The Animal Homosexuality Myth

[Ciara]

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

 

[Guest]

I really do not understand the apprehension against homosexuality being natural. Nature or nurture, does it make a difference?

 

[Lewis]

That was a well explained article, I talked about this topic a few times on this board, dating back just about 5 years, and that is the best explanation for that behavior that I have ever seen, good work Ciara

 

[Rick W]

I don't understand why the gay groups use that comparison. I would think it's rather demeaning to compare oneself with animals. Just because animals do something shouldn't be an excuse for one's behavior.
I think they could have thought of something better.

 

[Lewis]

But the explanation I was talking about was, why do the animals do that, and it was explained better than I have ever heard it.

 

[Caroline H]

I don't understand why the gay groups use that comparison. I would think it's rather demeaning to compare oneself with animals. Just because animals do something shouldn't be an excuse for one's behavior.
I think they could have thought of something better.

Exactly...donkeys and cows pee and poop where they stand and walk all around in it. Does that mean humans should do it too?? Chimpanzee's pick the nits and ticks off of each other and eat them. Does that mean I should do that to my friends to strengthen our bonds? :verysick

 

[animal]

They aren't gay because other animals sometimes express what we call "homosexual behavior". They are just trying to show you they have nothing to apologize for. It's a perfectly normal thing.

Many cultures using the "bathroom" in public isn't nearly as offensive as it would be if you or I saw someone taking a crap in the street. Many African tribes have "toilets" outside in plain site. My sister spent 6 weeks with one of these tribes. Craaazy right?! No. It's just different.

If your child had lice you wouldn't buy him or her special shampoo? You wouldn't spend a few minutes consoling them and washing their hair? Unfortunate.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Ever since the lie of evolution was brought into the picture, many believe we evolved from animals. That lie makes us no better than animals. The way some people act, I could almost believe that about them.

Looking at animal behavior and trying to prove by that behavior that homosexuality is normal is quite a stretch. Just another feeble attempt by homosexuals to justify their perverted behavior. To use that example as proof is saying that they are as dumb as animals with no ability to think or reason for themselves. Animals live and act by instinct alone and just have a natural desire to procreate and can't always tell whether the one they're trying to mate with is male or female.

Humans know the difference and sometimes choose to be with their own gender instead of the way God intended--one male with one female.

 

[Caroline H]

If your child had lice you wouldn't buy him or her special shampoo? You wouldn't spend a few minutes consoling them and washing their hair? Unfortunate.

Of course I would, I just wouldn't eat the things that's all

 

[animal]

If your child had lice you wouldn't buy him or her special shampoo? You wouldn't spend a few minutes consoling them and washing their hair? Unfortunate.

Of course I would, I just wouldn't eat the things that's all

A lot of animals eat bugs/insects including humans.

 

[animal]

Ever since the lie of evolution was brought into the picture, many believe we evolved from animals. That lie makes us no better than animals. The way some people act, I could almost believe that about them.

Looking at animal behavior and trying to prove by that behavior that homosexuality is normal is quite a stretch. Just another feeble attempt by homosexuals to justify their perverted behavior. To use that example as proof is saying that they are as dumb as animals with no ability to think or reason for themselves. Animals live and act by instinct alone and just have a natural desire to procreate and can't always tell whether the one they're trying to mate with is male or female.

Humans know the difference and sometimes choose to be with their own gender instead of the way God intended--one male with one female.

I'm not sure how evolution says we're no better than other animals.. but anyway.

If you're going to pull the "way God intended" card there's no way to have a discussion. And tell a suicidal homosexual teenager all he/she needs to do is rethink their "choice".

 

[handy]

I really do not understand the apprehension against homosexuality being natural. Nature or nurture, does it make a difference?

