we are made in the image of God, that means we are made to reflect how God operates within himself. Homosexuality simply doesn’t reflect the image of God in us.

3 Likes

Homosexuality is condemned in Scripture and by the Church. You can try to twist your own view of St.Thomas to make excuses for sins, but you will be departing from the Church and leading people to hell.

1 Like

I’d prefer if you explained the position in your own words. You posted on a public internet forum after all, not having a conversation with seminarians. It’s pretty restrictive if you only want people that studied Thomism in depth to participate in the thread.

3 Likes

Even a mere desire for someone of the same sex is a mortal sin. People have tendencies to want to commit certain sins, and no matter the reason, our reaction is to reject sin, plain and simple.

"An evolutionary component itself wouldn’t show it to be moral, but if an evolutionary component were to show a strong biological directedness (ie pointing towards a final end) then under Catholic Thomistic ethics it would have to be considered moral

I’m not sure what you want me to reply to, but I would think a Thomistic analysis would justify the morality of homosexuality, as according to the OP, it shows a directive influence to a more stable society. We’d have to delve in further - but in general St. Thomas says an act is good if it is in accordance with our human nature and drives us towards happiness (utility) - the ultimate utility being obtainable only with God. I’d have to think about it further, but based on the notion (debatable) that homosexuality benefits a society, you’d then have to claim it is not immoral.

This is by far the most intelligent thing you’ve said so far, but I still think it’s a problematic response considering that you agree that it is ALMOST the same (the competition level, I mean), so this grants that there may be a mismatch, even slightly, of competition. This alone could usher in a reason for the existence of homosexuals to balance it out

Well if I did have access to serious Thomist philosophers then I’d ask them instead, but I don’t. So the best option that I have in my disposal is to post on a public platform in hopes that there happens to be someone who knows a lot about this.

There is no equivalence because men can procreate daily, women monthly, and pregnant women cannot get pregnant again for another 9+months.

Think of cancer. You could make the same argument in terms of population control.

I am not making an argument for population control. There is no evolutionary necessity for birth control/population control.

Of course there is. Menopause and puberty, for one. And the most obvious, you can’t get pregnant while you are pregnant.

First, none of these are activities which is what the OP is about. Secondly, none of these are biologically designed for population control. In fact, puberty is designed for exactly the opposite reason- to develop the human reproductive organs to procreate.

1 Like

But that’s making it sound more and more ridiculous. If the human species was geared solely towards reproducing as quickly as possible, there would be more like a 9/1 ratio of the sexes.

Let’s just brainstorm some other things that could eliminate somebody from the competition (homosexuality, by the way, isn’t necessarily one of them, because up until relatively recently in human history, homosexual people still married and had children with the opposite sex):

Sickness
Infertility
Being undesirable

Also,

This is rude.

5 Likes

I wonder if this message board isn’t causing scandal to allow such grave errors to be posted without erasing and correcting them.

1 Like

I suggest reading Ed Feser’s article “In Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument” if you want to delve into the natural law reasoning against birth control/ homosexual behavior.

1 Like

We live in a fallen world and humans carry many defects. We are called to self mastery over deviant attractions.

3 Likes

Thanks I’ll check this out

Here is a helpful artical that examines this issue from a Thomist point of view: https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1870&context=scholar

I had a friend who was living a very hedonistic life and currently have a friend whose ex wife was involved in some very strange things. Sadly, that leads me to believe there are far more people practicing bestiality than we know. It’s just not ‘out’ or normalized like homosexuality.

Sixty years ago, few people admitted they were practicing homosexuality and similarly today, people are practicing bestiality and plenty of other things but just not talking about it.

This entire thread and the question of morality is based on the assumption that a TED talk is accurate. Since I don’t buy the premise, I wouldn’t buy the conclusion. This is like asking IF the moon is made of green cheese, should we invest in rockets to send there to bring cheese back to sell? and proceeding to have a serious debate about it. Well, the moon isn’t made of green cheese, so what’s the point of such a discussion. And if someone believes it is, they should establish that as fact before moving on to what’s to be done about it.

Almost, perhaps every person I’ve known who is gay sooner or later tells me about some childhood trauma, or something inappropriate going on in the home, whether abuse, sexual abuse, porn, whatever.

A last comment. As I scroll through, I see quite a few disparaging remarks made about people’s intelligence. If there’s a solid argument to be made, it can be done without insulting other members of the forum.

10 Likes

Not really. It’s not a mortal sin, for example, for an unmarried person to feel sexual desire towards another. It becomes a sin when it becomes lust. Likewise, a gay person would simply have to not dwell on their desire just like the rest of Catholics.

Moreoever, evolution counts on competition because isn’t that the point? The best will reproduce more and thus improve the quality of the population?

So in evolutionary terms, homosexuals of both sexes would be flawed members of the species unable (more or less) to reproduce and thus out of the evolutionary game altogether.

2 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.