This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?
36 comments
"Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?"
It's "infanticide", and yes, unfortunately, those are parts of human nature (sort of...it usually only tends to come up when religion is involved).
The point of mentioning that homosexuality occurs in animals is to refute the ignorant, but oft made, point of it being "unnatural". If it occurs in nature, then, for all intents and purposes, it is natural. And the problem with the actions that you compare homosexuality to are not that they are animalistic, or beneath us high minded humans: it is because those actions can result in causing harm to others and is behavior that is actively damaging to society. Homosexuality, despite your conspiracy theories, is not.
Fundies use the argument that "homosexuality is unnatural and animals don't do it". Then when somebody points out that the statement is baloney, they accuse them of trying to promote other animal behavior, like infanticide and cannibalism.
Some cultures throughout human history have proudly committed cannibalism.
Filicide is still going on regularly. The number 1 age group for murder victims is under the age of 1 and they are usually murdered by their parents/caregivers.
Until very recently a child that was severely handicapped would quite often be killed, and the mother told that the child had died. I am sure this still goes on in poorer nations.
Either way, the homosexuality in animals was brought up because you people kept saying "homosexuality isn't natural, animals don't do it." So in honour of that.....
[img]http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/59.jpg[/img]
Humans are capable of all kinds of depravity. We've done what you said and worse than you can imagine.
We're also capable of kindess, charity, empathy, total selflessness.
Human nature, evolution...these are descriptions, not moral judgements. Thankfully, we have the reason and intelligence to reject the more brutal aspects of both.
Until very recently a child that was severely handicapped would quite often be killed, and the mother told that the child had died. I am sure this still goes on in poorer nations.
Believe me, it goes on today, in very rich nations too, mostly by not keeping the child alive quite as long as medical technology might otherwise allow.
Which is a good thing, overall. Which would you prefer? Months or years of pointless suffering with no hope of relief? Or a quick 'nothing', an 'end of game'?
That's a 'No Contest' as far as I'm concerned .
SG
NO. But the eating of other species is. Look at our incisors and enzymes!
Besides one of the commonest names that tribes give themselves is 'The People'. This means that others, outside the tribe, are not humans. So Cannibalism is ok.
I could go further in religious terms, but decency forbids me.
I actually agree that what animals do sexually is largely irrelevant to what humans do sexually. Of course, we are mammals, so the physiology is similar, but our society needn't pattern it's behavoir on animals. I think society should allow consenting adults to have sex just about anyway they want to. It's not complicated, Luiz.
John: 'Fundies use the argument that "homosexuality is unnatural and animals don't do it". Then when somebody points out that the statement is baloney, they accuse them of trying to promote other animal behavior, like infanticide and cannibalism.'
Yeesss... It's just ridiculous. Homosexuality is normal just as heterosexuality is normal. It's not hard to figure this out...
Wellcome to the wonderful world of natural, wrong, right and other topics. Just ask you the following question, do they harm anybody when they have sex?, do they interfere with other people's rights?. That's the KEY question.
If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Only because you confuse animal nature with civil society. Homophobes like you claim homosexuality is against nature. Observations of the natural world show that it is not.
It now remains for you to demonstrate the homosexuality is somehow incompatible with civil society. I won't hold my breath.
@LOLKILLZ
Intra-species devouring? What do you think eating steak is? "Intra-" means within the same group. Unless that steak is made from humans, it's not intra-species devouring. Good ol' cow meat would make it inter -species devouring.
It's not often we get a quote that actually knows how to use these kind of prefixes properly.
Fundie: "Homosexuality is unnatural. Therefore it is a sin!"
@WMDKitty
Filcide means 'thread-killing'
(Latin Filum = thread; incidere = to kill)
I suppose it could also mean son/daughter killing.
(Filius/filia = =son/daughter)
But I think it's a made up term that has no currency in the present version of English.
It seems to have killed this thread, though. Effective, eh! LOL
Following your logic, we shouldn't eat, breath or get a bath. The question is, ok, we don't kill offsprings(not all species do that, by the way, unless in very extreme circumstances) and don't practice canibalism because, if so, we are violating the rights of other individuals. Which rights of other individuals are we violating allowing two people who are in the minority regarding sexual attraction love each other or be the way they are?. Ok, they can't reproduce having regular sex, but neither can people over 50(and they are allowed to marry)and sterile people. Moreover, canibalism and offspring killing, in the case of humans, at least, is a volitional act, that is, they do it because they want to. They have a choice not to do it. If you feel attracted to somebody of the same sex, the most you can do is abstaining from sex, but you can't change an instinct without suffering a lot.
This kind of argument pisses me off.
"X species mates for life, therefore humans should too" is a favorite of some relatives of mine.
"Bringing man into the equation complicates things further" is pure bullshit.
Get a clue! Different species may share some behavoirs, but that doesn't mean all species share all behaviors.
Of course, here, you assume that both humans and animals must have either totally identicle traits or totally different traits, and that animals all have the same traits, also.
Ducks, for example, have had homosexual tendencies, but I've never heard of a duck eat another duck.
So, in an argument kindred by its reversal to yours but of precisely the same is that homosexual is LESS common in societies which eat each other.
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction"
Seemingly "heterosexual" acts among animals are also in accordance with animal nature.
We humans have empathy and conscience, that guides most of our actions. To know whether it is right or wrong ethically, we have to ask ourselves if consensual homosexual sex between adults is harmful or violates anyone's human rights? The answer is that no, it's no more harmful than consensual heterosexual sex between adults, and doesn't violate anyone's human rights. Prohibiting gays to marry does violate their human rights, however. As women have the right to marry men, you must allow men the same right, or it would be gender discrimination.
Well, yes. If your ONLY objection to cannibalism is that ’it’s not natural,’ there are plenty of examples in nature that prove you wrong. Gosh, if only one could think of some sort of moarl basis for not attacking one’s own gene pool for sustenance. Think, think, think, think, think…
Homosexuality, same-same. If your only arguments are religion and nature, and we don’t share your religion, and nature doesn’t actually support your argument, you’ve got nothing. Shucks.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
