For those of you who think homosexuality is immoral, do you think it’s ok that animals engage in homosexual activity? If so, why is it immoral for humans and not for other animals? Personally, I think it’s a very natural process that should not be denied but because of certain cultural aspects (ehm…I think you know what groups I’m talking about) it most often is. Why is it so looked down upon? They are in the early stages of prooving that it is a genetical trait:
Don’t be wishy-washy on your interpretation of the Bible. Either you take it literally or don’t. If you believe it truly is the book of your God, then where do you get the power to pick and choose the rules lain out for you? So on that note, if you’re reasoning is because “the Bible says so” then do you think it’s moral to sell your daughter into slavery as well?(Exodus 21:7)
If it’s a genetic trait then why are some identical twins not both gay?
I believe people are born the the tendancies, yes. And people who have detachment from parents and the like also have greater chances to be homosexual. The bible doesn’t say it’s wrong to be homosexual, but the behavior is.
Spw. You’ve misunderstood the text, just as this person has. Context plays a major major part. I suggest you read for yourself and find out, but if you really want it to be explain I will take the time. But if you aren’t sincere about my response, I find no reason to give it nor waste my time.
Well, naturally, if morals are constructs of our culture, that was not the culture of ancient hebrews back then. And really on a naturalistic level, there is no base at which to say they were wrong for having slaves. I’m not saying he was right or wrong, I’m only saying arguing Paul’s view on slavery in the bible is useless when you have no moral base to begin with.
This silly misconception is perpetuated by the homosexual agenda and nothing else, there is no truth to the idea that animals regularly and naturally engage in homosexual activities. If you put 14 rats in a small cage (one test study) you will have some male rats engaging with other male rats simply out of uncontrolled urges and proximity, see animals have no control mechanism over their urges, no need too. This often happens in many lower forms of life as they are very close to if not asexual anyway and many can change sexes according to their environment. This in no way is equated to homosexuality in humans, nor is it comparable, may as well compare morals of animals to humans. Ever wonder why there are no reports of females engaging with other females in the animal kingdom? There is simply nothing natural about same sex partners engaging in sex, nothing. It is easily provable that this is either a case of defective hormone distribution during the development stages of life or a choice brought on usually by some sort of trauma.
Morality of sex only applies to humans, not animals!
What about penguins, ducks, and elephants – all of which exhibit obligatory homosexuality?
Also, by placing the demands wholly on human beings, you remove humans from the natural continuum, which is unacceptable in many philosophies.
Edit: It is worth noting that homosexuality generally occurs in social species, so using rats (which have no significant social structure) as an example is a poor one indeed. It is the bane of molecular sociologists/sociobiologists that rats aren’t a social species.
There remains very limited evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. Anyway most behavioral traits are complex polygenic associations rather than one-to-one affairs. Therefore, there will never be a discovery of “a gene for homosexuality” in the simplest sense of that phrase. And even the discovery of an association with certain genes will not put an end to the issue, since there are undoubtably environmental factors involved, much like there is with every other behavior.
But basically, I don’t see why any Christian would take issue with the idea that predisposition to ANY behavior contains some genetic component. The predisposition and the action are 2 very different things. For example, despite the evidence that there is a much higher incidence of chromosomal abnormalities among our prison inmates, it is not a good defence in murder trial to say that “my genes made me do do it!”.
The bible (OT and NT) clearly teach that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. And the bible also clearly teaches that adultery and gluttony are immoral. Therefore anyone who engages in these practices is sinning, whether they have genetically encoded tendancies towards them or notl.
I already qualified my statement and covered that well and in fact these animals do not regularly engage in homosexual sex, this is propaganda perpetuated by the homosexual agenda. It is rare and only in cretin circumstances, there has never been a case where a male would seek out another male to try and mate with, never. Plus there has never been a case of two females engaging, this should tell you something about the urges of nature to reproduce (not sex) and once again, animals have nothing to do with Humans in this respect.
This tired and tainted line of BS has been used as the Holy Grail to the homosexual agenda and nothing is more disingenuous and unfounded. Only the observers with an agenda see it as homosexuality, others with an objective mind see it for what it really is and that’s simply an urge to have sex for procreation and sometimes there is no female available and since only the strong get to reproduce or other mitigating circumstances that leaves a lot of animals with the natural urge but no mate. Animals don’t know the how’s and why’s of what their doing, they just do. Homosexuality in humans if different in that there is a choice introduced even with the cases of birth defects, however in those cases it would be very difficult to go against that which your body is chemically attracted to, but nonetheless it can still be controlled.
Did you read the article? There is scientific evidence that many species engage in homosexual activity? Why do you deny this fact? Hell, the site even ranks the top 10 gay animals!
You bring up another point I want to address. Exactly as you said, morals are cutural constructs that change as the culture changes. Don’t you think that if many of the morals of that time have changed due to our culutural change it’s time modernize? Slaves are no longer culturually accepted as they were back then. So why isn’t it the same case for homosexuality? According to this logic, shouldn’t homosexuality become accepted within our culture? I just don’t think that the Bible is a credible source to set all moral standards for us. Especially because, as you said yourself, our culture has changed immensly since it was written and as culture changes so do our set of morals (or at least they should!).
Ok, so think what you want. Whatever, you find homosexuality immoral but why does that give those people the authority (politicians) to ban gay marriage? Technically, marriage is a legal ceremony in which the state recognizes that two human beings are legally wed. It is the choice of the couple to be recognized by a particular religious group. So if it is a choice to be married religiously, how do they have a say in what is done legally? Why can’t homosexual couples be recognized legally and not religiously? What the fuck happened to separation of church and state? How is it that the moral standards or certain religious groups influence the laws made by our government? And no, RELIGION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A MORAL CODE!Even if homosexuality is not a determined by genes, who cares? How does someone’s choice of homosexuality endanger you or your morals in any way? You can going on thinking what you want, obliging by your moral standards, even if homosexuals can be legally wed. Why do you feel the need to make a decision for something that you have never experienced or even attempt to understand? Religious dogmatism creates ignorance. And apparantley you would live in 1984 world where ignorance is bliss.
