Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dominicansoul

Catholic Malta legalizes same sex unions

Recommended Posts

dominicansoul    4,457
dominicansoul

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/malta-legalizes-gay-marriage-10-facts-you-need-to-know

Quote


Malta legalizes gay ‘marriage’: 10 facts you need to know

 Catholic , Malta Gay 'Marriage'

MALTA, July 12, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- The predominantly Catholic country of Malta legalized homosexual “marriage” today, just three years after first legalizing same-sex civil unions.

Here are 10 facts about the bill’s passage that happened in Parliament this evening. 

1. Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, who says he is Catholic, pledged to quickly introduce a gay “marriage” law in the predominantly Catholic country after his Labour Party won a snap election in June. 

2. The amendment to the country’s Marriage Act and other related laws legalizes homosexual “marriage” by eradicating the words “husband” and “wife” and replacing them with the gender-neutral word “spouse.” The words “mother” and “father” were also replaced by the word “parent.” 

3. The bill also changes the language surrounding adoption so that two persons of the same sex can easily adopt children. While media hype surrounding the bill focuses exclusively on “equality,” pro-family campaigners note that there will be no equality for those children attached to same-sex “married” couples who will be deprived of a mother or father in their upbringing. 

4. States the bill: “The object of this Bill is to modernise the institution of marriage and ensure that all consenting, adult couples have the legal right to enter into marriage.” 

5. The sole MP to vote against the bill was Nationalist Party member Edwin Vassallo, who prior to the vote, called the bill a “dishonest law” that will change the very fabric of the Maltese culture that loves and respects life and the family. 

6. Malta’s principal Catholic leaders have been largely missing in action since Muscat pledged to legalize homosexual “marriage.”  

7. One day prior to the passage of the “marriage” equality bill passage, a coalition of hundreds of pro-life-and-family Christians, atheists, and Muslims protested the bill in front of Parliament, saying that it would dismantle the traditional family.

8. The Catholic Church, following the Bible, teaches that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman. 

9. The Catholic Church is being logical and consistent when she teaches that homosexual acts are “acts of grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered” since they are “contrary to the natural law” in that they “close the sexual act to the gift of life.” 

10. Almost 90 percent of Malta’s 431,000 citizens say they are Catholic, including the Prime Minister. 

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might    1,537
Era Might

"While media hype surrounding the bill focuses exclusively on “equality,” pro-family campaigners note that there will be no equality for those children attached to same-sex “married” couples who will be deprived of a mother or father in their upbringing." 

 

A mother or father is a cultural idea. Traditionally, mother and father were part of gender roles. Not saying gender no longer exists, but it doesn't exist as it used to. When two people say "mother" what comes up in their mind? Probably very different ideas. There is no abstract idea called "mother." A mother is whatever you associate the female person who raised you with. If you didn't have a female (or male) person who raised you, then you had other ideas of parenthood. What does it mean to be "deprived of a mother or father"? That you missed out on what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dominicansoul    4,457
dominicansoul

I disagree.  A mother and father are not just "cultural ideas."  The foundation of society is the family unit.  To start a family, a woman and a man must reproduce (the devil hasn't figured out how to reproduce without using a male and female.)  There is only one mom and one dad for each of us.  The ideal family unit consists of mom and dad and children and God.  I know that is not popular today, but our society has dropped into the dregs of immorality.    The devil has done his work destroying the ideal.  Our Lady of Fatima told one of the seers that the final battle will be against the family.  WE see it today.  Do not be deceived.  For a "Catholic" country to ignore God's will is a travesty.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might    1,537
Era Might
5 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

I disagree.  A mother and father are not just "cultural ideas."  The foundation of society is the family unit.  To start a family, a woman and a man must reproduce (the devil hasn't figured out how to reproduce without using a male and female.)  There is only one mom and one dad for each of us.  The ideal family unit consists of mom and dad and children and God.  I know that is not popular today, but our society has dropped into the dregs of immorality.    The devil has done his work destroying the ideal.  Our Lady of Fatima told one of the seers that the final battle will be against the family.  WE see it today.  Do not be deceived.  For a "Catholic" country to ignore God's will is a travesty.  

