"...against nature:" Always a sin?

[Outrider]

Dolphins commit murder and Sharks commit gang rape. Where do we go with that?

 

[beechy]

Dolphins commit murder and Sharks commit gang rape. Where do we go with that?

I said in my last post that 1) I was only citing instances of homosexual behavior in the wild in response to DevotiontoBible's position that it doesn't exist, and 2) that I don't think that observable behavior in the wild should necessarily be a barometer for human morality. Please see my post #77 on p.8 of this thread for my arguments regarding the homosexuality is wrong because it is "against nature" position.

In sum, I think that it is difficult to make an "against nature" morality argument without reference to the Bible, and the only remotely sensical arguments against homosexuality (even though I don't agree with them) are based in religion.

 

[jasperbound]

In sum, I think that it is difficult to make an "against nature" morality argument without reference to the Bible, and the only remotely sensical arguments against homosexuality (even though I don't agree with them) are based in religion.

So, the Bible is merely "religion?"

 

[DevotiontoBible]

First, the National Geographic article regarding the male penguins in the New York zoo say they have sex. Second, I am not linking to the National Geographic article as an "end of the argument," and offered to link to other sites as well. The main reason I linked to any article at all is because forum rules require a citation when you're talking about homosexuality (something you'd best observe in order to keep this thread from getting shut down -- happens a lot around here, FYI). That said, I don't understand why you are eager to dismiss this particular article -- do you think it is lying? Do you have cites to conflicting evidence showing that the male penguins at the Central Park zoo are not having sex with each other? Again, I linked to this article because I thought National Geographic was a well respected publication. Do you disagree?

Anyway, if it helps, here's another article (not National Geographic) about a German zoo that recently imported 4 female penguins because DNA tests found that 3 of the zoo's 5 penguin pairs were homosexual. The tests had been ordered by the zoo after the penguin pairs hadn't produced any chicks after years of mating and sitting on rocks they pretended were eggs. And here are some more articles about that zoo: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4264913.stm. And another: http://www.longislandpress.com/?cp=54&show=article&a_id=651.

As for bonobo monkeys, this webpage from a site maintained by Dr. Dennis On'Neil, Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College, San Marcos, California, expressly says that "both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse are common" among bonobo monkeys. Female to female genital rubbing has been well documented in the bonobo community -- would you not consider this homosexual behavior if it were observed between humans? This primate sanctuary in South Africa also reports on homosexual sex in monkeys.

Now, I am not suggesting that the fact that homosexual behavior is exhibited in the wild means that it is somehow morally acceptable. Lots of things happen in the wild that we don't consider acceptable for human society -- like infanticide and cannibalism. I was simply responding to DevotiontoBible's statement that intimate same-sex behavior does not exist in the animal kingdom.

The penguins were observed by a lone zoo keeper who claims to have seen this, hardly scientific.

I was referring to the Bonobos study itself. No, it does not say they had males penetrating males and copulating. Yes, it does say females were rubbing each other.

The German zoo story is bogus because there is no such thing as homosexual DNA.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Here is De Waal himself telling what he observed among the bonobos. Tell me if you can find males penetrating males and having anal sex with each other. Only humans are that perverse.


http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

 

[beechy]

The penguins were observed by a lone zoo keeper who claims to have seen this, hardly scientific.

Where did anything say that only a lone zoo keeper has been observing these penguins?

I was referring to the Bonobos study itself. No, it does not say they had males penetrating males and copulating. Yes, it does say females were rubbing each other.

I don't know what "bonobo study" you're referring to. EDIT *JUST SAW YOUR LAST POST. THANKS!

I also posted cites to the South African primate sanctuary and the professor of behavioral sciences from Palomar College. Do you think females rubbing each other is heterosexual activity? Is gay male sex involving penetration of the anus the only type of sexual activity you recognize as homosexual?

The German zoo story is bogus because there is no such thing as homosexual DNA.

The German zoo didn't conduct DNA tests to determine whether the penguins were homosexual, but rather to determine the sex of the birds.

 

[beechy]

Here is De Waal himself telling what he observed among the bonobos. Tell me if you can find males penetrating males and having anal sex with each other. Only humans are that perverse.


http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

So the only type of homosexual behavior you consider objectionable is anal sex between two males?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

So the only type of homosexual behavior you consider objectionable is anal sex between two males?

I am saying that corrupt minds are projecting too much into this. Male bonobos were not observed doing anal and oral things to each other like human male homosexuals do. Sure they got excited and played like dumb beasts that they are, but even they have more sense than homosexuals do. Even the females were observed rubbing but the "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" were inferred into the study not observed.

 

[beechy]

So, the Bible is merely "religion?"

No, the Bible is also an historical document and a piece of literature. My point was just that I don't see how one can argue homosexuality is "against nature," and therefore "wrong," if you don't bring religion into the mix.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

I also posted cites to the South African primate sanctuary .

