Homosexuality observed in Animals: Not so Unnatural After All

[Duck]

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?

I think that it is the lack of pumping out more tithers for the church that gets the priests up in arms. -> it must be a sin, cause it is cutting into the priests future ability to afford a Bentley.

 

[waitasec]

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.

ok, are inclinations an animalistic quality?

 

[AfterGlow]

I think that it is the lack of pumping out more tithers for the church that gets the priests up in arms. -> it must be a sin, cause it is cutting into the priests future ability to afford a Bentley.

I doubt that's the origin to be honest. Some sins are obvious, the don't steal or murder ones. Some clearly have their basis in an historical event lost to time such as the eating of shellfish, mixing milk and meat, or even working on the sabbath. Homosexuality is more obvious though, at some point someone in a position of authority found homosexual relationships icky and outlawed them. Then when Christianity rose to dominance in Rome it found itself in a society where homosexuality was accepted as normal, and in it's outlawing the Church helped define itself with respect to the pagan religions around it.

 

[sniper762]

name just ONE religion that condones homosexuality.

 

[asketikos]

There are many things that are observed in the animal kingdom that happen with humans, just as chimps murdering other chimps. The question if it is natural is different.

Human beings, though we share much of our DNA with animals, are not the same. We are the only animal that needs years of teaching and protection before we can even talk or walk. The human female is the only one that does not choose her partner based on "heat" - there are many things that make us unique.

Above all -- humans have free will and can choose what they do.

 

[AfterGlow]

name just ONE religion that condones homosexuality.

Wicca, most pagan reconstructionist religions, the religion of ancient Rome, some Buddhist schools, some Hindu sects, some forms of animism. Thing is, most religions aren't governed by a single authority but are divided into many, many different denominations or sects some of which allow things that others do not.

 

[AfterGlow]

Human beings, though we share much of our DNA with animals, are not the same. We are the only animal that needs years of teaching and protection before we can even talk or walk. The human female is the only one that does not choose her partner based on "heat" - there are many things that make us unique.

Neither of those are unique to human beings. Most primates are born as helpless as we are and will need teaching before they can feed themselves or interact properly with their societies.
Many, many species have elaborate courtship rituals that males need to perform correctly to be accepted by the female, and even then if he does it correctly but the female doesn't find him attractive she will still refuse him. Also, there are several bird species that are exceptionally choosy about their mates and once they have paired will remain monogamous.

 

[sniper762]

note "sects"

wicca, "ancient" roman religion. buddhist "schools", animism? come on, oh you forgot satanism
is that the best you can do?

 

[sniper762]

NATURAL sex was intended for "procreation" same sex does not produce that

 

[AfterGlow]

note "sects"

wicca, "ancient" roman religion. buddhist "schools", animism? come on, oh you forgot satanism
is that the best you can do?

So, what you were really asking is which Abrahamic religion condones homosexuality, right?

NATURAL sex was intended for "procreation" same sex does not produce that

So you're saying all infertile people are unnatural. That's not very nice you know.

 

[EmpiricalAgnosticAtheist]

NATURAL sex was intended for "procreation" same sex does not produce that

Considering how unbelievably overpopulated the Earth is right there, I think we'll be fine having some gay couples around to either adopt children or not be parents.

Also, do you not consider anal sex to be natural? Because although I am not gay... big fan of anal sex here. If it weren't "natural", then I don't think there would be clusters of pleasure receiving nerves in the b- hole.

 

[sniper762]

nope, majority of the whole world's religions.

nope, fertile or infertile is not the isse here. its homosexuality

 

[Gaura Priya]

nope, majority of the whole world's religions.

nope, fertile or infertile is not the isse here. its homosexuality

How about Hinduism and Buddhism?

Or localised religions where homosexuality was a norm?

 

[EmpiricalAgnosticAtheist]

Sniper, could you possibly create a logical argument for why homosexuality is morally wrong? Without citing scripture, of course.

 

[AfterGlow]

nope, majority of the whole world's religions.

Yet you dismiss both Buddhism and Hinduism. You fail to understand that Buddhism is divided into schools and Hinduism into sects, that's how they are organised. Some Buddhist sects have no problem with homosexuality, others do.

nope, fertile or infertile is not the isse here. its homosexuality

You said natural sex was for procreation, if someone is infertile how does that make them any different to a homosexual from the point of view of the procreation argument?

 

[sniper762]

not procreative and btw, not mine...........you're disgsuting........but that's not surprising, coming from an atheist.

 

[sniper762]

this debate has gotten out of line........especially asking not to use scripture on a religious forum. i,ve said my piece. i must leave this thread.

 

[Skwim]

Yet you dismiss both Buddhism and Hinduism. You fail to understand that Buddhism is divided into schools and Hinduism into sects, that's how they are organised. Some Buddhist sects have no problem with homosexuality, others do.


You said natural sex was for procreation, if someone is infertile how does that make them any different to a homosexual from the point of view of the procreation argument?

You're beating your head against a wall. And pick on someone your own size, not poor

here.

 

[AfterGlow]

this debate has gotten out of line........especially asking not to use scripture on a religious forum. i,ve said my piece. i must leave this thread.

I have to say I don't have a clear idea of what your "piece" was, other than some vague notion of homosexuality being unnatural. And you've ignored most questions and information provided to you so I have to ask, why did you bother posting in this thread anyway?

 

[asketikos]

Neither of those are unique to human beings. Most primates are born as helpless as we are and will need teaching before they can feed themselves or interact properly with their societies.
Many, many species have elaborate courtship rituals that males need to perform correctly to be accepted by the female, and even then if he does it correctly but the female doesn't find him attractive she will still refuse him. Also, there are several bird species that are exceptionally choosy about their mates and once they have paired will remain monogamous.

That's not my point. A horse born within hours can start running, a chimp born within weeks can start climbing. Humans are the most complex creatures on this earth, we are the furthest from our closest ancestors - except DNA wise, but in terms of our abilities to learn, comprehend, and form complex systems of morality based on our learning environment, that we do not only instinctively feel, but that we pass down from one generation to the next, which animals do not do.