Homosexuality & Religion - Pat Kenny.

Turtwig

Fans of the hugely popular soap opera, Eastenders will be grabbed by the storyline of the young muslim man, Syeed, who is gay and in love with another man but has decided because of the pressure of his own muslim upbringing to marry his girlfriend.
The issue of homosexuality and religion has always been controversial but has gained a new airing at the moment with Iris Robinson’s “abomination” comment and pope benedict’s declaration that “saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction”. Just this week the Pope said in relation to same sex marriage that “for man, the path to be taken cannot be determined by caprice or willfulness, but must rather correspond to the structure willed by the creator”..
What is it about homosexuality that so upsets theologians ?
This morning we looked at homosexuality from the muslim and catholic perspective – with Pat in studio Were Ali Saleem, theologian and secretary to the Imam at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, theologian Gina Menzies, and John Murray lecturer in moral theology at the Mater Dei Institute in Dublin

Linky.

~26mins in, finishes at 59 mins.

Saleem's level of ignorance has astounded me, he claims that Homosexuality wasn't always present in humanity and that it is a choice.
Menzies, seems very liberal towards Catholicism and acknowledges that it is a choice. Murray is, well, strict to the rules. Still listening to this, but if anything it does highlight how silly religion can be.

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

Saleem's level of ignorance has astounded me, he claims that Homosexuality wasn't always present in humanity and that it is a choice.

A little off topic (as usual here), but evolution of homosexuality is still something that baffles me a bit. I've read a few theories.

One where having a certain frequency of homosexual offspring could benefit survival as the homosexual individual would invest all time in rearing of other young. I didn't really accept that one.

Another, I think Dawkins himself said it in The Selfish Gene, explains it by saying that the gene/s that result in homosexuality could have evolved for a different purpose in ancestors (i.e. in a different environment the same gene/s could have produced a differnt phenotype)

What do you think?

krudler

Ah the old "the church doesnt hate homosexuals, just homosexual acts" argument. More contradictory nonsense

Sam Vimes

Maybe some religious people say homosexuality is a choice because they have homosexual urges themselves that they try to ignore

Just a theory....

Karen blaney

I agree it is contradictory nonsense alright. "you can say you're gay just don't practice it" doesn't exactly make sense now does it?

mcmoustache

Karen blaney wrote: »

I agree it is contradictory nonsense alright. "you can say you're gay just don't practice it" doesn't exactly make sense now does it?

Since when did the church's teachings make sense?

Klingon Hamlet

I read that homosexuality is a natural by-product of over-population, that it helps to stem the flow of births, which is why there has always been and always shall be homosexuality in nature, and should never be repressed, repulsed or scorned by those that call themselves tolerant and followers of a higher power,but oh so often is,due to their more primal, more iditotic fears and ignorance.

Religion = FAIL

kev9100

Karen blaney wrote: »

I agree it is contradictory nonsense alright. "you can say you're gay just don't practice it" doesn't exactly make sense now does it?

It doesnt exactly sound healthy either. Imagine having to resist your own sexuality just to get the approval of some religous fanatics. Awful.

efb

I dont hate catholics, just their dogma

robindch

liamw wrote: »

What do you think?

From personal observation, it's always seemed to me that men and women have two bits (forgive the jargon here) of their brains which control how much they find men and women attractive. Some people have both turned up to 11 and will shag anything that moves, others have both set to zero and couldn't even get heated up by the humpsome Ariane Sherine gyrating an inch from their zipper.

Seems to me that gay men and women have the slider for attraction to their own sex turned up, when lots of other people think it should be turned down.

Entertainingly, if the sliders are genetically controlled as they almost certainly are, then if religious people force gay men and women to marry and reproduce, they're exacerbating the "problem" of homosexuality, and not allowing it to die out naturally as it otherwise would.

bluecatmorgana

Excuse my ignorance here but there are animals that have sex with the same sex, surely this proves that homosexuality is natural and occurs in nature and not a "choice"

robindch

efb wrote: »

I dont hate catholics, just their dogma

It'd certainly be interesting to consider a law which "allows" people to be christian, but which mandates the death penalty for "aggravated christianity".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8412962.stm

robindch

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance here but there are animals that have sex with the same sex, surely this proves that homosexuality is natural and occurs in nature and not a "choice"

All research that I'm aware of suggests that homosexuality is genetically-determined.

