I'm wondering if you read the article or a different one. “This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."” The article brought up bestiality, not me.
I don't think it particularly matters. I don't have time to discuss it at the moment--to tell you why I think this way--but I thought I'd at least give you the quick answer. Maybe I can give a more thorough answer later.
we're all born with certain predlicitions (is that a word?). we've all heard by now that alcoholism is inherited....aren't we all born with some innate desires that we know we should curb?? p.s. my source for morality on this is the text of the Bible. i'm certain that can/will be mocked, but it is what it is.
FYI, the word is predilection. (dictionary.com rocks) We all have some desires that should be curbed (actually, when discussing things like alcohol, the Bible only talks about moderation, not abstinance), but homosexuality is not one of them. I have never seen anything from the Bible that directly talks about the topic of homosexuality being a sin. There were three instances in the Bible that could have been same sex couples (Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Daniel and Ashpenaz), but their sexuality is never discussed. IMO, homosexuality is a "sin" because somebody in the church (long after the Bible was written) decided that they didn't want people to exhibit behavior they saw as "aberrant" and decided to attack it. The same thing happened with alcohol in the late 1800s in the US and there are countless examples throughout history (Spanish deciding Paganism was a "sin," among others) where a man decides something is a "sin" and promotes that belief as the word of God. I would ask the social conservatives to mind their own business and let everyone else live their lives as they see fit.
This is some spotty reasoning, I know there is something from Leviticus that says it is wrong. Also the Bible never talks of beastiality or online p*rn, should we assume that those things aren't bad? The bible never specifically mentions LSD so the writers of it must be ok with the drug? Right? Right! I agree with Max as usual. Its natural for a man to attracted to a 25 year old hot girl with big breasts. But if that man is married, is it then right to act on that natural instinct? No, in fact Christ would say that is what man must heal because that is the essence of the sexual sin, lust.
Are there any examples of animals having sex with younger animals (ie a cat with a kitten)? If so, do we want to call what Michael Jackson allegedly did OK?
As I understand it, this entire post was a counter to the standard anti-homosexuality contention that homosexual sex is A) unnatural and B) unique to humans. On that basis, I think it stands. Beyond that, I;m not sure what bearing this has on the argument.
Uhh Blastoff... They're (conservatives) not talking about "bestiality" which means sex between humans and animals. They are likening homosexuality to being subhuman.
So homosexuals are comparable to pedophiles? There are instances in the animal kingdom where mothers eat their young. No one is arguing that it's OK for us to do that. This article is simply a response to people who say homosexuality doesn't occur outside of the human race and, therefore, an un-natural and learned behavior. BTW, I'm not saying that it's exclusively learned or natural. I think it depends on the situation. But comparing something like homosexuality to beastiality or pedophilia is very wrong, IMO.
I'm not saying that the two are comparable. What I AM saying is that if one looks to the animal kingdom for what is OK then you will end up with some strange mores. I should have known that I would get the standard "oh so you think the two are the same" argument. Apples grow on trees and so do oranges...am I saying that they are the same? No. You have to look past the thought of comparison and get to the actual point that the concept is flawed in its very logic. Regardless of how one feels about the behavior itself, this article was printed to draw the conclusion that this is a natural thing and is therefore more palatable to certain people. I was merely pointing out something else that occurs in the animal kingdom that just about everybody can agree is not palatable. I was not in any way comparing the two behaviors on their moral merits. To dismiss it that easily is giving the idea unduly short shrift.
Well, I responded before seeing MacBeth's response, which is basically what I meant in mine. I'm not sure that anyone is citing this evidence for any other reason than to refute the notion that homosexuality doesn't occur in other animals, therefore it is not natural in human behavior.
Here's a few: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 English Standard Version) If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; (Leviticus 20:13 ESV) 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27 ESV) andymoon, There's nothing whatsoever in Bible that even remotely suggests that any of the people you mentioned were homosexual. (Naomi and Ruth were mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.) The only "proof" that any of these people were homosexual is that each of them had a close relationship with the other person you mentioned with them. Actually, that's not even true of Daniel and Ashpenaz (who was a eunuch, by the way). Can people of the same sex be close to one another without it being sexual at all? If so, any "proof" pointing to these people being homosexual quickly fades. If there's no other explanation for people of the same sex being close, then (and only then) would you be on to something. The Bible only indicates that these people were close to one another. The rest reads for more into the story than the facts will permit.
"God has no place in these walls like facts have no place in organized religion." -Superintendent Chaumers So mother-in-laws and daughter-in-laws can't have an affair? Haven't you ever watched Springer? Eunuchs can't feel love or attraction for another person? Notice that you didn't mention anything about David and Jonathan. 1 Samuel (KJV) 18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 20:4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee. 20:17 And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul. 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. When was the last time you stripped for your straight male friend and kissed each other?
Thanks for typing those out, I remember hearing somewhere that there were three instances in the bible, are those the ones? I knew about the one in Leviticus. Is there a quote from Jesus condemning homosexuality? I always thought that was funny about Leviticus... people pay a lot of attention to that one law, but ignore the dozens and dozens of others. Heh. If everybody followed the laws of Leviticus strictly, things would be different. Actually, it would probably be close to Afghanistan during Taliban rule.
Very rarely do animals (besides Humans) have sex for reasons other than to produce offspring. Dolphins, I believe, are the only animals to have 'casual sex'. Of course there are expections, as in the homosexual penguins case. So, for a cat to have sex with a kitten would be pointless, as the cats would not become pregnant, thus not ensuring the survival of the species. Animals have sex to reproduce, that is one of their most basic instincts. Unless of course they are asexual, or can change sexes (as some amphibians and reptiles can).
Dogs: licking your balls Cats: purring Bears: grabbing you by the scruff of your neck What pets do you have?
Actually there are instances of this. Male walruses and seals will actually rape walrus and seal cubs if they cannot find a mate. They do this out of frustration and many times kill the cub due to their large weight bearing down on the small cub. I'm not saying that what Michael's accused of is alright because it's not I was just giving an example of this actually happening in the wild.
1st the penguins are in an unnatural state i.e. they *are* in captivity . . . like i dunno . . . PRISON honestly I like to know more about the whole life cycle of these animals . . .. Is the result of external forces or have they been this way since birth? At what point were 'females' offer? Where were they BEFORE this union of sorts? You make a situation where an animal is forced into a sexual preferences that runs counter to its nature . . .then give the time to 'get use to it' . . then off them the opposite. . . .chances are the animal will got with what it has rather than something new. . . . . The basics is this. did this occur from the beginning or was it a learn response to some external stimuli . . . . . one cannot just see the results and then make the conclusion Rocket River
