The Thinking 

The Quest for Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom

August 7, 2012


IZZY writes:

One of the most common arguments for homosexuality is that it happens in nature and is seen in animals, so therefore, it is natural. Take this comment from a user on YouTube, who is supposedly “anti-feminist:”

“Homosexuality happens in nature, why wouldn’t it happen in humans? However, it might be more prevalent now than in the past because of environmental estrogens and other hormones and hormone-mimicking chemicals that affect sexual development post and pre-birth.”

The “homosexuality happens in nature” myth is exposed by NARTH’s article:  “The Animal Homosexuality Myth.” I highly recommend it.

By the logic of those who argue that homosexuality may occur in animals, and thus is normal in humans, eating our children and killing them is normal, as cannibalism is common in nature (and albinos should be thrown out of trees and off other high buildings). If homosexuality were truly “natural,” the anatomy of said “gay” species, and of us in turn, would be suited to it. But it is not. Our physiology makes it clear that homosexuality is not natural. Science aptly supports the abnormality of homosexuality, and all religious texts say this very clearly. Yet despite all the evidence, homosexualists and their supporters will distort science in an effort to convince competent, incompetent, dumb and intelligent people to support them and believe that what they do is natural. How many pseudo-studies have been done on “gay” animals? How many on the hoax “Gay Gene”?

Several months ago there was all the hype about “gay penguins” in the Canadian media. The penguins did not engage with other females, but instead stayed close to one another. The media failed to mention if they had ever simulated sexual acts or even consider that the penguins were close only because they were born together. Later on, both penguins suddenly went straight! If homosexuality is seen in animals, why didn’t they just stay that way? But wait! It’s not just penguins: Wikipedia has a list of over 1,000 species that are “supposedly” homosexual. I wonder if Wikipedia includes any record of actual simulated intercourse by these animals. No? Oh, wait, let’s edit that: It’s homosexual behaviour, now!

—– Comments ——

Bruno writes:

There are two different meanings to the word “natural.” One meaning is that used by the natural sciences: that is, everything that belongs and happens inside the natural realm. In this meaning, homosexuality cannot be called un-natural. There is another meaning, however: Aquinas’ and the classical philosophers, such as Plato, meaning: and that is, “natural” as in the unblemished, nonfallen nature, as intended by God, beore the Fall.

Christians criticising homosexuality should be careful when using the term “nature.” According to Orthodox standards, it is philosophically and theologically correct to criticise homosexual acts by calling them “unnatural” only if what is meant is the classical and Thomistic meaning of that word. On the other hand, since modern society acknowledges only the scientific meaning of the word “natural,” it is also pointless and a waste of time to criticise homosexuality on that basis.

 Laura writes:

This is a concise description of the two meanings. But when liberals use the word they are deviating somewhat from the purely scientific term.  They are referring to what they define as unfallen nature. In other words, if it exists in nature, it must be good. But as Izzy points out, they don’t really accept this premise because they wouldn’t justify cannibalism on the same grounds.

 Josh F. writes:

We lose the battle because we pointlessly argue on radical liberationist terms. The debate is not whether homosexuality is natural/unnatural, normal/abnormal, good/bad, right/wrong, but rather, asserting quite simply that homosexuality is self-annihilating.

There is no debate that we need engage in. Our engagement with homosexuals over homosexuality on the natural/unnatural ground is merely evidence that we don’t see homosexuality and those that practice it as self-annihilators. We debate because we can’t see clearly.

The self-annihilating “nature” is the most substantive AND DEFINING fact about homosexuality. ALL our debated concerns serve as nothing more than the radical liberationist’s attempt to obscure this undeniable fact.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

I have a small flock of chickens, including two roosters. One of the roosters is boss and won’t allow the other one to have sex with the hens.

Be that as it may, I recently discovered that one of the hens is a lesbian and I am really upset about this. This was not a one-time thing. She is always climbing onto other hens, who don’t seem to know the difference (because they are both facing the same way). Her performance is very much like a rooster’s except that there’s nothing to insert, I guess. However, this hen does lay eggs. : – )

Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0