Homosexual Behaviors Animals as an Argument for It Being "OK" In Humans - Need Help Refuting

[centurionguard]

I think the core basis of the animal kingdom argument is the proof that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, when people accuse homosexuals of being unnatural and against nature. Of course SSA occurs naturally, this is something which the CC recognises as well as the scientific community. The animal kingdom argument seeks to prove that, nothing more. If this person is using that argument to justify unions however, then they’re being wrong - because very few animals remain faithful to each other, as other readers have pointed out.

So basically I think the analogy works if you want to prove to someone that SSA occurs naturally, but not if you want to convince someone that same-sex unions are natural.

I think the core basis of the animal kingdom argument is the proof that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, when people accuse homosexuals of being unnatural and against nature.

And the concrete basis of this so called surmised fact?
Nothing but scientific theories and conjecture.

But for the sake of argument lets say there were (“some”) truth in what you say about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Is there really a mindset evil or mindset of lusts in seeing a dog or wolf sodomizing and dominating another?

Its far different when a homosexual sets out with such a mindset. Although the homosexual will articulate it as a sexual act of love.

I would argue that true human love between married man and wife in the sexual embrace leading directly to procreation is far more profound than the mere minuscule sexual act itself.

When is true human love demeaned as a mere sexual act?

 

[LemonAndLime]

And the concrete basis of this so called surmised fact?
Nothing but scientific theories and conjecture.

But for the sake of argument lets say there were (“some”) truth in what you say about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Is there really a mindset evil or mindset of lusts in seeing a dog or wolf sodomizing and dominating another?

Its far different when a homosexual sets out with such a mindset. Although the homosexual will articulate it as a sexual act of love.

I would argue that true human love between married man and wife in the sexual embrace leading directly to procreation is far more profound than the mere minuscule sexual act itself.

When is true human love demeaned as a mere sexual act?

I wouldn’t say they were simply theories.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265836/Gay-swans-deeply-love-make-nest-lovers-quarrels.html

'The two birds both hatched in 2002 and are sort of together.
‘They have been together for several nesting seasons and basically keep territory as if they are a nesting pair.’
The twosome flock together at the start of the nesting season in March and perform rituals associated with a breeding couple.
Manager of Abbotsbury Swannery, John Houston, said: 'The swans have been nesting together like this for several years and they get together every nesting season and form a nest together.
‘They sit on the nest and act in every way as if they were a pair expecting to lay eggs. It is quite sweet.’

I am simply saying that the animal kingdom argument serves to attempt to prove that homosexual acts are natural, and not anything else relating to marriage. When I have seen people try to argue that homosexuality is completely unnatural, they claim that it is related to human sexuality culture and has no place in the natural world. The animal kingdom argument proves that it does happen in a natural world. Not saying its a perfect argument, but it works.

By the way, I read an article about how some gay swans “stole” a signet and raised it successfully - and was not an isolated incident, but I couldn’t find it.

 

[centurionguard]

I wouldn’t say they were simply theories.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265836/Gay-swans-deeply-love-make-nest-lovers-quarrels.html

I wouldn’t rely on a sensationalistic media tabloid or some televised documentary on the empirical study of swans by scientists to say that primitive swans are gay. These are still highly debatable scientific theories filled with conjecture.

I am simply saying that the animal kingdom argument serves to attempt to prove that homosexual acts are natural, and not anything else relating to marriage. When I have seen people try to argue that homosexuality is completely unnatural, they claim that it is related to human sexuality culture and has no place in the natural world. The animal kingdom argument proves that it does happen in a natural world. Not saying its a perfect argument, but it works.

By the way, I read an article about how some gay swans “stole” a signet and raised it successfully - and was not an isolated incident, but I couldn’t find it.

By the way, I read an article about how some gay swans “stole” a signet and raised it successfully - and was not an isolated incident, but I couldn’t find it.

And your point here?
Are you suggesting that because gay couples in some countries can legally adopt children is reflective of gay primitive swans living on a bloody lake?

Very poor human rational friend.

