You're right, I wrote this hastily during my lunch break. I didn't state that my in-laws got divorced because he was living a lie. The whole marriage was doomed because he felt he had to be something he wasn't, that being a heterosexual. He, his young children, and his wife had to endure all kinds of trauma. This probably would not of happened if he felt he could of been accepted for who he was in the first place. "God is a lesbian" is only shocking to those who don't understand. Sometimes we all need a shock. To me the statement is reality.
The animals in this story weren't seperated from the opposite sex. In fact they even tried to introduce the opposite sex to the penguines. The article mentioned same sex dolphins that are loyal to each other until one dies, and then get another same sex partner. So they can commit for life.
Avoiding context as usual I see. TraJ has done wonderfully explaining most of the scriptural issues... I'd just like to add one thing... A context issue. David was in hiding from King Saul in many of these passages. Jonathan was helping him hide out. The "kissing" is a custom of several people groups even to this day in the middle east (as well as other areas of the world) which in no way indicates a homo-erotic situation, only customary greeting. Jesus was betrayed with a kiss... and it was effective in that case because kissing another male was an accepted greeting. Root word studies of the Hebrew, as well as custom history, would show you as much... Being that these were not in the same passage, chapter, nor on the same day in the same event... You cannot say that David and Jonathan did these things in that context either. And the best man in my wedding has seen me semi-nude, as have I seen him. It's called a sports locker room. And have we exchanged a kiss? Sure, not mouth to mouth. But when my mom passed away, while I was balling I recieved a kiss on my forehead and a hug of comfort from him. And I kissed him in a picture while he held his newborn. So? I'm now a homosexual? Definitely not. By this logic, my wife's a lesbian for kissing her sisters and mother, and nieces.... Next? You know the Bible is a good read. You should try it in context some time. A lot of drama, from which you'll understand why most of the world's current problems can be resolved as they were then. Read it. Then you'll only see for yourself the perversion of meaning and context that was wrought unto you by way of the likes of these posts. BTW- Springer? You want Springer? Try reading about what God had Hosea do for starters. God loves all equally... but does not love all actions equally. And just because a bird, or 100,000 birds for that matter, have an identity crisis doesn't mean its "natural." Just because it's in nature doesn't make it natural. I see beer cans out in nature all the time.
You lost all credibility with me on this. If we see a certain behavior across species in many different parts of the world, that makes it natural. As far as your beer can "argument," you can't be serious. People put the beer cans in nature, which is what makes it unnatural. Are you trying to argue that people somehow force these animals to behave as homosexuals? Just because YOU don't believe something to be natural does not automatically make it so. Judge not...
ok, i think this belongs in this thread. you can read the whole thing here, as a PDF, but the abstract tells the story: "On 5 June 1995 an adult male mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) collided with the glass façade of the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam and died. An other drake mallard raped the corpse almost continuously for 75 minutes. Then the author disturbed the scene and secured the dead duck. Dissection showed that the rape-victim indeed was of the male sex. It is concluded that the mallards were engaged in an "Attempted Rape Flight" that resulted in the first described case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard."
And by the same reasoning... Just because YOU do believe something to be natural does not automatically make it so. Judge not... I'm stating the obvious. Your missing my point. "In nature" does not mean "natural." To mean "natural" in this arguement means "intended function, or purpose." So my beer can makes perfect sense. Its function is not to be litter, but to contain beer. Sorry, but I don't find a remote case, be there several of them even, with extinuating circumstances an indicator that these animals are, or were in any way, homosexual by design, default, or choice. Cases of mistaken identity, however, clearly so. We as humans have the one determining factor that distinguishes us from other animals, even IF it turns out through scientific research this behavior is natural in nature as you call it... We have cognitive processes of the brain, a.k.a. the ability to reason, or think. The reasoning that "If the organism, organ or entity has a primary function, fit and purpose, well then... shouldn't that be what it's for?" is not by any means unreasonable. It's also a cognitive brain that not only recognizes the spiritual side of things, but makes it an issue of importance. A male is created to fit a female, and vice versa, in the entire animal kingdom, and in humans. Not only for procreation, sexual fulfillment, or companionship... although that is what both sides of the arguement bicker about having rights to. There are other traits about each gender that are required to be recieved and shared in, in order for a relationship to be fulfilling. It is IMHO that an identity crisis in individual humans at least - whether you accept that as a sin or not, after realizing the identity crisis - and in all nature that leads to homosexual behavior. In the non-human animal world it is often a case of mistaken identity and if it seems to be desired by the parties involved, it would seem as though it had been a learned action due to a lack of opposite gender availibilty for a long duration of time. As humans, knowing exactly who you are = accepting the body your spirit came packaged in. Spiritual understanding = accepting your role in the bigger picture. Remember, we are the only animals that are currently widely accepted as being spiritually minded, and truly worried about our identities. Animals do not think, although some may learn trained responses to a trick or task over time, they mainly act on primal instinct, and learn traits from their "parents" if you will. It is when we lower ourselves into the mere acceptance of "learned traits" as our roles that we err. We should be careful to teach our young that we have reasons, other than outward appearance and performance for being in the bodies we are in. We have the biggest part of our identity in these outward shells, but the least understanding of why we're placed in them all too often. This is the challenge that humans face. Not