 |
| Natural Selection |
That being said there is a prevailing assumption in the Western world that homosexual people are simply 'born that way.' That their sexual temptations are 100% genetic, and they can never find fulfilment in life unless they act on those temptations. The assumption is that if you are tempted to 'be gay' then you must act on it, or else you are 'living a lie,' and going against nature. Much attention has been given to counter this argument, by pointing out as I said above that ultimately it is our choices that define us, not our temptations. Christian doctrine teaches us that sexual fulfilment cannot be found outside of God's natural plan for us, regardless of our temptations, and therefore we should seek God's will to find that fulfilment. There are of course those who try to twist Scripture and the authority of Church teaching to justify their homosexual sin, but for the most part, historic Christian sexual ethics are just discarded in favour of an evolutionary mindset that nature simply selects some people (randomly I suppose) to be homosexual. The assumption is if one experiences persistent homosexual temptation, than obviously God (or the gods, or mother nature, or whatever) wants that person to 'be gay.'
Rather than counter this argument, The Catholic Knight will now play devil's advocate and reason it through to the most logical conclusion. Let's suppose the homosexualists are right. Let's suppose it really is all about evolution and natural selection. Let's suppose people are predestined from the start, by genetic code, to 'be gay.' Let's just assume they are right and Christianity is wrong.
Now let's take this to it's most logical and natural conclusion.
Nature puts the sexual desire into all creatures to propagate the species. In other words, nature has only two rules. The first is 'make babies or die.' The second is 'only the strong shall survive.' So if we are to assume that nature is naturally selecting some people to be 'gay' than we can only assume one thing. Nature doesn't want them to reproduce, or at the very least, nature doesn't want them to reproduce as rapidly as 'straight' people. Because you see, the sexual urge in straight people remains the same. So unless they are artificially contracepting their natural reproduction, they will likely reproduce much faster than a gay person who is wasting his/her time having sexual relations with members of the same sex.
So why would mother nature want some people to have more babies and other people to have less? The second law of nature supplies us with the only logical answer, as cruel and insensitive as it may sound. Nature must only want the strong to survive. In other words, something must be genetically wrong with the gay people, which is why mother nature is trying to slow their reproduction and thus weed them out of the population.
When we eliminate the Christian explanation that temptations do not define who we are, this is the only logical explanation for the homosexual phenomenon. Nature has selected their gene pool for extinction, or at the very least, a significant population reduction.
I don't know about you, but if I suffered from homosexual temptations, I think I would prefer the Christian explanation over the genetic explanation. That's just my thoughts anyway. Maybe some people prefer to think of themselves as genetically inferior and therefore selected for extinction/reduction.
12 comments:
Interesting thoughts, but IVF and surrogacy manipulates your conclusion, even though not all 'gay couples' will go down those roads. In this respect the gay marriage + children phenomenom is a struggle against nature and the biological condition.
You hit upon the Truth exactly, precisely and concisely!
Darwinism: homosexuals are selected for extinction because they don't breed.
Christianity: homosexuals aren't defined by their temptations to be homosexual, but by being men created in the image and likeness of God.
Gee whiz! I nerver thought of it that way before!
The UK and US's crusade to allow homosexuals to adopt is the cruelest form of totalitarian child abuse; what guarantees do we have that gay men won't have the same tendencies toward pedophilia as most in ancient Greece and Rome did; the same people that scream bloody murder about pedophile priests are the same ones that want innocent little boys adopted by gay men.
Interesting thoughts, but IVF and surrogacy manipulates your conclusion, even though not all 'gay couples' will go down those roads.
Disagree. IVF is a perversion and many children of IVF are fighting to know their biological fathers and mothers as well. They'be been stripped of their inheritance and yet gays and single childless feminist women would have you believe that it is not so. IVF used to only be about infertile heterosexual couples but the feminists and the gays have used it to further their aims and let's say the results are not pretty.
