Homosexuality observed in Animals: Not so Unnatural After All

[RitalinO.D.]

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

Well, thats where the believer's come in and put their own twist on it to support their argument. It's funny, because those two verses kind of shadow the hypocritical view many men have in todays society. Gay men are somehow an abomination, yet when they see two females kissing they get aroused. It's ok for Females but not for Men.

 

[Alceste]

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

I'm offended by bigotry. While it may irritate you now, you may appreciate my bluntness and intolerance in the Muslim-bashing threads.

 

[Alceste]

i side with god on this one

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

So lesbians are good to go, then.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Lol, because if there's one thing Leviticus doesn't do, it's differentiate between women and men.

Sniper, honest question: have you ever actually read Leviticus? The whole thing, I mean, all in one go? How many of its laws do you follow?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

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.

Yeah, but it doesn't apply to Christians since they believe the law has been done away with. Also, it doesn't say if that was just for the nation of Israel back then, or if it's still in effect. Seeing as some Jews believe the former, I'd say that leaves a lot open to question.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

i side with god on this one

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

Do you also side with what the Torah says about eating pork and shellfish, or wearing mixed fabric?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Okay, so I have effectively demonstrated that homosexuality is not unnatural since it appears in several animal species. Rather then admit it's not unnatural, people would now rather compare gay people to animals. The point of the thread was to point out that homosexuality is not unnatural. Now why don't you admit to that?

 

[bhaktajan]

Who don't want to wear the Rib-steak? --by Bhaktajan

Person #1990.C.34V said: They acted like animals! There should be a Law!
Person #7623.Z.398Q said: They are animals! They should be treated like animals!
Person #8912.J.90IY said: What did you people say?
Person #6324.P.578V said: Lunch is being catered by illegal aliens using black market faire!
Everyone said: Oh thank God! Give me a hamburger Rare, please.

 

[sniper762]

professb and alceste, why ask questions if you dont read the response?

i already addressed the biblical scripture that shows disdain to homosexuality (that professb denies ever seeing) and the relationship to lesbianism in posts 49 and 52,

and WRONG ep, natural maybe for ANIMALS, but not for humans. also, the torah's prohibition of what to eat were mosaic laws no longer valid. big difference from the levticus quote.

bottom line is that, whether ones liberal views condone it, homosexuality nor lesbianism is condoned by ANY religion and is concidered to be ungodly and prohibited in the christian society.

 

[fallingblood]

No he doesn't bring up a good point falling blood, because this is just like when people compare gay people to pedophiles. Most people know this comparison is dumb. Saying animals eat their dung and children as a way to say homosexuality being present in animals doesn't prove it's natural fails.

Maybe you should view my post as a whole. I explained why your OP fails. What is natural for various animals is not always natural for others. Really, the argument is just ridiculous.

 

[fallingblood]

The OP is not talking about sex. It is talking about pair bonding.

Where? There was no mention of that and really, pair bonding, at least long term is quite rare and not very natural for many species. More so, the OPs statement would be false if viewed for just pair bonding.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

and WRONG ep, natural maybe for ANIMALS, but not for humans. also, the torah's prohibition of what to eat were mosaic laws no longer valid. big difference from the levticus quote.

Care to point me out how the prohibition of homosexuality is still binding on Christians? Come on, let's dance.

bottom line is that, whether ones liberal views condone it, homosexuality nor lesbianism is condoned by ANY religion and is concidered to be ungodly and prohibited in the christian society.

Homosexuality is not condoned by any religion? ROFL. You better check your facts again, and as for ungodly, maybe to you. As for a Christian society, according to whose standards? Episcopalians, Lutherans, and others accept gays.

 

[waitasec]

Not really. I have no problem with homosexuality, but the idea that animals do it means it is natural means little.

For this to be of importance, one would have to show that this homosexual behavior in animals is driven by the same thing it is driven by in humans. Is animal sexuality the same as human sexuality? Are animals homosexual or straight? Those would be two questions that would have to be answered first.

More so, not everything animals do is natural for humans to do. There is a difference.

are humans animals?

 

[Alceste]

professb and alceste, why ask questions if you dont read the response?

i already addressed the biblical scripture that shows disdain to homosexuality (that professb denies ever seeing) and the relationship to lesbianism in posts 49 and 52,

and WRONG ep, natural maybe for ANIMALS, but not for humans. also, the torah's prohibition of what to eat were mosaic laws no longer valid. big difference from the levticus quote.

bottom line is that, whether ones liberal views condone it, homosexuality nor lesbianism is condoned by ANY religion and is concidered to be ungodly and prohibited in the christian society.

Thank God we don't live in a Christian society then.

 

[fallingblood]

And humans are animals, and it shows it normally happens.

Not at all. Homosexuality in various animals is for the most part different than seen in humans. Are other animals sexually attracted to the same sex? I don't think the research would show that.

All that it shows is that some animals engage in homosexual sex. It does not state that those animals are thus homosexual in the definition that it applies to humans.

Some believe though that other animals simply do not do it, and it is a human choice. It does mean something because it is hard evidence against there claims.

It may be hard evidence against a ridiculous claim, but the claim itself is ridiculous anyway.

 

[Alceste]

Maybe you should view my post as a whole. I explained why your OP fails. What is natural for various animals is not always natural for others. Really, the argument is just ridiculous.

You are not understanding: this is a rebuttal, not an argument. Anti-gay bigots very often say that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural. This thread simply addresses that particular fallacy.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah, but it doesn't apply to Christians since they believe the law has been done away with. Also, it doesn't say if that was just for the nation of Israel back then, or if it's still in effect. Seeing as some Jews believe the former, I'd say that leaves a lot open to question.

For those Christians who believe "the law has been done away with," yes, but not all do.

Yet the NT does speak out against homosexuality among men, but not against homosexuality among women. These passages are Romans 1:26–27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10,

Romans 1:26-27
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

​

For men it's spelled out: men lusting after other men would equate with homosexuality; however, in reference to women the "natural use into that which is against nature" may or may not refer to women engaging in sex with animals--the prohibition mentioned in the OT.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

​

Again, only men are referred to in regard to homosexuality: the effeminate,

 

[sniper762]

humans were made in GOD'S image. animals were not.

do you think that god would engage in homosexual acts?

ps, i dont dance with same sex

 

[fallingblood]

Yeah, but it doesn't apply to Christians since they believe the law has been done away with. Also, it doesn't say if that was just for the nation of Israel back then, or if it's still in effect. Seeing as some Jews believe the former, I'd say that leaves a lot open to question.

The basic understanding is that the law is forever. Some Jews are trying to figure out, or better explain the verse, as it does condemn some 10 percent of the Jewish community, but I don't think that equals the suggestion that it was only meant for one time period.

 

[Alceste]

Where? There was no mention of that and really, pair bonding, at least long term is quite rare and not very natural for many species. More so, the OPs statement would be false if viewed for just pair bonding.

A pair of male penguins trying to steal an egg, then finally successfully raising a baby penguin together? No, that's not about pair bonding. Lol.

Same sex pair bonding isn't rare in nature at all, btw. It's common, particularly in birds, dolphins and primates (Japanese macaques, for example).