Your remarks and alluding to the anomalist primitive comparison of so called “gay animals” wreaks of secular humanistic rational.

 

[LemonAndLime]

And your point here?
Are you suggesting that because gay couples in some countries can legally adopt children is reflective of gay primitive swans living on a bloody lake?

Very poor human rational friend.

Your remarks and alluding to the anomalist primitive comparison of so called “gay animals” wreaks of secular humanistic rational.

Oh for Heavens sake, get over yourself. I do not agree with homosexual “marriage” or adoption.

Your reasons for dismissing the scientific study are just as ridiculous. It’s not an isolated study. Why do you struggle to acknowledge that in the animal kingdom, same-sex partnerships exist? Fact is, they do - and if you don’t like it, then that’s your problem, not mine. If you can’t accept the validity of the study based on your beliefs, that’s your problem too. Don’t make it mine.

I would much rather be a secular humanist rational rather than someone who fails to read posts. I said I could understand how the animal kingdom argument can be used to prove that homosexual behaviour is based on natural urges which are not unique to humans, therefore cannot be based on culture - a good argument to use when someone claims that homosexuality does not occur naturally and is a human phenomenon based on culture - i.e. the idea that someone “chooses” to have SSA. Some people on this forum have claimed to have that.

I should perhaps remind you at this point that the CC teaches that SSA occurs naturally, therefore nothing I am saying so far is against Church teaching. SSA is natural. Humans have the ability to chose whether or not to act on such urges. Animals cannot.

I should also say that I am not the enemy, therefore you should not treat me as such and reply to my posts full of venom.

 

[Barbkw]

Ducks procreate largely by raping female ducks… something that makes a walk in the park in spring fairly awkward. I learned this when I got yelled at for pegging a male duck in the back with a pine cone when it attacked a female and was violently forcing her head under water to make her submit.

I’d say ducks probably aren’t the best models for human reproduction either then…

Uhm, male ducks don’t penetrate the female duck.

"Duck reproduction is sexual, but does not involve any penetration or copulatory organs. Both the male and female have an opening called a cloaca. The cloaca is an excretory and sexual opening. During mating, the male and female press their cloacas together; this is how sperm is passed to the female. The male’s sperm travels up the oviduct and to the female’s eggs. Fertilization occurs when the sperm penetrates the egg(s).

Read more: How Do Ducks Mate? | eHow.com "

ehow.com/how-does_4569594_ducks-mate.html#ixzz19ztjWL2u

 

[camerong]

When I have seen people try to argue that homosexuality is completely unnatural, they claim that it is related to human sexuality culture and has no place in the natural world.

That is not the argument of the Catholic Church, or rather, is not at all the argument in its entirety. Homosexual sex is wrong in much the same way that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Sex is for procreation (hence homosexual sex or non-procreative sex being wrong). Sex for procreation is made to be within marriage (hence procreative sex outside of marriage being wrong). It is a gross oversimplification to say that we oppose homosexual sex because it is unnatural, and arguments that serve only to refute that oversimplification are correspondingly weak.

 

[LemonAndLime]

That is not the argument of the Catholic Church, or rather, is not at all the argument in its entirety. Homosexual sex is wrong in much the same way that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Sex is for procreation (hence homosexual sex or non-procreative sex being wrong). Sex for procreation is made to be within marriage (hence procreative sex outside of marriage being wrong). It is a gross oversimplification to say that we oppose homosexual sex because it is unnatural, and arguments that serve only to refute that oversimplification are correspondingly weak.

I do not mean to be rude, but if you read the entireity of my post you would have noticed that I was quoting an opinion which I deem to be false and against Church teaching, but one which I have seen held by members of this forum, who believe that SSA is something people choose, which is not true. I agree completely with you however.

 

[camerong]

I do not mean to be rude, but if you read the entireity of my post you would have noticed that I was quoting an opinion which I deem to be false and against Church teaching, but one which I have seen held by members of this forum, who believe that SSA is something people choose, which is not true. I agree completely with you however.

