Exhibit says homosexuality is natural

[Caesar]

One of the main arguments against homosexual intercourse is that it is “unnatural”, that such acts are against the laws of nature which have all animals (with the exception of humans) mating out of the biological necessity to reproduce.

I read recently about the Gay Animal Exhibition in Oslo, Norway (BBC). This exhibition states some interesting facts regarding homosexuality in nature:

**“It says homosexuality has been observed among 1,500 species, and that in 500 of those it is well documented.“

“Not only short-lived sexual relationships, but even long-lasting partnerships; partnerships that may last a lifetime. “

“It says sex between animals - as between humans - is often a matter of enjoyment, rather than procreation, and that this applies to animals of the same sex as well as opposite sexes”

“Sometimes a pair of male birds may rear eggs “donated” by a female.”

“In some colonies, as many as one in 10 pairs of penguins may be same-sex, while “in some animals the whole species is bisexual”, the exhibition says, giving bonobo chimpanzees as an example.”**

Frankly, I find some information disturbing. How can we say that such things as homosexual relationships and even gays raising children are wrong and unnatural if they are clearly observed in nature?

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this?

 

[Sandtigress]

My answer to this is that animals do a lot of things that we as humans frown upon among other humans. For instance, its perfectly natural for a male lion to go and kill all the cubs in a pride he has just taken over. Does that then make it acceptable for a man to kill a woman’s previous children when he marries her? Many animals eat their own young. Yet no one says that that is a natural act that humans should be able to do as well. We cat lovers constantly groan at our cats’ habits of licking their…less presentable parts…in the presence of company. Dogs sniff each others butts. But none of these actions are considered acceptable behavior in people.

The simple answer as to why that is is that people have the ability to rise above our instincts. We have the ability to comprehend such a thing as natural law - something that animals, much as I love and respect them, are not capable of doing. I hope that helps some.

 

[blessedtoo]

My answer to this is that animals do a lot of things that we as humans frown upon among other humans. For instance, its perfectly natural for a male lion to go and kill all the cubs in a pride he has just taken over. Does that then make it acceptable for a man to kill a woman’s previous children when he marries her? Many animals eat their own young. Yet no one says that that is a natural act that humans should be able to do as well. We cat lovers constantly groan at our cats’ habits of licking their…less presentable parts…in the presence of company. Dogs sniff each others butts. But none of these actions are considered acceptable behavior in people.

The simple answer as to why that is is that people have the ability to rise above our instincts. We have the ability to comprehend such a thing as natural law - something that animals, much as I love and respect them, are not capable of doing. I hope that helps some.

Beautiful reponse!

 

[dollarian]

humans have standard of human
animals have standard of animal
end story

 

[Caesar]

humans have standard of human
animals have standard of animal
end story

But are we not biologicaly animals?

What separates us from the animals is our ability not to be animals. Few of us now use that ability.

But that is not my dilemma. I am faced with a contradiction- on one hand is the common statement that homosexual relations is wrong for the reason that it is not natural (merely one of the reasons); on the other hand is this new statement that homosexuality is quite common in nature.

What do I think now?

 

[batteddy]

Two different meanings of the word “natural” or “nature”

One is the classic, philosophical terminology…used in such phrases as “human nature” and “the nature of the situation” and “the nature of God”

The other is taken to mean the “ecosystem,” as in “mother nature” meaning wild or of the biosphere.

A skewing of terminology used to the advantage of people with an agenda…

 

[Crumpy]

I still think that h. is strongly influenced by genetics. The human genome or that of other species has not been that well-studied at all.

If research continues, and I hope it will, maybe there is a greater chance for treatment. from what I have heard, basically, most homosexuals would rather not be homosexual.

There’s the essential issue of a possible genetic component of h., and then an equally important one relating to development after birth, where physical changes after birth may occur that cause a disposition towards h.

It sounds more likely that the exhibit’s position is political rather than scientific. Obviously, there doesn’t seem to be any biological advantage to h. orientation.

 

[runandsew]

Not being attracted to the opposite sex might be natural, but that does not mean that having intercourse with a person of their same gender is natural. Maybe, just maybe, God has created that person to live a celibate life.

 

[puzzleannie]

there is no evidence that the claims made by the researchers in this exhibit is sound. such claims have been made before and are simply not backed up by science. science with an agenda is not science, it is propaganda. before reacting to a so-called “scientific” claim, first make sure it is based on fact and sound research. this bushwah is not. the fact remains natural law as it applies to the animal world is basic biology. sex biologically is for the preservation of the species–remember it is the evolutionists who gave us that one.

