Those Homosexual Animals

[CopticChristian]

And when animals, from dogs to bears, assault or maul humans, we don’t put them in jail.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

What do we do when they maul or assault humans?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

So, since you are posting here and you don’t why you are posting here, as a Regular Athiest…let me ask you this…concerning Reparative Therapy…

Reparative therapy has been referred to in some circles as pray the gay away, religous as it is based on natural law…

Would you say that Reparative Therapy is religious in nature and religion has no place in the practice of medicine and treatment of individuals in any way…?

Sorry for the late reply.

It depends what you mean by that. I certainly don’t believe that religious/spiritual practices such as prayer should ever be considered to be effective means of curing someone, no. I also take issue with openly religious organisations that report on or research issues or subjects they would be obliged to oppose, such as homosexuality or atheism.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sorry for the late reply.

It depends what you mean by that. I certainly don’t believe that religious/spiritual practices such as prayer should ever be considered to be effective means of curing someone, no. I also take issue with openly religious organisations that report on or research issues or subjects they would be obliged to oppose, such as homosexuality or atheism.

Regular,

Thank you. Then is it fair to say that imposing God, sin, as a means to change behavior is out of the realm of good solid medical practice…?

I am pleased that you are posting here…

 

[CopticChristian]

Sorry for the late reply.

It depends what you mean by that. I certainly don’t believe that religious/spiritual practices such as prayer should ever be considered to be effective means of curing someone, no. I also take issue with openly religious organisations that report on or research issues or subjects they would be obliged to oppose, such as homosexuality or atheism.

Regular,

While you are contemplating the above question, is it fair to say that there should be consensus when it comes to behavior therapy by the AMA and the American Psychiatric Association as it regards the understanding of behavior…in consideration for Reparative Therapy…

The American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychological Association
The American Medical Association

all agree on homosexuality behavior

and is it fair to say that these groups should foster information that leads the public to the best treatment for behavior…in other words if treatments are shown to be less than 20% successful and there are at least 5 other ways of dealing successfully with a problem would that not be what these organizations should do?

You are posting here…

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

Thank you. Then is it fair to say that imposing God, sin, as a means to change behavior is out of the realm of good solid medical practice…?

This confuses me. If you’re asking whether medical organisations should promote religion to change behaviour, then I’d say no. It’s not really their job to preach, and raising awareness of health risks is generally enough to convince people. Most people are aware that smoking is unhealthy, for example, and most smokers want to quit.

If you’re asking whether or not religious practices should be used to cure people, then I’ll remind you that I don’t believe in God or the concept of sin. You should be able to fathom out the answer with what I’ve given you there.

Regular,

While you are contemplating the above question, is it fair to say that there should be consensus when it comes to behavior therapy by the AMA and the American Psychiatric Association as it regards the understanding of behavior…in consideration for Reparative Therapy…

The American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychological Association
The American Medical Association

all agree on homosexuality behavior

and is it fair to say that these groups should foster information that leads the public to the best treatment for behavior…in other words if treatments are shown to be less than 20% successful and there are at least 5 other ways of dealing successfully with a problem would that not be what these organizations should do?

Maybe I’m just being stupid, but I don’t really understand what you’re asking. Are you asking if these organisations should release information to help people decide what treatment would be best for unwanted same-sex attraction? Sure. That’s what their purpose is, surely.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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…

I’m not sure it’s broken at all. I have raised thousands of animals, chiefly cattle, and they do frequently exhibit what one might imagine to be homosexual behavior if one doesn’t know what one is seeing.

But it isn’t really. Any rancher will tell you that female cattle engage in what’s referred to as “bulling”; that is, they will mount each other when one is in heat. However, I am convinced that’s actually a procreative activity. The herd bull (or one of them) sees it, and immediately turns its attention to the mounted animal and breeds it. It doesn’t know the mounting animal is a female and reacts that way no matter what mounts what. Since bulls depend on their sense of smell to know which animal is in heat, “bulling” ensures the breeding of a cow that might otherwise get missed this cycle if the female is downwind or too far away to gain attention by scent.

Like most animals, they don’t engage in breeding behaviors at all, except when there is an animal in heat in the group or perhaps nearby. It’s a good thing, too, or the mortality rate among farmers would be sky-high.

And never, ever, ever have I seen an animal of any kind establish “homosexual relationships” even remotely like humans sometimes do.

