Homosexuality observed in Animals: Not so Unnatural After All

[Rainbow Mage]

humans were made in GOD'S image. animals were not.

do you think that god would engage in homosexual acts?

ps, i dont dance with same sex

Sniper do you think god would engage in heterosexual acts?

 

[Skwim]

Not at all. Homosexuality in various animals is for the most part different than seen in humans.

A meaningful difference? How so?

Are other animals sexually attracted to the same sex? I don't think the research would show that.

So why do you suppose they engage in homosexual acts? For the prestige? For the money?

All that it shows is that some animals engage in homosexual sex. It does not state that those animals are thus homosexual in the definition that it applies to humans.

And how does that definition read?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

For those Christians who believe "the law has been done away with," yes, but not all do.

Yet the NT does speak out against homosexuality among men, but not against homosexuality among women. These passages are Romans 1:26–27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10,

Romans 1:26-27
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

​

For men it's spelled out: men lusting after other men would equate with homosexuality; however, in reference to women the "natural use into that which is against nature" may or may not refer to women engaging in sex with animals--the prohibition mentioned in the OT.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

​

Again, only men are referred to in regard to homosexuality: the effeminate,

Yeah, but Romans 1 can be interpreted in a few different ways. There are actually several books out based on this one passage and different intepretations of it. Some argue that Paul believed homosexuality was caused by holding Pagan beliefs, and since he was wrong, this should be disregarded.

Some say that because the passage mentions Paganism as the root cause of the acts described, it can't possibly mean homosexuality as a whole, since there are gay Christians, but homosexual acts associated with Pagan practices, like maybe male shrine prostitutes.

Again I've even heard it suggested that because it says "changed the natural use into that against nature", it can't mean homosexuals, because for them that is natural. It must mean people who are heterosexual, who choose to dabble in homosexual acts.

So again, Romans 1 isn't all that clear. I'll address 1 Corinthians 6 when I get back from town.

 

[bhaktajan]

"It's not homosexual love making that is the problem . . . it's the fact that most homosexuals are meat eating canivores . . . when they have a romantic meal. Which of course was done by generations of breeders"
---from The un-authorised George Constanza Biography

 

[fallingblood]

Okay, so I have effectively demonstrated that homosexuality is not unnatural since it appears in several animal species. Rather then admit it's not unnatural, people would now rather compare gay people to animals. The point of the thread was to point out that homosexuality is not unnatural. Now why don't you admit to that?

You haven't effectively demonstrated that. I have on a few occasions shown why your argument fails.

I agree that homosexuality is not unnatural. However, saying that it is seen in several animal species does not show that. Especially if you can't show that homosexuality in animals is exactly the same thing as homosexuality in humans. Are animals really attracted to other animals of the same sex? Or are they open to just have sex with either sex if need be? I know, at least in deers, there are times in which they will engage in homosexual act, but it is in the course of raping another animal.

More so, can it be shown that animals are having sex for the same reason that humans do? I don't think that is the case. Which could fuel an argument that animals engage in homosexual sex because that is what they can get when their sexual drive kicks in. More so, many of those same animals will also engage in heterosexual sex, which does make a distinction between human homosexuality and homosexual sex in animals.

Really, I have to say the argument is ridiculous at the foundation of it anyway. Just because something is seen with various animals, that does not mean that it is natural for humans to do. What a dog naturally does, is not always natural for humans. There is a distinction.


If you want to show that homosexuality is natural, there are many better ways to go about this.

 

[sniper762]

pair bonding you speak of is not the same as homosexuality. (sexual activity is the defining factor)

 

[Skwim]

humans were made in GOD'S image. animals were not.

do you think that god would engage in homosexual acts?

Do you think god would engage in coughing? Do you think god would engage in pooping? Spelling it out for you: Just because god doesn't do something doesn't mean it's necessarily bad when humans do it.

 

[fallingblood]

are humans animals?

Yes, at the most basic level. However, there is a massive distinction between animals. The term animal is a very basic and general term. It is a vague term, and yes, humans fall into that category. However, other distinctions need to be made because there is a massive difference between various animals.

 

[fallingblood]

You are not understanding: this is a rebuttal, not an argument. Anti-gay bigots very often say that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural. This thread simply addresses that particular fallacy.

And it fails. Because it does not show that homosexuality is natural. It doesn't give a good rebuttal. Really, it is a ridiculous argument (rebuttals are technically arguments) that shows nothing.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

More so, many of those same animals will also engage in heterosexual sex, which does make a distinction between human homosexuality and homosexual sex in animals.

Would you consider a guy that has sex with both men and women a homosexual? That distinction you claim in the animal kingdom exists with Humans as well.

 

[fallingblood]

A pair of male penguins trying to steal an egg, then finally successfully raising a baby penguin together? No, that's not about pair bonding. Lol.

Same sex pair bonding isn't rare in nature at all, btw. It's common, particularly in birds, dolphins and primates (Japanese macaques, for example).

Short term pair bonding isn't rare. However, long term pair bonding is rare. We can take the goose for example. They give the appearance of life long pair bonding. However, researchers have studied them, and have found that is not the truth. The evidence is that they can find a specific goose's genetic imprint in many different nests. The conclusion is then that there is a lot of cheating with geese.

Various animals give the appearance of long term pair bonding, but it is just that, an appearance.

 

[sniper762]

skwim, we, as christians are to immitate and reresent god by our actions. i dont think homo does that.

 

[Alceste]

pair bonding you speak of is not the same as homosexuality. (sexual activity is the defining factor)

If you think raising a child with a partner constitutes "sexual activity", you need a therapist.

 

[fallingblood]

A meaningful difference? How so?

We will use a very basic definition of homosexuality. If you want to add your own definition, we can work with that as long as it is credible.

Here is the definition I'm using: a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

Now, if wanted, we can switch the word person to entity, or something that is more vague to encompass other lifeforms.

We don't see this happening in nature though, or at least can't show it for sure. We can't show that an animal is attracted to another animal of the same sex. We can show that they may have sex with another animal of the same sex, but the motivation behind sex in the animal kingdom is different, for the most part.

So why do you suppose they engage in homosexual acts? For the prestige? For the money?

Dominance. Opportunity. A sexual drive that needs to be filled and a lack of females to fulfill that need.

 

[Alceste]

And it fails. Because it does not show that homosexuality is natural. It doesn't give a good rebuttal. Really, it is a ridiculous argument (rebuttals are technically arguments) that shows nothing.

You must have a pretty unique conception of what the word "natural" means.

 

[Alceste]

Short term pair bonding isn't rare. However, long term pair bonding is rare. We can take the goose for example. They give the appearance of life long pair bonding. However, researchers have studied them, and have found that is not the truth. The evidence is that they can find a specific goose's genetic imprint in many different nests. The conclusion is then that there is a lot of cheating with geese.

Various animals give the appearance of long term pair bonding, but it is just that, an appearance.

Lol- so geese are not so different from humans.

 

[fallingblood]

You must have a pretty unique conception of what the word "natural" means.

No. I simply realize that what is natural for one species is not always natural for another.

 

[sniper762]

show me a homosexual or lesbian couple that will confess to not having sexual activity between them.

 

[fallingblood]

Would you consider a guy that has sex with both men and women a homosexual? That distinction you claim in the animal kingdom exists with Humans as well.

No. I would consider bisexual. I think there is a distinction.

 

[fallingblood]

Lol- so geese are not so different from humans.

Maybe in one very small case. But you do realize that shows your idea of pair bonding to be wrong?