The Myth of Animal Homosexuality

[Dr_MWJ]

PREMISE: Animals use their alimentary canal as a reproductive canal.

ARGUMENT: Just because bonobo monkeys lick each other’s genitals when angrily aroused does not constitute proof of animal homosexuality. Nor does the occasionally observed behavior of “bulling” – one cow mounting another – constitute it either. Yet, these are but two examples used in peer-reviewed scientific studies to demonstrate that animal homosexuality is persuasive.
Analogous behavior is not essential behavior. Anal intercourse is to homosexuality as seeing is to sight. Neither homosexuality nor sight is definable in normal usage without its essential act. Instinctual animal mannerisms mimicking homosexuality but lacking the essential act do not constitute proof.
Every animal is hardwired to use its reproduction system only for reproduction. The alimentary canal cannot be used in any manner as a reproduction canal except in animals like penguins where the two functions are combined in one canal. This is because animal instinct alone is insufficient to override natural law. Only a rational animal is capable of overriding the order inherent in natural law and misusing the alimentary canal as the reproductive canal.

PROOF: The simplest proof is provided by TV programs featuring animals living in nature such as “Wild Kingdom” that has run for decades. Additionally, there exist countless homosexual pornographic media such as Internet sites, DVDs, movies, and magazines. There are numerous pictures of animals displaying homosexual mannerisms. But there are absolutely no pictures of two male animals engaging in anal sex. Only the human intellect is capable of overriding instinct and disregarding the laws of nature. Undoubtedly you have heard the phrase “mind over matter.” This is one example.

 

[PadraigPearce]

Just lost my supper after reading that. Thanks.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\But there are absolutely no pictures of two male animals engaging in anal sex. \

**I’ve seen it happen with my own eyes.

It’s documented happening in many species in the book BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE.

The “dud stud” phenomenon is quite well known in animal husbandry. An estimaed 8-11% of male farm animals show no interest in breed with females, but marked interest in mounting other males. Curiously enough, this corresponds to the infamous Kinsey statistic of 10%.

I picked up a book about mynahs once in a pet shop and browsed through it. I was quite surprised to learn that mynahs frequently form same-sex pairs (and mynahs mate for life), showing all the behavior of a breeding pair. Someone who intends to breed them will never know if he really has a breeding pair unless fertile eggs are produced.**

 

[garysibio]

PREMISE: Animals use their alimentary canal as a reproductive canal.

ARGUMENT: Just because bonobo monkeys lick each other’s genitals when angrily aroused does not constitute proof of animal homosexuality. Nor does the occasionally observed behavior of “bulling” – one cow mounting another – constitute it either. Yet, these are but two examples used in peer-reviewed scientific studies to demonstrate that animal homosexuality is persuasive.
Analogous behavior is not essential behavior. Anal intercourse is to homosexuality as seeing is to sight. Neither homosexuality nor sight is definable in normal usage without its essential act. Instinctual animal mannerisms mimicking homosexuality but lacking the essential act do not constitute proof.
Every animal is hardwired to use its reproduction system only for reproduction. The alimentary canal cannot be used in any manner as a reproduction canal except in animals like penguins where the two functions are combined in one canal. This is because animal instinct alone is insufficient to override natural law. Only a rational animal is capable of overriding the order inherent in natural law and misusing the alimentary canal as the reproductive canal.

PROOF: The simplest proof is provided by TV programs featuring animals living in nature such as “Wild Kingdom” that has run for decades. Additionally, there exist countless homosexual pornographic media such as Internet sites, DVDs, movies, and magazines. There are numerous pictures of animals displaying homosexual mannerisms. But there are absolutely no pictures of two male animals engaging in anal sex. Only the human intellect is capable of overriding instinct and disregarding the laws of nature. Undoubtedly you have heard the phrase “mind over matter.” This is one example.

The people who see homosexual activity in animals are no more correct than those who think their dog thinks it human. It’s called anthropomorphosizing, interpreting something animals do by assuming they have the same purpose in mind as humans. Just because something looks like it would be gay sex if humans were doing it doesn’t mean that the animals are doing so for the same purpose. It’s more likely they are just establishing a chain of dominance (pecking order).