This isn't the first time that religious people have, for political reasons, disagreed profoundly with the findings of modern biology.

nickcave

robindch wrote: »

All research that I'm aware of suggests that homosexuality is genetically-determined.

I'm not very well versed in this, am I correct in assuming that the research you're referring to is of a psychiatric nature?

Because as far as I know, it hasn't been proven (for example, by geneticists) that homosexuality is genetically-determined. The homosexuality gene hasn't been identified, has it?

Turtwig

nickcave wrote: »

I'm not very well versed in this, am I correct in assuming that the research you're referring to is of a psychiatric nature?

Because as far as I know, it hasn't been proven (for example, by geneticists) that homosexuality is genetically-determined. The homosexuality gene hasn't been identified, has it?

There was a study regarding fruit fly's *cough* Palin *cough* and by swapping one gene scientists were able to turn heterosexual flies in homosexuals ones. Quite cool really. However, genes aren't the only fact and it's far more complicated that, plus genetics aren't 100% deterministic either.
There is another study, iirc, (though it wasn't well received, in public,) whereby researchers were able to predict to significant degree of accuracy from MRI brain scans whether a child would be gay. (Turns out gay women have more in common with a male brain and vice versa.)

While you can't say all gays are born gay, you can definitely conclude that some most likely are.

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

A little off topic (as usual here), but evolution of homosexuality is still something that baffles me a bit. I've read a few theories.

One where having a certain frequency of homosexual offspring could benefit survival as the homosexual individual would invest all time in rearing of other young. I didn't really accept that one.

Another, I think Dawkins himself said it in The Selfish Gene, explains it by saying that the gene/s that result in homosexuality could have evolved for a different purpose in ancestors (i.e. in a different environment the same gene/s could have produced a differnt phenotype)

What do you think?

A plausible theory I heard recently is that the genes that can push a male towards homosexuality (homosexuality seems to be a combination of nature and nurture) greatly increases the fertility of females if found in them.

So if you are a gay male you probably have a very fertile sister. This means the genes that cause homosexuality survive because they are present in your sister as well and she has lots of babies (the dirty slut)

The research into this was not being carried out in humans (rats I think), it would be interesting to see if this holds in humans as well.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

A plausible theory I heard recently is that the genes that can push a male towards homosexuality (homosexuality seems to be a combination of nature and nurture) greatly increases the fertility of females if found in them.

So if you are a gay male you probably have a very fertile sister. This means the genes that cause homosexuality survive because they are present in your sister as well and she has lots of babies (the dirty slut)

The research into this was not being carried out in humans (rats I think), it would be interesting to see if this holds in humans as well.

OK so you're saying that the genes that cause homosexuality in the male, lead to increased fertility in the female. How does homosexuality in females work then? The other way around?

pH

liamw wrote: »

OK so you're saying that the genes that cause homosexuality in the male, lead to increased fertility in the female. How does homosexuality in females work then? The other way around?

Here's one paper by Zietsch et al.

http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/ZietschetalNGM597Evol&HumBeh424-433.pdf

antiskeptic

Malty_T wrote: »

Saleem's level of ignorance has astounded me, he claims that Homosexuality wasn't always present in humanity and that it is a choice.

I heard the programme. This guy was something to behold. His mantra that there were virtually no homosexual muslims began to sound as hollow as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

Unfortunately, Pat didn't nail him down on the punishment meted out in Islam for those caught in the act.

Menzies, seems very liberal towards Catholicism and acknowledges that it is a choice. Murray is, well, strict to the rules. Still listening to this, but if anything it does highlight how silly religion can be.

How I ached for a reasonably well versed biblical-Christian to enter stage left. They would have blown Menzies out of the water in reasonably quick time. As it happens, we didn't find out whether biblical Christianity was silly or not.

krudler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-0uF3guabw&feature=related

Theres 2 gay muslims in this, 1.20 onwards

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

Entertainingly, if the sliders are genetically controlled as they almost certainly are, then if religious people force gay men and women to marry and reproduce, they're exacerbating the "problem" of homosexuality, and not allowing it to die out naturally as it otherwise would.