Animals reproduce. I was watching one documentary about bears in the arctic, the mother basically raises the kids, the father is an absent loner who goes off once he breeds. The human "family unit" is a cultural institution, and it doesn't have to be mother-father-child. It can be father-many wives-many children (clan). It can be matriarchical. It can be communal.

I don't think gay families are in a "battle against the family." Gay families ARE the modern family, an abstract unit of two people and kids in an individual household. That wasn't always the family in the West...it used to be a hierarchical, patriarchical institution, because women were not considered citizens or economic units. Today, a woman is not a man's property, a man and a woman are two independent parties who join in a contract (marriage), and are free to leave it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might    1,537
Era Might

I'm not trying to argue about homosexuality...my point is just that if you're going to live by an "ideal" then you can't be selective about it. You can't say in one century that Monarchy and feudalism is the ideal, and then in another century you're all about democracy and free markets. Or you can't say father-mother-child is the ideal, and then get rid of patriarchical marriage law. If we lived in a world of ideals, it wouldn't last...we saw what it would be in the 20th century, though we called it ideology instead of ideals, the construction of society based on ideal ideas (Communism, Nationalism, etc). The ideal of the medieval world is not the ideal of the modern church (thankfully). Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world...he didn't send his followers to create a Catholic kingdom in Malta, or America. He said, follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dominicansoul    4,457
dominicansoul

I'm not speaking of cultural ideals, or even worldly ideals.  The ideal is "being perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect."  This country has always been predominantly Catholic.  That is what makes this so shocking.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4    182
Jack4
2 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

This country has always been predominantly Catholic.  That is what makes this so shocking.  

Sadly, in these times, sins of erstwhile Catholic states don't seem so shocking anymore  :( :pray:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seven77    1,037
Seven77
On 7/26/2017 at 5:13 PM, Era Might said:

Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world...he didn't send his followers to create a Catholic kingdom in Malta, or America. He said, follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.

 

True that. But he also pointed out that from the beginning he made them male and female and that the two shall become one flesh (Matthew 19). If the woman, man, child family is a cultural construct than it is one that aligns with what Jesus has in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might    1,537
Era Might
4 hours ago, Seven77 said:

True that. But he also pointed out that from the beginning he made them male and female and that the two shall become one flesh (Matthew 19). If the woman, man, child family is a cultural construct than it is one that aligns with what Jesus has in mind.

Ok. Since it's Saturday, and this thread probably isn't going anywhere, and I just cracked open the first of two tall boys in the fridge, and I have nothing else to do...let's get off topic and maybe turn this into a positive discussion of the Gospel and marriage.:smile2:

Here's the story where Jesus talks about male and female:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." And he laid his hands on them and went away.

Matthew 19:3-15

The first thing that interests me is that Jesus is responding to a legal argument, an argument about legal marriage, marriage as a social institution. Jesus doesn't say anything in response about marriage as a social institution. He dismisses the Law and instead goes back to "the beginning," before there was any Law.

Also, note that he isn't making a point about "gender" or "natural marriage" or "natural law" or anything of the kind. The Jews had divorce, but they still had male and female marriage. Yet, Jesus brings up male and female. He also refers to the man leaving his father and mother, not the woman.

