Homosexuality observed in Animals: Not so Unnatural After All

[Bismillah]

We could always use the Islamic answer to the gay question eh Starsoul?

Because that'd really solve the problem...

Yes, it did work. The people of Lut know this...

What do you expect? We are animals after all.

Fascinating I myself wouldn't call myself an animal for any reason accept for biological purposes. If you wish to debase yourself you are welcome to.

Nobility in humanity arises from rationalizing and choosing natural inclinations.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Starsoul very funny trying to turn this into a gay vs religion debate. Did I mention any other religion besides Islam? No other religion I know of supports the death penalty for homosexuals at this present time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Fascinating I myself wouldn't call myself an animal for any reason accept for biological purposes. If you wish to debase yourself you are welcome to.

Nobility in humanity arises from rationalizing and choosing natural inclinations.

But to deny our sexual urges is not healthy, mental or physically. It increases stress, makes your irritable, and regular satisfying sex helps you live longer. To suppress your natural sexual urges is to, in many cases, act out in inappropriate and/or illegal methods to satisfy your sexual urges. Just think about all the anti-gay priest, psychologist, and politicians who have been caught with gay partners, often prostitutes.

 

[Bismillah]

But to deny our sexual urges is not healthy, mental or physically. It increases stress, makes your irritable, and regular satisfying sex helps you live longer. To suppress your natural sexual urges is to, in many cases, act out in inappropriate and/or illegal methods to satisfy your sexual urges.

I am not arguing an ascetic life.

Just think about all the anti-gay priest, psychologist, and politicians who have been caught with gay partners, often prostitutes.

I would say these individual's spirituality is as meaningful as their conviction against homosexuality.

 

[Alceste]

considering that i'm on a religious soapbox and you aren't on the 'animal dung/ insect homosexuals', do you really want me to post the destructive effects of homosexuality?

No. Nobody does. Please keep any ignorant anti-gay bigotry you might be bursting to express to yourself.

 

[Starsoul]

No. Nobody does. Please keep any ignorant anti-gay bigotry you might be bursting to express to yourself.

look who's on fire : P
Sorry to disappoint, bash isn't my tactic,thanks for the offer but ill leave it for vagabonds and gays who need to cite similarities with the animal kingdom for their behaviour, isn't it incredible how the same people who mention the relation are offended by it

 

[sniper762]

ep, i show the distinction between humans (which are civilized)and animals (which are not).

it was YOU that compared the homosexual acts of gays to those of the natural animals, which ARE uncivilized.

 

[proffesb]

ep, i show the distinction between humans (which are civilized)and animals (which are not).

it was YOU that compared the homosexual acts of gays to those of the natural animals, which ARE uncivilized.

Animals can be civilized, there are distinct social hierarchies and a sense of community within many species of animals. True some non-human animals have behaviors that we would find repulsive if they were present in humans, but there are plenty of examples of human behavior I find repulsive present in "civilized" humans.

Civilized does not equate to moral. Homosexuality does not equate to immoral. I don't understand the sexual attraction homosexual men have towards each other, if it did i would be a homosexual. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong or immoral. (not trying to put words into your mouth here, from your post it seems you think homosexuality is immoral, if i misunderstood I apologize, my point would still be a valid statement)

 

[sniper762]

i side with god on this one

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

 

[chinu]

Pigs.

 

[proffesb]

i side with god on this one

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

So lesbianism is ok. The only thing i saw limiting women in that passage is in reference to bestiality.

So are we at least in agreement that lesbianism acceptable?

 

[sniper762]

even though not stated in the bible, i perceive the passage to apply to BOTH acts.

it only seems reasonable that the act of the same sex lieing with one another would be the same.

 

[proffesb]

even though not stated in the bible, i perceive the passage to apply to BOTH acts.

it only seems reasonable that the act of the same sex lieing with one another would be the same.

After forbidding a long list of incestuous acts, in lev 18 the quote you used appears, followed by Lev.18.23

You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a peversion.

If assuming that lev 18 is applicable to both sexes through 22 why are women specifically called out in 23?

Contrary to what you say it only seems reasonable that since a differentiation is made between men and women in Lev 18.23 the preceding lines only apply to men.

 

[sniper762]

thats just the way it was back then. man was superior to woman.

note the difference in requirements to be concidered an adulterer.

married man with non wife partner = adulterer
woman that lies with such married man = adulterer
man who lies with adulterous woman adulterer

but men had concubines AND other wives, and it was ok...........women......no, no other husbands?????????????

 

[proffesb]

After forbidding a long list of incestuous acts, in lev 18 the quote you used appears, followed by Lev.18.23

You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a peversion.

If assuming that lev 18 is applicable to both sexes through 22 why are women specifically called out in 23?

Contrary to what you say it only seems reasonable that since a differentiation is made between men and women in Lev 18.23 the preceding lines only apply to men.

thats just the way it was back then. man was superior to woman.

note the difference in requirements to be concidered an adulterer.

married man with non wife partner = adulterer
woman that lies with such married man = adulterer
man who lies with adulterous woman adulterer

but men had concubines AND other wives, and it was ok...........women......no, no other husbands?????????????

You didn't address my question. the point I think you missed is that if the entirety of Lev18 is implied towards women they would not be specifically called out in 23.

 

[sniper762]

they were called out because they were concidered inferior to man, thats why. it was a man's world.

 

[proffesb]

that does not answer the question

 

[sniper762]

sorry, thats all you get.

 

[proffesb]

i accept your apology.

Also I have never actually seen a bible passage quoted before for proof that homosexuality is wrong so thanks for posting your source people usually just say "the bible" or "god is against it".

Are there any others? just quote the book and chapter I dont intend on contending them here just want to see where the belief comes from.

 

[Skwim]

Gotta say, proffesb has a good point. The list of prohibitions in Leviticus 18 are quite explicit, leaving no wiggle room. Explicitly mentioning only men in one verse and explicitly mentioning only women in another establishes this exclusivity. So while the Bible prohibits male homosexuality,

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
(Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version,)
​

it doesn't prohibit female homosexuality. Plain and simple.