Good news, folks! Life is about to get much easier. If we will only follow a simple standard, things will all be great.
I'm talking about the "homosexuality in nature" argument. It goes something like this. "More than 1500 species of animals have been observed in homosexual acts or even relationships. Since it occurs in the animal kingdom, it must be natural and good."
Now, let's think this through. "Since it occurs in the animal kingdom, it must be natural and good." That would really decrease the amount of rules we're forced to consider, wouldn't it? That is, what moral values can we glean from nature? Well, there is no indication in nature of any religious animals. They have no temples, no altars, no worship gatherings. Say goodbye to religious activity. Religion is not "natural" because it's not part of "nature". Okay, so the animal kingdom is not religious (and, since we're assuming "Since it occurs in the animal kingdom, it must be natural and good."), then religion is bad. But what is good in the animal kingdom? Well, it would appear that there are two basic factors: You are either a good killer or you are a sly hider. Oh, well, of course, or you're dead. You are either great at getting whatever you need however you can get it or you are good at evading those kinds of things. In times of shortage, stealing is wonderful. If you need to, cannibalism is fine. Killing your own offspring to protect your territory or feed yourself is perfectly acceptable. All kinds of silly rules that we have in place right now are out the door in the animal kingdom.
See how much easier it will be? Life becomes "about me". Kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten. "Right" is defined as "survive and thrive" and "wrong" is ... not. Homosexuality is said to be certainly acceptable in this vision of morality, but, of course, the homosexual animal doesn't reproduce, so we would expect that to die out*, wouldn't we? No problem, because "survive and thrive" is good and "die out" is not. Ultimately, "good" is defined as "whatever my impulses tell me to do" and "evil" is "preventing me from doing what my impulses tell me." How far are we from that?
Yeah, let's go with that morality model. That should make life a lot better. Or not.
Look, I was obviously being a bit sarcastic here, but only a bit. I'm not actually making a claim here about the morality of homosexual behavior. I'm making an observation about the logic of the argument. My only point is that you think it through. Sometimes it doesn't come out like you think it does.
__________
* In the interest of fairness, I need to point out two things here. First, my argument -- "we would expect that to die out" -- is faulty because there is no scientific evidence for a "gay gene", no indication that homosexuality is hereditary. Second, science will have to admit that the current perception of "homosexuality" does not actually occur in nature. There are no animals attracted only to the same gender. There are "omnisexual" animals, animals that seem to be willing to attempt sex with anything at all -- male, female, other creatures, a comfy couch, whatever. For animals in the wild to be "homosexual" in the same sense that the term is popularly used today would mean the end of the line for those particular animals. Doesn't actually happen.
10 comments:
The problem with your sarcastic reasoning is you are beginning with a faulty strawman opinion. No one is arguing, "Since it happens in the animal kingdom, it must be good."
People HAVE pointed out that homosexuality is natural, but this is to counter the many who huff, "Why, why... it's just not NATURAL!" as a means of demeaning gay folk. Of course it's natural.
That does not mean it is or isn't good.
It's the social darwinists (who, in my experience, tend to be conservative) who advise a "kill or be killed" approach to human life and policy.
It's always easiest to argue against a strawman argument - you can belittle and demean the Other as a fool who believes crazy crap - but it's not honest, brother Stan.
Great points. It seems bizarre that the pro-LGBTQ lobby would point to behavior in nature to justify their behavior (though not totally surprising given their desperation -- remember that the men of Sodom still tried to break into Lot's house even after they were blinded).
Animals do all sorts of things, sexually and otherwise, that we wouldn't point to in justifying human behavior. Your dog may try to make it with a female dog, a male dog, your leg, your coffee table and more, but I tend to think that most people wouldn't view those behaviors as ideal for humans.
And what about animals that kill their offspring? (Oops -- bad example!) Or those that rape, cannibalize, kill, etc.?
Nice, Dan. And you'd like to be viewed as the kinder, gentler debater, right. "You know, people from my side of the fence aren't rude or unkind like you guys are."
So, it's a strawman? Why, then, do I read based on the claim that animals can be homosexual, "There’s nothing unnatural about being straight, or gay, or anything having to do with sex. It’s all good!"? Why did the University of Oslo (Norway) feel the need to create a "museum dedicated to gay animals" in order to "debunk the belief that gay sex is a 'crime against nature.'" (Source) Why is the topic even being raised? So what if they do it in nature? This isn't brought up to merely say, "It's not unnatural." It is brought up to say, "It is natural and, therefore, not necessarily immoral." Surely you've heard, "If God made them that way, why would it be immoral?" Same argument. "If it's natural, it's good."