 

[garysibio]

An additional point:

Even if it were the case that animals behaved in a homosexual manner, that means nothing as far as the morality of gay sex. Chimpanzees murder each other. Should we justify murder because chimpanzees do it? We are better than the animals, at least in theory. We have the advantage of God’s revelation to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Animals do not have immortal souls. When they die, that’s it for them. They were not created in God’s image as we were.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Yes, some animals do have behavior that might be considered homosexual, so what, rape, incest, wars, torture, suicide…etc are also observed in the animal kingdom, even among high mammals, does that mean all these behaviors should be acceptable since animals do them? No. The gay animal argument is just stupid.

 

[lwest]

I think it’s a stupid argument, too. Some animals eat their young. My dog has humped the couch. My parrot was very attracted to a guitar strap once. We’re (thankfully) not animals. We’re supposed to behave as such.

 

[Holly3278]

PREMISE: Animals use their alimentary canal as a reproductive canal.

ARGUMENT: Just because bonobo monkeys lick each other’s genitals when angrily aroused does not constitute proof of animal homosexuality. Nor does the occasionally observed behavior of “bulling” – one cow mounting another – constitute it either. Yet, these are but two examples used in peer-reviewed scientific studies to demonstrate that animal homosexuality is persuasive.
Analogous behavior is not essential behavior. Anal intercourse is to homosexuality as seeing is to sight. Neither homosexuality nor sight is definable in normal usage without its essential act. Instinctual animal mannerisms mimicking homosexuality but lacking the essential act do not constitute proof.
Every animal is hardwired to use its reproduction system only for reproduction. The alimentary canal cannot be used in any manner as a reproduction canal except in animals like penguins where the two functions are combined in one canal. This is because animal instinct alone is insufficient to override natural law. Only a rational animal is capable of overriding the order inherent in natural law and misusing the alimentary canal as the reproductive canal.

PROOF: The simplest proof is provided by TV programs featuring animals living in nature such as “Wild Kingdom” that has run for decades. Additionally, there exist countless homosexual pornographic media such as Internet sites, DVDs, movies, and magazines. There are numerous pictures of animals displaying homosexual mannerisms. But there are absolutely no pictures of two male animals engaging in anal sex. Only the human intellect is capable of overriding instinct and disregarding the laws of nature. Undoubtedly you have heard the phrase “mind over matter.” This is one example.

Good post!

Just lost my supper after reading that. Thanks.

I sympathize with you.

The people who see homosexual activity in animals are no more correct than those who think their dog thinks it human. It’s called anthropomorphosizing, interpreting something animals do by assuming they have the same purpose in mind as humans. Just because something looks like it would be gay sex if humans were doing it doesn’t mean that the animals are doing so for the same purpose. It’s more likely they are just establishing a chain of dominance (pecking order).

I agree.

An additional point:

Even if it were the case that animals behaved in a homosexual manner, that means nothing as far as the morality of gay sex. Chimpanzees murder each other. Should we justify murder because chimpanzees do it? We are better than the animals, at least in theory. We have the advantage of God’s revelation to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Animals do not have immortal souls. When they die, that’s it for them. They were not created in God’s image as we were.

Exactly! Just because animals may or may not engage in homosexual activities does not make it right.

Yes, some animals do have behavior that might be considered homosexual, so what, rape, incest, wars, torture, suicide…etc are also observed in the animal kingdom, even among high mammals, does that mean all these behaviors should be acceptable since animals do them? No. The gay animal argument is just stupid.

Yep, I agree totally.

I think it’s a stupid argument, too. Some animals eat their young. My dog has humped the couch. My parrot was very attracted to a guitar strap once. We’re (thankfully) not animals. We’re supposed to behave as such.

Exactly! We are not animals! We are humans and we have moral values. Animals do not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

.

The “dud stud” phenomenon is quite well known in animal husbandry. An estimaed 8-11% of male farm animals show no interest in breed with females, but marked interest in mounting other males. Curiously enough, this corresponds to the infamous Kinsey statistic of 10%.

