“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.” ~ Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain

I have been challenged with this same statement above many times, but have never posted on the topic. So here it is to be entered officially in my growing library of responses to those opposed to the traditional, historical, classical definition of marriage.

Before I get to a continuing conversation, I wanted to talk about an example I heard of a long time ago, and it has to do with the “famous” gay penguins, Roy and Silo. So popular was this pair of “gay” penguins that children’s books were produced to explain that homosexuality should be acceptable, based on this male pair of penguins. As we will see, using arguments like these often backfires on the person who thinks behaviors rooted in nature should be applauded in the Homosapien world.

Conservapedia notes that in July of 2009, the alleged homosexual penguin pair in a California zoo crumbled under the weight of nature. Peter LaBarbera reported:

San Francisco’s Fox affiliate KTVU reports: “The San Francisco Zoo’s popular same-sex penguin couple has broken up.

“Male Magellan penguins Harry and Pepper have been together since 2003. The pair nested together and even incubated an egg laid by another penguin in 2008, but their relationship hit the rocks earlier this year when a female penguin, Linda, befriended Harry after her long-time companion died.

“Zookeepers say Harry and Linda are happy and were able to successfully nest this year,” reported KTVU.

But not everyone is celebrating Harry and Linda’s newfound love. Some believe there can be no such a thing as an “ex-gay” penguin. Upon news of Harry’s decision to fly the same-sex-coop, outspoken pro-homosexual activist and anti-ex-gay crusader Wayne Besen cried fowl:

“Attempts to change sexual orientation are patently offensive, discriminatory by definition, theologically shaky, uniformly unsuccessful and medically unsound!” exclaimed a visibly angry Besen. “There is no ‘ex-gay’ sexual orientation. Harry is simply in denial. He’s living what I call the ‘big lie.’”

When will we see a book on penguin sexual behavior showing that reparative therapy works, and there can be ex-gays? And that one can choose by volition over his or her nature, when is this kids book coming? The Telegraph expounds upon this behavior in penguins more as more is known:

J.R.
I guess I just don’t quite understand what you’re asking. I made a statement about homosexuality in animals. Its not my opinion, its a studied phenomena. I was just making a statement. Do you understand what it means to have a discourse and alter your views from that discussion? or is this just a platform for you to voice your ideas and have a closed ear to others? I dont mean to come across as harsh but I don’t see a two sided conversation going on here. Here’s one of the links I based the state ment on. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html Oh and just so you know, i took the political questionaire from politicaltest.net and Im a severe conservative. That just doesnt make me close minded like some of them are.

SeanG (me)
Okay, I can see you are beating around the bush. So I will start the conversation.

Would you agree many here have a differing view of man’s nature via Intelligent Design, in other words, God created man as something separate, different in His nature than that of the animal Kingdom? This is a simple yes or no response, FYI.

J.R. (a)
Yes – is my answer although your question two different questions, yes to the second. Yes to the first as well

[....]

As I was typing my next question to keep the conversation on track, J.R. posted this next part. To which I also responded to. So my two responses should be seen as in order of what was written by J.R.:

J.R. (b)
Yes – is my answer although your question two different questions, yes to the second. Yes to the first as well

Here are my two responses, respectively:

SeanG (me) (a)
Great, would you also agree that people that wish to connect animal homosexual acts to humans have a more philosophical naturalist views point that guides this connection. In other words, a “goo to you” view of human history to put it simply. This type of thinking guides such enterprises like, ohhh, evolutionary psychology. So again, the simple question is typically those making such statements are evolutionist, they would not include God in its summation of mankind?

SeanG (me) (b)
J.R., we are talking about one subject. Dialoging about IT. If you and I were out having drinks, I would have the same conversation with you as I am here. this is not rocket science, or catch J.R. in a snafu 101… it is a conversation to get you to think deeper about the ultimate issues, from YOUR examples.

J.R.
Sean, I have spent several hours since yesterday reading through your papers and website. I value differing opinions and perspectives ( I have an aggressive atheist on my friends list that really hurts me some of the things that get posted. But i feel I need to see all aspects of any argument. I’ll be the first to say I get confused and I don’t understand a lot of the scientific jargon I read. I just try to see all sides of it.As the Bereans, I value looking for truth. 1 Peter 3:15. So I’m sorry if I have come across as anything but gentleness and respect. I would only ask the same. I have just been a little concerned by your responses that I’m being talked at, not talked with.

