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

[DevotiontoBible]

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

Human women do not socialize by rubbing each others privates, the bonobos do, that is all there is to it. It has nothing to do with having a sexual partner with the bonobos. It would be like us choosing a president by rubbing his privates, no we vote instead.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

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.

The key word here "perhaps" means possibly; maybe. Even de Waal is not commiting himself to dogmatic conclusive statements of what he observed.

 

[beechy]

Human women do not socialize by rubbing each others privates, the bonobos do, that is all there is to it. It has nothing to do with having a sexual partner with the bonobos. It would be like us choosing a president by rubbing his privates, no we vote instead.

No one is trying to claim that human society is structured like bonobo society. Bonobo females rub their genitals together -- do human lesbians do that? I'll let you guess. Should this parallel make a difference for a discussion as to whether it is "wrong" for people to be "gay"? Only if we're going to focus the discussion on what occurs in the animal kingdom. And I don't think we should. I don't think it matters one bit whether boy monkeys like to play with other boy monkeys' penises. You brought it up, not me.

 

[beechy]

The key word here "perhaps" means possibly; maybe. Even de Waal is not commiting himself to dogmatic conclusive statements of what he observed.

I read "perhaps" to modify "most typical" -- that is, female bonobos rub their genitals together in what might be the most typical way bonobos express their sexuality . . . although male-female vaginal sex may be more typical.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

No one is trying to claim that human society is structured like bonobo society. Bonobo females rub their genitals together -- do human lesbians do that? I'll let you guess. Should this parallel make a difference for a discussion as to whether it is "wrong" for people to be "gay"? Only if we're going to focus the discussion on what occurs in the animal kingdom. And I don't think we should. I don't think it matters one bit whether boy monkeys like to play with other boy monkeys' penises. You brought it up, not me.

Using the bonobos study is overeaching to justify homosexuality. It is comparing apples to oranges. It is being used to justify a so-called gay DNA gene that humans received from their so-called ape great great great great grandparents that being gay is natural.

 

[beechy]

Using the bonobos study is overeaching to justify homosexuality. It is comparing apples to oranges. It is being used to justify a so-called gay DNA gene that humans received from their so-called ape great great great great grandparents that being gay is natural.

I just said I didn't think a discussion about the morality of human sexuality should focus on what is observable in the animal kingdom. I agree it is comparing apples to oranges. In a previous post I said homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom shouldn't enter into the discussion because there are a lot of things that happen between animals that we don't want to adopt for human society, like infanticide and cannibalism. I think there's enough evidence out there to show that a lot of animals engage in sexual behavior with members of the same sex, but I don't think that answers the question as to how we should treat homosexuality in our own human society. Again, you brought this up, not me.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

I just said I didn't think a discussion about the morality of human sexuality should focus on what is observable in the animal kingdom. I agree it is comparing apples to oranges. In a previous post I said homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom shouldn't enter into the discussion because there are a lot of things that happen between animals that we don't want to adopt for human society, like infanticide and cannibalism. I think there's enough evidence out there to show that a lot of animals engage in sexual behavior with members of the same sex, but I don't think that answers the question as to how we should treat homosexuality in our own human society. Again, you brought this up, not me.

Ofcourse you would't. Because then you would be restricting your gay sex activity to just swinging between trees and playing swords while leaving out all the anal and oral sex right?

 

[beechy]

Ofcourse you would't. Because then you would be restricting your gay sex activity to just swinging between trees and playing swords while leaving out all the anal and oral sex right?

No, DevotiontoBible. First of all, I'm a woman so sword swinging in trees is of little concern to me. Second of all, the reason I wouldn't consider animal behavior to be a good barometer for human sexual morality is because animals practice a lot of things we don't want to adopt for our own society, like infanticide and cannibalism. I don't look to my goldfish for behavior cues around feeding time, so why should I look to monkeys for cues in the bedroom? All these studies show is that sometimes animals of the same sex engage in sexual behavior with each other. What does that mean for us? I don't know. Are you changing your tune now, and suggesting that we should care about what the bonobos do with their nether regions, or are you just set on disagreeing with me, even when we do agree?

And why the caustic tone? You having a bad day or something?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

All these studies show is that sometimes animals of the same sex engage in sexual behavior with each other. What does that mean for us?

It doesn't mean what homosexual advocates are claiming. I don't mean to be graphic but I don't seem to be getting the point across here. These same sex animals are not observed [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] nor are they involved in penetration of any oraffice. Every pro gay person who brings up these so called gay animal study's is inferring that it does, but nobody takes the time to examine what was actually observed/not observed in these studys.

 

[beechy]

It doesn't mean what homosexual advocates are claiming. I don't mean to be graphic but I don't seem to be getting the point across here. These same sex animals are not observed [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] nor are they involved in penetration of any oraffice. Every pro gay person who brings up these so called gay animal study's is inferring that it does, but nobody takes the time to examine what was actually observed/not observed in these studys.

