Homosexuality in nature(animals)???

Question

I just saw a question about examples of homosexuality being observed in animals. Are people actually trying to use this as an argument that homosexuality should be acceptable by humans? There are a lot of things we observe in animals that we believe are wrong. If we are going to use this as "proof" that homosexuality is normal...then should we also take a look at these topics as well...and argue for them being "normal"?

- males killing male offspring
- males mating with multiple females
- males largely taking no part in the upbringing of the offspring
- fighting to solve most disputes
- mating out in nature...anywhere...anytime

I could go on and on...but do I really need to? Please notice that I have not stated any personal opinion of homosexuality. Let's just focus on this argument....do you really think it is a valid one?

Breg...what if two "consenting adults" want to go at it on the sidewalk in front of your house. Or maybe just one adult wants to just have at it themself in front of your house. We should think this is perfectly fine because we see that animals do it?

When did we start looking to animals to define what we should or should not do?

Here is the recent question I got this from:

"Isn't the fact that homesexuality is present amongst animals, proof that it is natrual?
and that nothing is wrong with it?"

The fact that he said "and nothing is wrong with it". That is what got me. It is being used to justify a behavior.

Answer 1

No, that is the most riddiculous argument I've ever heard. A dog or an animal is not human therefore it doesn't think like a human. When a dog reaches full mental maturity it is only as smart as a 2 year old human, and that's only the really smart dogs. So if you're saying that a homosexual is claiming that as an argument, that's totally stupid and riddiculous. I lived on a ranch and I raised dogs for 22 years and I did see male dogs humping male dogs but it's not like they knew any better, they just did it because it's a sign of dominance. Any male animal humping other male animals is a sign of dominance, the one ot top is trying to tell the other that he is more dominant. I don't think THAT is how homosexuals think. Face it, homosexuality is NOT natural in the least. They will come up with each and every excuse to say "look, the animals are stupid enough to do it so it must be natural!!" but any excuse they give isn't going to be good enough. Even if there's a "gay gene" they're looking for, yeah right... a gay gene.... If God doesn't like homosexuality, then there's never a good enough excuse to do it.

Answer 2

The Bible doesn't call homosexuality an abomination, it calls having sex with male temple prostitutes (a practice of the religions of other gods) an abomination. The sin is having other gods before Yahweh. Nowhere does either testament condemn the state of being gay. But I love the Christian copout that it's not Leviticus they're following, but passages from the New Testament. The NT prohibitions are grounded in Leviticus, so that ARE condemning homosexuality based on a misunderstanding of Leviticus, then ignoring the other more than 600 commandments that they don't like. Bur, since Christianity today is Salad Bar Christianity (even Catholicism - just look at the new "sins" that the Pope invented), what else can anyone expect. The Bible isn't a book to live by, it's a book used to justify doing what people want to do.

Answer 3

Guess what---we're animals! That's how we got here---mating, fighting for survival, etc.
Sometimes civilization can "paper over" these instincts quite nicely, but it's all going down the same path---mate, have kids, make sure our kids get the best of everyting, and when it comes down to it, we'll kill other people to provide for our family.
--Sometimes the animal behavior hits the headlines, when "stepfathers" or "boyfriends" of Mothers kill the woman's children by another man. This is exactly the behavior that Felines practice, to send the female into "heat" so that they can father babies on her.

Some theorists see Homosexuality in humans as a key social coping mechanism, because it forms social bonds that help in survival---that may be why it is still prevalent, and also why other animals sometimes practice it.

Answer 4

I think the point of the "argument from nature" (or whatever you want to call it) is to assert that homosexuality is a natural biological impulse experienced by various different species throughout nature.

It's not supposed serve as a stand-alone argument to justify homosexuality as a moral behavior. If somebody did use it as a stand-alone argument to claim that homosexuality is moral, you would be justified in saying that they were wrong. (I'm not sure if that's what happened in the earlier question or not).

Essentially, the argument is used to support the idea that homosexual urges are not a matter of choice, but of biological impulse.

EDIT: After reading your initial details, I think the original question was mistaken. Homosexuality's prevalence in nature suggests that it is natural. Additional arguments need to be provided to argue that it is morally justifiable (and I think there are plenty of good arguments for why it isn't immoral).

Answer 5

Two of the big arguments about homosexuality are
1.) It's against the Bible.
2.) It's not natural.

Those listing the animals are just proving that it is in fact natural.
Natural meaning that it is found in nature, and thus not a human invention.

No, because animals do something doesn't mean we should.

Answer 6

The argument's wrong in that its drawing a link between "natural" and morally acceptable.

Something shouldn't have to be natural to be OK. People who think the two need to be linked are saying that for homosexuality to be OK, it can't be a choice.

This assumes ther's something immoral about it, for which there is no VALID basis. Religion does not count, since I said "valid".

Answer 7

Fallacy: strawman

You missed the point. Someone argued that homosexuality is not normal. Others pointed out that it is because it is observed in nature. You are drawing moral conclusions about its practice while others were pointing out natural law.

Just because some practice does not fit your understanding of utility to you does not mean it has no purpose or it is immoral. Wearing a watch is not natural. No animals wear watches. Watches do not occur in nature. Yet many people find them very useful. Does that fact that watches are not mentioned in the bible make them immoral?


EDIT: In response to consenting adults on the sidewalk in front of your house...

Fallacy: begging the question

Would you not complain about two heterosexuals "going at it" too?

Answer 8

It has been said that nature can be a big ugly toad. We have a mind that lets us "hopefully" rise above the rest of nature. Hate and prejudice is not good. Whether it is fighting to solve a dispute or bashing homosexuals. We need to respect and tolerate each other.

Answer 9

1) That only happens in select species. Homosexuality has been observed in ALL species.

2) We already do that. Yes, it's natural.

3) Half of the families in America already do that.

4) Every living thing that's made it past infancy has done that, and you're trying to tell me it's unnatural?

5) I've got nothing wrong with this. People do it quite often, you know.

Answer 10

You draw a false correlation. The argument was meant for one thing and one thing only, to counter the archaic idea that "Homosexuality is unnatural". Saying animals exhibit homosexual traits makes no statement for or against the practice, but merely rebuts the above fallacy, that Homosexuality is somehow outside of nature.