(This whole thing, of course, does not address the real question of whether or not animals are "homosexual" in the same sense that you use the term -- exclusive sexual attraction to the same gender. This will kill the breed. How does that make any sense?)
No, with the exception of some radical fringe elements, no one is advising "kill or be killed". If you thought I was suggesting they were, you missed the point. The point is if we are going to draw our moral values from what is done in nature, then that would be the natural consequence.
It's always easy to belittle those with whom you disagree, but following the failed insult and faulty (mostly non-existent) arguments, the term "brother" doesn't make it better.
For those who might deny with Mr. Trabue that the argument is "Since it is natural, it must be good", here is the argument sequence offered by Daniel Helminiak in his book, "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality".
(S1) Scientific evidence shows that some people are born homosexual; and, indeed, sexual orientation seems to be a trait akin to height, skin color, and gender.
(S2) "According to faith, it is God who creates us ... . So somehow God must be behind the fact that some people are homosexual."
(S3) Either they (homosexuals) were made correctly or they were made "flawed."
(S4) If God made them flawed, he would be "evil" or "playing some cruel trick."
(S5) God cannot be evil.
Therefore,
(S6) God made them correctly.
(S7) God would not condemn those traits which he made correctly.
Therefore,
(S8) God does not condemn the trait of homosexuality, and those who claim that the Bible condemns homosexuality have misinterpreted the Bible (pp. 18 - 20).
That is the argument we're facing. "It's natural; therefore, it's moral." Arguing "It's natural because we see it in the animal kingdom" is one of the support points for this sequence.
For anyone interested, a thorough response to Daniel Helminiak's arguments are offered by Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges.
It's amazing how much you can determine for yourself... if your mind stays narrow enough.
nice.
and it would be quite easy to argue against Daniel Helminiak's reasoning:
We were perfect before the fall. Now we're not. Part of the challenge of following Christ is to lean on Him to overcome our sin. Everyone sins and everyone is tempted by something. Many would argue that drug addicts were born with that "character defect" (AA's words, not mine). Since they are born addicts, it's natural. so is the right thing to do to feed that desire by drinking excessively or abusing drugs? After all, they were born that way, right? It's really the same thing.
We cannot help who we are attracted to. We can help how we respond to that attraction. Maybe gay men were meant to be celibate, but due to society's urging that we must have sex, they feel they have to abide and so they choose men, or in many cases, either for whatever they can get... Maybe. just a thought.
Being gay isn't a sin. Being an addict isn't a sin. Being attracted to little boys isn't a sin and having attractions for animals isn't a sin. Acting on any of those temptations is the sin.
And I will not respond to anyone who says, "So now you're comparing gays to drug addicts!" -That's changing the subject. I don't play that.
Two things:
1) No one huffs ""Why, why... it's just not NATURAL!" as a means of demeaning gay folk." "Gay folk" have already demeaned themselves when they try to justify acting on their homosexual desires (and more so when they actually act on them). The claim "It's just not natural." is merely a statement of fact. No "huffing" required. The huffing comes from the homosexuals and their enablers when we state that plain fact.
2) My very first post of my blog featured a portion of Oliff & Hodges' perspective on the subject. Dan "didn't buy it" without saying why exactly, and another visitor to my blog, a false priest dismissed it because one of the two is a helicopter engineer by trade (or something to that effect) and as such, it apparently disqualifies him from even having his perspective considered.
A third thing (that just came to mind)
3) I'm sure that Rob't Gagnon has rebuffed Helminiak, but a homosexual blogger has dismissed Gagnon for daring to suggest that God might view homosexual behavior as worse than adultery.
Just sayin'.
@Dan:
Some people seem to demonstrate with uncanny clarity the concept of "blinded by the god of this world".
@Mike:
Yeah, big problem. Like "My son was born with no arms and no legs, so that's a good thing." I'd ask such a one, "How is that working for you?" Because I'd suspect that they would be working to counter the condition, not enjoy it. Indeed, if "we're born with it" includes alcoholism, gambling addictions, and the like (like some modern psychologists assure us), then we're not responsible for any of it.
On the other hand, as you rightly point out, regardless of whether "we're born with it", we always have the choice of whether or not to act on it. They say, "It's not a choice!" Maybe. But the act is. And that's where the sin lies.
@Marshall Art:
Such dismissals on the basis of "helicopter engineer" and "he makes homosexuality worse than adultery" have a term. They're both clear examples of a common logical fallacy known as "ad hominem" -- detract from the arguer without addressing the argument. These kind of dismissals collapse under the weight of their own fallacies.
"...detract from the arguer without addressing the argument."
S.O.P. for "progressives".
Post a Comment