Originally posted by lighthouse
What I mean is that we are biologically made up to procreate. Right?
That's a nonsense phrase, I'm afraid. Species whose individuals do not reproduce (same as procreate?) become extinct. As true of asexual algae and bacteria as it is of humans. It is meaningless to refer to a genetic basis for reproduction. What has a genetic basis are those traits that facilitate the process of reproduction. Such as gender-specific cues (e.g., that say "I'm a female!"), and the ability to recognize those cues, and the desire to act upon them. Hey, wait a minute! Aren't those the exact same things that define heterosexuality? I'm sorry, this brings us right back to the idea that sexual orientation has a genetic basis!
Originally posted by lighthouse
I didn't say anything about the desire to make babies, you twit.
Silly me. I thought that that's what you meant by procreate! Perhaps you could tell me what you mean by procreate?
Originally posted by lighthouse
And the desire to have sex is biological, I agree. But sexual preference is not.
The only reason I can see your adopting this view is because you don't like where the alternative is inevitably heading. But I'm sorry, I just don't buy that you, lighthouse, are genetically programmed to want to have sex, but your genes have had no input with respect to who you want to have sex with! How did you figure it out?
Originally posted by lighthouse
Because we are made to procreate. Man and woman. Man and man, and woman and woman can not breed.
See above. This is a biologically naive to bankrupt way to think about this. Species that don't reproduce go extinct, so all living things are, in a trivial sense, "made to procreate," (again, assuming that by "procreate" you mean "reproduce"). It is therefore meaningless to refer to a genetic basis for reproduction. What has a genetic basis are those traits that facilitate the process of reproduction. Such as gender-specific cues, and the ability to recognize those cues, and the desire to act upon them. Hey, wait a minute! Aren't those the exact same things that define heterosexuality? I'm sorry, this brings us right back to the idea that sexual orientation has a genetic basis!
Originally posted by lighthouse
No.
Then why the instinctive gross-out reaction?
Originally posted by lighthouse
Different things can happen. But I surmise that those who are completely homosexual would not have relations with someone of the opposite gender. Some of them may never have sex, if they percieve their desires as wrong, but never know how to deal with them. This would explain a lot about the RCC priesthood.
What do you mean by "completely homosexual"? How can this have a biological and yet nongenetic reality?
Originally posted by lighthouse
Then there are those who seek God, and find healing, and are changed, made new creations, in Christ.
And, as well, there are those who act on their sexual desires for the same sex.
Yes, you've just listed the choices I gave earlier. So we're in agreement here?
Originally posted by lighthouse
I did not say sexuality has no genetic basis. I said that sexual preference has none.
As you read through my quote, it should be clear that I was referring to "sexual preference." If not, then let me make it clear. Your idea that sexual preference has no genetic basis makes no sense biologically.