This site you posted was blatantly pro gay biased. It was written in a pro homosexual slant of inferrences but no actual scientific data.

 

[beechy]

I am saying that corrupt minds are projecting too much into this. Male bonobos were not observed doing anal and oral things to each other like human male homosexuals do. Sure they got excited and played like dumb beasts that they are, but even they have more sense than homosexuals do. Even the females were observed rubbing but the "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" were inferred into the study not observed.

So you don't think the sexual behavior de Waal was referring to is sexual at all, and the only thing that would convince you otherwise is if one male bonobo put his penis into the rectum of another male bonobo? Can you find any cites that say the bonobo does not engage in sexual behavior between members of the same gender? Also, how do you separate the pleasure that comes from "play" from the pleasure that comes from sexual activity or sexual play? Do you consider the "penis fencing" he documented to be "play" or "sexual play"?

 

[beechy]

This site you posted was blatantly pro gay biased. It was written in a pro homosexual slant of inferrences but no actual scientific data.

It was from a South African primate sanctuary. Would you only have accepted its rhetoric if it was written in an "anti homosexual slant of inferrences"? What kind of "scientific data" would satisfy you? Do you need diagrams?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

No, the Bible is also an historical document and a piece of literature. My point was just that I don't see how one can argue homosexuality is "against nature," and therefore "wrong," if you don't bring religion into the mix.

To be more precise..."if you don't bring the truth about God into the mix". That is what Paul is saying leads to homosexuality in Rom 1. Romans 1:25-27 (NLT)
Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. ... That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. [27] And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.



.

 

[beechy]

To be more precise..."if you don't bring the truth about God into the mix". That is what Paul is saying leads to homosexuality in Rom 1. Romans 1:25-27 (NLT)
Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. ... That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. [27] And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.



.

Sure. Again, my point is that without the God part, the "against nature" argument seems to fall flat.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

So you don't think the sexual behavior de Waal was referring to is sexual at all, and the only thing that would convince you otherwise is if one male bonobo put his penis into the rectum of another male bonobo? Can you find any cites that say the bonobo does not engage in sexual behavior between members of the same gender? Also, how do you separate the pleasure that comes from "play" from the pleasure that comes from sexual activity or sexual play? Do you consider the "penis fencing" he documented to be "play" or "sexual play"?

Your South African website author and those who inferr homosexual anal and oral activity from the bonobos is akin to those who see the Virgin Mary in slices of toast. Just because you really want to see it doesn't mean it exists. What are you going to tell me next ...Elvis has been sighted too?

 

[beechy]

Your South African website author and those who inferr homosexual anal and oral activity from the bonobos is akin to those who see the Virgin Mary in slices of toast. Just because you really want to see it doesn't mean it exists. What are you going to tell me next ...Elvis has been sighted too?

On what basis do you make this statement? Have you been to this primate sancutary and observed those monkeys as well? I guess if you simply don't believe what they're saying, we've reached a standstill. And again, why don't you think female-to-female genital rubbing or male-to-male penis fencing is sexual? What's the difference between "play" and "sexual play"? Is the only type of observable sexual behavior in your estimation wherein a penis is inserted into a bodily orifice?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

So you don't think the sexual behavior de Waal was referring to is sexual at all, and the only thing that would convince you otherwise is if one male bonobo put his penis into the rectum of another male bonobo? Can you find any cites that say the bonobo does not engage in sexual behavior between members of the same gender? Also, how do you separate the pleasure that comes from "play" from the pleasure that comes from sexual activity or sexual play? Do you consider the "penis fencing" he documented to be "play" or "sexual play"?

The only species is man that goes all out into perverse intercourse with men inserting into men and women inserting things into other women.

 

[beechy]

The only species is man that goes all out into perverse intercourse with men inserting into men and women inserting things into other women.

What makes you think that "women inserting things into other women" is the central act of lesbian sex?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

On what basis do you make this statement? Have you been to this primate sancutary and observed those monkeys as well? I guess if you simply don't believe what they're saying, we've reached a standstill. And again, why don't you think female-to-female genital rubbing or male-to-male penis fencing is sexual? What's the difference between "play" and "sexual play"? Is the only type of observable sexual behavior in your estimation wherein a penis is inserted into a bodily orifice?

I believe what de Waal observed, but I won't go beyond that into inferrences like you. That makes me rational here. Just because two football players are observed patting each other on the behind on the football field doesn't mean they are gay, I wouldn't read too much into that, But you would.

 

[beechy]

I believe what de Waal observed, but I won't go beyond that into inferrences like you. That makes me rational here. Just because two football players are observed patting each other on the behind on the football field doesn't mean they are gay, I wouldn't read too much into that, But you would.

I didn't reach these "inferences," de Waal did. He described the female-to-female genital rubbing as the "perhaps the bonobo's most typical sexual pattern." And although I would not assume that football players slapping each other on the behind on a football field were gay, I would probably assume that two men rubbing their erect penises together were.