Tweet
You may have seen the post:
Homosexuality Exists in 450 Species of Animals.
Homophobia is Found in Only One.
Which Seems Unnatural Now?
The homosexuality in animals myth is propagated beyond the substance of fact. Ideologically motivated zoo directors in liberal American cities and progressive European countries are placing their supposedly homosexual animals on parade and declaring it to be a fact that the animals are gay and that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature. This revived argument is largely due to Professor Gregory A. Clark of the University of Utah wrote a commentary published in Standard-Examiner on March 23, 2013.
Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote: "Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."
LGBT indoctrination often plays the lame Bruce Bagemihl card suggesting if animals are homosexual so should humans. 1,500 species is suggested, 450 considered, a fantastic claim, if true, this would put the argument that homosexuality is 'peccatum contra naturam' (a sin against nature). Although homosexual behavior is found in the animal world, it is noted to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such a thing in animals, is not found.
This subject is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation."
Every cattle farmer is familiar with the phenomenon of "bulling", cows mounting other cows; in fact, this is one of the standard signs farmers look for when determining that a cow is coming into estrus. However, it does not follow that the cows involved are showing anything analogous to human lesbian orientation.
To support the argument often used that homosexual behavior is natural in animals therefore justified, zoologists have observed filial cannibalism, the act of eating one's offspring, in many different types of animals, including bank voles, house finches, wolf spiders, and many fish species. Criminalizing it is found in only the human species. Which one is wrong? There is documented proof of cannibalism (bullfrogs) and rape in the animal kingdom, but that doesn’t make it acceptable behavior for humans. While some animals (like the lion) eat their young, neither supporters nor opponents of "gay rights" have used this as an argument in favor of infanticide or cannibalism. Thus, a healthy dose of wariness needs to be employed in making scientific claims about homosexual animals justifying homosexual humans.
If homosexuality is not wrong then why do LGBT adherents pull the 'judge not' card as a duck and cover for tolerantism? It continues to entertain me that people will use the "Judge Not" reference from Prima Scriptura as a counter-attack when the same document pronounces eternal separation from the light. "So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men." (Romans 1:24-32) To use a reference, a person must use the whole context.
While the above commentary will be labeled as "bigotry" by the immoral minority, their pagan banter is merely an effort to deflect their guilt off on those who are biblically against it. Further, they willfully refute the whole of Scripture to reject even a part.
Homosexuality Exists in 450 Species of Animals.
Homophobia is Found in Only One.
Which Seems Unnatural Now?
The homosexuality in animals myth is propagated beyond the substance of fact. Ideologically motivated zoo directors in liberal American cities and progressive European countries are placing their supposedly homosexual animals on parade and declaring it to be a fact that the animals are gay and that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature. This revived argument is largely due to Professor Gregory A. Clark of the University of Utah wrote a commentary published in Standard-Examiner on March 23, 2013.
Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote: "Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."
LGBT indoctrination often plays the lame Bruce Bagemihl card suggesting if animals are homosexual so should humans. 1,500 species is suggested, 450 considered, a fantastic claim, if true, this would put the argument that homosexuality is 'peccatum contra naturam' (a sin against nature). Although homosexual behavior is found in the animal world, it is noted to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such a thing in animals, is not found.
This subject is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation."
Every cattle farmer is familiar with the phenomenon of "bulling", cows mounting other cows; in fact, this is one of the standard signs farmers look for when determining that a cow is coming into estrus. However, it does not follow that the cows involved are showing anything analogous to human lesbian orientation.
To support the argument often used that homosexual behavior is natural in animals therefore justified, zoologists have observed filial cannibalism, the act of eating one's offspring, in many different types of animals, including bank voles, house finches, wolf spiders, and many fish species. Criminalizing it is found in only the human species. Which one is wrong? There is documented proof of cannibalism (bullfrogs) and rape in the animal kingdom, but that doesn’t make it acceptable behavior for humans. While some animals (like the lion) eat their young, neither supporters nor opponents of "gay rights" have used this as an argument in favor of infanticide or cannibalism. Thus, a healthy dose of wariness needs to be employed in making scientific claims about homosexual animals justifying homosexual humans.
If homosexuality is not wrong then why do LGBT adherents pull the 'judge not' card as a duck and cover for tolerantism? It continues to entertain me that people will use the "Judge Not" reference from Prima Scriptura as a counter-attack when the same document pronounces eternal separation from the light. "So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men." (Romans 1:24-32) To use a reference, a person must use the whole context.
While the above commentary will be labeled as "bigotry" by the immoral minority, their pagan banter is merely an effort to deflect their guilt off on those who are biblically against it. Further, they willfully refute the whole of Scripture to reject even a part.