For the Torah, Qur'an, and Bible tells me so

[Totenkindly]

the film claimed that, including housecats, even! I had forgotten to mention this. I had never even heard this claim before, and it had always appeared to me that nature spoke against it. Animals get together for procreation, not for "love" as we know it; which is a factor in who we hook up with; and same sex won't achive their goal of having offpring. Animals like dogs will sniff each other, when they see they're both the same gender, they won't try to mate.

Well, that's not true at all.

It's bad enough that even South Park can make jokes about "two gay dogs" and everyone laughs, and the same motif shows up in other pop culture. It happens regularly enough that it's become a joke.

There is also sexual activity in various species including simians that would be labeled as "homosexual," with perhaps some of the behaviors serving some sort of social purpose.

There is homosexual behavior in humans (which could involve sex used for purposes other than romance, such as to threaten or intimidate or just to pleasure oneself); then there is "homosexual romance" that also involves homosexual behaviors that is leading to the arguments about gay marriage; and I'm not sure what the connection is between those two activities and homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, but yes, various species have been involved participating in "homosexual behavior."

Could this be a new argument devised in the argument? Years ago, I saw one pro-gay book trying to argue from nature have to appeal to other life forms such as many plants and perhaps lower animal forms to try to prove nature favors it. Now, all of a sudden, where are they getting these claims with all of these other, more developed animals from?

Probably the same way "new discoveries!" are made in the religious scientific/historical world all the time that supposedly support the view in question. We can't really prejudge the quality of the claim until we research it, but in anthropological studies and animal behavior that occurs far from civilization, there's usually not much reason for it to flow into public consciousness unless there's a public cause driving it. The scientists are just tracking the behavior; it takes someone else who finds the information useful to promote it, otherwise it just ends up in the lab notes and science journals.

Take it on a case by case, I guess.

 

[Anja]

Well, my female cat fell in love with the neighbor's female dachshund last summer but the dawg wasn't having any of it. Obviously on a higher moral plane than my kitty.

Here's a question: Is the incidence of homosexuality on the rise or holding steady? And how could we be sure they were accurate figures? Has to be self-reported, I'd think.

 

[Totenkindly]

Here's a question: Is the incidence of homosexuality on the rise or holding steady? And how could we be sure they were accurate figures? Has to be self-reported, I'd think.

Are we measuring preference or behavior, as well? What's the standard for defining "gay" or "not"? When does "bi" qualify as "gay"?

The figure was misrepresented 10% early in the culture wars (80's and early 90's), presumably to give additional validity to the position; but even homosexual activists started to correct their figures in the last 10-15 years to what seems to be around 3-4% (or something similar)... and I assume the majority of these figures are "self-reported" with some tweaking based on marketing data and the like to try to compensate for bias.

Gallup's survey of what the population guessed

Family Research (*cough*) Report -- I skimmed through it and at least it quotes some details that can be checked and examined, even if the organization itself isn't exactly a "neutral third party," so it could be useful for a starting point. Old report now, though.

Google Answers had some links to follow up on

 

[Anja]

Yeah - there's the deal, Jennifer. . .

 

[Kiddo]

Homosexuality is considered to be a SIN, and it is the sinful behavior that is not tolerated.

Meh.

All "sin" means by Biblical standards is not living in accordance with God's design. I've never considered Paul or the Old Testament to be authorities on God's design. If I were a Christian I would look to...oh I don't know...Jesus Christ! The guy who, ironically, never said a word about homosexuality! The guy who the religion is named after!

However, Jesus did condemn divorce and it seems to me so many Christians living today "don't tolerate" the behavior of divorce very differently than how they "don't tolerate" the behavior of homosexuality. Frankly, I've gotten to the point where I don't care what most Christians believe is sin, because clearly they can't even tell.

 

[Kiddo]

A lot of the crap people argue about (homosexuality included) is argued on a theological basis rather than an experiential/realistic one, and it has wreaked hell on earth for a long long time. My heart's just tired over all of this.

I'm also tired of hearing "I love the sinner, hate the sin." It never plays out that way; the implicit judgments cause a lot of crap to occur anyway. In practice, it's not as big a distinction as people make it out to be; it tends to just be a cop-out for, "I'm not going to engage in conversation because I don't feel like changing what I believe, but don't worry, I'll try real hard not to be mean to you anyway." It allows the misunderstanding and distance to remain -- a lack of awareness of the shared humanity of the people in question. I'd rather have people seriously engage each other on an intimate basis and maybe forge some relational bonds.

Damn right.

 

[Kiddo]

the film claimed that, including housecats, even! I had forgotten to mention this.
I had never even heard this claim before, and it had always appeared to me that nature spoke against it. Animals get together for procreation, not for "love" as we know it; which is a factor in who we hook up with; and same sex won't achive their goal of having offpring. Animals like dogs will sniff each other, when they see they're both the same gender, they won't try to mate.
Could this be a new argument devised in the argument? Years ago, I saw one pro-gay book trying to argue from nature have to appeal to other life forms such as many plants and perhaps lower animal forms to try to prove nature favors it. Now, all of a sudden, where are they getting these claims with all of these other, more developed animals from?

A video on the topic...

YouTube - Homosexuality In Nature

 

[TrueHeart]

Jesus Christ! The guy who, ironically, never said a word about homosexuality! The guy who the religion is named after!