 

[speakttruth]

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.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I once read on here that some male animals kill young that is not their own; does that make it morally right for human to kill children that are not their own? Some animals eat their own children, does that mean humans should? Some animals kill each other fighting for females, should humans? Male lions will kill off the cubs to force a mother lion into a state of fertility after male lions have taken over the Pride by killing or chasing after the former alpha male? Is that a behavior humans should copy?

Dr Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, has written:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals… For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction

 

[speakttruth]

I once read on here that some male animals kill young that is not their own; does that make it morally right for human to kill children that are not their own? Some animals eat their own children, does that mean humans should? Some animals kill each other fighting for females, should humans? Male lions will kill off the cubs to force a mother lion into a state of fertility after male lions have taken over the Pride by killing or chasing after the former alpha male? Is that a behavior humans should copy?

Dr Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, has written:

 

[Bobby_Jim]

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?
…

Haven’t read the rest of this thread but for some reason my mind drifted to thoughts of animals “playing”. Like a cat “pretending” to hunt, pouncing on a mouse and then letting it go. Or just stalking on pouncing on nothing in particular. Certainly the cat has a hunting instinct, and will stalk, pounce on, kill, and eat prey (sometimes after playing with it a bit…) But how do you explain the pretend hunting? If this were the only sort of hunting behavior the cat exhibited, it would soon starve (save for the charity of its humans who put out food for it). So somehow the cat switches between this unproductive (disordered?) mock-hunting, and the real thing.

Same deal across many types of animals - bears, dogs, and many more engage in “play” type behavior that is related to a “real” behavior needed for survival, but in and of itself the “play” behavior appears unproductive. In some cases it may be a matter of learning the true behavior, like baby bears wrestling with each other, or a lion cub pouncing on a dead animal its parents bring it.

However in many cases, particularly with adult animals that are “fully formed”, we humans may be projecting our notion of “play” upon animal behaviors that may serve a very definite purpose. Like play-hunting for the cat, may be a matter of keeping certain skills sharp. Or may serve the purpose of entertaining humans so they keep giving it food and scratching its belly. Whatever.

I think it’s the same with “homosexuality” in animals. I suspect it serves some higher purpose in the animals - I could only guess at what. But it’s foolish of us to look at the behavior and project upon the animals similar motives that people have when engaging in homosexual behavior.

 

[PastorBonus]

Some behaviors are not learned. They are driven by genetics and predetermined neurological wiring. Homosexual lust (or lust in general) can be controlled if one wants to but there is not real fix for it. Your researches are outdated and your premise that innate behaviors can be changed is without proof. If a homosexual can be changed by simply wishing he could, then can a heterosexual becomes gay if he wish he is?

 

[PastorBonus]

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…

Learned from whom? I don’t recall my parents teach me to be homosexual. Most gays are born to heterosexual parents. Many gays are born to conservative parents who believe the lifestyle is an abomination. Most of these people also happen to live in conservative areas as well. So how did they learned these instincts? Who taught them these behaviors? You cannot learn without a teachers or imitate without a subject you can imitate to. This is both scientific fact and simple logical deduction that you seem to neglect. The only way your theory can work is if homosexuality only arise in those who are born to homosexual parents, which is not often the case.

 

[CopticChristian]

Some behaviors are not learned. They are driven by genetics and predetermined neurological wiring. Homosexual lust (or lust in general) can be controlled if one wants to but there is not real fix for it. Your researches are outdated and your premise that innate behaviors can be changed is without proof. If a homosexual can be changed by simply wishing he could, then can a heterosexual becomes gay if he wish he is?

Pastor,

Enlighten us.

Which behaviors are not learned.

Which Behaviors are driven by genetics.

Which Behaviors are predetermined neurologic wiring?

There is no fix for Homosexual Lust. That is an interesting thought. Is it just Homoesexuals that can Lust without any need to consider they are hopeless or are there others?

What is it you believe to be innate behaviors?

Where did you get the notion that wishing has anything to do with anything?

 

[CopticChristian]

.

Pastor,

Learned from whom? I don’t recall my parents teach me to be homosexual.

You misunderstand. Learned by, not learned from.

Most gays are born to heterosexual parents. Many gays are born to conservative parents who believe the lifestyle is an abomination.** Most** of these people also happen to live in conservative areas as well.

Most?

Many?

How is it you have information to report of Most and Many?

So how did they learned these instincts?

You conclude and believe that Homosexuality is instinct. Where did you learn this and where is this proven?