Children's rights should include the right to a mother and a father. Society should never discourage that. Single motherhood as well as gay parenthood is greatly depriving children of a healthy family upbringing. Gay parenthood is even worse because no one can guarantee the child's safety from pedophilia.
Sir Knight,
the mindnumbing tragedy of all of this is the fact that the ideologues are ferrociously attempting (and in many quarters, succeeding) in painting the natural family as dangerous, biggotted and backward (even dangerous to democratic and individual human rights) hand in hand with a concerted emphasis on legitimizing through all means they choose the correct status of artificial and/or deprived families (that is, same sex families or single parent families, the latter in which i was raised). to legitimize the latter groups, it is imperitive to alienate or even eliminate the natural biological family unit as the ideal model with peer review groups at most secular universities failing to review and accept the facts, instead forcing yet more of their warped distopian nightmarish vision upon the next generation in terms that alienate the good. ...
Cont'd,
...I can tell you from first hand experience that growing up in a single parent family was FAR FROM IDEAL and I grieve for all who have had to do so as have I. We the second generation who have survived the divorce of our parents (the first-wave divorcees following the international loosening of family law acts in most of the West during the late 60-s/early 70's) are not permitted to have an opinion other than that of 'choice is good' even though our hearts were broken and on-going research plus my own experience demonstrates amply the ills such visits upon we the children of divorce, even into our adulthood.
Furthermore, the pedalers of this distopian vision trot out the straw man argument time and time again that it is surely far better for a child to be raised in a home of two loving same sex persons who have chosen to bring a child into their household than in a disfunctional biological family into which the child's appearance may have been a 'surprise'; note how this argument ALWAYS paints the defective family as the biological, and the better ideal as the same sex unit ; the same sex family is NEVER portrayed as disfunctional in this example - it is not done - even though imerging domestic violence statistics suggest that DV in same sex family groupings may be indeed higher than that of surrounding groups, but is swept under the carpet and considered taboo to discuss in the GTLTB community as it would shine a negative light on said community , and we can't have that now; anything that may detract from legitimacy, even if legitimate itself, must be exponged!
for instances of maltreatment or desertion, Holy Mother Church has always had annulment coupled with a solemn charge for the Church (local congregation, charitable institutions and pastors) to aid the injured party and children if any), that, if exercised prudently, has been designed to support those who have found themselves in marrital danger.
Nonetheless, it is becoming apparent that our entire ecconomy rests upon family - solid, intact, biological family; I wonder how long the ideologues will deny truth for? Oh come triumph of the Imaculate Heart of Mary and Most Sacred Heart of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ!
A profound discussion indeed, sir!
Do not, my friend, fall into the trap of thinking that that most unnameable of perversions, buggery, is in any way whatsoever genetic. It is utter nonsense.
By that reasoning, one could be genetically inclined toward adultery, murder and theft.
This "genetic" business is a dodge to confuse people into accepting the crime of homosexuality as something normal. Even certain members of the Church, when they use that slippery expression "sexual orientation", are contributing to this. One is not "oriented" toward homosexuality any more than one is oriented toward burglary. We are sinners. Period. And it is up to us to try, with the help of the Sacraments, to stop sinning.
Let us be careful not to enter this briar patch.
Yes Dan. Agreed. Thats my point. Once we go down this road of sayin it's 'genetic' then it is a slippery slope, until finally we are forced to conclude that nature itself has genetically selected homosexuals or extinction/reduction. Of course all kinds of nefarious people throughout history have used this rationale to justify all sorts of heinous acts against those they view to be genetically inferior. My point here is that it's not just a slippery slope for society, but it's a slippery slope for proponents of the genetic argument as well. The whole thing could end up backfiring on them in the worst possible way.
Very interesting! I am surprised that I have never read this point being made elsewhere, it seems an obvious 'trajectory' of the 'it's in my genes' claim to then say, 'nature wants to wipe out people like me'.
Hello all, I would like to extend an invitation to support in prayer, and other means available to us, the wonderful Courage Apostolate. Their website is couragerc.net. God bless!
Post a Comment