-
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!
It's not a problem for animals to have sex with the same sex
- Thread starter Wasp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homosexuality
InChrist
Free4ever
I believe it is because the act of sex as God designed it is meant to be more than a physical act. It also has emotional and spiritual ramifications. The scriptures reveal that the two people become ONE. This union where female and male become one in all aspects of their being in a committed marriage gives a complete picture of the image of God. Male with male or female with female is one-sided, out of balance, and according to the scriptures not God's design for human sexuality. Having said that, it is understandable that this is irrelevant to the choices and thoughts of those who do not believe in God or care what His design is at all.
If your analogy is correct then since it is not a problem for animas to eat their own... so we should all become cannibals and solve the world's hunger problem
So a disclaimer. I'm cool with LGBT folk. No issues there for me. Just regular folk to me.
But
The number of homosexual animals of any species rises as its population rises as shown in this study Behavioral sink - Wikipedia. Only problem is that overpopulation can lead underpopulation extremely fast, leading to societal decay and eventual extinction if not properly balanced. Nothing wrong with homosexuality but it doesn't produce children. Low birth rates thst already exist will exponentially compound on each other and civilized society will begin to collapse, leading to revolts, wars, cannibalism, and then extinction.
What to do?
Well you can't change someone sexuality or force anyone to have children that doesn't want them.
So it means straight people will voluntarily have to start focusing on family building. Less time focusing on education careers and self indulgence and more time raising families. I say this as 42 year old male with no biological children who has focused the majority of his life on education and career mind you, so I am part of the problem.
We need 2 dedicated parents producing and raising 3 or more children (the more the merrier) as much as possible to try and offset the deficit created.
Of course this won't happen. But it is the only solution to avoid extinction within the next 200 years.
I heard animals only do it temporarily.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I mean, I can't disagree with that.
First, let me just say that in my opinion the world would be better off if humans stopped having any children. Go Voluntary Human Extinction Project.
First world nation first. Because even though we have lower birthrates we consume MANY MANY more times the natural resources of those nations with high birth rates.
However, there's never been a case where homosexuality has been the primary, secondary or even tertiary factor in low birth rates in a species. Which is almost invariably, as the article highlights, after a population explosion followed by resource loss or disease. Something which upping the birth rates definitely won't help.
But more importantly, at least where humans are concerned, gays aren't sterile. I have about six gay friends who have had children, either through previous relationship, sperm donorship or surrogacy. Even if the entire human race became gay tomorrow, the human race would be fine.
But in regards to this thread at large..well..it's silly. A naturalist fallacy through and through. Natural = good and unnatural = bad is a misguided argument which can be debunked by breathing the words 'first aid kit' and 'anthrax,' the former of which is completely artificial and the latter is wholly natural in lethal doses.
All homosexuality existing in nature tells us is homosexuality exists in nature. So along homoexulity unnatural is baseless. It's a morally neutral fact.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Believe it or not but many homosexuals do fall in love, and just as deeply as heterosexuals
I assume you're talking about when they're in the throes of sex. But I'm curious, what is the chapter and verse you're referring to.
Again, it will help to know what chapter and verse these are ideas are expressed in.
Not at all. I, like many others, are quite capable of assessing actions and claims within their context, which is how I'm questioning god's hatred of homosexual sex. He obviously hates it, but doesn't seem to have given any reason.
.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Why is it sinful?
From the theological position man is bound by spiritual laws both Judaic covenants and non-Judaic covenants "Noahide laws"/Islamic law
That is if you're approaching it from the Abrahamic perspective. From a more secular approach the act of "sin" so to speak, would be argued that considering mankind's composition and biology, both men and women who engaged in this act are going against their nature (the nature of heterosexuality).
Now these are common arguments.
From the theological position man is bound by spiritual laws both Judaic covenants and non-Judaic covenants "Noahide laws"/Islamic law
That is if you're approaching it from the Abrahamic perspective. From a more secular approach the act of "sin" so to speak, would be argued that considering mankind's composition and biology, both men and women who engaged in this act are going against their nature (the nature of heterosexuality).
Now these are common arguments.
I agree in all honesty.
Undoubtedly this is how it would happen.
Agreed, neither I or the Behavior Sink assert this.
Ah but it is the population explosion that is the cause here. Homosexuality is just a symptom. You can treat the symtoms but it will not cure the disease. I suggest attacking the disease. Which is to balance the over/under population shift.
Meh it's not proven of course. But this is the best solution I can see. At this point in time Muslims are the only ones that have a positive birth rate. They will not go extinct from low population anytime soon. The rest of the world on the other hand, is in danger.
Of course not, I agree.
True, but these things are complicated. Without technology these things are meaningless.
I disagree, but we can just agree to disagree it's not worth arguing about. Because the effects even if true won't conclude until after our lifetimes so meh.
I don't think its that simple. As stated even in the Behavior Sink. Homosexuality is natural. It is an evolutionary trait to help control population. The only danger is that it only takes a split second for a human life to be extinguished, but it takes years to replace that life. So once birth rates become low, then the older generations started dying off you flop from over population to under population almost overnight (200 years is the blink of an eye cosmically speaking).
I don't disagree with that at all.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Interesting. There are certain genes that exist within us that switch off and on based on biological/environmental factors. Suicide for example there are specific genes along with low serotonin levels that contribute to incidents of suicide rates.