This is how I read Jesus' words: he is telling the Pharisees, you want to divorce, you want to put asunder this relationship you have created, but the reason you get married in the first place is because you are divorced, because man is separated in himself, man is divided in the depths of his being, from the beginning man was divided, from the beginning man was male and female: not one, but two. In other words, God divided man from the beginning. There is a Greek parallel to this, where Zeus punished man by dividing him in two and forcing him forever to seek his missing half. I think Jesus is saying something similar here, that man's division is in some way a punishment, or a warning, because if man were not divided in himself, he would be whole in himself, he would think he was God. And divorce was a way around this...men could dismiss their wives, as if their wife was a reward for their goodness and not a punishment for their pride. They were not obligated to their wife because she pleased them, but because without her, they would be entire in themselves, welcoming and dismissing at their pleasure, as if they were God.

So, after this, Jesus talks about eunuchs for the kingdom. Right after he speaks of marriage as the coming together of a divided man, he reveals the new beginning, the eunuch who renounces marriage for the sake of the kingdom. In the first case, he spoke of marriage in a universal way...he didn't say, "this is why some men leave their mother and father," he spoke of all men. Celibacy was not a Jewish practice, for the most part. It was something new with Christ. The eunuch is a sign of something unnatural, a sign of contradiction. It is unnatural not to marry, for from the beginning, man was created to be divided and joined together. If not to marry was to be like God, whole in yourself, then what is the eunuch doing? He is renouncing "natural law," he is renouncing Law altogether, and he is claiming to reveal God in himself.

Next, the bring children to Jesus, and the disciples rebuke them. I think this is the most important part of this story. The disciples are basically saying, don't bring children here, this teaching is not for them, we are listening to something divine, something unnatural, something beyond human, this is not for children, this is for the select few. And Jesus tells the disciple, NO, I speak these words for all, even for children, for these children too are called to be eunuchs, for to them belongs the kingdom where they neither marry nor are given in marriage. For society, children represent our hope for a future, but Jesus says, no, I did not come to perpetuate your marriages and your societies, I came to reveal a new beginning that has nothing to do with marriage or Law, but only with God.

Okay, that's my take on this passage in this Gospel, not entirely clear but I think my basic points are there, and I offer them for discussion, not trying to create a debate. I don't think Jesus' teaching has anything to do with "marriage" or heterosexuality or public morality. He is, in his way, pronouncing a judgment on marriage, because marriage is a social institution, governed by Law like divorce, as it must because man is hard of heart, because he won't submit to his division, he wants to be sufficient in himself, he wants to reject anyone who doesn't please him. The real message of this story is not marriage, but celibacy, the kingdom where they neither marry nor are giving in marriage. Jesus wouldn't get involved in their squabbles about divorce, just as he wouldn't get involved in our squabbles about gay marriage. His teaching was about something entirely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seven77    1,037
Seven77
4 hours ago, Era Might said:

 

 

 

You're right in pointing out that the Scripture must be in context. Here is how I understand Matthew 19:

Man is incomplete by himself. He can only find fulfillment in being united to another. Man is comprised of male and female together as a whole. This is a reminder that only by being united to God ultimately can man find fulfillment. I think that the lack of wholeness, or division as you call it, is meant to point to that. It is for the sake of love found in the sign—the union between a man and a  woman, and in the fulfillment of the sign—the union of man (that is humanity) and God. A man and a woman, humanity, is separate for the sake of being united. And the complementarity that is written into biology is for the sake of being united. This is the meaning of marriage as it existed before the law, as it existed in the beginning. And this meaning is not a social construct. It is a divine construct. This seems plain to me because when a man and a woman become one flesh, God is said to be joining together. He himself is doing the joining, the putting together. What he himself has put together, let no man put asunder. Marriage is of God, divorce is of man, fallen man. Divorce is an unnatural social construct of man. That is why God says, recorded by the prophets, that he hates divorce. Divorce is the sign of brokenness, rupture. As marriage is a sign of union with God, divorce is a sign of rebellion from God. And as for marriage being a sign of union with God, St. Paul refers to when illustrating the union of Christ with the Church, the Bridegroom with the Bride.

Why does Jesus talk about eunuchs here? To point to the fact that some are called to skip the sign and jump to the fulfillment of the sign and thereby point everyone to the fulfillment of the sign. The new way that Jesus brings is a supercharged restoration to his original plan. Anything other than this is really the social construct.