But wouldn't it be carried (what's the word?) recessively in the family's genes anyhow?

krudler

I honestly cant understand the churchs preoccupation with two men having sex, in this day and age, with all the worlds problems, that two men engaging in a sexual act is the be all and end all of issues that religion has to give its opinions on? Not poverty, or climate change, or war, or famine, or genocide, or child abuse (they neatly go a bit quiet about this of course) I have loads of gay friends, some of whom are in healthy, stable relationships, some of whom sleep around, all mature adults who know what they're doing, the Greeks were nototious for their homosexuality and they gave us some of the greatest philosphers in history, modern society condems gays and what do we get? George Bush

antiskeptic

krudler wrote: »

I honestly cant understand the churchs preoccupation with two men having sex, in this day and age, with all the worlds problems, that two men engaging in a sexual act is the be all and end all of issues that religion has to give its opinions on?

I think the preoccupation stems from the current trend towards rendering gay unions equivilent to traditional unions - something about which the church could be expected to have an opinion. What better time to address it that when it is current?

"This day and age" is a strawman objection as far as the the scriptural elements of the church are concerned - what is sinful shouldn't be subject to the spirit of the age (currently rank liberalism)

My aim isn't that you agree. It's that you be less in the dark as to why.

Petrovia

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think the preoccupation stems from the current trend towards rendering gay unions equivilent to traditional unions - something about which the church could be expected to have an opinion.

Are you talking about same-sex marriage within the church or same-sex state marriage? Because if it's the latter I really don't see how that's anything to do with the church...

krudler

"This day and age" is a strawman objection as far as the the scriptural elements of the church are concerned - what is sinful shouldn't be subject to the spirit of the age (currently rank liberalism)

So its still a sin and an abomination if a woman wears mens clothing today?

sold

I will believe Homosexuality is a sin when the Church sorts out other issues first,

1. Why did it allow child abuse coverup (like Fr. Marcial Marciel a hidden peodofile)
2. Why does it not highlight more the hundreds of thousands of children that die each day of hunger?
3. Why does the Catholic church preach its priests can't marry or married men can't be priests when de-facto there are Catholic married priests in different rites of the church.

Maybe if the Church practiced what it preached and leads by example Gay men "might" listen, but as its stands it seems they condemn on the one hand and on then on the other allow its own priest/Bishops to commit and coverup the most horrible abuses.

pH

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think the preoccupation stems from the current trend towards rendering gay unions equivilent to traditional unions - something about which the church could be expected to have an opinion. What better time to address it that when it is current

ROFL

In his fourth homily on Romans [2], St. John Chrysostom argued in the fourth century that homosexual acts are worse than murder and so degrading that they constitute a kind of punishment in itself, and that enjoyment of such acts actually makes them worse, "for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully."

In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared the death penalty for a male who aped the role of a bride.[7] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned. [8] The Christian emperor Justinian (527-565) made those who would now be called "homosexuals" a scape goat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."

and on ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality

Much as you'd probably like to believe otherwise, Christianity has been pre-occupied with the persecution of homosexuals long before those uppity gays started looking for rights and suchlike.

liamw

sold wrote: »

I will believe Homosexuality is a sin when the Church sorts out other issues first,

Great logic. Will you believe in Noah's Ark and Creationism as long as the Church fulfills point 1-3 for you?

Xluna

Malty_T wrote: »

Linky.

~26mins in, finishes at 59 mins.

Saleem's level of ignorance has astounded me, he claims that Homosexuality wasn't always present in humanity and that it is a choice.
Menzies, seems very liberal towards Catholicism and acknowledges that it is a choice. Murray is, well, strict to the rules. Still listening to this, but if anything it does highlight how silly religion can be.

Damn. I never knew how stupid religion was until I watched the omni bus.:p

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

OK so you're saying that the genes that cause homosexuality in the male, lead to increased fertility in the female. How does homosexuality in females work then? The other way around?

Possibly, homosexuality in females wasn't discussed in the article I saw.

The point of the article was that the obvious evolutionary down side of homosexuality (ie no babies) does not necessarily have to mean homosexuality doesn't work from an evolutionary point of view

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

Possibly, homosexuality in females wasn't discussed in the article I saw.

The point of the article was that the obvious evolutionary down side of homosexuality (ie no babies) does not necessarily have to mean homosexuality doesn't work from an evolutionary point of view

It's cool, I had a read of that paper and I understand it now. The basic principle is that the very gene that is likely to cause homosexuality, if present in a heterosexual, actually results in that person having more offspring.

So I guess the extra offspring of the heterosexual overrides the fact that the homosexual would have no offspring, and the gene lives on

Galvasean

Thought that would be appropriate.