Those Homosexual Animals

[CopticChristian]

I often see Homosexual sympathizers and those propagating Homosexuality as evident in the Animal Kingdom when reading about attempts to normalize the Homosexual life.

Homosexuality exists in many types of animal types. My usual response is that animals exhibit at best Adolescent behavior and that to conclude that adolescent behavior should be our model for human behavior makes no sense.

I am of the belief that there is no such thing as fixed behavior and it appears that in the animal kingdom this is true. If this is true in the animal kingdom then it is true for humans. There is no such thing as fixed behavior.

companionanimalsolutions.com/blogs/modern-animal-behavior-a-lot-has-changed-in-the-last-few-decades/

Let me give you a few examples: I think that they fall into four categories. There are concepts that we now know simply are not true: Fixed Action Patterns fall into this category. Fixed action patterns were a concept from the early days of ethology, mid-20th-century, in which animals were thought to display some behaviors that were absolutely of genetic origin, the classic “hard-wired”

There are concepts that are sort-of, basically true but that we now know are far more complicated, and thus the original terms and concepts simply don’t do the job any more: the Nature vs. Nurture dichotomy falls into this category (as do many dichotomies: the world is not a black and white place). This issue is related to the concept of the fixed action pattern, but this one has taken longer to die. Why? It’s the caveat about being kinda, sorta right. But here the point is that it is not a dichotomy. No matter where we look, it’s a continuum, from highly genetically controlled (but never entirely: see point above) to virtually entirely environmental, what we in applied animal behavior would call ‘learned’, but again, never without a genetic component to the behavior.

William Glasser, M.D. approaches problems in life with his Choice Theory and Reality Therapy. I do not necessarily accept all he writes or agree with all he writes however when considering behavior and choice…

wglasser.com/the-glasser-approach/choice-theory

The Ten Axioms of Choice Theory

1. The only person whose behavior we can control is our own.
2. All we can give another person is information.
3. All long-lasting psychological problems are relationship problems.
4. The problem relationship is always part of our present life.
5. What happened in the past has everything to do with what we are today, but we can only satisfy our basic needs right now and plan to continue satisfying them in the future.
6. We can only satisfy our needs by satisfying the pictures in our Quality World.
7. All we do is behave.
8. All behavior is Total Behavior and is made up of four components: acting, thinking, feeling and physiology.
9. **All Total Behavior is chosen, but we only have direct control over the acting and thinking components. We can only control our feeling and physiology indirectly through how we choose to act and think. **10. All Total Behavior is designated by verbs and named by the part that is the most recognizable.

If no behavior is fixed, and the animal kingdom is representative of that truth, all we do is behave, we choose our behavior, our acting and thinking are linked to our feeling and physiology then no behavior is fixed.

In our heads we think and feel. We have at our disposal memory and imagination. We can only behave in acting and speaking. We can choose to modify our thoughts and feelings and also to speak and act and therefore modify our behavior…

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

To have dominion over the animal Kingdom suggests that we should recognize that accepting fixed behavior makes us lower than the animals and that cannot be.

Thoughts?

 

[DexUK]

I note you concentrate only on behaviour in your example. Behaviour is not necessarily learned or chosen. Animals typically behave according to their predetermined instincts. Without any teaching involved, the new-born foal gets to her feet and seeks out her mother’s milk. Humans have instincts too. The instinct for survival, self preservation, etc.

There is also the instinct for procreation.

An animal that is instinctively acting in a way that looks like it’s seeking to procreate but does it with a mate of the same gender is, certainly, acting counter-intuitively. It could be said, therefore, that its instinct is broken… but how do you change an instinct? And, indeed, how would you choose it? In particular, how does any creature choose its behaviour if that behaviour is subject to instinct?

You state:

We can choose to modify our thoughts and feelings and also to speak and act and therefore modify our behavior

Can we really modify our feelings? We feel pain. We feel anger. We feel desire. We feel all sorts of things.

We can sometimes confuse our brains so that we don’t notice the feelings, but can you turn the feeling of pain into the feeling of pleasure - at least without brain surgery, the techniques of which are probably beyond us at this time?!

