Homosexuality observed in Animals: Not so Unnatural After All

[proffesb]

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

That is why you are not gay. Why should your heart and instinct tell others that their heart and instinct is wrong?

 

[EmpiricalAgnosticAtheist]

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 understand that your religion denounces homosexuality. What i'm asking is for you to use logic alone to explain why it's immoral.

Most of the things Abrahamic religions discourage are actually valid; murder, rape, theft, etc are all deplorable, categorically evil things to do. Noone will argue against this.

However, the intolerance of homosexuality I think is entirely self serving IMO. Most religions want you to have many children, indoctrinate more into your faith; since homosexuals can't do this, the church has no use for them. I also think that perhaps the aversion to homosexuality might have to do with STD transmission, and the lack of preventative measures in biblical times- banning premarital and homosexual sex would be a way to contain this a tad.

Just my half- baked theories here. In this day and age, of modern medicine, and scientific enlightenment, I see no logical reasoning to support that homosexuality is in any way immoral.

 

[proffesb]

professb and alceste, why ask questions if you dont read the response?

i already addressed the biblical scripture that shows disdain to homosexuality (that professb denies ever seeing) and the relationship to lesbianism in posts 49 and 52,

and WRONG ep, natural maybe for ANIMALS, but not for humans. also, the torah's prohibition of what to eat were mosaic laws no longer valid. big difference from the levticus quote.

bottom line is that, whether ones liberal views condone it, homosexuality nor lesbianism is condoned by ANY religion and is concidered to be ungodly and prohibited in the christian society.

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.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Using scripture to debate is absurd unless all parties agree that a particular scripture is axiomatic. Even then, the conclusions will not be reasonable and will be accepted only by believers in those particular scriptures.

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.

The most complex creatures on Earth? Where'd you get that idea? We're no more complex than a duck or a hound dog.

We are the only moral agents I'm aware of, but this is an artifact of reason, not divine mandate. With an argument like that -- morality as divine mandate -- you could say crickets and crocodiles were moral agents as well, by virtue of their divinely endowed instincts.

 

[proffesb]

It's funny that sniper left I was actually asking for evidence from scripture, So unless anyone would care to address my post 51 or thereabouts about LEV18 applying only to men (except for the beastiality part) we can only assume that Lesbianism is OK. Congratulations Gay females the Bible accepts you.

 

[Alceste]

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.

This might be the case with humans as well if it were not for the extraordinary marginalization, ostracisation and persecution people face when they happen to fall in love with a person of the same gender.

 

[Alceste]

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

Have you ever considered that might be only because you don't personally fancy a bit of man-on-man action? That it might be wrong for you, but right for somebody with different natural inclinations?

 

[Alceste]

name just ONE religion that condones homosexuality.

UU, Anglicanism and the United Church of Canada.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Good riddance.

 

[EmpiricalAgnosticAtheist]

United Church of Canada... that gave me a good chuckle.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

skwim, we, as christians are to immitate and reresent god by our actions. i dont think homo does that.

Do heterosexuals imitate god then? Is god heterosexual, meaning he has sex?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

name just ONE religion that condones homosexuality.

Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Reform Judaism, Reconstruct Judaism, Liberal Islam, Pagan religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism.

Want more?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

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

Now we're getting to the root of the problem. You think homosexuality is disgusting, so naturally the god you created with your ego also finds it disgusting. Funny how your god agrees with everything you say, and feels the way you do.

 

[Alceste]

United Church of Canada... that gave me a good chuckle.

It's the second largest Christian denomination in the country after Catholicism, and the first to have female and openly gay ministers. Also the first to perform same sex wedding ceremonies.

 

[no-body]

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

So sex for anything other than procreation is a sin too, right and "unnatural"?

Name one verse that states homosexuality is wrong without going to that mistranslated scripture from Paul about "homosexual offenders"

If you quote Leviticus remember that it also says shellfish and stuff is an abomination, and you can interpret it to mean if you lay with a man you need to lay with him like he's a man not a woman

also:

Luke 17:34-36 34I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.35Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Oh yeah I meant to cover 1 Corinthians 6, thanks for reminding me. The word that is often translated as homosexual in that passage is the Greek word malakos. Malakos can mean quite a few things. It can mean male shrine prostitute, boy prostitute, or one who engages in pedestry. This is how the NAB translates it, and some translate it as "homosexual offender".

 

[fallingblood]

Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Reform Judaism, Reconstruct Judaism, Liberal Islam, Pagan religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism.

Want more?

You need to be a little more specific. For instance, Lutheranism does not condone homosexuality. Sects of Lutherans condone homosexuality. The ECLA allows openly homosexual ministers; however, that also boils down to a congregational thing. In fact, many ECLA congregations do not condone homosexuality at all. Then when talking about other Lutherans sects (or synods if you prefer), there is little if any condoning homosexuality. It really isn't clear cut.

 

[fallingblood]

Oh yeah I meant to cover 1 Corinthians 6, thanks for reminding me. The word that is often translated as homosexual in that passage is the Greek word malakos. Malakos can mean quite a few things. It can mean male shrine prostitute, boy prostitute, or one who engages in pedestry. This is how the NAB translates it, and some translate it as "homosexual offender".

If you don't know Greek, I would be hesitant to comment on it. You are relying on a translator, and as you have pointed out, others translate it differently. So in this case, relying on a translation of another really doesn't seem very well.

For Paul though, I think it would be quite likely that he condones homosexuality though. We have to realize that Paul was a Jew, and the scriptures he subscribed to did condone homosexuality. Either way though, Paul never talks about homosexuality in the sense that we understand it. Sexual orientation was not realized. At most, he would be talking about homosexual sex, which is different from being homosexual.

 

[fallingblood]

[/INDENT]I believe these all demonstrate an attraction to others of the same sex in animals.

I would accept that some species of animals, one could see animals being attracted to others of the same sex. From what you've shown though, I would say it is probably quite a small group. So it may be natural in some species, to a point.

However, we can look at other animals as well, as see that it most likely has nothing to do with attraction. In deer for example, there are many cases in which, during rutting season, a male deer will engage in homosexual sex with a male deer. In many of these instances though, it is to assert it's dominance, or just simply because there are no females around.

So I think it would be fair to compromise and say that in some animal species, homosexuality, in a similar understanding as that in humans, is natural. In other species, it does not seem to be a homosexuality in the understanding that humans can be homosexual.

Which really then, wouldn't support the OP's argument as there does seem to be a difference in various species.

 

[Skwim]

I would accept that some species of animals, one could see animals being attracted to others of the same sex. From what you've shown though, I would say it is probably quite a small group. So it may be natural in some species, to a point.

However, we can look at other animals as well, as see that it most likely has nothing to do with attraction. In deer for example, there are many cases in which, during rutting season, a male deer will engage in homosexual sex with a male deer. In many of these instances though, it is to assert it's dominance, or just simply because there are no females around.

So I think it would be fair to compromise and say that in some animal species, homosexuality, in a similar understanding as that in humans, is natural. In other species, it does not seem to be a homosexuality in the understanding that humans can be homosexual.

I agree; however, I would never limit the meaning of "homosexual" and "homosexuality " to only those motivated by attraction.

Which really then, wouldn't support the OP's argument as there does seem to be a difference in various species.

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.