Only the childlike can accept these things. Only the childlike can enter the kingdom of heaven. "Don't prevent them from coming to me," Jesus says because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4    182
Jack4

 "[God], on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God bath joined together, let no man put asunder."(2)

6. This form of marriage, however, so excellent and so pre-eminent, began to be corrupted by degrees, and to disappear among the heathen; and became even among the Jewish race clouded in a measure and obscured. For in their midst a common custom was gradually introduced, by which it was accounted as lawful for a man to have more than one wife; and eventually when "by reason of the hardness of their heart,"(3) Moses indulgently permitted them to put away their wives, the way was open to divorce.

7. But the corruption and change which fell on marriage among the Gentiles seem almost incredible, inasmuch as it was exposed in every land to floods of error and of the most shameful lusts. All nations seem, more or less, to have forgotten the true notion and origin of marriage; and thus everywhere laws were enacted with reference to marriage, prompted to all appearance by State reasons, but not such as nature required. Solemn rites, invented at will of the law-givers, brought about that women should, as might be, bear either the honorable name of wife or the disgraceful name of concubine; and things came to such a pitch that permission to marry, or the refusal of the permission, depended on the will of the heads of the State, whose laws were greatly against equity or even to the highest degree unjust. Moreover, plurality of wives and husbands, as well as divorce, caused the nuptial bond to be relaxed exceedingly. Hence, too, sprang up the greatest confusion as to the mutual rights and duties of husbands and wives, inasmuch as a man assumed right of dominion over his wife, ordering her to go about her business, often without any just cause; while he was himself at liberty "to run headlong with impunity into lust, unbridled and unrestrained, in houses of ill-fame and amongst his female slaves, as if the dignity of the persons sinned with, and not the will of the sinner, made the guilt."(4) When the licentiousness of a husband thus showed itself, nothing could be more piteous than the wife, sunk so low as to be all but reckoned as a means for the gratification of passion, or for the production of offspring. Without any feeling of shame, marriageable girls were bought and sold, tike so much merchandise,(5) and power was sometimes given to the father and to the husband to inflict capital punishment on the wife. Of necessity, the offspring of such marriages as these were either reckoned among the stock in trade of the common-wealth or held to be the property of the father of the family;(6) and the law permitted him to make and unmake the marriages of his children at his mere will, and even to exercise against them the monstrous power of life and death.

8. So manifold being the vices and so great the ignominies with which marriage was defiled, an alleviation and a remedy were at length bestowed from on high. Jesus Christ, who restored our human dignity and who perfected the Mosaic law, applied early in His ministry no little solicitude to the question of marriage. He ennobled the marriage in Cana of Galilee by His presence, and made it memorable by the first of the miracles which he wrought;(7) and for this reason, even from that day forth, it seemed as if the beginning of new holiness had been conferred on human marriages. Later on He brought back matrimony to the nobility of its primeval origin by condemning the customs of the Jews in their abuse of the plurality of wives and of the power of giving bills of divorce; and still more by commanding most strictly that no one should dare to dissolve that union which God Himself had sanctioned by a bond perpetual. Hence, having set aside the difficulties which were adduced from the law of Moses, He, in character of supreme Lawgiver, decreed as follows concerning husbands and wives, "I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery."(8)

9. But what was decreed and constituted in respect to marriage by the authority of God has been more fully and more clearly handed down to us, by tradition and the written Word, through the Apostles, those heralds of the laws of God. To the Apostles, indeed, as our masters, are to be referred the doctrines which "our holy Fathers, the Councils, and the Tradition of the Universal Church have always taught,"(9) namely, that Christ our Lord raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament; that to husband and wife, guarded and strengthened by the heavenly grace which His merits gained for them, He gave power to attain holiness in the married state; and that, in a wondrous way, making marriage an example of the mystical union between Himself and His Church, He not only perfected that love which is according to nature,(10) but also made the naturally indivisible union of one man with one woman far more perfect through the bond of heavenly love.

- Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae (February 10, 1880)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benedictus    364
Benedictus

This is an indicator that Italy will follow at some point soon -  they already accept same sex marriages conducted elsewhere and they have had civil unions for a few years. The majority of Italians apparently support progressive changes. 

The Church needs a good strategic plan if it's to remain relevant and reduce its own alienation over time. There needs to be dialogue and a more serious, and deepened, theological exploration of current issues and questions. I doubt this will happen for at least another twenty years or so, but it's still necessary. Vatican wheels go slow, often for good reason, but it's not always a good thing. I suspect the tone will be set by other churches and groups first. Is the Catholic Church seeing how this pans out? Maybe. It wouldn't be the fist time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might    1,537
Era Might
On 7/29/2017 at 9:37 PM, Seven77 said:

You're right in pointing out that the Scripture must be in context. Here is how I understand Matthew 19:

Man is incomplete by himself. He can only find fulfillment in being united to another. Man is comprised of male and female together as a whole. This is a reminder that only by being united to God ultimately can man find fulfillment. I think that the lack of wholeness, or division as you call it, is meant to point to that. It is for the sake of love found in the sign—the union between a man and a  woman, and in the fulfillment of the sign—the union of man (that is humanity) and God. A man and a woman, humanity, is separate for the sake of being united. And the complementarity that is written into biology is for the sake of being united. This is the meaning of marriage as it existed before the law, as it existed in the beginning. And this meaning is not a social construct. It is a divine construct. This seems plain to me because when a man and a woman become one flesh, God is said to be joining together. He himself is doing the joining, the putting together. What he himself has put together, let no man put asunder. Marriage is of God, divorce is of man, fallen man. Divorce is an unnatural social construct of man. That is why God says, recorded by the prophets, that he hates divorce. Divorce is the sign of brokenness, rupture. As marriage is a sign of union with God, divorce is a sign of rebellion from God. And as for marriage being a sign of union with God, St. Paul refers to when illustrating the union of Christ with the Church, the Bridegroom with the Bride.

Why does Jesus talk about eunuchs here? To point to the fact that some are called to skip the sign and jump to the fulfillment of the sign and thereby point everyone to the fulfillment of the sign. The new way that Jesus brings is a supercharged restoration to his original plan. Anything other than this is really the social construct.

Only the childlike can accept these things. Only the childlike can enter the kingdom of heaven. "Don't prevent them from coming to me," Jesus says because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

Where this all gets complicated is in the realities of human personality. So, we've been looking at the "idea" of marriage, the story of marriage as part of a vision of man. But, in the real world, nobody is an idea. It never ceases to amaze me how strange people are...I find people incredibly strange. I look at married people and I'm baffled at how these two people can stand each other. It's not that I have anything against the idea of marriage (well, not against the Gospel's idea of marriage, I don't particularly care about the social institution), but that's precisely the point...marriage is not an idea. Marriage is, for the most part, designed for people of a certain material temperament, people whose "being in the world" is oriented toward material building...of structures, institutions, families, etc. And, on the other hand, we can speak of celibacy or solitude as an ideal, but really, celibacy and solitude require a certain personality...some people take to celibacy and solitude the way other people take to marriage and society. Thomas Merton put it well that the man who goes into solitude doesn't go because it's easy, but because it's the easiest way for him to carry his cross...to be in marriage or community would be a harder cross to carry, for that man. Sometimes I wonder whether man is like the fish of the ocean, where you find all kinds of different, strange creatures who evolved a certain way. There is no "idea" to explain them, they just are, and our ideas about them don't tell us anything about them...they are only bizarre because we see them from the outside, we impose our ideas on them. I wonder if homosexuality is not similar, as a human phenomenon, just a quirk of evolution. idk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benedictus    364
Benedictus
35 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

Out of all the possiblities, it certainly isn't a quirk of evolution.