If instinct is feelings and feelings are as a result of instincts, then changing them is going to be hard. We can ignore them, but that’s different since ignoring something is a deliberate choice, and it may not be easy or pleasant to do so.

You pose an interesting question, but I think it goes way beyond homosexuality.

 

[CopticChristian]

10397690]I
And, indeed, how would you choose it? In particular, how does any creature choose its behaviour if that behaviour is subject to instinct?

You state:

QUOTE]

Dex,

note you concentrate only on behaviour in your example. Behaviour is not necessarily learned or chosen. Animals typically behave according to their predetermined instincts. Without any teaching involved, the new-born foal gets to her feet and seeks out her mother’s milk. Humans have instincts too. The instinct for survival, self preservation, etc.

edge.org/response-detail/10291

If we look into the literature on FAPs, we see that many such instinctive responses were actually learned, based on the most elementary of signals.

you say…

There is also the instinct for procreation.

An animal that is instinctively acting in a way that looks like it’s seeking to procreate but does it with a mate of the same gender is, certainly, acting counter-intuitively. It could be said, therefore, that its instinct is broken… but how do you change an instinct?

Are you saying that humans have instinct for procreation and homosexuals are broken…well, then unlike animals we have the ability to reflexively think…we can think about our thinking…

A man mating with a man to procreate, no results, let me think about that…if I mate with a man to procreate and I cannot procreate, then as I think this through, I realize that to mate and procreate it must not be with a man…Bingo…metacognition…

you say…

Can we really modify our feelings? We feel pain. We feel anger. We feel desire. We feel all sorts of things.

We can sometimes confuse our brains so that we don’t notice the feelings, but can you turn the feeling of pain into the feeling of pleasure - at least without brain surgery, the techniques of which are probably beyond us at this time?!

We associate thinking with our feeling…maybe you have no ability to modify your feelings but it is possible to veiw them differently.

Anger. No one makes you angry. I can think about my anger, define my anger, understand my anger, accept my anger and come to terms with anger so that when I sense I anger I think…what is this causing anger…a catalyst for change and then with civility express what causes me to be angry and move on…

you say…

If instinct is feelings and feelings are as a result of instincts, then changing them is going to be hard. We can ignore them, but that’s different since ignoring something is a deliberate choice, and it may not be easy or pleasant to do so.

You pose an interesting question, but I think it goes way beyond homosexuality./

your basis for thinking is fixed and in the past incorrigible, so you this may be difficult…however whenever motivation is sought, change is always possible…the key is finding motivation and aiding someone to find it…this then is the catalyst for change.

You have no motivation to change your thinking and until you do you never will…fact, science, historically accurate…

No change comes absent a motivation to change that must by virtue of the desire for change comes from the individual wanting change for some reason.

 

[DexUK]

your basis for thinking is fixed and in the past incorrigible, so you this may be difficult…however whenever motivation is sought, change is always possible…the key is finding motivation and aiding someone to find it…this then is the catalyst for change.

I trust you don’t mean me personally in that statement.

Take that concept and think about it for a moment:

A person may be highly motivated to change some aspect of themselves and they may go to great lengths to do so, but that motivation may be founded on something that is misplaced, may it not?

If so, would it be right to encourage a person to go to such great efforts to change something that it destroys them in the process?

Many homosexuals have tried to change themselves and were very highly motivated to do so, not least in order to be able to live within the way the Church asked of them, but they could not mange it. Some have committed suicide as a result. I can think of one very prominent example: the father of the concept of the device you are using right now to read these words: Alan Turing, who desperately hated his instincts, accepted extremely painful attempts to change them, failed and took his own life as a result, in 1954.

One has to ask weigh in the balance the good that one wishes as the outcome versus the justification for asking someone to change beyond all realistic hope of managing to do so.

A person may be motivated to change, but the process should not be attempted if it would be dangerous for them to do so, surely? In the case of homosexuality, the only available choice then is to provide charitable counselling for that person so that they can modify their behaviour.

Or is it your position that all persons experiencing an instinctive homosexual drive are capable of change if only they were motivated enough, and that such change would not harm them?

 

[CopticChristian]

I trust you don’t mean me personally in that statement.