What do you think "homosexual advocates" are claiming? All I personally am claiming is that animals have been observed to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex. Again, I don't make any claims about what that should mean for human society.

As to your focus on orifices and [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], are you suggesting that if a male doesn't [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], he hasn't been engaging in sexual activity? Is [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and an orifice what defines sexual behavior? What about for females? Females, obviously, don't [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. And do you think a female has not been engaging in same sex activity if no orifices are penetrated? In any case, you are incorrect in your assumption that [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] has never been observed during same-sex sexual activity among animals. Domestic rams (i.e., male sheep) have been observed mounting each other, achieving anal penetration, and [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]:

Moreover, same-sex mounting by rams is sometimes accompanied by pelvic thrusting, anal intromission and [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] followed by the classic head thrust and refractory period [citing] (Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1992, 1997; Perkins et al., 1995).

Same-sex sexual partner preference in hormonally and neurologically unmanipulated animals, by Paul L. Vasey. See also the Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1992, test upon which this quote was based: Ram mating behavior after long-term selection for reproductive rate in Rambouillet ewes, J.NJ. N. Stellflug, and J.G. Berardinelli, [size=-1]J. Anim. Sci. 2002. 80:2588-2593.
[/size]

 

[DevotiontoBible]

What do you think "homosexual advocates" are claiming? All I personally am claiming is that animals have been observed to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex. Again, I don't make any claims about what that should mean for human society.

As to your focus on orifices and [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], are you suggesting that if a male doesn't [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], he hasn't been engaging in sexual activity? Is [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and an orifice what defines sexual behavior? What about for females? Females, obviously, don't [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. And do you think a female has not been engaging in same sex activity if no orifices are penetrated? In any case, you are incorrect in your assumption that [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] has never been observed during same-sex sexual activity among animals. Domestic rams (i.e., male sheep) have been observed mounting each other, achieving anal penetration, and [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]:

Same-sex sexual partner preference in hormonally and neurologically unmanipulated animals, by Paul L. Vasey. See also the Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1992, test upon which this quote was based: Ram mating behavior after long-term selection for reproductive rate in Rambouillet ewes, J.NJ. N. Stellflug, and J.G. Berardinelli, [size=-1]J. Anim. Sci. 2002. 80:2588-2593.
[/size]

I read the study and couldn't find anything about rams doing "anal intromission" with each other, so I typed in those words in a find command and couldn't find them. Maybe you can point out to me where it is in the actual study? BTW I find it interesting that they are training these rams to have sex with artificial vaginas, that suggests these researchers are tampering to manipulate results.

 

[beechy]

I read the study and couldn't find anything about rams doing "anal intromission" with each other, so I typed in those words in a find command and couldn't find them. Maybe you can point out to me where it is in the actual study? BTW I find it interesting that they are training these rams to have sex with artificial vaginas, that suggests these researchers are tampering to manipulate results.

The term "anal intromission" was Prof. Paul Vasey's short hand in his summarizing article. In the study itself, the anal penetration and [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is documented as follows:

A mount was recorded if the front legs left the ground and the brisket of the ram made contact with the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] of the restrained teaser ram or ewe, but there was no [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. An [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] was recorded if the ram mounted, achieved intromission, exhibited pelvic thrusts, threw back his head, and [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], followed by a latent period of interest in the restrained animals. In the preference test, a ram was classified as male oriented if and only if the ram mounted or [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] on a restrained ram.
. . .

In the [experiment 2] H line, one ram out of four was heavily marked indicating that he was sexually active in the overnight test, and thereafter this ram continued to mount ewes and [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in the remaining nine SCT. The remaining three H rams never showed sexual activity in any of the SCT with the exception of one mount by one ram during the fifth 30-min SCT that occurred before the overnight test. Only one out of four rams from the H line and no rams out of six from the L line were identified as male oriented in the sexual preference test.

So the results of the experiment included one "male oriented" ram, which was classified as such because it mounted another ram.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

So the results of the experiment included one "male oriented" ram, which was classified as such because it mounted another ram.

This reminds of how scientists have tried to pawn off man evolving from monkey's using artists illustrations of a half man half ape and this was based on a big toe bone only. When you examine the actual study's you find no evidence of males having anal intercourse, only humans.

 

[beechy]

This reminds of how scientists have tried to pawn off man evolving from monkey's using artists illustrations of a half man half ape and this was based on a big toe bone only. When you examine the actual study's you find no evidence of males having anal intercourse, only humans.

Ok Dr. DevotiontoBible. I don't care how the scientists classified the ram in terms of orientation. Rather, the point was that a ram mounted a ram. I also remain puzzled by your focus on male-male anal penetration. Are you just uninterested in female-female sexual activity? Or do you not think it matters?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Ok Dr. DevotiontoBible. I don't care how the scientists classified the ram in terms of orientation. Rather, the point was that a ram mounted a ram. I also remain puzzled by your focus on male-male anal penetration. Are you just uninterested in female-female sexual activity? Or do you not think it matters?