I don't think it makes a difference. Whether by nature or by choice, the temptation to follow through on the attraction to one of the same sex is still going to be defined as sin. The issue isn't as much "Why do I feel the way I do?" but rather, "What am I going to do about it?". Although, for those who entered into a homosexual lifestyle because of being groomed by an older person for sex, the "Why" does become far more important. I've been around the block on the homosexual issue enough now to understand that some identify themselves as gay or lesbian because that's the way they have always felt (nature) and some identify themselves as such because they were drawn into the lifestyle by others. It's a misrepresentation to say that all homosexuals are "born that way" or that all homosexuals have "made a choice". No matter the reason for the temptation (for some a very overwhelming temptation indeed) to enter into the lifestyle, folks so compelled are in need of much love, understanding and support to be able to make godly decisions in regards to their sexuality.

Trying to compare homosexual behaviors found in some animals and the very real issues that some one who is orientated to the same sex seems very demeaning to me as well, Rick. If I were a lesbian, I wouldn't want someone pointing at frisky dolphins and saying, "Well, there you go!" as if that answered anything. I've always been a bit surprised as well that some of the gay advocacy groups seem to want to "go there".

 

[Blazin Bones]

For the animal side bar - If we are evolved from animals it can be considered "reasonable" to have residual animal characteristic, like acceptable homosexual behavior. I would not like the comparison either, but I've never been that alienated by the "normal crowd". I'm not saying we should accept thier sinful behavior, but I do not think we should hold them as so much worse than a liar or a wife beater.

It is NOT a natural behavior. For a Christian to hold this view is to say that God knew in the begining that he would force his creation to commit what he sees as an abomination. There are no cultural or misguided overtones whe the Bible calls homosexuality sin, it says it plain and clear. However, again, this sin makes them no worse than a wife beater.

 

[Guest]

I have often had difficulty with (strongly) theologically conservative Christians who argue homosexuality is unnatural. They accept Genesis as historical, the doctrine of original sin, and the notion of 'glorified' or 'perfected' bodies following the resurrection of the saints. They believe man has a sinful nature, and death and other ills entered the world through Adam's sin. Yet, despite all this, someone homosexuality is perceived as something which could not possibly be natural after the fall. Sorry, but this reeks of special pleading.

 

[handy]

minnesota,

I think that there might be some confusion as to semantics. Homosexuality is unnatural, as it is stated in Romans 1:26-27 "...for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman, and burned in their desire towards one another..."

From God's POV, He created us, male and female and gave us sexuality to reproduce in a way that strengthend the bonds of love and intimacy of the parents, creating a firm foundation in which to nurture the young.

In this respect, there is no doubt that homosexuality is 'unnatural'.

However, due to the fall, there are a lot of things that were unnatural that has become natural. I can think of no better example than that of eating meat. We were created as vegetarians. Eating meat was a direct consequense of the fall. Now, eating meat has become so natural to humans, that we even have developed nutritional needs that are best fulfilled by eating meat. Eating meat is an unnatural thing that has become natural.

Homosexuality is another one of those things. Homosexuality also came about due to the fall, and specifically because of the fact that man turned his back from God and started to worship the created rather than the Creator. Romans clearly teaches that it was due to this idoltry that man started to exchange what was natural (sex between a man and a woman) for that which was unnatural (homosexuality). Over time, just as we became acclaimated to eating meat, I'm sure that there are those who have a predisposition towards homosexuality. Homosexuality is certainly something that is found in all cultures, in all eras and across all segments of society. In my opinion, one of the reasons why the Church stands so firm against homosexuality (firm to a sinful fault at times) is that homosexuality can be either innate as well as a learned behavior and the more that learn and practice it, the more innate within our species it will become.

One difference between homosexuality and eating meat is that God gave specific permission to eat meats, first with perimeters and then later without perimeters; but God, in both Old Testament and New, has clearly stated that homosexuality is sin, and that no homosexual will enter into His kingdom unless the sin is repented from and forgiven. If we allow this idea that homosexuality is "natural" meaning that God "made them that way" and therefore there is nothing sinful about it, it becomes damaging, not only to the homosexual's chances of seeking repentence and forgiveness from God, it also will 'normalize' what is sinful, causing more to stumble in this and the more that do so, the more innate it becomes. Vicious cycle, that.

 

[Vic C.]

