As a purely scientific matter, one can safely say that sex evolved (even in very simple organisms) as a reproductive mechanism, because it offers certain biological advantages, compared (say) to clonal reproduction. I also think a person seeking to live a rational life might reasonably decide to emphasize the reproductive purposes of sexuality, rather than its social or entertainment aspects. And from an evolutionary standpoint, one might wonder somewhat about the possible longterm population effects of our currently much-enhanced abilities to separate most sexuality activity from reproduction, which I have sometimes heard described as a largescale evolutionary experiment -- because we do not really know at present to what degree unconscious mechanisms have played a role in our evolution
It seems to me obvious that children will often benefit from a stable and supportive environment. There may be some genuine biological mechanisms tending to form lasting attachments between birth mothers and their offspring; and there may similarly be some biological mechanisms tending to form attachments between men and the children they believe they fathered. So as a rule-of-thumb it may be desirable to encourage conditions supporting such bonds. I do not believe our biology entirely determines us: children can survive chaotic childhoods; many people become well-adjusted adults despite being raised under less-than-optimal circumstances. And, of course, even if the alleged rule-of-thumb just mentioned were often true, one ought not be too much of an ideologue about it, since (for example) some nuclear families develop nightmarish qualities, from which people might reasonably want to escape quickly
"Homosexuality" is really not, in my view, very well-defined: I expect people find same-sex partners for a spectrum of reasons, including effects of heredity, biological developmental, and personal socialization history. Some evolutionary pressures could have produced inheritable aspects; and in social animals, perhaps social forces play some evolutionary role
My interpretations of the teachings of Christianity are simple to state but perhaps difficult to follow: the essential doctrine, which in my view is lifted directed from a well-established Jewish tradition, is that we should live as if the people around us were somehow the images of the Creator of the Universe, though we all regularly dishonor that image in thought, word, and deed. To determine whether we actually worship that One True Lord or whether we are simply noisy hypocrites, there is a simple test, which we can easily give ourselves, though we all often grade it dishonestly: do we love our neighbors as we love ourselves? Failing this test, again and again, we should acknowledge our failures, sigh, restudy the material, and try again. This is, to me, the fundamental and dogmatic content of the faith: the validity of this test, of course, cannot be proved by any scientific method
Though I do not agree with it in every respect, I don't find the Catholic church's official dogma on sexuality intrinsically unreasonable: I would, however, distinguish between graceful and graceless expositions of it. I do suspect the teaching is not as fully grounded in modern understandings, since I can also imagine, beyond mere reproductive important aspects of sexuality, social bonding aspects that may serve important human purposes. Since I regard overpopulation as a global environmental threat, I consider the use of birth entirely ethical --- though as a comfortable inhabitant of a well-developed industrial economy, I think I should also consider as material the fact that my neighbors and I contribute much more damage to our ecosystem per capita than the world's poor do
If I contemplate issues that might arise when I try to practice my ideals, I find they're often in conflict. I think there is a great deal to be said for minding my own business, since I generally don't want others sticking their noses in mine -- and I also find scenarios in which I think I have an obligation to intervene. There is, unfortunately, no bright clean theoretical line there. As another rule-of-thumb, I suppose I try not to get involved when I see no obvious major unavoidable harm done; but my definitions there won't always agree with everyone else's. In government, I would usually apply the same standard: unless there is a legitimate interest for action or distinction, none is required. On this basis (say), I see no reason that marriage-as-a-contract should not be equally available to couples, whether they are of same or opposite sex: people should usually be allowed to order their lives as they wish
It was my reading of Marxist Christians that brought me back to Christianity, and groups like the Family Research Council or the Heritage Foundation offer me nothing useful in political terms that I can see: I regard them as political enemies, but my religious beliefs rather baldly instruct me to love my enemies -- which, in this case, will at least certainly require me at present to allow them the same assembly rights and human dignity that I want for myself. I am happy to disagree when I want; I must then allow them to disagree with my views, though I wish some of them might be more graceful in their exposition of their beliefs. The position of Francis will be more difficult here, since I think he agrees with them in more respects than I do, on some issues, though I think he disagrees with them as vehemently as I do, on others. I don't agree with anybody all the time
= new reply since forum marked as read