I believe our misunderstanding was borne of my brevity, and for that I apologize. I realized your position. I merely meant to show that any discussion about whether ducks or monkeys or lions have certain behaviors is completely irrelevant, at least to the Church’s arguments. I did not intend the post to correct or counter you, but merely as the next step in your accurate statement of a weak but typical argument against homosexual sex.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I believe our misunderstanding was borne of my brevity, and for that I apologize. I realized your position. I merely meant to show that any discussion about whether ducks or monkeys or lions have certain behaviors is completely irrelevant, at least to the Church’s arguments. I did not intend the post to correct or counter you, but merely as the next step in your accurate statement of a weak but typical argument against homosexual sex.

In that case I was also at fault, I thought you were trying to disagree with me - I apologise. I agree - the animal kingdom argument has some merit as an argument to prove that homosexuality is not a result of human culture, but its weak as ultimately I doubt anyone would say that yes, they think that human sexuality can be compared to that of animals. In that sense, the animal kingdom argument does prove that SSA does occurs naturally and isn’t limited to cultural phenomenon - but that’s the limit of the argument. You cannot use the argument to justify whether it’s okay by human standards however. While yes, some animals like swans and penguins who mate for life have been shown to engage in homosexual partnerships - I think you can counter such an argument, as someone else has already suggested, by saying - “So you think homosexual humans are the same as animals in their urges?”

It’s a weak argument, but a credible one depending on the usage. But one with very limited stretch.

 

[jwright82]

I try to look at it like this. The very argument itself, for homosexuality being ok because animals engage in it, is framed withen a completly naturalistic/Darwinian perspective. Even we grant that the study is accurate why must we grant that their conclusion is also correct? We don’t because humans are humans and animals are animals. The only reason they say this is because they assume that we are all animals period. We all have a common genetic anscestry, we all came from the same primordial slime so to speak. So it makes sense in that context to say well since we are just animals and they are just animals than we can do what they do.

Peter Singer has worked out the implications for this way of thinking and he argues that on the same grounds beastiality should also be ok, oh and he teaches at like Harvard or Princton. So whoever is arguing this ask them if they therefore beleive that beastyality is ok too? Animals do this so why not us (I am being sarcastic here)? No see I think Catholics and Reformed are in agreement that people are made in the Image of God, thats what makes us human, so it doesn’t matter how animals behave it only matters how God desires us to behave. I hope that helps.

 

[kildare]

And animals engage in incest as well!
Is this good?
Actually for animals, I think both the Christian and the Darwinian ideas would be in agreement that it was, at least in that it was better than nothing in potentially desperate conditions.
A major rule for Gods creation is that it is Good and should survive, and that as it happens is also the foundation stone of Evolution by natural selection.

However I´m not able to find any rationale for homosexual behaviour from either the Darwinian or the theological persective(obviously). However it does indeed occur so I must assume that in that aspect I am still ignorant. On the other hand are such animals ( and I do beleive that most species have no homosexual behaviour) permanently homosexual? The bonobos do practice it but that is more due to their general promiscuity to try it on with the nearest bonobo available regardless of sex.
They certainly dont label themselves as “gay”, and if they could rationalise they probably wouldnt either for that seems to be a purely human form of thinking, and a fairly recent one at that it seems to me. Roman culture, like nearly all the ancient and modern cultures, was traditionally homophobic, but the greek influence in the late republic changed attitudes. Famously many emperors were not straight or “correct” in their preferences to paraphrase Gibbon, however they were never labeled as anything “other” the way the “outing” of gays occurs today. It was regarded as an action rather than a state of being.

Modern man, however loves labels and so wants people to choose. Thats I believe is part of the problem.

 

[edwest2]

And animals engage in incest as well!
Is this good?
Actually for animals, I think both the Christian and the Darwinian ideas would be in agreement that it was, at least in that it was better than nothing in potentially desperate conditions.
A major rule for Gods creation is that it is Good and should survive, and that as it happens is also the foundation stone of Evolution by natural selection.

