• 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!

"birds and the bees may be gay"

robtex

Veteran Member
yahoo news reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061012/ts_nm/environment_homosexuality_dc

"The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals."

"With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural."

Can or should homosexuality be viewed as unnatural if it happens in nature? Why or why not?
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
robtex said:
Can or should homosexuality be viewed as unnatural if it happens in nature? Why or why not?
I think this may be a misunderstanding about what is determined natural or unnatural.
Another misunderstanding may be that what is natural and unnatural for certain animals is the same for humans or other animals.
 

Inky

Active Member
"Natural" means different things to different people. Here are some of the definitions from dictionary.com; I took the ones which seemed relevant to sexual behavior.

1. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

2. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.

3. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.

4. consonant with the nature or character of.

5. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.

1 and 3 are covered, obviously. The stance on two and four would depend on how you define someone's "character" or "innate constitution"; if you determine it by observing their behavior, then homosexuality is a part of the character of many humans. If you believe that the natural character of all humans is exclusively heterosexual, for religious reasons say, then according to your belief homosexuality among our species would be unnatural for those definitions. 5, of course, depends on opinion.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
robtex said:
yahoo news reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061012/ts_nm/environment_homosexuality_dc

"The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals."

"With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural."

Can or should homosexuality be viewed as unnatural if it happens in nature? Why or why not?

Of course not! It proves that the behaviour is natural. Of course, we humans are so keen on proving that we are so sophisticated that we would never stoop..........

With Bonobos, it is even recognised that young males will 'welcome each other' with more than just a shake of hands..........:rolleyes: It is documented that the sex between two males is part of the socialization structure.
 

pdoel

Active Member
People often confuse the terms natural, normal and common.

They tend to through those words around as if they all mean the same thing.

Is homosexuality natural? Yes. It occurs in nature. For me, it was a very natural progression of my growing up. I made no conscious choice. It just happened that way. To say it's not natural is simply untrue. It occurs without any outside influence, it happens all the time.

I even dislike hearing that it's not "normal". For me, it's perfectly normal. I know no other way of life. It's just as normal for me as opposite sex attractions are for other people.

The only word I'd say that could or should be used to describe it would be uncommon. It's not as common as heterosexual relationships. So that word seems to fit.

But, just because something isn't as common, doesn't mean it's wrong.
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
pdoel said:
But, just because something isn't as common, doesn't mean it's wrong.

I think this may be another misunderstanding about natural and unnatural. That it has to be judged and that it has to have right and wrong connotations.
 

Francine

Well-Known Member
The only word I'd say that could or should be used to describe it would be uncommon. It's not as common as heterosexual relationships. So that word seems to fit.
A royal Egyptian passing gas is a toot uncommon.
 
Top