The Animal Homosexuality Myth

[GojuBrian]

[quote="Vic C.":s3mwsl1w]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.[/quote:s3mwsl1w]

Can't argue with the "infallable repository of redemptive revalation."

+1

 

[Guest]

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.

Fallacy of equivocation. Homosexuality has been used to refer to homosexual feelings, tendencies, and so on. It was not being used to reference homosexual actions (i.e., sexual relations with someone of the same sex).

 

[Guest]

[quote="Vic C.":1nhcsfiy]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.

Can't argue with the "infallable repository of redemptive revalation."[/quote:1nhcsfiy]
I would not attempt to argue against Scripture, itself. That would be a fool's question when you're dealing with people who accept the supreme authority of Scripture. Rather, it is more profitable to show the flaw in their understanding and/or application of Scripture. To this end, we shall now look more closely at the passage.

Romans 1:27 does not apply to my comments because we are not discussing homosexual sex. We are discussing homosexual tendencies, feelings, etc.

For Romans 1:31, it takes on a different meaning from the intended meaning being expected above when you reference more translations.

they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

[They were] without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless [and] merciless.

They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy.

foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;

without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:

unwise, unmannerly, without love [without affection, or love], without bond of peace, without mercy.

So, no argument with Scripture is needed. Neither of these passages counter my points.

 

[handy]

Here is something to consider in this discussion.

I think that when the Bible addresses homosexuality, it addresses the act, not the inclination. In our common language then, the Bible really doesn't speak to sexual orientation as much as it does to sexual activites. The only place where sexual orientation might be addressed Biblically would be Romans 1:27 which speaks of 'burning in lust', but since lust is just as much a sin for heteros as it is for homos I would tend to clump lust right in with the action as the one surely proceeds the other.

Sexual orientation, whether to the opposite sex or to the same sex, encompasses far more than just lust, but the deep desire to find companionship and intimacy with another which God, in the perfect pre-fallen world addressed when He created Eve as Adam's companion. God created us with the sexual orientation to the opposite sex, but since the fall, that, along with everything else has been corrupted.

But, I don't find sexual orientation addressed in Scripture. Which is why I believe one can be sexually orientated to the same-sex, without sinning if one either remains celebate, or seeks the more normal marriage to a person of the opposite sex. And, many who define themselves as being or once having been homosexual, have gone on to have quite successfull marriages to people of the opposite sex.

Tying this in to the topic of the thread, Animal homosexuality, then, there are homosexual behaviors exhibited by some animals at some times, but I don't believe there is any scientifically proven and documented case of any animal that shows a marked orientation to the same sex. I think this can be explained in that marriage was instituted for man, to meet that deep need that God recognized when He said it was not good that man should be alone. Homosexual orientation is a corruption of that need, but it is nonetheless a real consequense and, natural or not, I find it true that some are "born" with an innate orientation to the same sex.

I simply believe that homosexuality can be innate (which is probably a better word than 'natural') and it can also be learned. In my life, I've known a number of gays, some quite well. One guy that I can tell you about had an innate inclination. His mother told me that even when he was as young as 18 months to 2 years of age, he would take off his clothes and dress in his older sister's underwear. Nobody was teaching him this, it was just always the way he was. Another guy, my brother-in-law's brother's companion, shared how he was just a normal guy with a normal teenage boy's interest in girls, when he took a summer job as a cabin boy on a ship out of Norway. During his time at sea, he was repeatedly sexually assulted by the sailors on the ship, and because of the profound effect the prolonged exposure to gay sex had on him, he remained homosexual for the rest of his life.

It's worth noting that the guy who was born with this innate attraction to the same-sex, was raised a Christian, remained celebate, dealt with the temptation to homosexuality as temptation and is a very happily married man with two beautiful daughters. The other guy, the Norwegian, isn't a Christian, so his homosexuality really isn't much of an issue anyway, his major problem is unbelief.