Red herring. The Gospels record nothing He said about racial slavery or adult-child sex, either. So... they're okay by Him?

So, there's nothing ironic here at all. Complete non sequitur.

 

[Totenkindly]

Red herring. The Gospels record nothing He said about racial slavery or adult-child sex, either. So... they're okay by Him?

True, it's ambiguous and doesn't really say either way what Jesus' opinion was.

I think the point is simply that it's an annoying irony, if you'd comb through all the public commentary by followers of Jesus nowadays, to see what percentage of attention is focused on two issues that weren't really part of the talking points of the guy that everyone is claiming to represent. There's lots of things he DID consistently talk about and intently stress that seem to be less represented/prioritized among the most vocal followers.

 

[Geoff]

There's lots of things he DID consistently talk about and intently stress that seem to be less represented among the most vocal followers.

Well, there are lots of things written down today that claim to represent what he talked about. Perhaps these are limited to the things that mattered to the apostle authors?

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, there are lots of things written down today that claim to represent what he talked about. Perhaps these are limited to the things that mattered to the apostle authors?

Well, true too -- there was a definitely a filter in place between the tangible acts/words of Jesus and the record we currently have of it, and that has to be accounted for as well in terms of figuring out how to understand the information that got to us.

 

[Geoff]

Well, true too -- there was a definitely a filter in place between the tangible acts/words of Jesus and the record we currently have of it, and that has to be accounted for as well in terms of figuring out how to understand the information that got to us.

Imagine this scenario. Jesus is pro homosexuality, but an influential apostle is not. Wonder how his words might be recorded...

 

[Totenkindly]

Jesus is pro homosexuality,

The Beatitudes might have been far longer:
"Blessed are the Gay..."

... but an influential apostle is not. Wonder how his words might be recorded...

Especially if he had a crush on the messiah and had been shunned for a lesser disciple?

TOTAL! DRAMA! GOSPEL!

 

[Kiddo]

Oh please forgive me for posting this video but I couldn't resist.

Warning: Language and Sexual Content

YouTube - Jesus Can Make You Gay says Leviticus International

 

[TrueHeart]

I think the point is simply that it's an annoying irony, if you'd comb through all the public commentary by followers of Jesus nowadays, to see what percentage of attention is focused on two issues that weren't really part of the talking points of the guy that everyone is claiming to represent. There's lots of things he DID consistently talk about and intently stress that seem to be less represented/prioritized among the most vocal followers.

Both of these phenomena might very well be responses to current cultural situations. Jesus didn't need to condemn homosexuality because those who heard him already thought homosexuality was wrong. It need hardly be said that the situation nowadays is different. I'm having trouble understanding why it should not be expected that a different situation calls for a different emphasis in discussion.

 

[Totenkindly]

...It need hardly be said that the situation nowadays is different. I'm having trouble understanding why it should not be expected that a different situation calls for a different emphasis in discussion.

So you're of the opinion that the current emphasis on controlling abortion rights and gay marriage is a more dire need in this country than the wide gulf inherent in the economic system as well as the fracturing of society into tribal groups based partly on religious "us vs. them" demarcation?

My basic assess is that what is masquerading as religious objection is actually more a fear of a loss of one's way of life in the face of a culture that is becoming increasingly diversified from an ideological stance; and these sort of culture wars are meant to try to preserve the subculture one feels comfortable within, rather than truly being some visionary manifestation of an inclusive kingdom of God.

What's going on is that people are fighting for their rights and positing others as threats, rather than seeking connection, and using religious tenets as a cover. Which I don't think is what Jesus was about when he proclaimed the Kingdom of God... which, of course, he then got killed for by the religious establishment, using the political system as a patsy.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Both of these phenomena might very well be responses to current cultural situations. Jesus didn't need to condemn homosexuality because those who heard him already thought homosexuality was wrong. It need hardly be said that the situation nowadays is different. I'm having trouble understanding why it should not be expected that a different situation calls for a different emphasis in discussion.

I can't speak about first century homosexuality, but I do know that first century Christians were opposed to abortion and (more commonly) infanticide. Sometimes people in the first century would leave their babies out in the wilderness to die, and the Christians would find these babies and raise them as their own children. That is a rather big commitment, and yet neither abortion nor infanticide are mentioned in the New Testament. These issues were important, but not so important that they are ever mentioned in scripture.

 

[lowtech redneck]

abortion rights and gay marriage

Those are two seperate issues with entirely different factors and consequences involved; most notably, the existence of gay marriage would not violate the rights of others, while abortion (arguably) violates the most fundamental of rights of a third party. Coupling the two only confuses the issue and adds increased division to what is already a highly divisive debate.

 

[01011010]

The Beatitudes might have been far longer:
"Blessed are the Gay..."

Especially if he had a crush on the messiah and had been shunned for a lesser disciple?

TOTAL! DRAMA! GOSPEL!

 

[Eric B]

Well, my female cat fell in love with the neighbor's female dachshund last summer but the dawg wasn't having any of it. Obviously on a higher moral plane than my kitty.

So is bestiality next? With all this "evidence" and such; plus the fact that people "love" their pets, I do not see where there would be any more argument against bestiality than against homosexuality. We apparently just haven't gotten around to that issue yet.