With that being said the more articles I read regarding the neurological components of homosexuality, I'm becoming more convince that homosexuality among humans genetically could be a form of biological population control.
I'm starting to think based on the right biological environment along with the influence of specific genes that "turn on" I do think there exist within all humans the components to be homosexual.
The problem though with this line of thinking is the ratio of human procreation versus homosexual demographic.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
This argument is typically used to counter the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument. Homosexuality is seen in other species, so is natural and not just a human construct.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Copying animals? That sounds really odd. Our DNA is more similar than different from most animals...we are copies of animals! We are 60% the same as the DNA of a banana tree for that matter. We humans deeply share a common nature with all other life on this planet.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Very much agreed...
You completely missed my point.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Just as inbreeding creates deformity and in some cases braindead animals, homosexuality increases the risk of HIV. It's not that God hates gays or anything like that. It's because (1) anal sex is a source of disease, and (2) promiscuity which tends to happen as a result of relationships not designed for procreation tends to spread such disease. So it is not merely homosexuality, but bisexuality combined with promiscuity that tends to create chances of STDs spreading.
But after almost eradicating AIDS by actually quarantining such people, we decided it was "offensive" for partners to actually tell each other that they had a disease which they transmitted through anal sex. This is the sin, not telling people, not the homosexuality itself. Homosexuality is sinful when it creates broken relationships, allows people to become sick because you care more about ****ing your partner (in multiple senses of the word, really) than actually loving your partner enough to abstain if you think you might be sick.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Hey, blind post here.
I support gay rights to the max. But this argument I find invalid.
We do not pattern human morality or behavior after other species. We don't do that because we are a unique species.
Hamsters are known to eat their own young. Lions are known to kill the offspring of the former Alpha. Chimpanzees are known to wage war for resources and are also known for cannibalism. Black Widow females kill their mate after copulation. Drakes force themselves (rape) their mates. Binobos are known to engage in orgies and include their youngsters in the activity.
So by this standard, its okay to cannibalize others, including our young; kill our stepchildren; raid our neighbors with violence for resources; murder our sex partners; rape our women and molest our children.
Get my point?
Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is a great point to make against the argument that homosexuality is unnatural; as it exists in nature, it is, indeed, natural. But that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the behavior is moral.
Personally, I hold no judgement against gays. Whether or not their behavior is moral, for me, depends on whether or not the criteria of informed consent has been fulfilled. If it has not, then the behavior is immoral. If it has, then it is not immoral.
But using the animal kingdom to assert that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is an inherently flawed argument.
I support gay rights to the max. But this argument I find invalid.
We do not pattern human morality or behavior after other species. We don't do that because we are a unique species.
Hamsters are known to eat their own young. Lions are known to kill the offspring of the former Alpha. Chimpanzees are known to wage war for resources and are also known for cannibalism. Black Widow females kill their mate after copulation. Drakes force themselves (rape) their mates. Binobos are known to engage in orgies and include their youngsters in the activity.
So by this standard, its okay to cannibalize others, including our young; kill our stepchildren; raid our neighbors with violence for resources; murder our sex partners; rape our women and molest our children.
Get my point?
Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is a great point to make against the argument that homosexuality is unnatural; as it exists in nature, it is, indeed, natural. But that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the behavior is moral.
Personally, I hold no judgement against gays. Whether or not their behavior is moral, for me, depends on whether or not the criteria of informed consent has been fulfilled. If it has not, then the behavior is immoral. If it has, then it is not immoral.
But using the animal kingdom to assert that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is an inherently flawed argument.
This was someone else's thought. I never said we should do because they do. I noted we do and it just so happens they do too - not just as an irrelevant exception either. The question is not why shouldn't we but why is it sinful for us?
A lot of things are sinful for man even if not for an animal; killing, trying to impregnate several females at once, stealing, abandoning offspring. But there's a logical explanation for those. Imo, there is no - or I don't know of - a logical explanation for this.
That would be a vague statement indeed, to say there is nothing wrong with it based on this. But why is it different?
People keep saying it's not the same thing because we don't imitate animals on everything we do and we shouldn't. But this to me seems like avoidance of the question 'why', switching it to 'because we don't do that either.'
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
I am not sure if I'm following you.
Are you asking me why homosexuality is "different"? If so, my answer is, "It's not".
I can also point out many behaviors in the animal kingdom that we also do; and these behaviors are moral. Elephants tend to their sick. Wolves chastise the pack who behave antisocially. Birds feed their young. Mere-cats raise their young communally. Most mammals protect their young, and do so fiercely. We consider these actions moral when human beings do the same thing. We don't consider these actions moral because other species mirror this behavior. We consider thee things moral behaviors because we are human beings.
By the same token that we do not decide what is moral based on the behaviors of other species, we also do not decide what is IMmoral based on the behaviors of other species. In short, rather speaking of what is or is not moral, the behavior of other species is entirely irrelevant and bringing it up is a non-sequitur.
Are you asking about my reasons for morality compass in regards to homosexuality?
If so, I can extrapolate more on why I believe it is not immoral; and in many cases, completely moral; if that is what I'm being asked.
I hope I didn't run off the rails here, but I'm not clear on what you are asking me.