Don't tell me, you have another quote from some authority misinterpreting a study and saying the study shows ewes inserting phalic vibrators in each other?

 

[beechy]

Don't tell me, you have another quote from some authority misinterpreting a study and saying the study shows ewes inserting phalic vibrators in each other?

Why in the world do you think female-female sex centers around [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] and vibrators?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Why in the world do you think female-female sex centers around [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] and vibrators?

Then what could you possibly have that shows lesbianism is suppposed to be natural?

 

[beechy]

Then what could you possibly have that shows lesbianism is suppposed to be natural?

What does [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] vs. no-[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] have to do with what is natural? And what do you mean by "natural"? That it is observable in nature? Because, again, I don't think that's a good measure by which to gauge what is "right" and "wrong". There are a lot of things which are "unnatural" by that criteria that I'm all for -- like hearing aids and ziplock bags. And there are a lot of behaviors and structures in human society that aren't observable in the animal kingdom that I'm ok with as well. Like hospitals, baseball, and the postal service. So what do you mean by lesbianism being "natural"?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

What does [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] vs. no-[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] have to do with what is natural? And what do you mean by "natural"? That it is observable in nature? Because, again, I don't think that's a good measure by which to gauge what is "right" and "wrong". There are a lot of things which are "unnatural" by that criteria that I'm all for -- like hearing aids and ziplock bags. And there are a lot of behaviors and structures in human society that aren't observable in the animal kingdom that I'm ok with as well. Like hospitals, baseball, and the postal service. So what do you mean by lesbianism being "natural"?

I mean lesbianism is an unnatural use of women as opposed to the natural use of women with men. Like the natural use of the ear is to hear with hearing aid or not, it would be unnatural to use the ear as an orafice for sexual "intromissions".

Rom 1:26 "for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:"

 

[beechy]

I mean lesbianism is unnatural as opposed to the natural use of women with men. Like the natural use of the ear is to hear with hearing aid or not, it would be unnatural to use the ear as an orafice for sexual "intromissions".

So you define what is "natural" by whether you can glean an observable purpose for it in nature? That is, the "natural use of the ear is to hear," and you can tell this by the fact that you can hear out of it. I answered this on page 8 of this thread. But here it is again:

How do you conclude that because you can somehow glean one observable, “rational” purpose for something in “nature”, that another use is somehow impermissible/immoral/”against nature”?

I agree that the penis and vagina fit together in a way that "makes sense" for the purpose of procreation, but I challenge the idea that just because it "makes sense" to use something in one way precludes it from being used in another way, or that using it in another way is "unnatural," or that an alternative usage is morally reprehensible because it is different from another "rational" usage.


My feet, for example, are made for walking. You can deduce this by where they are located on my body, what their physiology seems to support, etc. But I also use my feet to kick things (an activity which can injure me if I’m not careful), and to tap along to music. Are these uses “against nature”? Are they wrong?


Trees are made for, what? shade for forest animals? Providing fruit for us to eat? But children also use them as jungle gyms, or as support for their tree houses. And we cut them down to build houses with and mash into paper. “Against nature”? Wrong?


My back is made for supporting my body, and holding me upright. Sometimes I tell my little cousin to hop on it, however, and use it to give her a "horsie" ride. Condemnable? Again, how do you conclude that just because you can glean one observable “purpose” for something that all other uses are “against nature”? Wrong?


But beechy, Just Because Something Can be Done Doesn’t Necessarily Mean It Should be done, you say. Some point to the potential physical harm that can come from certain kinds of homosexual sex. But this argument would have to assume that there are no potential health risks or dangers that can come from having heterosexual vaginal sex. This just isn’t the case. A woman can (and many women do) get urinary tract infections from simply having regular vaginal intercourse because female physiology is such that unwanted bacteria can easily get forced into the vaginal canal during intercourse. If left untreated, aside from being extraordinarily painful, UTI’s can develop into serious problems such as kidney infections and pelvic inflammatory disease, which can lead to sterility.

What's more, the "potential for harm = against nature" argument also only gets half the job done when you're talking about homosexuality, since it doesn't address lesbian sex which (without violating forum rules by introducing explicit descriptions/explanations) is no more likely (perhaps even less likely) to involve anal sex than an intimate relationship between a heterosexual couple would. What about lesbian sex is dangerous or physically harmful?

In sum, the simple observation that an activity carries a potential health risk does not support the argument that it is worthy of moral condemnation and/or “against nature”. There are lots of ways we use our bodies that could potentially harm them. I’ve never heard anyone object to baseball, for example, as an “unnatural” activity which should be condemned because pitchers are destroying their rotator cuffs … might this be because many of us like baseball, and it's a mainstream part of our culture?