Take that concept and think about it for a moment:

Many homosexuals have tried to change themselves and were very highly motivated to do so, not least in order to be able to live within the way the Church asked of them, but they could not mange it. Some have committed suicide as a result. I can think of one very prominent example: the father of the concept of the device you are using right now to read these words: Alan Turing, who desperately hated his instincts, accepted extremely painful attempts to change them, failed and took his own life as a result, in 1954.

One has to ask weigh in the balance the good that one wishes as the outcome versus the justification for asking someone to change beyond all realistic hope of managing to do so.

A person may be motivated to change, but the process should not be attempted if it would be dangerous for them to do so, surely? In the case of homosexuality, the only available choice then is to provide charitable counselling for that person so that they can modify their behaviour.

Or is it your position that all persons experiencing an instinctive homosexual drive are capable of change if only they were motivated enough, and that such change would not harm them?

Dex,

The difficulty in your thinking and propositions is that your thoughts are complex and not simple. It is difficult to dialogue when thinking is complex.

A person may be highly motivated to change some aspect of themselves and they may go to great lengths to do so, but that motivation may be founded on something that is misplaced, may it not?

If so, would it be right to encourage a person to go to such great efforts to change something that it destroys them in the process?

Motivation determines everything. When someone finds that motivation it is possible to change. A Prostitute may want to be delivered from a Pimp and in that process recognize that the Pimp may cause harm. If the motivation is significant then the actions to change overcome the fear of change in life that may cause harm. It may destroy that person.

 

[mymamamary]

**When the Homosexuals refer to the Animal Kingdom for affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle, they are commiting the Logical fallacy of appealing to nature. I see animals kill, hurt and steal from each other. Does that make it any more right for me to do so in real life? **

 

[bzkoss236]

My typical upfront response to the homosexual animals argument is that animals also will kill others for a particular mate, or over territory, so does that mean we should do that too? I hope to show by this question that we can’t base our behavior on what animals do. Or at least that there are certainly animal behaviors which we should not emulate, as we are a more sophisticated species (though, given the lives of some humans, you may not know it).

And in regards to homosexuality, whether the attraction is a choice or not, it always comes down to a choice. Normal people have control over what they do. There are some times when a mental illness or external coercion can cause one to act against their choice, but that cannot be the case for homosexuality since there are many that live chastely and others who don’t. Which shows that ultimately, there is a choice. Those with same-sex attractions have the choice to give into their unnatural urges (and by unnatural I don’t mean that it can’t be found in nature, as I stated in the first paragraph, but rather that it goes against nature), or to not give in.

There is always that choice.

 

[CopticChristian]

**When the Homosexuals refer to the Animal Kingdom for affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle, they are commiting the Logical fallacy of appealing to nature. I see animals kill, hurt and steal from each other. Does that make it any more right for me to do so in real life? **

Mammary,

You really have to wonder, when the lowest common denominator is chosen as a reason for behavior.

 

[CopticChristian]

My typical upfront response to the homosexual animals argument is that animals also will kill others for a particular mate, or over territory, so does that mean we should do that too? I hope to show by this question that we can’t base our behavior on what animals do. Or at least that there are certainly animal behaviors which we should not emulate, as we are a more sophisticated species (though, given the lives of some humans, you may not know it).

And in regards to homosexuality, whether the attraction is a choice or not, it always comes down to a choice. Normal people have control over what they do. There are some times when a mental illness or external coercion can cause one to act against their choice, but that cannot be the case for homosexuality since there are many that live chastely and others who don’t. Which shows that ultimately, there is a choice. Those with same-sex attractions have the choice to give into their unnatural urges (and by unnatural I don’t mean that it can’t be found in nature, as I stated in the first paragraph, but rather that it goes against nature), or to not give in.

There is always that choice.

BZ,

Choice is key. We, as humans choose what to do or not to do…and if that were not true, then jails would be filled with people that cannot control their behavior and there are…and when viewed…we know that there is no genetic cause for criminal activity…it is learned.

Some will say…what about Psychopaths, Sociopaths…Ok…then are you going to characterize the Homoxesual behavior as Psychopathic or Sociopathic?

