Those Homosexual Animals

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, lots of animals exhibit homosexual sex. The most famous, perhaps, are Bonobos, or pygmy chimps. They are our closest relative and sex between same sex chimps is common and casual.
However…
They do not pair bond and attempt to have or raise offspring in same sex couples.
Humans do. Or at least are now in modern “first world” European style societies.

This is what Imean when I say real homosexuality does not occur in nature except under exceptional circumstances. Or as another poster has rightly pointed out, when there is a biological advantage to do so, such as providing impetus for opposite sex mating.
Still when a species pair bonds, homosexuality is absent.
 
Deltadeliquent said:
Yes, lots of animals exhibit homosexual sex. The most famous, perhaps, are Bonobos, or pygmy chimps. They are our closest relative and sex between same sex chimps is common and casual.
However…
They do not pair bond and attempt to have or raise offspring in same sex couples.
Humans do. Or at least are now in modern “first world” European style societies.

This is what Imean when I say real homosexuality does not occur in nature except under exceptional circumstances. Or as another poster has rightly pointed out, when there is a biological advantage to do so, such as providing impetus for opposite sex mating.
Still when a species pair bonds, homosexuality is absent.
Click to expand...
Delta,

And animals at best exhibity adolescent behavior. Any adult that looks to adolescents as model of adult behavior should look again.

What other behavior do we look to animals for…

Spitting at people
Killing our spouse after mating
Accepting slavery
Eating our young
Eating our feces

why stop with using one animal behavior to model?
 
I once made the mistake in saying, during an art class, that homosexuality was not “normal”. I was thinking about the culture of men having sex with boys in ancient Greece.
Man! I got in so much trouble from my classmates who called me a bigot for daring to suggests that such behaviour was not “normal”.
I tried to make the point that it can’t be normal for a species, since being so would doom that species to extinction. As I was being shouted down I heard “normal for them” normal for whom?..
But when I tried to make the distinction between normal for a group or species, and normal for an individual. And the two cannot be compared.

My original comment was about men and young boys, and I also spoke about slavery.
I thought I was commenting on how culture changes over time. But no one heard past “Not normal”.

I still maintain, (not being an expert) that pair bonding between same sex partners tends to happen under pressure and is not a normal process in any species.
I have often wondered if there are more homosexuals in cities than in rural areas. (percentage -wise) My thinking is that the living in large cities makes the sort of pressure that produces more individuals with this aberration.

I’m not trying to make enemies, but just participate in an interesting discussion…
 
Deltadeliquent said:
I once made the mistake in saying, during an art class, that homosexuality was not “normal”. I was thinking about the culture of men having sex with boys in ancient Greece.
Man! I got in so much trouble from my classmates who called me a bigot for daring to suggests that such behaviour was not “normal”.
I tried to make the point that it can’t be normal for a species, since being so would doom that species to extinction. As I was being shouted down I heard “normal for them” normal for whom?..
But when I tried to make the distinction between normal for a group or species, and normal for an individual. And the two cannot be compared.

My original comment was about men and young boys, and I also spoke about slavery.
I thought I was commenting on how culture changes over time. But no one heard past “Not normal”.

I still maintain, (not being an expert) that pair bonding between same sex partners tends to happen under pressure and is not a normal process in any species.
I have often wondered if there are more homosexuals in cities than in rural areas. (percentage -wise) My thinking is that the living in large cities makes the sort of pressure that produces more individuals with this aberration.

I’m not trying to make enemies, but just participate in an interesting discussion…
Click to expand...
Delta,

You should be able to say and believe that Homosexuality is not normal. If you are questioned then you should be able to say that you believe this and you have the right to believe this.
 
When you say something is unnatural you open yourself to arguements from the natural world. So you shouldn’t be suprised that we will bring up the Binobo or any other creature that exhibits homosexual behavior.
 
seeker5133 said:
When you say something is unnatural you open yourself to arguements from the natural world. So you shouldn’t be suprised that we will bring up the Binobo or any other creature that exhibits homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...
So your side is comparing GLBT people to animals.
 
Humans are animals! To claim otherwise is to ignore basic biology.
 
