I read recently someone arguing against Pope Benedict’s recent comments about gay marriage. The writer took issue with it and argued that homosexuality was natural because homosexual behavior is found in animal behavior. I couldn’t help but think that there are plenty of things animals do that don’t seem particularly pleasant.
I watch some television. I see the nature shows. It seems to me that there’s not a lot whole lot that’s pleasant in the lives of animals who constantly live under the threat of death from starvation or being eaten. It seems to me that animals should probably try to imitate humans rather than human looking to animals as a guide for truth.
Many animals don’t mate for life. They simply procreate and wander away from each other. Some animals eat their young. Can you imagine the barbarity of a species that destroys its own babies?
In short, I’m convinced that the march toward secularism is actually a descent into Darwinism.
December 31, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Forget Darwinism, Matthew. This is the work of the devil denying to man, his immortal soul, the rational immortal soul created for man in the image of the Supreme Sovereign Being. The atheist can deny his own soul and his sovereign personhood giving to the atheist no, I repeat, NO standing in a court of law under the Law of the Land, under our founding principles, unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. The atheist is rejecting his citizenship. The atheist cannot deny my immortal soul and reject or redefine my citizenship as a sovereign person, whose sovereignty constitutes our state, government and our nation. Sovereign personhood created and endowed to man by the Supreme Sovereign Being, our Creator, God, trumps all nihilism, all evil and all lies. Gay practitioners lie about being “real” husbands and “real” wives, about being “real”. Frauds, fakes and make-believes are perjury in a court of law and forfeit any rational existence, under the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing, NOTHING, nothing but the TRUTH…so help me God. Gay practitioners must realize that when they are dead, and death comes for all men, they will spend eternity doing what they did on earth when they were alive, that is, being fakes. Gay practitioners choose to practice fraud on themselves.
December 31, 2012 at 3:20 pm
I've seen many people use this argument, not only on the web but in philosophy classes. Interestingly, there is a premise we share, namely "that which is natural is good". The problem is that the term "nature" has many meanings. These people generally mean by "nature" "what happens in nature"; they don't see the absurd consequent: but everything that happens, happens in nature, therefore it's all good! Thus from affirming the goodness of nature, they deny the existence of evil. But they do not wish to deny all evil, i.e. intolerance is evil. Problem is, once you admit the principle they argue from, what is determined to be evil is completely arbitrary.
December 31, 2012 at 3:30 pm
That sounds more like a decent into devolution of a species.
December 31, 2012 at 3:33 pm
"homosexual behavior is found in animal behavior." NO. What appears to be homosexual behavior in animals is actually territorial, using every means possible to effect control and drive the opponent out. This is what the homosexuals are doing to the heterosexuals, mindlessly denying "the laws of nature and nature's God"* and inflicting the mob mentality of communism, instead of the sovereignty of the person who brings forth the nation under God. *from the Declaration of Independence.
December 31, 2012 at 4:06 pm
interestingly enough (for me at least) I just ran into this on Michael Flynn's blog.
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2012/12/post-modern-evolution.html#more
December 31, 2012 at 4:06 pm
interestingly enough (for me at least) I just ran into this on Michael Flynn's blog.
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2012/12/post-modern-evolution.html#more
December 31, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Jesus doesn't do it!!!
Jesus reveals that marriage is between a man and a woman. That should be enough.
December 31, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Great point. And probably more right than anything I wrote. But that would make for a very short blog post 😉
December 31, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Animals also do forced matings and slaughtering the young of a previous dominant male. We put people in jail for those things.
"Natural" in the moral context means (unless you're going to espouse an odd form of quietism) "consonant to [a given thing's] nature". Sickness, being a deviation from the right functioning of an organism, is, in this definition, unnatural, even though in terms of the "what happens on its own" definition of nature it's basically the default setting.
That—"what are things like, and what are their traits for?"—is the question that forms the basis of Natural Law morality, just as "what hurts least?" is at the basis of ethical hedonism, and "what advances the dictatorship of the proletariat?" is at the basis of ethical Marxism.
People who make this appeal to "nature" are, in fact, engaging in a deliberate equivocation fallacy—i.e., they're liars. They know full well (though they may not be able to articulate it) that "nature" is used in multiple senses, but they deliberately pretend those senses are really one—in order to pull a fast one on the listener.
December 31, 2012 at 7:56 pm
No where in nature have I seen offspring produced by 2 males or by 2 females! There's nature for you in a nutshell.
Now for those who want to delve into offsrpring resulting from some type of genetic or evolutionary mutation or adaptation, I was referring to species consting of more than just a few cells!
Mind you, though we all start out as a blob of cells it still took a male and a female to get that started all through God's plan and design.
