80s fashion girl
Member
Wild animals, such as male ducks, overmate other males and females and kill from overmating. Other species do this also, brutally.
Cannot be compared to a homosexual human.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It's not a problem for animals to have sex with the same sex
- Thread starter Wasp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homosexuality
Cannot be compared to a homosexual human.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
I agree.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I am coming in a little late on this conversation, but immorality is a uniquely human thing, so it does not apply to lower animals. Humans have an animal nature as well as a spiritual nature, so they can choose to follow their spiritual nature or their animal nature. Animals only have an animal nature and they follow that nature.
That just reminded me of what a Baha'i I greatly respect posted about sex on his forum some time ago. I liked it so much I asked him if I could share it with others and he gave me permission to share it on other forums. Not all Baha'is would agree with this man, but I fully agree with his point of view.
Below is what he said. It is a religious point of view so you and other people reading here can take it or leave it.
Ah, but that is conflating love and sex (which, yeah, people do all the time). Sex is not love and love is not sex, nor is there any necessary relationship between the two. In human beings it is true that sex typically plays a bonding role in a certain type of loving relationship, but it's not necessary to it (however much people think it is). We love lots of people who we would (unless something is wrong with us) never consider having sex with: children, parents, close friends, etc. One might even add household pets to the list.
Sex is primarily about reproduction. That's why it even exists in the first place. It's a biological mechanism that increases diversity in the gene pool, for one thing. Its role in relationships in some species is a secondary role, not the primary one, which evolved much later. Sex is not something only cute furry creatures do for bonding. Reptiles and amphibians and insects and even plants have sex lives. It evolved as a means of reproduction, and only later acquired secondary roles. Those who want to divorce it completely from its primary role (and they do exist; I've been in discussions where people have argued quite strenuously that sex isn't about reproduction at all!) are in a very real sense attempting to force it to conform to their own selfish desires . . . and that, ultimately, is what is against our spiritual nature.
Our spiritual nature cannot be developed except by "dying to self" and "living in God." God has given us a dual nature: one material and one spiritual. Sex is part of the material nature, however much it may be able to play a role in a truly loving relationship. It is not what we are, even though people insist that it is. (Extreme but real example: I read an article in the long ago when the AIDS epidemic had become the big news of the day in which the author, a promiscuous homosexual who had contracted the disease, wrote about how it had affected his life. He stated near the end that he had to take a lot of precautions now to avoid spreading the illness, but that he couldn't give up his promiscuous lifestyle because that was "who he was.") God is calling us to struggle against our lower nature and to become who we truly are: not material beings, not sexual beings, but spiritual beings who are in control of the physical side of our nature and who can thus find true happiness living in conformity with His will. Although not scriptural, there is a possible explanation of why He has made it so hard that I ran across long ago in a Baha'i children's book: Because if it were too easy, it wouldn't be worth anything. Or put another way, because only by being challenged can we really prove our love for God.
My religion says the opposite. You should make it clear that these are just your beliefs or you can fall afoul of the forum rule against preaching.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is clear that I am a Baha'i because I have self identified, but these are not my religious beliefs; they are my opinions derived from my interpretation of my my religious scriptures.
I even said "Not all Baha'is would agree with this man, but I fully agree with his point of view."
I also said "it is a religious point of view so you and other people reading here can take it or leave it." I said that because I was posting to an atheist and I know there are other atheists on this forum. I do not expect them to understand a religious point of view.
Just because I said it is a religious point of view does not mean I think all religions teach it or all believers to adhere to it. I am well aware that there are many different religions represented on this forum and they are not all Abrahamic religions. Even within the Abrahamic religions people differ widely on the subject of sex as it is a very personal thing.
All people have a right to their opinions and how they live is their own business.
People are free to consider sex a very important part of life if they want to. I was in that camp once and that is probably why I feel so strongly about this subject. I am no longer a prisoner of self and desire so now I can work on my relationship with God and think about other people.
Last edited:
shmogie
Well-Known Member
What difference does it make as to what his reasoning is ?
Well, for one, we can then see if we agree.
I have understood from the Bible that we should be more like God, not like animals without reason.
But these speak evil of whatever things they don't know. What they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in these things are they destroyed.
Jud. 1:10
In Bible homosexual sex is not good. And I think it is not reasonable. And if we would copy what animals do, should women eat their men after sex, like some animals do? Maybe that is the reason for homosexuality, some men fear that women act like mindless animals?
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
This is an overgeneralization. During mating season some male frogs turn blue so they can spot brown female frogs.
Man is made in the image of God and analogies to animals can breakdown
What do frogs have to do with it? And the image?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
It irrelevant whether you agree, or not.
Because only humans have such a gender bias.
I disagree. Even if there is a God, I want to know whether I support or oppose It. The morality of that deity would decide my actions, at least in part.
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
Homosexuality is not an aberration, nor is it a sin. It is simply a normal sexual orientation, although it is not as common (obviously) as heterosexuality.
Humans tend to demonize any differences from what they perceive as "normal," which, in reality is merely what is most common. Being different is not sinful.
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
It's not a "really bad argument." Humans don't look at what animals do and then copy it, and sexual orientation is something that is common both in the animal kingdom as well as in humans. Humans are the only ones, however, who don't deal well with differences from the majority and they are the only ones who slap the label of "sinful" and "disgusting" on something that is perfectly normal.
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
If you're going to take this tack, perhaps you should look at it in a slightly different way. God created humans and animals--not as robots that perform in lockstep--but as individuals with differences...and sexual orientation is not because of a "fallen state" but is something that God, obviously, intended.
Things would be pretty boring if all flowers were red and all trees were oaks...creation is diverse and that is a good thing and not a "sin" or because of a "fallen state."
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
Savagery? Perhaps you are ignorant of many aspects of the animal kingdom. Many animal species exhibit compassion and empathy for others of their kind, and often towards other species as well. Animals kill to survive. They do not kill for sport or to hang a "trophy" somewhere. Humans would do well to emulate animals in many ways.
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
Unless, of course, "God" tells "his people" to murder men, women and children--even infants, but take captive the young virgins for you to rape--as well as horses and other livestock, simply because they happen to have settled on land that "God" has decided to give to "his people."
Then murder is perfectly fine, right? Or could it be that men simply absolve themselves of blame for horrendous acts by claiming that "God" instructed them to act that way?
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
Say what? One-sided? Monogamous, long-term, same-sex relationships where both partners are committed to each other and have their spiritual and emotional (as well as physical) needs met are one-sided? I think you need to reconsider what you just said here.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
He said it's an abomination, called for their execution, and decreed "their blood is on their hand." God clearly does not approve of homosexuality and he's very hostile towards it.