animals. So why then lower ourselves to an uncognitive level to find answers? I merely would like there to be a clear distinction that "in nature" does not = "natural" at all times. Sometimes it is the case, as in "in nature there is water = water is natural." But this logic clearly has holes. Rocket River had some good thoughts along those lines in his post. Also, the "first described case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard" is exactly that... it was described as that because that is how it appears. Why not consider that the duck attempting the "rape" had mistaken the chased duck as female, only to chase it to the death, at which time the duck could no longer run and fend off the hormone driven dominant attacker? Does this really mean the "raper" duck was intentionally a homosexual? Or that the mistaken gender was never properly defended, and the "rapee" never escaped? Of course that's how it would be described, as it is only the clearest way to scientifically describe the findings. It does not however indicate that it is "natural" behavior... but in fact, as MadMax smiled about, happened "in nature." Have there been male to male, or female to female sexual encounters in nature that led to sexual fulfillment? Sure, and its been proven and documented. Does that really equal "natural" behavior? My jury is still saying "NO." Remember animals do not question gender as we do. Dogs often sniff around until they figure out either, "don't go there" or "go ahead." But they find out by trial and error... and instinctively all animals have built in drive to procreate at least once during one timespan of their existence. Its how life goes on. We as humans are above simple trial and error when it comes to gender identification, and thus should have no reasons, other than choice, to choose a same gender sexual encounter. Again. Does "in nature" = "natural?" I think the answer is "NO." Even with the (limited) research, the body of evidence currently in support of homosexual behavior being "natural" being far more miniscule compared to the body of evidence to suggest the contrary... the answer is still currently "NO." And that is what I mean. It is IMHO as well as I can put it. Again, by this reasoning, and as I read elsewhere in this thread, that could be extrapolated to mean that eating our young is acceptable behavior for humans, and is natural for humans since several species exhibit that certain behavior in many different parts of the world. It simply does not hold water.
Except that in this case, there seems to be an awful lot of evidence that indicates that homosexuality exists in nature. From Dictionary.com: nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl) adj. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl. If something is present in nature it is, by definition, natural. What is the function of love? Can you really control who you fall in love with? If you say yes then it is obvious to me that you haven't had much experience with that emotion. The function of a marriage is to express the commitment two people have for each other and the sex of either partner is moot. You can dig your head in the sand all you want, but now you are wilfully choosing to ignore evidence. Sorry, but that is EXTREMELY unreasonable. All the cognitive processes in the world cannot overcome the biology that a significant portion of our population possess. Some people fall in love with members of their own sex and other people are bigoted about it. Exactly. The spiritual side of this IS important. You are presuming to know more than God. He put us and the animals here and He chose some people (and animals according to the scientific evidence in the article) to be attracted to members of the same sex. This could be the stupidest thing ever said on this board. Are you truly arguing that there isn't a single fulfilling relationship between any gay couple anywhere in the world? If you are trying to make that argument, then you are truly a bigot. IDENTITY CRISIS? MISTAKEN IDENTITY? You are seriously deluded. There were cases in the article where they tried to introduce females and they were spurned over the same sex partner. This is a case of biology, not a penguin going "holy crap, I thought your name was short for Alexandra!" So now if we even consider homosexuality, we are lowering ourselves to an uncognitive level? This is a trait that is shared across species, races, cultures, backgrounds, and millenia of evolution. You are trying to cheapen the lives of homosexuals and in the process are showing yourself as the bigot you are. Sorry, dude, but you only need to look at a dictionary (I provided a reference above) to see that the very first definition of natural is that it exists in nature. You might as well try to argue that the sky is green most of the time or that the Rox have played consistently well this year. You are now trying to equate an isolated incident to decades of evidence on the sexual preferences in nature. There IS a difference between a single incident and something that happens over and over again across species, cultures, backgrounds, and millenia of evolution. If you come up with a body of evidence that shows that many species of animals have exhibited this behavior over millenia of evolution, then your argument might hold water, but just as there are pedophiles among humans, there will be some exceptionaly disturbed animals as well. Your jury can say no all it wants, but your jury is going against the very definition of the word "natural." You are welcome to try to redefine words to match your twisted worldview, but don't be surprised when I call you on it with a quote from dictionary.com. Have you consciously chosen to be attracted to every person you have ever found attractive? For me, there have been attractions to people that I would NEVER have dated if I were making a conscious choice. Homosexuals do not have a choice in who they find attractive, as much as you would like to characterize their sexuality that way. dictionary.com: nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl) adj. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl. Encarta dictionary: nat·u·ral [ náchərəl, náchrəl ] adjective 1. of nature: relating to nature 2. conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature natural symptoms of aging 3. produced by nature: present in or produced by nature, rather than being artificial or created by people a natural sapphire Wordsmyth dictionary: Syllables: nat-u-ral Parts of speech: adjective , noun Pronunciation nae chE rEl naech rEl Definition 1. of, pertaining to, or existing in nature. WHAT BODY OF EVIDENCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? The only evidence presented here has been the article that did scientific study. The only "evidence" YOU have presented is your opinion, accompanied by a faulty definition of the word "natural."
