Recently I had a heated discussion about homosexuality with some good liberal friends. They contend that since homosexuality is seen among animals and since “God made people homosexual” that it is natural, normal and must be accepted. The discussion was heated though friendly. I thought I would respond and I share the response with you.
My letter begins:
Dear Friends:
We enjoyed your company and friendship this weekend. We were glad that we could host the birthday party. You are all welcome here anytime. In line with our discussion, I did some research on homosexuality, especially homosexuality among animals and the genetic propensity to homosexuality.
The challenge was made that since there are “homosexual animals” it “proves” homosexuality is natural. But, given that a few animals seem to demonstrate what might be referred to as homosexual behavior, that in itself, certainly provides no conclusive or foundational basis for the acceptance of homosexual behavior in the human population.
If one replies, as you did, that homosexuality is natural because it is found among animals, then we should notice that there are all sorts of activities practiced by animals that we as humans reject as repulsive. There is extreme cruelty among animals: mothers eating their young, mates eating their partners after mating (e.g., the Black Widow spider), animals eating their own feces and vomit (dogs and cats), or urinating on themselves (goats), etc.
Some animals have mates for a lifetime while others have sex with multiple partners indiscriminately. I could go on and on. What can we draw from these facts? That it is OK for people to practice such things because animals do? Heavens no! Just because animals do things that animals do does not make them our model of morality and accepted behavior.
We are in sad shape if we look to the creatures to search for our origins or to find a model for our behavior. Even worse, if we begin to use animals as our model, we as humans can then justify any deviant behavior since many forms of aberrant and repulsive behavior can be found among the animals that share our planet. St. Paul was no fool 2,000 years ago when he wrote . . .
To read the rest of the letter, click here.
This Post Has 5 Comments
Let’s not forget that man was made separately from the animals and left to be over them.
Interesting comments. What will be even more interesting are your friends’ responses to that letter. Please post an update in 7-10 days with their responses. Thank you.
It's not just a "few" animal species that include homosexual mates, it's been shown to exist across the spectrum of primates and the entire animal kingdom. Distinguishing the consequential differences between murdering one's own young and having same gender mates isn't difficult. The latter might marginally reduce the overall size of a species, while the former is prone to eliminating it. Pretty big difference.
STEVE RAY HERE: Animals do NOT display homosexual activities! It is fine for one to claim this, quite another to prove it.
Thank you – I have a few friends I’ll be sending this to. Don’t worry, you will be noted as author; believe me, my friends will KNOW I could never be this eloquent.
As a cattle rancher, let me note that, yes, sometimes *a few* animals occasionally display “homosexual” behavior. It is not at all unusual to hear of a younger bull that seems . . . confused. He might ignore the cows and spend much effort and energy trying to mount the young bullies. Sometimes this happens even when the cows are clearly in season, and working to get his attention (and be impregnated).
If this happens, the rancher may provide an older, more experienced bull to model the behavior expected of the young bull. Sometimes, this helps. The young bull realizes what is expected and follows through. But sometimes, the young bull remains confused or uninterested. The herd shuns him. He consumes fodder and produces nothing of value. When this happens, the standard course of action is to name the confused bull “T-Bone” and sell him at market for meat. He can’t or won’t act in accordance with nature to further the production of the herd, and therefore is an unnecessary and expensive liability.
Now, let me be clear. I am in no way whatsoever advocating that mind set towards humans. As Steve noted, humans have souls, being created in the image of God. Animals do not. But I would note that those who argue in favor of homosexuality being a normal facet of nature, and humans without a divine spark, and strictly a product of evolution, actually argue in favor of their own removal from the herd since they produce no young nor further the greater interests of the herd.
The idea that people *do* contribute to the herd when they contribute (only) economic value is a whole ‘nuther can of worms that comes to us via Calvin, et al. Do we value people because of their economic output or because they are humans, made in the image and likeness of God? I’ll leave that post to Steve.
Comments are closed.