 

[DexUK]

BZ,

Choice is key. We, as humans choose what to do or not to do…and if that were not true, then jails would be filled with people that cannot control their behavior and there are…and when viewed…we know that there is no genetic cause for criminal activity…it is learned.

Some will say…what about Psychopaths, Sociopaths…Ok…then are you going to characterize the Homoxesual behavior as Psychopathic or Sociopathic?

But do we choose our instincts?

 

[bzkoss236]

Mammary,

You really have to wonder, when the lowest common denominator is chosen as a reason for behavior.

I can see it now…

“Why did you divorce your wife? You two were working out great.”
“I realized that animals don’t marry and most have sex with whomever they want. And as such, people shouldn’t either.”

If people want to bring themselves to the lowest denominator, and base their actions off animals, then they should go all out instead of being picky and choosing only that which suits their views. They should live as a mountain man/woman, living out in the wilderness, no clothes, fighting to survive, living off only what they can catch and eat. Animals don’t make fire, so neither should they. They should eat their food raw.

 

[CopticChristian]

But do we choose our instincts?

Dex,

You glossed over the note that much of instinct is learned.

There is no proof that Homosexuality is instinctive, so even if you prove we don’t choose our instincts, and you cannot, then you then have to prove that Homosexuality is instinctive and you cannot.

Do we choose our instincts? Good luck…

 

[Bezant]

**When the Homosexuals refer to the Animal Kingdom for affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle, they are commiting the Logical fallacy of appealing to nature. I see animals kill, hurt and steal from each other. Does that make it any more right for me to do so in real life? **

You assume the argument is used to justify imitating animal behaviour.

I have never heard anyone make this case (“the monkeys do it, so should we”). Generally this argument is used to counter the argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Why are you so obsessed with homosexuality, and ways to change homosexuals? Do you have a homosexual relative or something?

Yeah, homosexuals can probably be changed. You can manipulate anyone to think differently. I’m pretty sure that if there was a therapy to turn people into coprophiles, there’d be a success rate.

At any rate, homosexuality doesn’t exist in the animal kingdom like it seems in people. I don’t believe you find animals that are exclusively homosexual, unlike people who can be. Then again, you also get people that consider themselves bisexual.

 

[CopticChristian]

I can see it now…

“Why did you divorce your wife? You two were working out great.”
“I realized that animals don’t marry and most have sex with whomever they want. And as such, people shouldn’t either.”

If people want to bring themselves to the lowest denominator, and base their actions off animals, then they should go all out instead of being picky and choosing only that which suits their views. They should live as a mountain man/woman, living out in the wilderness, no clothes, fighting to survive, living off only what they can catch and eat. Animals don’t make fire, so neither should they. They should eat their food raw.

BZ,

Perhaps they may want to consider mounting someones leg, a fire hydrant or a garbage can as well.

 

[bzkoss236]

Dex,

You glossed over the note that much of instinct is learned.

There is no proof that Homosexuality is instinctive, so even if you prove we don’t choose our instincts, and you cannot, then you then have to prove that Homosexuality is instinctive and you cannot.

Do we choose our instincts? Good luck…

I think there have been scientific studies (which were done many years ago) which have shown most animal instincts to be learned, such as what they need to do to survive. There were only a few instincts which were not learned, such as suckling the mother for food. And I’m sure this was something I learned in grade school science class.

 

[Delaine75]

…

 

[bzkoss236]

BZ,

Perhaps they may want to consider mounting someones leg, a fire hydrant or a garbage can as well.

I think they already do… have you been to or around a night club before?

 

[CopticChristian]

You assume the argument is used to justify imitating animal behaviour.

I have never heard anyone make this case (“the monkeys do it, so should we”). Generally this argument is used to counter the argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

Bezant,

Some, not all, Homosexual advocates point to the animal kingdom as evidence that Homosexuality exists in nature, therefore we should accept this in humans.

nbcnews.com/id/15750604/

The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the “laws of nature” can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition. “A main target for this project was to get museums involved in current debate; to show that museums are more than just a gallery for the past.”

 

[Delaine75]

I think they already do… have you been to or around a night club before?

LOL!!!