 

[Blazin Bones]

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.

Fallacy of equivocation. Homosexuality has been used to refer to homosexual feelings, tendencies, and so on. It was not being used to reference homosexual actions (i.e., sexual relations with someone of the same sex).

Wait a moment...You add "and so on" which in the simplest general sense is anything regarding same sex intimacy, and yet you then exclude the actions itself. Those actions still fall under the General Notion of Homosexuality. Are you claiming that the action is unnatural but the thoughts and "feelings" are not? Is the notion, I would assume, then that Scripture only singles out the act and not the driving feelings?

Perhaps this may float with you, but then we must use discernment and reason. In Matthew, Jesus upped the playing feild because in the situation of adultery the thought of it became sinful. My guess is if it works for the sin of adultery and lust, it works for the sin of homosexuality. This is why roman taught that we can prevent conformity with the world through the renewing of our mind. If we do not let our mind dwell on commiting sin, then the body has a harder time sinning.

 

[Guest]

Fallacy of equivocation. Homosexuality has been used to refer to homosexual feelings, tendencies, and so on. It was not being used to reference homosexual actions (i.e., sexual relations with someone of the same sex).

Wait a moment...You add "and so on" which in the simplest general sense is anything regarding same sex intimacy, and yet you then exclude the actions itself. Those actions still fall under the General Notion of Homosexuality. Are you claiming that the action is unnatural but the thoughts and "feelings" are not? Is the notion, I would assume, then that Scripture only singles out the act and not the driving feelings?

The category to which I am referring is that of orientation or attraction (physical and/or emotional) towards someone (or some of) the same sex. Such orientations or attractions can be the result of natural causes post-fall, and therefore would be natural.

Perhaps this may float with you, but then we must use discernment and reason. In Matthew, Jesus upped the playing feild because in the situation of adultery the thought of it became sinful. My guess is if it works for the sin of adultery and lust, it works for the sin of homosexuality. This is why roman taught that we can prevent conformity with the world through the renewing of our mind. If we do not let our mind dwell on commiting sin, then the body has a harder time sinning.

No one was suggesting otherwise.

 

[Lewis]

I think that when the Bible addresses homosexuality, it addresses the act, not the inclination. In our common language then, the Bible really doesn't speak to sexual orientation as much as it does to sexual activites. The only place where sexual orientation might be addressed Biblically would be Romans 1:27 which speaks of 'burning in lust', but since lust is just as much a sin for heteros as it is for homos I would tend to clump lust right in with the action as the one surely proceeds the other.

You are right Dora

 

[GojuBrian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7agvKbA6 ... r_embedded

YEE HAW!!!


Tried to youtube imbed????

 

[Vic C.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7agvKbA6Pls&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Elewisandlewis%2Eorg%2FOnlineStore%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded

YEE HAW!!!


Tried to youtube imbed????

LOL... use the Youtube tag button.

[attachment=0:1u6tsdax]Screenshot.jpg[/attachment:1u6tsdax]

 

[peter33]

sheesh.

you know, back in the day, they used to consider homosexuality not just a sin, but an illness. it wasnt until the 70's that it was removed as an illness, but personally how can you possibly define living that kind of lifestyle as anything BUT an illness? its clearly not normal and not natural, and it certianly presents a problem for producing children, so yeah, i believe it is a form of some kind of illness of the brain that people seem to think today is ok. theres a reason why gays are labled as a minority group. but when has it become ok to be sick in the mind? its just gotten so insane. and now they are useing animal homosexuality as proof its natural? LOL! they are animals! they do this kind of stuff with anything! sheesh, my dog humps my leg sometimes, does it mean hes a leg-osexual? its just rediculous. and i love how they think our society is moving foward when its cleary going backwards and going crazy as well.

 

[handy]

and i love how they think our society is moving foward when its cleary going backwards and going crazy as well.

Romans 1:22 "Professing to be wise, they became fools."