Hetero normative assumption rather than a quirk. I doubt homosexuality was an evolutionary mistake. God knew what she was doing :smile4:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chrysostom    831
chrysostom
29 minutes ago, Benedictus said:

Hetero normative assumption rather than a quirk. I doubt homosexuality was an evolutionary mistake. God knew what she was doing :smile4:

Could you define heteronormative in this context? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benedictus    364
Benedictus
6 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

Could you define heteronormative in this context? 

Sure. Era Might outlined seeing homosexual behaviour as a quirk. This doesn't have, at least to me, positive associations. It implies a deviation from a norm or an oddity (even mistake) rather than a diversity within a unified whole.  This is an example of coming at things from a hetero normative worldview -  that is the norm and anything else is a quirk. The idea or possibility that homosexuality could be something that was desired. intended or useful isn't considered. When it is considered it's usually in deviation terms, such as a quirk in the fabric of nature. Why isn't being heterosexual the quirk?  So i was highlighting that it's an assumption to see homosexuality as a quirk. 

Maybe Era Might actually has fuzzy warm and positive views of what quirk means. If so, then it would be great to hear it. 

:cool:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might    1,537
Era Might
37 minutes ago, Benedictus said:

Sure. Era Might outlined seeing homosexual behaviour as a quirk. This doesn't have, at least to me, positive associations. It implies a deviation from a norm or an oddity (even mistake) rather than a diversity within a unified whole.  This is an example of coming at things from a hetero normative worldview -  that is the norm and anything else is a quirk. The idea or possibility that homosexuality could be something that was desired. intended or useful isn't considered. When it is considered it's usually in deviation terms, such as a quirk in the fabric of nature. Why isn't being heterosexual the quirk?  So i was highlighting that it's an assumption to see homosexuality as a quirk. 

Maybe Era Might actually has fuzzy warm and positive views of what quirk means. If so, then it would be great to hear it. 

:cool:

 

Evolution follows laws of advantage. I don't see what advantage homosexuality presents, the species would die out. But, evolution has lead to man's consciousness and the psychology around it...homosexuality is a quirk of that. I don't know in what way, but all human sexuality is a quirk of evolution. Men and women seem to need each other based on infant dynamics like parent relationships. I don't claim to know how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benedictus    364
Benedictus
15 hours ago, Era Might said:

Evolution follows laws of advantage. I don't see what advantage homosexuality presents, the species would die out. But, evolution has lead to man's consciousness and the psychology around it...homosexuality is a quirk of that. I don't know in what way, but all human sexuality is a quirk of evolution. Men and women seem to need each other based on infant dynamics like parent relationships. I don't claim to know how.

I would simply say it's an evolutionary variation. I think God likes diversity and that's evident in the world all around. You could say it's a quirk that humanity exists as it currently does at all. Well we could have evolved to something like parthenogenesis. Would humanity die off if everyone was homosexual, if we had our current level of consciousness and intelligence? I don't think so. It's all academic of course. I have read before that homosexuality, in terms of evolutionary theory, developed as a means of population control. A safety control built into the reproductive model.  Others suggest it developed due to the need for kin relationships -  homosexual males were trusted to nurture/protect settlements (the women and children) by heterosexual males who knew there weren't a sexual threat in reproductive terms. This would make sense as many Pagan cultures, at least in the earliest times, held homosexual and third gender expression in high esteem in structural/religious/spiritual terms. This went a bit off the chart later -  eunuch men being forcefully castrated to serve in these roles etc which often gave them lots of power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat    9,205
Nihil Obstat
18 hours ago, Benedictus said:

Hetero normative assumption rather than a quirk. I doubt homosexuality was an evolutionary mistake. God knew what she was doing :smile4:

. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×