Here is the crux of the issue. I don’t believe in a fallen nature or original sin. I have never accepted the need for salvation.
 
seeker5133 said:
Humans are animals! To claim otherwise is to ignore basic biology.
Click to expand...
:hmmm: Let’s approach it this way. Every animal is independent from their parent shortly after birth. Humans on the other hand cannot survive without their parents to civilize them and impart morality. And it takes time.
 
The Animal Homosexuality Myth

“why”? Animals Do It, So It’s Natural, Right? The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
  • Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
  • Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
  • Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
  • Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
  • Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature? In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

  1. *]There is no “homosexual instinct” in animals,
    *]It is poor science to “read” human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
    *]Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

    There Is No “Homosexual Instinct” In Animals Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal “homosexuality,” “filicide” and “cannibalism” are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
 
"Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality: Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]Despite the “homosexual” appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a “homosexual” instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains: 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.[12]
 
Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man Some researchers studying animal “homosexual” behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man’s nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.
Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states: Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. … Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.[16]Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal “homosexuality” will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states:It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is “against nature”: the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.[17]Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural. They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18]The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. … The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.[19]The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man’s rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human. Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man’s rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]
To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.
 
buffalo said:
*]It is poor science to “read” human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, although it is allowable in poetry, where even clouds, running streams, and sunshine can be endowed with “human motivations and sentiments.” It’s the “pathetic fallacy” and the Romantics, of course, such as Keats and Wordsworth reveled in it. Even T.S. Eliot wasn’t immune…
 
adrift said:
I should have been more specific. Is there examples in the wild?
Click to expand...
Yes there are, but it is obviously less common to have observed animals in the wild for long enough to be certain that this is a long lasting pairing. Black swans for example. Braithwaite, L. W., ‘Ecological studies of the Black Swan III – Behaviour and social organization’, Australian Wildlife Research 8, 1981: 134-146

Homosexual penguins have been observed in the wild, but as I said not for long enough to assert that these were lifelong pair bonds. There is an amusing but possibly anecdotal story that the earliest reports of this behaviour were written in Greek to prevent the uneducated hoi palloi getting their hands on this steamy and shocking information. 😃

Again, the only relevance of this is that the argument that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ fails, amongst other reasons, because homosexuality occurs in nature, which for most people rules out it’s being unnatural.
 
GWright said:
Actually, it doesnt.

**To facilitate homosexual acts, human being are required to use artificial interventions to overcome the fact that same sex bodies are not physically compatible.

For example, in the case of two homosexual men, this can be one partner having to wash out his anus (for obvious reasons) and then applying artificial lubrication (again for obvious reasons).**

Animals fundamentally lack the capacity for this kind of intervention, meaning the only possible proof of “gay animals” - one animal sodomising another - will never be encountered.

Sure, many animals do try to “hump” innappropriate things - someones leg, an inanimate object, an animal of the same sex. But this doesnt mean they are gay, any more than it means they have a kinky fetish for human legs.

Rather, this is just a reflection of the fact that animals are controlled by their passions - their base urges are what drive them, and they have no means to restrain or rationalise these urges. Hence the occasional innappropriate behaviour. A randy dog is just an erection on legs.

In contrast, humans are supposed to control our passions, not vice versa and we can reason why we should do so. The behaviour of homsoexual men at “saunas” etc is a good example of people who are allowing their passions to control them, and there is much similarity between the behaviour of men in these places and dogs who will hump anything.

“Gay animals” is no more than a big propaganda coup. The most famous story - the gay penguins - was based on complete lies. Looking after eggs together is what male penguins do in the wild, while the females hunt (watch “March of the Penguins” a great documentary).

Instead, the media lied that this case was a special example of two gay penguins trying to make a life and “family” together. Deceitful, malicious, lies. (Unsurprisingly, it has a since been reported that both “gay” penguins now has a girlfriend - so much for “born this way” huh?)

We must always be careful of the lies and deceit the homosexual lobby bombards normal society with. The lies about “gay animals” is a good example of their cunning and duplicitous nature.

Another clever trick they have pulled is that they have managed to normalise the idea that something calld “gay sex” exists. In reality, there is no such thing.