 

[jasoncran]

The tempation of homosexual is to powerful. IMHO cause its an action that start with thought like all other sins. Jesus did say that if you look another woman to lust while your married you have commit adultery. I think that this applies to all sins. WE should discern all sin from the BIBLE POV. Pray that I'll live up with it. I really don't know why exactly i feel into homosexuality, every time i testify about my deliverence from it. I learn something new. I just wish we would stop hearing or seeing how being gay is good as it wasn't for me. I was very confused back then and every time about gay right it reminds me of that struggling time in my life.

 

[GojuBrian]

Jason,

Thank you for sharing and God bless you!!!

 

[GojuBrian]

they used to consider homosexuality not just a sin, but an illness. it wasnt until the 70's that it was removed as an illness, but personally how can you possibly define living that kind of lifestyle as anything BUT an illness? its clearly not normal and not natural, and it certianly presents a problem for producing children, so yeah, i believe it is a form of some kind of illness of the brain that people seem to think today is ok. theres a reason why gays are labled as a minority group. but when has it become ok to be sick in the mind? its just gotten so insane. and now they are useing animal homosexuality as proof its natural? LOL! they are animals! they do this kind of stuff with anything! sheesh, my dog humps my leg sometimes, does it mean hes a leg-osexual? its just rediculous. and i love how they think our society is moving foward when its clearly going backwards and going crazy as well.

Peter,

I have been telling people that for years. I believe in every homosexuals lives something has happened along the way. Whether it be how they were raised,what they were taught,etc...I find in alot of cases there was atleast some sexual abuse if not severe!
I know this to be true because of the former homosexuals I have known or nown about. God can turn this around!

 

[Armor of God]

Evolution teaches us we are no better than animals. The animal activists want animals to have "rights" like humans.

Let's see, animals also eat their own young, eat their own waste, eat their own vomit, and many species are cannibalistic.

Yep, I think we should be measured in the same fashion.

No wonder ridiculous theories like this are around.

 

[Guest]

Evolution teaches us we are no better than animals.

Incorrect. Evolutionary theory is merely an attempt to explain the rise of the diversity of life through a naturalistic interpretation. It does not make value judgments.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I actually DIDNT find the article that superbly written as most others seem to have. There are literally hundreds of thousands of fish that have the ability to change sex - sometimes more than once - during their lifespan to ensure the population stays populated. This also occurs in many amphibious species as well. Most homosexual relations occur in mammals and birds however.

Another article you should take a look at is this one http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.000.

Describing behaviours as diverse as "lesbian" gulls that share a nest and rear chicks together or the homosexual "orgies" of male manatees, Bagemihl stresses that animal homosexuality is not a single, uniform phenomenon. His mission is to document its sheer diversity: "same-sex behaviour in animals exhibits every conceivable variation". What he deplores is the prevailing "Noah's ark" view of animal sexuality. Sometimes, preliminaries to homosexual encounters closely resemble heterosexual courtship, as in the "mutual ecstatic" displays of male humboldt penguins and the castanet-like teeth chattering of male walruses. But sometimes homosexual encounters elicit novel displays: male ostriches court other males with a unique "pirouette dance", for instance, while female rhesus monkeys engage in "hide-and-seek" games played only during female-female interactions.

...And these encounters weren't mere flings. Females paired off for days or weeks at a time, forming exclusive couples. They moved around together, and spent ages grooming one another between bouts of sexual activity that typically culminated in orgasm for both partners.

Then of course we have genetics to come into play, which you can read more about in this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6 ... ained.html

Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single "gay gene".

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the "gay" genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

"We have finally solved this paradox," says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. "The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females."

You must also realize that even if the excerpts were true and Animal sexuality didnt relate to Humans specifically, doesnt mean Homosexuality is not natural.

For example, take a look at this article, http://www.oregonlive.com/health/oregon ... xml&coll=7

The brains of gay men resemble those of straight women, according to research published Tuesday that provides more evidence of the role of biology in sexual orientation.