However I´m not able to find any rationale for homosexual behaviour from either the Darwinian or the theological persective(obviously). However it does indeed occur so I must assume that in that aspect I am still ignorant. On the other hand are such animals ( and I do beleive that most species have no homosexual behaviour) permanently homosexual? The bonobos do practice it but that is more due to their general promiscuity to try it on with the nearest bonobo available regardless of sex.
They certainly dont label themselves as “gay”, and if they could rationalise they probably wouldnt either for that seems to be a purely human form of thinking, and a fairly recent one at that it seems to me. Roman culture, like nearly all the ancient and modern cultures, was traditionally homophobic, but the greek influence in the late republic changed attitudes. Famously many emperors were not straight or “correct” in their preferences to paraphrase Gibbon, however they were never labeled as anything “other” the way the “outing” of gays occurs today. It was regarded as an action rather than a state of being.

Modern man, however loves labels and so wants people to choose. Thats I believe is part of the problem.

Modern man loves labels? Not true. The Media and Advertising Agencies love labels. Remember Yuppies? Generation-X? DINK? (Double Income No Kids)?

People who engage in Demographics studies create Red States and Blue States. We are what we eat, drive and wear. Our useful lives are measured in “child bearing years,” “lifetime employment earnings” and other dumb terms and phrases.

We have been programmed to think this way by the media. If I see a man walking down the street, I have no idea if he is religious or not, gay or not, Republican or not, and a whole lot of other things. No one walks around with a label identifying their core beliefs or lifestyle. That’s how average people view average people.

Peace,
Ed

 

[jwright82]

And animals engage in incest as well!
Is this good?
Actually for animals, I think both the Christian and the Darwinian ideas would be in agreement that it was, at least in that it was better than nothing in potentially desperate conditions.
A major rule for Gods creation is that it is Good and should survive, and that as it happens is also the foundation stone of Evolution by natural selection.

However I´m not able to find any rationale for homosexual behaviour from either the Darwinian or the theological persective(obviously). However it does indeed occur so I must assume that in that aspect I am still ignorant. On the other hand are such animals ( and I do beleive that most species have no homosexual behaviour) permanently homosexual? The bonobos do practice it but that is more due to their general promiscuity to try it on with the nearest bonobo available regardless of sex.
They certainly dont label themselves as “gay”, and if they could rationalise they probably wouldnt either for that seems to be a purely human form of thinking, and a fairly recent one at that it seems to me. Roman culture, like nearly all the ancient and modern cultures, was traditionally homophobic, but the greek influence in the late republic changed attitudes. Famously many emperors were not straight or “correct” in their preferences to paraphrase Gibbon, however they were never labeled as anything “other” the way the “outing” of gays occurs today. It was regarded as an action rather than a state of being.

Modern man, however loves labels and so wants people to choose. Thats I believe is part of the problem.

You make excellant points. I guess to sum up my argument is this, even if the study were correct it proves nothing about what humans ought or ought-not to do. Just because animals do or may do certian things is beyond thediscussion of human moral behavior, from a logical point of view. We do like our labels though don’t we?

 

[Newbie2]

You should have asked him. “So what are you saying, that homosexuals are animals?”

And he/they could reply, “yes”. Strictly speaking, we’re animal and not vegetable or mineral.

Perhaps a more concise way to put it is to ask if humans are any different than i.e. “above” other species. More difficult to deny this fact; to defend it one has to lower humans to be driven simply by base instinct and not intellect, which of course is difficult to do. Even “other” animals don’t have conversations about whether or behavior is instinctual or not.

 

[edwest2]

And he/they could reply, “yes”. Strictly speaking, we’re animal and not vegetable or mineral.

Perhaps a more concise way to put it is to ask if humans are any different than i.e. “above” other species. More difficult to deny this fact; to defend it one has to lower humans to be driven simply by base instinct and not intellect, which of course is difficult to do. Even “other” animals don’t have conversations about whether or behavior is instinctual or not.

Animals are generally not subject to human laws. They lack the ability to reason as human beings do. A dog bites you. Did it bite you because of your politics or skin color? No. It was protecting its owner or itself from a large stranger.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Newbie2]

Animals are generally not subject to human laws. They lack the ability to reason as human beings do. A dog bites you. Did it bite you because of your politics or skin color? No. It was protecting its owner or itself from a large stranger.

