re: Matt Walsh on Joe Rogan

quote:

---

Why does a genetic trait that makes you attracted to the same sex and therefore reduce your reproductive fitness be sustained over time?

---

I didn’t say it was genetic… I said it’s immutable. But your point is interesting from a genetics standpoint.

Humans haven’t cracked the code yet, but that doesn’t mean God made a mistake in creating gay people. They exist because He intends them to. That was the original point that kind of went wayward when the other fool started citing Kinsey and rambling on about other irrelevant stuff.

quote:

---

believe that since the fall of man some people are more hardwired to be gay or to be alcoholics or to be gluttons, etc….

---

We have lost any ability in society for a nuanced conversation of these matters because of a centuries long path towards rejecting the fundamentals of natural law.

To put it in a simple way, we (humans at the macro level) are ordered towards (or designed/created as a norm) heterosexual attractions and relations to further our species. Just as we are ordered to eat, we can easily see instances of disordered behaviors that make unnatural use of our biology (the analog here with eating is gluttony).

Our ordered nature is frequently subordinated towards disordered desires. The is the path and affect of sin. To promote homosexuality as a norm and "natural good/standard" and go further towards redefining marriage both rejects the natural law and redefines, through language, a union which we have defined through human history as one which promotes the uniom of complimentary natures of male and female.

quote:

---

Old thinking within the church was that the primary reason for marriage was to produce children.

---

From the Catechism:

ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

This is not old thinking or a relic of past ages.

Dude.........get real..... frick

quote:

---

If it’s biological why wouldn’t the trait remove itself from the gene pool over millions of years because having sex with men doesn’t propagate your DNA.

Usually traits that don’t increase your reproductive fitness are removed.

---

This is actually a vexing, complicated question, as you are asking in a fundamental sense about why not every 'trait' is specifically selected for each generation. Firstly, I don't believe that there's a specific 'gay' gene or even sets of genes. My argument is based on the association between fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation, in which there is an increased association with how many elder brothers there are and being homosexual. I think there could be a possibility that you could have a similar process to rhesus isoimmunization, though I haven't studied this thoroughly yet.

In terms of an evolutionary perspective, I could make the inductive argument about the conditions in which human ancestors evolved, which was a social setting rarely larger than 250 individuals. In this sense, you could argue that the existence of an individual who didn't necessarily add to the population load of the group but did aid in the ability to provide provisions to the group was a net benefit. The possibility of human ancestors carrying more than 2 to 3 pregnancies without some complication seems remote, and thus some type of isoimmunization against male sex hormones at key weeks of development might not necessarily ever be selected for or against.

More strictly, I think when we talk about environmental conditions, we disregard human sensitivity to the social environment, and in the general populace, there is very little regard for how evolution occurs in populations, as there is lots of focus on the individual.

Sorry for the meandering, just thinking out loud.

quote:

---

That was the original point that kind of went wayward when the other fool started citing Kinsey and rambling on about other irrelevant stuff.

---

You’re the idiot that claimed sexual attraction was immutable. Don’t blame me for introducing that point.

quote:

---

I didn’t say it was genetic… I said it’s immutable.

---

What do you mean by immutable? I think the stronger argument is that homosexuality exists along a spectrum, and attraction to individuals of the same sex doesn't preclude attraction to the opposite sex.

If you are saying that there is no choice in terms of who they are attracted to, I think I would agree, though I wouldn't use the term immutable.

quote:

---

If you are saying that there is no choice in terms of who they are attracted to, I think I would agree, though I wouldn't use the term immutable.

---

Correct, immutable in the sense that one cannot change their innate attraction.

Maybe it can change over time? Idk, that’s an entirely different discussion.

You missed his point. He is saying that there is one way a child is conceived and brought to life (the Union between one man and one woman). Throughout history that Union has largely been set aside as something different than any other pairing. That Union is what marriage has been called for thousands of years now in the last couple decades we have redefined the term to mean any pairing we want.

His point wasn’t as much Being against gay relationships as the redefinition of the term marriage.

quote:

---

Maybe it can change over time? Idk, that’s an entirely different discussion.

---

Immutable literally means unchangeable. Unchangeable over time would be immutable. If it can change over time, it is not immutable.