Using brain-scanning equipment, researchers said they discovered similarities in the brain circuits that deal with language, perhaps explaining why homosexual men tend to outperform straight men on verbal skills tests, as do heterosexual women.

The area of the brain that processes emotions also looked much the same in gay men and straight women, and both groups have higher rates of depressive disorders than heterosexual men, researchers said.

As you can see, there are an abundance of facts and evidence out there that proves that homosexuality is a natural occurrence.

 

[JoJo]

What I don't get is this: Why the argument comparing us to animals anyway? If an animal does it, that makes it acceptable for humans? I mean, animals kill and eat each other. Does that mean it would be okay for humans to do that to each other?

 

[jasoncran]

Even if its natural or an environmental thing its size SIN and should be treated accordingly. Alcoholism has a genenetic factor to it, but it can be healed by Jesus. NO one argues for an Alcoholics rights to be accepted or declared normal when its a disease. BTW on other post realating to gay rights advocation in school I posted some info on this birth thing and a few other and will post another now. I read and that suddenly in the 70's their was change of mind by the APA. Maybe after the intteruption of meetings and death threats they were intidimated to do that. In one of my post, i'll repost the link.

As far as evolution, if we have elvolved from a common ancestor with the apes(australis apthicus, Lucy)are we not more advanced animals in their thinking. Our class in the scientific nomenclature is animilia, phila primate. A creationist/christian view is we were created in image of god.

http://www.euro-tongil.org/swedish/english/ehomo2.htm
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=4172
ttp://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html

I'm curious maybe just me and hate to say this , but has anyone lost some faith in science. I'm say because i believe in the scientific method , but a few rotten apples has ruined the whole bunch. Look at the the global warming debate, now this? The data is the same but its how the person interprets it.

The last link also applies to my post in gay and lesbian taught in school. I couldn't find the other original link but this one say many of the same things.

 

[Evointrinsic]

What I don't get is this: Why the argument comparing us to animals anyway? If an animal does it, that makes it acceptable for humans? I mean, animals kill and eat each other. Does that mean it would be okay for humans to do that to each other?

They are comparing humans with animals because to disassemble and prove science wrong, you must use science to do so. There for Evolution and the connection between Humans and the rest of the animal kingdom must be included.

Even if its natural or an environmental thing its size SIN and should be treated accordingly. Alcoholism has a genenetic factor to it, but it can be healed by Jesus. NO one argues for an Alcoholics rights to be accepted or declared normal when its a disease. BTW on other post realating to gay rights advocation in school I posted some info on this birth thing and a few other and will post another now. I read and that suddenly in the 70's their was change of mind by the APA. Maybe after the intteruption of meetings and death threats they were intidimated to do that. In one of my post, i'll repost the link.

As far as evolution, if we have elvolved from a common ancestor with the apes(australis apthicus, Lucy)are we not more advanced animals in their thinking. Our class in the scientific nomenclature is animilia, phila primate. A creationist/christian view is we were created in image of god.

The problem with this is that because theology isn't a radical part of the medical field, its beliefs cannot be interpreted as truthful in medical practices. The reason why no one argues for an Alcoholics rights to be accepted in society is because it is a noticeable and verified detriment to the persons health and the well-being of others around them. Where as Homosexuality isn't hurting anybody. There are some beliefs (I believe its in Japan) where Homosexuals are actually considered much stronger and better human beings. If Theology is above science then we must include this belief as well as factual.

As for your evolution take. Simply because we may have a common ancestor with modern apes does not necessarily mean we inherited the exact same things as modern apes did. Nor does it mean that we inherited cannibalism from fish, as we also have a common ancestor with them. Evolution doesn't always bring advancements into an organism, it can also take away and make simpler organisms as well. Thus the loss of a trait that may have been present in an old ancestor is not uncommon in the more modern organism.