Sex requires two partners to combine their sexual organs. Homosexuals cannot do this and so what they do in bed together - is **not ** sex. They only call it sex, to try and make their relationships / activities seem comparable to normal human sexuality - sadly many people have fallen for this.
Click to expand...
You really don’t know what you are talking about.
Faithdancer said:
From the moral theology standpoint: The use of human reason, when unclouded by sin, will always result in right action. This is because human reason naturally wants to order actions which accord with the ultimate good, which is union with God. However, as we are all imperfect beings and sinners, our reason is often clouded by our sinfulness, so we all tend at times to act contrary to reason and to the natural law which governs right reason, and in violating natural law also act contrary to Divine law, from which natural law flows.

Of course, as one’s reason becomes more and more clouded by frequent indulgence in grave sin, one will start using one’s reason in a twisted and flawed way, e.g. convincing one’s self that it is reasonable to engage in homosexual activity. One’s flawed reason may even find justification for homosexual activity in the actions of soulless animals. However, there is never any logic in acting contrary to one’s ultimate happiness, which again is union with God and the beatific vision in Heaven.
Click to expand...
It is clouded by concupiscence, You left out the fundamental that we need God’s grace to do good.
Deltadeliquent said:
I once made the mistake in saying, during an art class, that homosexuality was not “normal”. I was thinking about the culture of men having sex with boys in ancient Greece.
Man! I got in so much trouble from my classmates who called me a bigot for daring to suggests that such behaviour was not “normal”.
I tried to make the point that it can’t be normal for a species, since being so would doom that species to extinction. As I was being shouted down I heard “normal for them” normal for whom?..
But when I tried to make the distinction between normal for a group or species, and normal for an individual. And the two cannot be compared.

My original comment was about men and young boys, and I also spoke about slavery.
I thought I was commenting on how culture changes over time. But no one heard past “Not normal”.

I still maintain, (not being an expert) that pair bonding between same sex partners tends to happen under pressure and is not a normal process in any species.
I have often wondered if there are more homosexuals in cities than in rural areas. (percentage -wise) My thinking is that the living in large cities makes the sort of pressure that produces more individuals with this aberration.

I’m not trying to make enemies, but just participate in an interesting discussion…
Click to expand...
Or they just can’t stand rural people
edition.cnn.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sutter-franklin-county-mississippi-lgbt
 
DrTaffy said:
Yes there are, but it is obviously less common to have observed animals in the wild for long enough to be certain that this is a long lasting pairing. Black swans for example. Braithwaite, L. W., ‘Ecological studies of the Black Swan III – Behaviour and social organization’, Australian Wildlife Research 8, 1981: 134-146

Homosexual penguins have been observed in the wild, but as I said not for long enough to assert that these were lifelong pair bonds. There is an amusing but possibly anecdotal story that the earliest reports of this behaviour were written in Greek to prevent the uneducated hoi palloi getting their hands on this steamy and shocking information. 😃

Again, the only relevance of this is that the argument that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ fails, amongst other reasons, because homosexuality occurs in nature, which for most people rules out it’s being unnatural.
Click to expand...
Dr., Dr., Dr., Dr.

Define Natural for me.

Is the existence in nature mean that it is natural?..or

Are you saying that something that occurs in Nature=Natural…because then what you are saying…

Mating with mulitple partners is Natural
Never uniting in marriage is Natural
Eating your young is Natural
Using one female to produce multiple offspring in a colony is natural
Killing your spouse after mating is Natural
Eating your feces is Natural

Define Natural, Dr. Dr.
 
Made aware and in His image, possessing reason and intellect, and destined to life everlasting, God has the right to test man for this privilege, and that is to overcome his worldly cravings and substitute them for spiritual desires which beget happiness in this substantial world. A man that cannot control himself here is no candidate for heaven, and his presence there would be an injustice to those who have striven to be there.

A dog given an instant of awareness and the realization that a God exists, would instantly take the time to call any man a fool who throws away this precious gift.
 
djames99 said:
Made aware and in His image, possessing reason and intellect, and destined to life everlasting, God has the right to test man for this privilege, and that is to overcome his worldly cravings and substitute them for spiritual desires which beget happiness in this substantial world. A man that cannot control himself here is no candidate for heaven, and his presence there would be an injustice to those who have striven to be there.

A dog given an instant of awareness and the realization that a God exists, would instantly take the time to call any man a fool who throws away this precious gift.
Click to expand...
djames,

I agree.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top