December 31, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Whiptail lizards reproduce by parthenogenesis that's prompted by pseudo-mating between females.
But lizards don't have family groups, and humans can't do parthenogenesis.
January 1, 2013 at 11:05 pm
I think that there is a larger point here. The homosexual animals argument is a myth. In fact, it is a useful myth for proving the point about the myth of sexual "orientation". Modern culture leads one to believe that you choose your sexual "orientation". If one looks at the nature of our biology and physiology then there is only one way we are "oriented" sexually and that is towards the opposite sex. While there may be some displays of what is labeled homosexual behavior in animals it isn't in any way a homosexual orientation. The behavior in animals that is directed in this manner is a display of domination and submission. An assertion of superiority. Also, there seems to be a display of this behavior in captivity where there in no outlet for their proper sexual function due to lack of mates. There is not one single animal that is homosexually "oriented". All animals, left in nature, will eventually seek reproduction with their opposite sex.
January 2, 2013 at 7:54 am
Wait a minute. You people will jump through hoops to deny gay people the right to be gay. You're the ones who say it is "unnatural", forcing the gays to challenge you by pointing to occurances of homosexuality in both man and other mammals to say "wait a minute, it IS natural (for some)." And sure, wild beasts do all sorts of things that are both good and bad, but only a fool will not look to other kiving creatures and how they behave to inform ourselves. Birds push their young out of the next when it is time. Dogs mourn death. Are these similarities to humans not informative in some ways for our own behaviors? Of course they are. Last, natural law theory of sexuality (as one commenter mentions) is patently ridiculous. To believe that our body parts are "for" certain uses and not "for" other uses is an insult to the highly developed creatures that humans are. To that point, I will now leave this conversation and go make a "disordered" (and therefore sinful) use of my arms, my legs and my lungs by swimming a few laps in the ocean.
January 2, 2013 at 7:59 am
Also:
@Gerry: You do realize, don't you, that Jesus' revelations are not dispositive on civil marriage any more than Mohammed's are, right?
@magnificatlady: You do realize, don't you, that you are talking about procreation, which is different from marriage? You know those are 2 separate things in civil law, right? Right? Please tell me you understand that.
January 2, 2013 at 8:01 am
Wait a minute. You people will jump through hoops to deny gay people the right to be gay. You're the ones who say it is "unnatural", forcing the gays to challenge you by pointing to occurances of homosexuality in both man and other mammals to say "wait a minute, it IS natural (for some)." And sure, wild beasts do all sorts of things that are both good and bad, but only a fool will not look to other kiving creatures and how they behave to inform ourselves. Birds push their young out of the next when it is time. Dogs mourn death. Are these similarities to humans not informative in some ways for our own behaviors? Of course they are. Last, natural law theory of sexuality (as one commenter mentions) is patently ridiculous. To believe that our body parts are "for" certain uses and not "for" other uses is an insult to the highly developed creatures that humans are. To that point, I will now leave this conversation and go make a "disordered" (and therefore sinful) use of my arms, my legs and my lungs by swimming a few laps in the ocean.
January 2, 2013 at 5:36 pm
What you see in animals is a dominance display. A dog may mount another dog but it's not mating it's telling the bottom dog that he is a lower member of the pack and don't get any ideas or next it will be a ripped out throat.
January 2, 2013 at 5:53 pm
@Pat: you either ignore or utterly fail to comprehend what I say about Natural Law, and commit the same deliberate equivocation fallacy I specifically called out in my comment. What's it like to be a liar who can't read for comprehension?
As for "highly developed", humans are no more nor less highly developed than bacteria. We're just developed to a different ecological niche—that is, to different ends. There is no such thing as "evolutionary levels", little boy, maybe you should learn some science before you shoot off your fool mouth.
PS. "Laps", in the ocean? A lap is defined as a transit of a body; one who laps a pool has swum the length thereof. Are you claiming to be able to perform trans-oceanic crossings under your own power, or just admitting you don't speak English?
January 3, 2013 at 3:13 am
Sophia. Why so nasty? So much for reasoned debate. I bet you're a real joy to come home to after a tough day at the office. Good luck.
January 3, 2013 at 7:41 am
Gee, Pat, why would I be nasty? Could it be because you're a semi-literate troll who acts condescending about concepts he plainly cannot begin to comprehend?
"Reasoned debate"? Don't make me laugh. You come in here, announce "I don't know what words mean, I can't be bothered to read a guy's arguments or even get his username right, but I'm going to act like I'm smarter than him anyway", and then you bitch at me when I give you about a thirtieth the opprobrium you deserve?
Piss off, shortbus—and why doesn't your middle school block blogs?
January 3, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Sophie:
Rx: paroxetine hydrochloride.
Fondly,
Pat