Well, maybe. But I have, in my lifetime, raised thousands of head of cattle, and have never seen it even once. Now, I will agree that if you have, say, too many males for the number of females, one male will tend to “take care of” the optimum number of females (about 30) and so strenuously bully the other males that they will eventually not even attempt to breed the females. (Takes awhile, though, and a lot of struggles) But if you remove that dominant male, one or more of the theretofore non-breeding males will immediately take on a breeding role. They’ll fight, then, until one becomes the dominant one, and it starts all over again.

 

[chrysostim83]

Anal intercourse is to homosexuality as seeing is to sight. Neither homosexuality nor sight is definable in normal usage without its essential act.

This might seem like a natural assumption to make, but a blanket statement like this requires a lot of caution and qualification. Here are some questions that need to be answered prior to making the claim: Why would lesbians sodomize each other? Do they do so actually? And what about the large proportion of homosexual men who don’t enjoy, and therefore don’t engage in, anal intercourse? Should we say they aren’t “homosexual?” Surely not. But if, then, there are so many homosexuals (i.e., lesbians and gays) who don’t engage in anal intercourse, can’t we be certain that it isn’t the “essential act of homosexuality?”

While I’m at it, it may be as well to comment on the usual intent of the animal argument. Some would-be moral theologian argue against same sex sexual acts by claiming that even animals have enough sense not to engage in them, either because the acts are unnatural, or the inclination to the acts is unnatural. The simplest way for the opposition to attack this argument is to refute the premiss on which it is built: “Look! Those animals appear not to have enough sense not to engage in same sex sexual acts.” As almost everyone above pointed out, it would be better if animals weren’t brought into the issue at all. For one thing, the facts of the case can be pretty contentious, and for another, the would-be moral theologians should try to avoid the accusation that what they’re really saying is that “homosexuals” are baser than animals.

Peace

 

[Ridgerunner]

This might seem like a natural assumption to make, but a blanket statement like this requires a lot of caution and qualification. Here are some questions that need to be answered prior to making the claim: Why would lesbians sodomize each other? Do they do so actually? And what about the large proportion of homosexual men who don’t enjoy, and therefore don’t engage in, anal intercourse? Should we say they aren’t “homosexual?” Surely not. But if, then, there are so many homosexuals (i.e., lesbians and gays) who don’t engage in anal intercourse, can’t we be certain that it isn’t the “essential act of homosexuality?”

While I’m at it, it may be as well to comment on the usual intent of the animal argument. Some would-be moral theologian argue against same sex sexual acts by claiming that even animals have enough sense not to engage in them, either because the acts are unnatural, or the inclination to the acts is unnatural. The simplest way for the opposition to attack this argument is to refute the premiss on which it is built: “Look! Those animals appear not to have enough sense not to engage in same sex sexual acts.” As almost everyone above pointed out, it would be better if animals weren’t brought into the issue at all. For one thing, the facts of the case can be pretty contentious, and for another, the would-be moral theologians should try to avoid the accusation that what they’re really saying is that “homosexuals” are baser than animals.

Peace

I agree with you that the whole “animal argument” is not persuasive, and not really in either direction.

As to the precise acts of homosexual congress, I agree with you that they can’t be universally characterized. In that connection, I can’t resist reciting the following limerick I heard long ago, and which might get me chastized by the moderators.

“There was a gay guy from Khartoum
Who had a lesbian up to his room.
But once inside, they couldn’t decide
To do what, or how, or to whom.”

I didn’t say that just to say it. It is a lighthearted way, however, of simply acknowledging that once one departs from the obviously natural act of heterosexual congress, there’s no normative expression, or even certainly predictable expression of the outcome. But truly, it must be recognized as obvious that some of the more common ones incite an automatic revulsion reaction from most heterosexuals, and even from some homosexuals. That reaction does not, in itself, tell us much. Some of them assault the senses in perfectly natural and predictable ways. Some do not. But one cannot help but suspect that since both have precisely the same causation (SSA) the whole thing departs from human nature and should rightly be regarded as an aberration therefrom, and should not be regarded as an accidental exclusion that needs to be herded back in. If it’s aberrant per se, then efforts to extrude it into the concept of “normalcy” is rather like squeezing toothpaste into a door lock. There may be a certain sense of accomplishment in getting it done, but it is an impediment to the proper functioning of the latter.