Peace,
Ed

Hey, I’m working on the “large” aspect of “large stranger”. New year’s resolution to lose some weight.

Some people confuse reasoning with conditioned responses; I agree with you, we’re different.

 

[CradleCath]

Here’s a good discussion:

The Animal Homosexuality Myth
.

That link led to excellent answers about the “supposed homosexuality” in animals. Myself…well, my answers come from 25 yrs. of working with livestock via the breeding process, the birthing process & everything in between.

The male animal…be he a bull, stallion, boar, dog, cat…whatever, will mount anything when the urge to mate becomes strong. I’ve seen a bull mount a barrel, a dog latch on to a human beings leg & a stallion & boar mount another male if one keeps the different genders penned up separately. What I’ve NEVER seen is a male animal “stand in heat” while another male animal penetrated his anus. (sorry, I tried to think of a more sensitive way to express that, but couldn’t.)

As cows are approaching estrus, they will be nervous, either try to mount other members of the herd…mainly female, as they are a bit afraid of the bull…or, as I said before… barrels & inanimate objects. If a cow mounts another cow, there will be agitation & even fights between the two. They’ll exhibit physical signs such as increased urination, decreased eating & the amount of milk she gives will also be decreased. Some will isolate themselves from the herd.

I, personally, think that people who do not really understand animals (& people with a gay agenda) often misinterpret these behaviors as being homosexual in nature.

BTW. If anyone can get a picture of a bull, stallion, boar, etc. “standing in heat” while being penetrated by another male animal, send it to the New York Times & you’ll become quite rich.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

That link led to excellent answers about the “supposed homosexuality” in animals. Myself…well, my answers come from 25 yrs. of working with livestock via the breeding process, the birthing process & everything in between.

The male animal…be he a bull, stallion, boar, dog, cat…whatever, will mount anything when the urge to mate becomes strong. I’ve seen a bull mount a barrel, a dog latch on to a human beings leg & a stallion & boar mount another male if one keeps the different genders penned up separately. What I’ve NEVER seen is a male animal “stand in heat” while another male animal penetrated his anus. (sorry, I tried to think of a more sensitive way to express that, but couldn’t.)

As cows are approaching estrus, they will be nervous, either try to mount other members of the herd…mainly female, as they are a bit afraid of the bull…or, as I said before… barrels & inanimate objects. If a cow mounts another cow, there will be agitation & even fights between the two. They’ll exhibit physical signs such as increased urination, decreased eating & the amount of milk she gives will also be decreased. Some will isolate themselves from the herd.

I, personally, think that people who do not really understand animals (& people with a gay agenda) often misinterpret these behaviors as being homosexual in nature.

BTW. If anyone can get a picture of a bull, stallion, boar, etc. “standing in heat” while being penetrated by another male animal, send it to the New York Times & you’ll become quite rich.

Thanks for your post, CradleCath. Nothing like non-fiction stories such as yours. Not only entertaining but irrefutable of how nature really works.

.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Thanks for your post, CradleCath. Nothing like non-fiction stories such as yours. Not only entertaining but irrefutable of how nature really works.

.

Despite from the fact that CradleCath is not a zoologist and only has experience in farm animals. The swan study I posted is not a work of fiction, unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[Tannhauser]

Homosexuals will always say til the end of time that they were born that way.
What they won’t say is that they themselves made the psychological decision to choose their own sexual behavioral identity.

Men nor Women are not born Homosexual period. Sexual identity is a psycho-behavioral choosing. But more than this Heterosexuality is far more than just a norm in psycho-sexual identity, it was designed and ordained by God Himself that Man and Women would become One in the Natural order of human design.

This is absolutely nonsensical. The suggestion that gay men and women choose their emotional and sexual orientation beggars belief. We are not slaves to our sexuality, and thus we all as Catholics are called to chastity outside of marriage: however, our sexual identities are largely inscripted beyond our will.

Pray provide a single ounce of evidence for your contemptuous assertion that: ‘men nor women are not born homosexual.’