I have often had difficulty with (strongly) theologically conservative Christians who argue homosexuality is unnatural. They accept Genesis as historical, the doctrine of original sin, and the notion of 'glorified' or 'perfected' bodies following the resurrection of the saints. They believe man has a sinful nature, and death and other ills entered the world through Adam's sin. Yet, despite all this, someone homosexuality is perceived as something which could not possibly be natural after the fall. Sorry, but this reeks of special pleading.

I don't quite understand your position. Your post explains why we Christians believe it is not natural. It is a result of our sin propensity that we succumb to that which is deem unnatural and a sin.

What was intended to be 'natural' is clear in scripture when we read that which precedes the 'fall'; one man, one woman, bonded as one for the purpose of companionship and procreation. It really IS that simple!

The issue is like Dora said; do we succumb to our decadent temptations or do we resist?

I don't think it makes a difference. Whether by nature or by choice, the temptation to follow through on the attraction
to one of the same sex is still going to be defined as sin. The issue isn't as much "Why do I feel the way I do?" but rather, "What am I going to do about it?"

 

[Guest]

I think that there might be some confusion as to semantics.
...
However, due to the fall, there are a lot of things that were unnatural that has become natural.
...
If we allow this idea that homosexuality is "natural" meaning that God "made them that way" and therefore there is nothing sinful about it, it becomes damaging, not only to the homosexual's chances of seeking repentence and forgiveness from God, it also will 'normalize' what is sinful, causing more to stumble in this and the more that do so, the more innate it becomes.

My point seems to be unclear. I am arguing some Christians do not make a distinction between the what is natural before the fall and what is natural after the fall. They do make the distinction with other things (i.e., death, illness, sin, etc.), but not with regards to homosexuality. Hence, my comment about special pleading.

This lack of distinction between the two natures with regards to homosexuality can be observed indirectly in their endless arguments against the existence of homosexuality in animals, and the notion that homosexuality can be cured.

Thus, if any semantical confusion exists, it would be with those Christians to whom I am referring.

I don't quite understand your position.

See above.

 

[handy]

This lack of distinction between the two natures with regards to homosexuality can be observed indirectly in their endless arguments against the existence of homosexuality in animals, and the notion that homosexuality can be cured.

I see what you're saying, and I agree. I think the reason why so many conservative Christians resist the idea of homosexuality being natural is because of the way the argument is presented: Homosexuality is natural, therefore God made them that way, therefore it is OK and not sin.

Just two weeks ago I sat at a table at an Assembly of my church's synod and was told this very thing. Not less than a 1/2 hour later, a resolution passed at the Assembly to urge the Churchwide Assembly this August to allow for some kind of formal blessing of same-sex couples and to allow for the ordination of openly gay and lesbian pastors. All this stemmed from a: bad exegises of Scripture and b: the acceptance that homosexuality is innate rather than a choice.

Why there seems to be this idea that if homosexuality is innate then it's OK escapes me. But, there is no doubt that those who advocate that homosexuality is not sin, and therefore there is no reason for the Church not to marry or ordain openly gay and lesbian people, use this illogic all the time.


Regarding whether or not homosexuality can be "cured": I don't look at it as some kind of illness needing curing. I see it as exactly what the Bible says it is, a sin to be repented of. Anyone can repent of any sin and walk in victory over the temptation to return to the sin. If a gay or lesbian person repents and seeks to resist the temptation to return to the lifestyle, then they are just as much victorious over homosexuality as I would be if I repent (as I often do) of my anger and resist the temptation to lash out when I'm mad (which is hard for me to do). I'll deal with need to exercise self-control over my anger for the rest of my life, and I'm sure a gay or lesbian Christian will need to exercise self control over their sexuality for the rest of their life. Perhaps, after time, I'll have gained enough self-control over the anger to no longer be tempted in that way. Will I have been "cured" then?

 

[Vic C.]

I try not to make distinctions where none should be made. The homosexual act is not natural. Romans 1:27 and 31 (among other places) indicate that this is not a natural act.

Rom 1:27 And 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 recompense of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

 

[Lewis]

I try not to make distinctions where none should be made. The homosexual act is not natural. Romans 1:27 and 31 (among other places) indicate that this is not a natural act.

Rom 1:27 And 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 recompense of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

And that about sums it up.