 

[nydas]

there is no evidence that the claims made by the researchers in this exhibit is sound. such claims have been made before and are simply not backed up by science. science with an agenda is not science, it is propaganda. before reacting to a so-called “scientific” claim, first make sure it is based on fact and sound research. this bushwah is not. the fact remains natural law as it applies to the animal world is basic biology. sex biologically is for the preservation of the species–remember it is the evolutionists who gave us that one.

Your right! How dare they call observing hundreds of animals and documenting their sexual habits evidence!

Next they will be saying that their is an invisible force that keeps us from floating into space. I think they are considering calling it gravity.

 

[VociMike]

Just because something is found in nature doesn’t make it suitable for humans. For example, when a male lion takes a new female, he often kills the current offspring of the female. That’s all very natural behavior, but does that mean it’s OK for humans?

It is a trivial exercise to find behaviors in nature that would be immoral and/or criminal in human society. I doubt, for example, that women would put up with the mating habits practiced by many animals (think violent rape).

 

[Other_Eric]

I think here we are encountering a misreading (intentional, perhaps) of the Church’s teaching on Natural Law. Man has never formed any type of coherent philosophy or systematic way of acting from the observation of animals’ behavior. If they did, we might look to the anthill or the beehive and conclude that communism produced the best type of government. Rather, we are supposed to look upon the design of nature and draw our conclusions from that. Accordingly, we can see what the purpose of the sexual act is meant to be and conclude that even if an animal uses its sexual faculty in a manner that does not conform to this purpose, it is unnatural.

 

[Exalt]

I think here we are encountering a misreading (intentional, perhaps) of the Church’s teaching on Natural Law. Man has never formed any type of coherent philosophy or systematic way of acting from the observation of animals’ behavior. If they did, we might look to the anthill or the beehive and conclude that communism produced the best type of government. Rather, we are supposed to look upon the design of nature and draw our conclusions from that. Accordingly, we can see what the purpose of the sexual act is meant to be and conclude that even if an animal uses its sexual faculty in a manner that does not conform to this purpose, it is unnatural.

The mouth is not made for kissing. Is kissing immoral?

 

[batteddy]

The mouth is not made for kissing. Is kissing immoral?

We can’t say that. The mouth, like, for example, the hands…doesn’t seem to have one “purpose”. It can be for eating, talking, biting, etc…and maybe kissing.

You can’t say, “If it wasn’t for eating, there would be no mouth.” The fact is, even there was no eating, there might still be a mouth for other reasons. There is no one “purpose” for the mouth.

The genitals on the other hand, are clearly for reproduction. There would be no genitals if it wasn’t for reproduction.

 

[Scottgun]

Anyone who has owned a dog and had that dog lock on to your leg could tell you animals do weird things. Since I’ve never seen the actual science and methodolgy which is bandied about all time, I’m willing to bet much of these observed behaviors have nothing to do with sexuality and more to do with things like dominance, etc. Plot the points, THEN draw the graph. Not the other way 'round.

 

[Exalt]

We can’t say that. The mouth, like, for example, the hands…doesn’t seem to have one “purpose”. It can be for eating, talking, biting, etc…and maybe kissing.

You can’t say, “If it wasn’t for eating, there would be no mouth.” The fact is, even there was no eating, there might still be a mouth for other reasons. There is no one “purpose” for the mouth.

The genitals on the other hand, are clearly for reproduction. There would be no genitals if it wasn’t for reproduction.

First of all, there are multiple uses for the genitals as well: reproduction and the expelling of urine.

Second of all, we* don’t know for certian* what human beings would be like if there was “no eating.” There might be a mouth. There might not be. That’s a huge problem with Natural Law theory - telling for sure what given human attributes, traits, or body parts are supposed to be used for.

Third, what about my nose? It’s certainly not designed to hold up my glasses, and yet wearing glasses isn’t immoral.

 

[Alterum]

Homosexuality is not natural for humans. Neither is murder, alcohol abuse, rape, abortion, etc. – but we as a species engage in this sort of behavior all the time.

I think you’re getting confused about what we mean when we say that something isn’t “natural.” My understanding is that we mean it is against the natural law. Homosexuality is opposed to the natural law because in our very anatomical, physiological, psychological, biological (heh ) make-up as human persons it is self-evident that sex was designed for procreation. Our genitals were not designed to be naturally… well, compatible with other orifices, for instance. Ick.

Incidentally, don’t believe everything you read about animals being homosexual. I remember a debunked claim about massive amounts of homosexual penguins a while ago. Turns out, a few male penguins occasionally bumping into each other while stuffed into a cage – where all they can do is waddle around and defecate – doesn’t amount to a whole lot… unless you have a very particular agenda, that is. Homosexuality is higher among human prison populations, too.

