• 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

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
Was my comment posted? I did say people who hate gays were idiots right? I know SF (special forces) guys who are gay. Unfortunately being gay at least in the sociological sense, is the new African-American. For example we call gays "homo" and because it has become apart of media vocabulary and our own vocabulary it has become an acceptable term for gays even though calling someone a homo and not their actual name is inappropriate just as you call an African-American a "colored" or "Negro" instead of their name and the same can be said of other ethnic minorites.

I believe hatred of homosexuality and the justification to be homophobic is nothing more than the lack of sexual education and compassion of other human beings. Many religious folks use the Bible or other religious scriptures but many don't know that in the time of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, Noah, and Muhammad, homosexuality was odd and shunned and many people had to suppress their true sexuality for fear of being ostricized or killed. Now this is my assumption but a safe assumption. Homosexuality has been in existence since humanity existed. However I still think theoretically homosexuality is a byproduct of nature to control human population....sorry its a non sequitor
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Vendetta I agree homosexuality is likely nature's population control mechanism. I also agree we've become the new African-Americans so to speak, in terms of persecution. The sad thing is our country has a long history of this sort of prejudice toward minorities, and after gays I don't expect it to stop.
 

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
Vendetta I agree homosexuality is likely nature's population control mechanism. I also agree we've become the new African-Americans so to speak, in terms of persecution. The sad thing is our country has a long history of this sort of prejudice toward minorities, and after gays I don't expect it to stop.

Give it time....wait for the older generations who are ultra-conservative to die out. More and more people are becoming more educated about. Homosexuality. Also Egypt excuse my theory. Regardless whether its natures way or not there is nothing wrong with being gay just as there is nothing wrong with being straight. I just think our vocabulary when it comes to a persons sexual orientation has to change. Once that happens our behavior follows. For instance, I don't like the fact we called heterosexuals "straight." It often implies to me that to not be straight, means you are crooked or off a path. To me these are inadvertent pejorative terms we use to draw separation.
 

Duck

Well-Known Member
You misunderstood me I apologize for not being clearer, I said you were the first person to ever use actual verse to show that homosexuality was bad and I thanked you honestly for that.

Now we had a disagreement on whether the entirety of the scripture posted was applicable to women, I realized you were never going to address my actual question so I dropped it (then you had to go and bring my name into it again with this post).

I did ask if there were any other instances of homosexuality mentioned in the bible. By the way no is a completely acceptable answer if that is the case.

Other than LEV 18, there is a reference (essentially the same verse, but with the added punishment (capital) added in). I think that Deuteronomy may have some references, but I might be thinking about the verses dealing with female victims of rape (three categories -- unwed female virgins, rapist pays a fine and MARRIES his victim; married female, in town, categorized as an adulteress and executed (for not screaming loudly enough to get help); married female outside of town, no penalty If IRC; other than the fine in the first case IIRC there was no delineated punishment for the rapist). There are some verses that can be construed as accepting of homosexual relationships in the stories of Ruth and Naomi and Jonathan and David. Then one comes to the NT and a couple of one off verses in Romans and Corinthians that are translated into English from the original languages (presumably, but at least from Greek and Latin) that are referenced quite a bit. One deals with the "left the natural uses" idea. The counter argument is that the church Paul was writing about had essentially "back slid" into sinful activities or something similar, resultingly that church was being "punished" (IIRC the phrase was "God gave them over to..." or words to that effect) with un-natural appetites, the counter argument is that the "un-natural" appetites referenced by Paul (men lusting after men, women presumably after women) are perfectly natural for homosexuals and only "un-natural" for heterosexuals. The Corinthians verse has a long laundry list of folks that won't get into heaven, among them are listed "effeminates", "boy prostitutes", and "homosexuals"; the only counterarguments I have heard/read for this verse deal with the translation of the words used in this verse; EP argues (and I have seen this argument elsewhere) that this passage is a condemnation of the Roman practice of pederasty, other arguments I have read indicate that there isn't a clear translation for one or two of the words in this passage (basically the word(s) hasn't been found in contemporary texts so its translation isn't clear) I don't know the strength or accuracy of either argument; given what I know of Roman culture, I would tend to lean more in the direction of the condemnation of pederasty or perhaps receptive homosexual sex (essentially being the bottom). For the folks who fixate on gay sex more than gay men do, this is a clear condemnation that men who have sex with men are going straight to hell, do not pass Go!, do not collect $200. Everything else hangs from these verses in the NT (ETA: {and maybe the OT -- }assuming that one doesn't get the "but the Levitical condemnation was 'moral law' (behavior) instead of 'purity law' (not eating shellfish, how to sacrifice a bull) canard).
 
Last edited:

proffesb

Member
Other than LEV 18, there is a reference (essentially the same verse, but with the added punishment (capital) added in). I think that Deuteronomy may have some references, but I might be thinking about the verses dealing with female victims of rape (three categories -- unwed female virgins, rapist pays a fine and MARRIES his victim; married female, in town, categorized as an adulteress and executed (for not screaming loudly enough to get help); married female outside of town, no penalty If IRC; other than the fine in the first case IIRC there was no delineated punishment for the rapist). There are some verses that can be construed as accepting of homosexual relationships in the stories of Ruth and Naomi and Jonathan and David. Then one comes to the NT and a couple of one off verses in Romans and Corinthians that are translated into English from the original languages (presumably, but at least from Greek and Latin) that are referenced quite a bit. One deals with the "left the natural uses" idea. The counter argument is that the church Paul was writing about had essentially "back slid" into sinful activities or something similar, resultingly that church was being "punished" (IIRC the phrase was "God gave them over to..." or words to that effect) with un-natural appetites, the counter argument is that the "un-natural" appetites referenced by Paul (men lusting after men, women presumably after women) are perfectly natural for homosexuals and only "un-natural" for heterosexuals. The Corinthians verse has a long laundry list of folks that won't get into heaven, among them are listed "effeminates", "boy prostitutes", and "homosexuals"; the only counterarguments I have heard/read for this verse deal with the translation of the words used in this verse; EP argues (and I have seen this argument elsewhere) that this passage is a condemnation of the Roman practice of pederasty, other arguments I have read indicate that there isn't a clear translation for one or two of the words in this passage (basically the word(s) hasn't been found in contemporary texts so its translation isn't clear) I don't know the strength or accuracy of either argument; given what I know of Roman culture, I would tend to lean more in the direction of the condemnation of pederasty or perhaps receptive homosexual sex (essentially being the bottom). For the folks who fixate on gay sex more than gay men do, this is a clear condemnation that men who have sex with men are going straight to hell, do not pass Go!, do not collect $200. Everything else hangs from these verses in the NT (ETA: {and maybe the OT -- }assuming that one doesn't get the "but the Levitical condemnation was 'moral law' (behavior) instead of 'purity law' (not eating shellfish, how to sacrifice a bull) canard).

Duck thanks for the response, I like to know where peoples ideas come from.
 
Last edited:

proffesb

Member
On a separate but related note gay marriage is up for final vote in Maryland today, I hope a blow is struck for liberty of the individual today.
 

RitalinO.D.

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by RitalinO.D.
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.

Originally Posted by fallingblood
No. I would consider bisexual. I think there is a distinction.


Originally Posted by fallingblood
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.

So which is it then? You say you are using the basic definition listed above, yet in a different post you seem to use a different one.

Per your basic definition, a homosexual is someone attracted to people of their own sex. But you would not consider someone that is bisexual a homosexual? Theres not much distinction there. The fact that they are also attracted to the opposite sex is moot at this point, if we go off of your definition. It would seem you need to redefine your definition.

What would you consider someone who was attracted to their same sex, yet to avoid being persecuted openly has sex with the opposite sex. If you didn't know any better, you would assume they were hetero, but would be wrong.

Or how about a female in college, who is strictly attracted to men, yet for a few months experiments with another close female friend. After that few months she goes back to men, and never again has relations with a woman. Would you consider her a lesbian, or a woman with lesbian tenancies?

The point i'm trying to make here is basic definition aren't always accurate. IMO there are too many grey areas.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I don't see the OP suggesting there's any meaningful difference, or that the difference you bring up is crucial to Egyptian Phoenix's purposes, so I would support his contention that many animals do exhibit homosexuality; some because they're attracted to those of the same sex, and others for other reasons.
I would agree that many animals engage in homosexual sex, but I don't think that can say anything about it being natural in humans though. Primarily because many times, the reason for engaging in sex is very different than humans.

For instance, just look at dogs. When they need to fulfill their needs, they will try to have sex with anything. It doesn't matter if it's in the same species for not. It doesn't even matter if the object is animate or not. There really seems to be little distinction when it comes to a sexual partner for them. And I think that is a major distinction between humans and other animals. That behavior simply would not be considered natural for humans.


I would never deny that homosexual sex occurs in animals. However, I think that is as far as one can go with such a statement. To try to make the argument that since it occurs in various animals, it must be natural, simply in my opinion, is ignorant and ridiculous. More so, I think it is damaging to the homosexual movement as they are making the connection between them and animals that most consider below humans. That, and it allows other ridiculous arguments to be brought up. Such as, in many animals, it is natural to rape both female and males in order to assert their dominance or spread their seed. Really, it just becomes a slippery slope.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Vendetta I agree homosexuality is likely nature's population control mechanism. I also agree we've become the new African-Americans so to speak, in terms of persecution. The sad thing is our country has a long history of this sort of prejudice toward minorities, and after gays I don't expect it to stop.
I don't know if I would go that far. I would say Latin Americans would be the new African-Americans in terms of persecution. A homosexual can walk out in public without anyone even knowing their sexual orientation. Someone of a different color can't do that.

Yes, homosexuals are persecuted, but there is a difference. It is not a government supported persecution.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
How? Because gays can't marry? That is local government. And really is changing. How do they encourage hatred towards gays?

By using the media to promote heterosexuality as the American way and what's considered "normal". Don't try to say they don't because we've all seen how the government uses the media.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
By using the media to promote heterosexuality as the American way and what's considered "normal". Don't try to say they don't because we've all seen how the government uses the media.
They aren't doing such thing. That is paranoia. There are many instances in which the media promotes homosexuality as just fine and equal.

If we look at TV, I can't point out a show that condemns homosexuality. They may not mention that, but that means nothing. Even channels that are geared to teens and young adults are promoting equality for homosexuals. Look at the Secret Life of an American Teenager or Greek. Both on ABC Family, and both have homosexuals portrayed in the show in a positive light.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
I don't know if I would go that far. I would say Latin Americans would be the new African-Americans in terms of persecution. A homosexual can walk out in public without anyone even knowing their sexual orientation. Someone of a different color can't do that.

Yes, homosexuals are persecuted, but there is a difference. It is not a government supported persecution.

most of them live in secrecy...some are outed and commit suicide
you don't call being forced to live a lie an act of persecution?
the federal gov't supported the defense of marriage act...why? because it was becoming a force to reckon with and they went as low a they could to hold on to this bigotry...
yes it's psychological and physical persecution...it revolves around social stigma just as the african americans were subjected to, only they couldn't hide the color of their skin could they?
 
Top