andy -- yes..you may not be able to control who you "fall in love" with...but that's shallow anyway. true love is a choice made daily. it's a discipline, ultimately. who i love is up to me. that's why it's evidenced in commitments. by the way...it may be a handy tool to call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot...but it's not exactly a way to lead to real fruitful discussion. and i think he's saying that just because we're born a certain way, doesn't mean we're tied to it. again, alcoholism is apparently something we're both with..or at least a pre-disposition towards addiction. but i don't think my Creator intended me to live a futile life mired in addiction where i deny relationships to kneel down at the altar of the drink. he's also saying that we shouldn't be looking to animals and their cognition to make policy governing human beings.
Agreed, but if you were unable to even be attracted in the first place, how would you go about falling in love with someone? Homosexuals have as much choice over who they are attracted to as I have choice in what color my hair is naturally. I can cover it up on the outside, but deep down it is brown and I can only disguise that fact, not change it. The statements he made were bigoted towards homosexuals and I simply called him on it. He might have well have said "If an African-American doesn't want to be black, all he has to do is act white, dress white, date whites, and talk like whites and eventually he will be white. He said some things that totally discount homosexuals and their sexual preference. He was a bigot and I called him on it. His lack of response shows that I was pretty dead on. You are trying to compare a disease (alcoholism) to homosexuality. I do not see homosexuality as a disease or a problem, unlike some of you. I see it as one in a long list of traits that make up who a person is. It is not something that needs a cure and does not condemn the person to a "futile life." I really don't think YOU are a bigot, but look at the way you are talking about homosexuality. Don't you think it is a little twisted to equate someone's sexual preference with a disease? Nobody is trying to look to animals to make policy, but instead to try to get some people in this country to see that homosexuality is NOT aberrant, dangerous, a disease, or something that should be eradicated. It is also not a choice, which is what this article is pointing to. This is something that happens in nature and (by definition) that means that it is as natural as everything else He created. God made us ALL in His image and that includes EVERYONE, not just straight folks.
andy -- the argument is over whether it's more comparable to skin color or my common to some predeliction to behavior. it sounds more like the latter. the only comparable thing i can think of in that regard is alcoholism. which by the way, is only bad because society says it's bad, right? if nothing is objectively right or wrong, why is alcoholism necessarily a bad thing? (note that i'm not saying it's not a bad thing...just making a point)
From my limited understanding of genetics, lots of things can be *profitable* for genes so that what would apparently be suicidal tendencies can be in the large sense better for that particular gene pool. One of the more common examples is the willingness of someone to risk their life to save a relative. It makes the most sense to do this for a child, but only a little less genetically speaking for a sibling or cousin. So having this tendency (if it were genetic) as part of the mix in the genes would be good in that it ensures more genetic material that is close to your bloodline surviving. In the same sense perhaps if homosexuality is genetic, the trait is aligned with some other genetic traits ( I'll just make up something -nurturing of others in family or fastidiousness that ensures less infections) that ensures more of the related genes get passed down, if not directly. We understand a lot less about biology that we do about physics.
On an unrealted yet strangely relevant note-- Plato's Laws , his political work par excellance, begins with a discussion between an Athenian and a Spartan. The Athenian rebukes the Spartan lifestyle because they have such a homosexual problem in Sparta, and he denounces their city for having such a horrible vice. The Spartan, in his defense, says, well what about the vice of wine drinking that the Athenians have? The Athenian quick wittedly says back, but can't wine drinking be done in moderation? The Spartan has no reply. The speech about wine drinking is the beggining of political philosophy by the way. But...we no longer live in a classical world. Virtue is no longer man's goal...rather freedom, and that freedom entails the ability to do both vice and virtue. (A good government should still strive to lead its constituents to virtue) That said, I personally am opposed to homosexuality and civil unions, and especially gay marriage. However, like contraception (which I'm strongly opposed to), I don't really know if there is anything I can do to stop the first two. However, the third still seems like it violates the principle of non-contradiction. Anyway, just thought that was funny because of the conversation taking place now. MAybe, and MAcB you'll like this one, man really isn't progressing? Personally I don't think man progresses but rather returns to the beginings. It's a return man.
Weird that you mention Plato arguing against buggery when Plato and most of those other philosopher guys were either gay or bisexual.
Well that brings up the whole question of whether man is free from vice or not, when one looks at a democracy like Athens, it allowed Socrates to both A) Live and B) live in vice. Clearly though, it is described as a vice in many many parts, which doesn't mean that it did not exist, or that it was a good thing.
Who here is in favor of denying a hermaphrodite marriage simply because they have no specific gender?