 

[Kevin42]

As a human, I find it rather insulting when scientists among others go around saying that because we have found animals who do this, it is natural and humans therefore can do it. Humans are not animals, and God set us apart from other animals. We are intelligent creatures, not a soulless animal. Animals also don’t marry and can have more than one mate. They also fight physically for territory, kill each other, and do numerous other things that we as humans would never (hopefully) dream of doing. It is so degrading to the dignity of mankind when these types of arguments come out.

How can we say :homosexual relationships" are wrong? Well for one, the Bible has made it clear that homosexual acts are gravely offensive to the eyes of God and are sinful. That alone should be enough of a reason. If we love God, why would we want to offend him by sinning against him. God has made it clear this is wrong, so we should not do it. God also told Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit, but they chose to listen to the serpent (an animal) and eat it anyways. Humans need to rely on God for direction, not animals or the devil, and it is clear what God has directed when it comes to homosexuality.

Also, the idea of a “homosexual relationship” is idiotic in my opinion. There as no such thing as a homosexual relationship in the way that exists between a married man and woman. It is my feeling that homosexuality stems from a perverted, distorted love that is really primarily lust, and about self-gratification…failing to bring in the aspect of self-sacrificing love that is necessary for a true relationship. In a homosexual act it is impossible for the two to completly give of themselves as a married couple does when they engage in sexual intercourse. Homosexual relationships are the product of a perverted view of love that focuses primarily on oneself, and their is no fruit in these relationships. I think this can be seen in the extreme rarity it is to find two homosexuals who have remained in a loyal, lasting, loving relationship.

I think that’s all I have to say…I feel like I’m forgetting a point that I was going to make earlier though. Oh well .

 

[nydas]

As a human, I find it rather insulting when scientists among others go around saying that because we have found animals who do this, it is natural and humans therefore can do it. Humans are not animals, and God set us apart from other animals. We are intelligent creatures, not a soulless animal. Animals also don’t marry and can have more than one mate. They also fight physically for territory, kill each other, and do numerous other things that we as humans would never (hopefully) dream of doing. It is so degrading to the dignity of mankind when these types of arguments come out.

Dolphins are just as intellegent as us humans, apes have shown increadible amounts of intellegence, including communicating with us. What is a soul? You can feel it, you can see it, so how do you know we have souls and animals dont? Because a book says so? I dont get how people can put so much faith in a single book written BY MAN!

How can we say :homosexual relationships" are wrong? Well for one, the Bible has made it clear that homosexual acts are gravely offensive to the eyes of God and are sinful. That alone should be enough of a reason. If we love God, why would we want to offend him by sinning against him. God has made it clear this is wrong, so we should not do it. God also told Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit, but they chose to listen to the serpent (an animal) and eat it anyways. Humans need to rely on God for direction, not animals or the devil, and it is clear what God has directed when it comes to homosexuality…

God also said "Exodus 31:15 — “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.”

Timothy 2:11-12 — “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.”

Leviticus 24:16 — “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him.”

Leviticus 25:44 — “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.”

Yet we dont follow those rules anymore.

Also, the idea of a “homosexual relationship” is idiotic in my opinion. There as no such thing as a homosexual relationship in the way that exists between a married man and woman. It is my feeling that homosexuality stems from a perverted, distorted love that is really primarily lust, and about self-gratification…failing to bring in the aspect of self-sacrificing love that is necessary for a true relationship. In a homosexual act it is impossible for the two to completly give of themselves as a married couple does when they engage in sexual intercourse. Homosexual relationships are the product of a perverted view of love that focuses primarily on oneself, and their is no fruit in these relationships. I think this can be seen in the extreme rarity it is to find two homosexuals who have remained in a loyal, lasting, loving relationship.

I think that’s all I have to say…I feel like I’m forgetting a point that I was going to make earlier though. Oh well .

This last paragraph makes you sound increadibly ignorant. Get to know some homosexuals couples. Thier love can be as pure as any heteros. Just like it can be all about sex, just like some hetero couples.

 

[Sabda]

Anyone who has owned a dog and had that dog lock on to your leg could tell you animals do weird things. Since I’ve never seen the actual science and methodolgy which is bandied about all time, I’m willing to bet much of these observed behaviors have nothing to do with sexuality and more to do with things like dominance, etc. Plot the points, THEN draw the graph. Not the other way 'round.

You will also see cats mounting each other in a show of dominance. I have several cats and when one particular male is feeling stressed out he will go and mount his brother in a show of dominance. No real mating taking place. I’d like to know if these situations these scientist are using as evidence are what they really say they are or are they actually a show of dominance with no actual mating taking place.