SeanG (me)
J.R.,I am asking a simple question. Do you think the foundational view that homosexuality in the animal kingdom — as being related to mankind in any way — is a viewpoint held by philosophical naturalists? Its a simple question really.

At this point, I went and grabbed from his Facebook profile a favorite quote of his by Eleanore Roosevelt to stir up his focus:

SeanG (me)
We are talking BIG ideas here ~ “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people” -Elanor Roosevelt

J.R.
I do not know it that is or not a view held by philosophical naturalists.

Now J.R. is starting to catch himself, and I applaud him actively trying to stay focused.

J.R.
Okay you didnt answer my question above. What is your answer?

SeanG (me)
You can work it out, for instance, National Geographic, as an organization, believes man evolved from an odorless/colorless gas which formed into solid matter, rain fell on rocks… eventually leading to us. They would posit that mankind ultimately came from the animal kingdom — and would connect importance to homosexuality in the animal kingdom as viewing man’s sexuality. Yeah?

Its simple: a theist believes mankind was created separate from the animal kingdom, and philosophical naturalist believes mankind has its roots through evolution alone. So again: Do you think the foundational view that homosexuality in the animal kingdom — as being related to mankind in any way — is a viewpoint held by philosophical naturalists (Neo-Darwinists/evolutionists)?

[....]

So Again: Do you think the foundational view that homosexuality in the animal kingdom — as being related to mankind in any way — is a viewpoint held by philosophical naturalists?

J.R.
I would agree with that statement yes.

Miracles do happen!

SeanG (me)
Great! Now, if the naturalist view is correct, what is the logical conclusion of this “fact” you mentioned that National Geographic would acknowledge? Since homosexuality exists in nature same-sex marriage should be allowed in mankind’s.

One should take note that most of these homosexual acts in nature are essentially rape. The alpha male holding his power over other animals in the group.

Rape is very prominent in the animal kingdom, as well as cannibalism:

♚ “1,500 recorded species of animals preforming the ACT of cannibalism, that’s 3 times more than homosexual acts”

Take note as well that these animals are not exclusively “gay,” they do procreate after their own kind.

So Richard Dawkins, for instance, would say that rape being morally wrong is as arbitrary as mankind evolving 5 vs 4 fingers.

—————————————
Justin Brierley: When you make a value judgement don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good. And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.

Richard Dawkins: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.

Justin Brierley: So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, it doesn’t in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.
———————————————-

Or Sam Harris saying, “…there are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male….”

In other words, if one were to argue that same-sex marriage should be allowed because gay acts are in nature, BUT THEN NOT use the same logic for rape, cannibalism, and the like, is being disingenuous. The Judeo-Christian ethic ~ rooted in God and man’s nature as separate from that of animals ~ is the only worldview that offers respect and humanity to the gay man and woman. Rape, violence, and “alpha male” mentality (power) are something found in the naturalist worldview. These are things that our worldview says we should avoid.

Which is why a lesbian author I love said this:

▼ Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. ~ Tammy Bruce

Compare that to a view that all viewpoints are equal and one should use power to enforce his (which naturalism encapsulates):

▼ “Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.” ~ Mussolini

I have to break here and say I was hoping J.R. was going to “fact-check” my Sam Harris quote. While being a bit out of context, the full context makes the situation worse for J.R.’s vacuous case. I quoted Sam Harris as saying: “…there are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male….”

Here is the rest:

“You can’t move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that; we have transcended that part of our evolutionary history in repudiating it.”

How, then, can we “move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend ‘homosexuality’ as a good practice?” Have we not “transcended that part of our evolutionary history”? Or, do political points of view dictate what we have-and-haven’t “transcended”?

This led to my final comment, final in that J.R. has yet to continue the convo:

Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

✪ “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. “

My hope in this post is to offer some responses to a challenge many do not know how to respond to. Also, this is posted as a model in keeping someone zeroed in on a topic at a time. Too often people will state one thing, hear an answer, and instead of dealing with the implications the instead move onto another subject. It is incumbent on us to learn how to keep the discussion on one topic/evidence at a time. It is hard, and I have to again applaud J.R., he did what some cannot do. Focus like a laser-beam… at least for a short while.

(search words: 450 species homophobia found one unnatural response answer refuted apologetics)