Who taught them these behaviors? You cannot learn without a teachers or imitate without a subject you can imitate to.

Again, not learned from, learned by. Who do you believe supplies meaning to your thoughts, feelings and beliefs…me or you?

This is both scientific fact and simple logical deduction that you seem to neglect. The only way your theory can work is if homosexuality only arise in those who are born to homosexual parents, which is not often the case

Your hypothesis is incorrect and your criticism of a presumed theory falls short based on this.

 

[Seeker1961]

Learned from whom? I don’t recall my parents teach me to be homosexual. Most gays are born to heterosexual parents. Many gays are born to conservative parents who believe the lifestyle is an abomination. Most of these people also happen to live in conservative areas as well. So how did they learned these instincts? Who taught them these behaviors? You cannot learn without a teachers or imitate without a subject you can imitate to. This is both scientific fact and simple logical deduction that you seem to neglect. The only way your theory can work is if homosexuality only arise in those who are born to homosexual parents, which is not often the case.

It’s not ever the case. There would be no homosexuals if straight couples stopped having homosexual kids. I have friends who were born into evangelical families, military families and staunchly Catholic families. I have friends who came from large families, and they are the only gay person among many children. We grew up in a time before Ellen, before
“Will and Grace” before anti-bullying campaigns and before anyone thought gay people were anything other than evil, and yet here we are.

I know it’s scary for parents to think that there may be nothing they can do to prevent their child from being gay, but my life experience tells me that there really isn’t. I’m sure it was hard for my parents, who did all the “right” things-they raised me in the faith, sacrificed to send me to Catholic school and provided a good example of commitment in marriage. I’m sure that that they had a hard time while they waited for the seeds they planted to finally emerge. I’m glad my father lived to see it.

 

[fix]

If a homosexual can be changed by simply wishing he could, then can a heterosexual becomes gay if he wish he is?

The false assumption here is that both inclinations are based in the same etiology. In truth heterosexuality is correctly ordered and ordained by God. The homosexual inclination is disordered. It is the result of the fall. How this inclination is dealt with medically is certainly an unresolved question, but there is no reason to approach it as pop culture does as if it is the same as heterosexuality.

 

[CopticChristian]

The false assumption here is that both inclinations are based in the same etiology. In truth heterosexuality is correctly ordered and ordained by God. The homosexual inclination is disordered. It is the result of the fall. How this inclination is dealt with medically is certainly an unresolved question, but there is no reason to approach it as pop culture does as if it is the same as heterosexuality.

Fix,

The Catholic Medical Association goes one step further…

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0039.html

There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975) Such attempts may be politically motivated because people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined and unchangeable. (Emulf 1989: Piskur 1992) Others have sought to prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction so that they could appeal to the courts for rights based on the “immutability”. (Green 1988)

They address Essentialism=Born That Way=Fixed behavior

Catholics believe that sexuality was designed by God as a sign of the love of Christ, the bridegroom, for his Bride, the Church, and therefore sexual activity is appropriate only in marriage. Healthy psycho-sexual development leads naturally to attraction in persons of each sex for the other sex. Trauma, erroneous education, and sin can cause a deviation from this pattern. Persons should not be identified with their emotional or developmental conflicts as though this was the essence of their identity. In the debate between essentialism and social constructionism, the believer in natural law would hold that human beings have an essential nature — either male or female — and that sinful inclinations — such as the desire to engage in homosexual acts — are constructed and can, therefore, be deconstructed.

They affirm the Catholic Teaching and go on to say…

It is, therefore, probably wise to avoid wherever possible using the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” as nouns since such usage implies a fixed state and an equivalence between the natural state of man and woman as created by God and persons experiencing same sex attractions or behaviors.

If there is only man and woman and male and female He equated them…then with that understanding the need to address anyone as heterosexual stands only to suggest that there is an entity of homosexual which in fact is behavior and we are not our behavior…

 

[John_Savage]

Are there animals exclusively homosexual or are they merely sexual opportunists? My dog currently finds me, a very masculine male, attractive, but when I take him to the park, he switches his attention to the [female dogs].

Edit: My female dog liked pillows. Does that mean that fetishism is OK?

 

[adrift]

I was recently asked "that there are some animals that mate for life. Is there such a think as a homosexual animal that mates for life? "

 

[John_Savage]

I was recently asked "that there are some animals that mate for life. Is there such a think as a homosexual animal that mates for life? "

Strictly speaking, they can’t “mate.”