• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Homosexuality observed in Animals: Not so Unnatural After All

Skwim

Veteran Member
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.
Assuming that the Bible was "written" by god, such a limiting qualification would certainly have been included. Why would god let the reader misunderstand his prohibition as applying to all men when he only meant it to apply to a certain group of men? To assume this was his unexpressed intent, the Christian must then also assume that everything else god had "written down" is deserving of equal scrutiny, looking for such lapses in exposition in every verse of the Bible. Of course, if the Bible, or even just the NT, was merely composed of conclusions and opinions of humans---no "guiding hand" help from god, as it were---then it puts the authority of the book in a whole different light.
 

Alceste

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

Well, the argument of anti-gay bigots is that homosexuality is "unnatural", full stop. Not "unnatural in humans" or "unnatural in cockroaches", just plain unnatural. The rebuttal is that homosexuality is widespread in nature, therefore it can not be called "unnatural" by informed and rational people.

It's much more simple than you are trying to make it.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Well, the argument of anti-gay bigots is that homosexuality is "unnatural", full stop. Not "unnatural in humans" or "unnatural in cockroaches", just plain unnatural. The rebuttal is that homosexuality is widespread in nature, therefore it can not be called "unnatural" by informed and rational people.

It's much more simple than you are trying to make it.
It really is just ridiculous though. The anti-gay position is ridiculous, and so it this argument against them. Because really, showing that some animals engage in homosexual sex does not show it is natural. If I wanted to, I could say the exact same thing that anti-gay people say about humans, the devil did it. That or those animals are choosing to be gay. And really, when it boils down to it, the simple act of observing homosexuality in nature shows absolutely nothing except that it occurs in nature, at least not when speaking with someone who is anti-gay anyway.



Both arguments are ridiculous. And one can not show that homosexuality is natural by pointing to the fact that it occurs in nature. All one can logically show is that homosexual sex is natural in various species. That does not equal though that it is natural in humans.



Really, what I'm trying to get across though is that a much better argument can be formed that deals with humans and homosexuality with humans.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
No. Did I say pair bonding = sexual monogamy? The two concepts don't overlap in any animal, humans included.
I was just giving one example. However, even short term pair bonding does not show that an animal is necessarily homosexual, because that animal may then go off and be with an animal of the opposite sex.
 

sniper762

Well-Known Member
alceste, granted there are current homosectual, as well as heterosexual sexless couples, but m sure that wasn,t ALWAYS their case.

your naive to believe otherwise
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
alceste, granted there are current homosectual, as well as heterosexual sexless couples, but m sure that wasn,t ALWAYS their case.

your naive to believe otherwise
Really, you are using too many assumptions. You assume that the Bible condemns lesbians, yet can't show it. You assume this wasn't always the case, yet you can't show it. Your argument is largely based on ignorance, as you've basically proved.
 

TEXASBULL

Member
I still have never had anyone show me why homosexuality is a sin. I understand other sins like, don't steal, don't murder, don't tell lies, those all hurt other people.

Why homosexuality? 2 adults loving each other or being intimate with each other. What is a sin about that?
 

TEXASBULL

Member
What if that was not " God " talking , but man making up some rules?

and Even If God says don't do it, you mean to tell me your in no way curious as to why?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
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.
In light of the fact that science has no trouble using it to describe the activities of some animals I think it's quite reasonable to extend the definition to them as well. "a person or animal who is sexually attracted to one of their own sex. Of course homosexuality has also been ascribed to animals regardless of the underlying reason, be it attraction or dominance. But for purpose of this exchange I'll go along with your more limiting definition.

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.
Dominance. Opportunity. A sexual drive that needs to be filled and a lack of females to fulfill that need.
Without asking, attraction is a rather difficult concept to ascribe to anything with certainty, be it human or other animal. Most often one would have to bluntly ask, "Are you attracted to X?" to be sure, which, of course is impossible with animals. So, we have to look for attraction signs in animals that mimic those in humans, and as it turns out there are such signs. The following examples are all taken from Wikipedia.
Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany attempted to encourage reproduction of endangered Humbolt penguins by importing females from Sweden and separating three male pairs, but this was unsuccessful. The zoo's director said that the relationships were "too strong" between the homosexual pairs.

penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.
_______________

Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes...

Scientists found that, "The oSDN in rams that preferred females was significantly larger and contained more neurons than in male-oriented rams and ewes.
_________________

African and Asian males will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Such encounters are often associated with affectionate interactions, such as kissing, trunk intertwining, and placing trunks in each other's mouths.

I believe these all demonstrate an attraction to others of the same sex in animals.
 
You're absolutely right TS, but your argument is either preaching to the chorus, or falling on deaf ears. The fact of the matter is that the Abrahamic religions (among others) condemn homosexuality; that it's written is all that matters for them.

From a logical & scientific standpoint, there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality.

even if i were "searching" or an "atheist", my heart and my instinct tells me its wrong.

Well, from your post I can tell pretty clearly that you're obviously not an atheist. From your profile picture, you're clearly an elderly caucasion, and i'm going to assume that you live in/ are from North America or Western Europe. So it's not a stretch for me to guess that you belong to some kind of Abrahamic faith.

If these assumptions are true, then it's not surprising in the least that you don't approve of homosexuality. You may think it's your 'instinct' that you don't like homosexuality, but I would say that it's probably just a mix of being a heterosexual, with ideological opposition to homosexuality, that is the cause for your disgust.

I'm not groundhog expert, but I highly doubt that without cultural/ religious conditioning, homosexuality would make you uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
skwim, we, as christians are to immitate and reresent god by our actions. i dont think homo does that.
Which is my point. We do things that I can only imagine your god does not do, such as pooping, yet we don't condemn it.
 

TEXASBULL

Member
even if i were "searching" or an "atheist", my heart and my instinct tells me its wrong.


Nope, I think your book told you, so that's your position. I think if society did not put that thought in your head, you would have no reason to think it is wrong.
 
Top