I’m not saying we should let all of our morals go and live in a chaotic society; that’s just absurd. But the question of whether or not homosexuality is moral shouldn’t even exist! Morals were created to protect or society and keep justice. Homosexuality does not endanger the people of a society in any way, shape or form. Sorry about the long rant. Even though I am not a homosexual, I feel this topic is very important and one of the many issues that is sending our society down the drain.
I just don’t understand why you continue to deny this. Logical objective observation?! Give me a break. It’s not like scientists went out searching for species that engage in homosexual activity so that gives them reason to deem it moral. It is merely an observation, they have not tampered with these results (even though I would hardly call a simple observation a result) in any way. Homosexual activity between animals of other species has been observed time and time again. But hey, think what you want, deny scientific facts. Ignorance is bliss.
I’m pretty much in agreement with you. State and church are seperate entities and can and do have different standards. If the government decide to legislate and allow gay marriage it wouldn’t really bother me. If they start to tell my local church to perform gay marriage then that’s a different issue. But I doubt this would happen in the US where organsizations have freedom to express their own opinions freely. So, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
I think you’ve gone too far at this point. Whether homosexuality is immoral or not it IS an important issue because society has deemed it to be so. Heck, if enough of our society think that wearing sandals with brown socks is an important moral issue and want to harrass their congressmen and women over the issue, then it will become important.
Societal moral issues are not always about “danger”, they are sometimes simply about what is “acceptable” to most people.
And it is not acceptable to most people to discriminate against people who are born genetically different, when the genetic difference causes no harm to the society or the individual.
Because its bad science when you extend any of these results to equate to human behavior in any way, is that clear enough?
You think these results that claim it is natural in humans because it is occasionally observed in animals is objective? Maybe you should look up the meaning of objective.
Again, no study I have read shows any evidence that a male will seek out another male in an environment where there are available females and no study has ever shown two females engaging in sexual relations so you do the math, objectively.
Why do you insist on rejecting common sense and rational thought? The problem is yours, not mine.
This we agree upon, enjoy your bliss, or put some real support to your assertion and quit leaning on others words or reports to do it for you. If you cant explain in your own words and relate the evidence in respect to what you are saying then I can conclude that you don’t even understand the results of this paper. That’s the problem with other peoples results taken out of context and used for the agenda of proving what you want it to prove, worthless information.
Sorry, but I edited that post. So if you could respond to the newly updated one, it would be greatly appreciated. I meant to edit it before you responded. But I truly do want to hear what you have to say.
I’ve already made my point most concisely, you need to address the evidence that there are no observed incidents where a male animal will seek out another male animal in an environment where there are available females, and why no female homosexuality has been observed. In addition you need to show how any of these studies equated human relations to this. The fact is that the Homosexual agenda left are the ones that tie these studies to human behavior and this does not take into consideration that Choice of humans adds another variable that is impossible to predict or qualify.
If you really want to debate morality of Homosexuality then leave animals out of it as they are incapable of morals to begin with so the whole idea is illogical.
I think it is stupid and intolerant for same-sex marraiges not to be recognized. Similarly, I think it would be stupid and intolerant to force churches to perform same-sex marraiges or lose their tax-exempt status. I think that it is quite possible for both sides to disagree on the issue without both sides stepping on each other’s toes about it.
Likewise, the issue of why homosexuality is taboo needs to be investigated. It is presently considered quite taboo, so first we ought examine how/why this came about and from that decide whether that situation still applies.
That alone is still insufficient to argue for change, it merely allows for the case to be made for change. To change the current legal (as well as cultural) taboo a case needs to be made for it being an improvement that homosexuality be allowed and recognized.
For me, having seen four families destroyed by the homosexuality taboo, I think that the taboo is actively damaging the family (the most important unit of society). Once, I saw a father have to experience not merely the shame of divorce, but also the shame of having been outed by being caught in a public park engaging in anonymous gay sex. The father is presently a happily outed man, but ho-boy are his kids messed up. The situation would have been much better had the father simply been allowed to be gay.
Next, I saw a mother divorce her husband (rather amicably) because her lesbianism prevented her from really enjoying her marraige. She went through the motions because of both cultural and religious reasons, and two children resulted. Again, these two innocent children had to experience the pain of divorce as well as the shame of having two mommies as well as a daddy.
The remaining two situations are your general queer comming of age stories where parent is set against child because of the taboo. Looking at cases ranging from the first two presented here to more publicized cases of homosexuality destroying one’s family and career, it does appear that had the two people instead decided to hide their homosexuality that fallout of a different sort would have resulted later. Though they had to defy their parents to do it (a big no-no) I do feel that they made the right decision in comming out. It is a pity that the most responsible action in this case resulted in severely damaging the family unit, but irresponsible action would have as well.
As I said above, the argument that homosexuality is genetically imprinted is very weak since there are no conclusive scientific data on the topic, just a few hints. As there is therefore no basis for a genetic predisposition argument this is not yet an issue of genetic discrimination, although discrimination based on behavior can probably be argued more strongly.
Furthermore, there are numerous other issues where society has decreed an “unacceptable” position that have nothing to do with danger. I suspect that you will get into trouble if you try polygamy with some consenting adults, or decide to eat your dead relatives rather than burying them in the local cemetary. Yet these don’t pose any immediate danger to your next door neighbor.