Is Homosexuality Natural?

The above picture was featured in a social media post by another blogger.  His intention I believe was fairly innocuous, but of course me being one who cannot allow a controversial statement pass without saddling others with my opinion, I responded with a question: In how many species is cannibalism and incest found?  The point of my question was the same as the one I made in my commentary Acting Like An Animal where I argue that we should not take our moral queues from the animal kingdom.

The discussion took a turn I was not expecting.  Rather than the usual route taken by those who do not view homosexual sexual relationships to be immoral, that “homosexual sexual relationships are witnessed in nature by animals other than human beings, therefore homosexuality is moral or morally benign”, the author and others were simply making the point that homosexuality is witnessed in nature.  That’s it.

Here’s the problem I have with that interpretation of the graphic.  When someone believes homosexual sexual relationships are immoral and makes the claim homosexuality is unnatural, they don’t mean (more often than not) that the activity is not witnessed in the animal kingdom.  They mean one of two things by unnatural.

The first intended meaning, in my experience, is that homosexual sex runs contrary to the natural sexual order of the animal kingdom.  Males cannot reproduce by sexual interaction with other males.  It is in this way homosexual sexual relationships are unnatural.  Animals are known to use sexual behavior to express different instincts: social dominance, aggression, avoiding conflict, and a host of other emotions.  For example, we do not assume that when a dog humps your leg it is sexually attracted to your leg the same way homosexuals are attracted to each other.

The other meaning of unnatural would be that even though it may be witnessed in nature, the number of species and frequency within species in which homosexual sexual activity is witnessed is miniscule compared to the overall number of species in existence — the number is statistically irrelevant.  So even if it is seen, it is not a regular occurrence, not even as often as the 1-2% in the human population.  It is a response — preemptive or initial — targeted at those who would argue that homosexuality is common and therefore normal both in humans and animals.

But the commenters on the thread were insistent that the pic was not making a moral statement.  I disagree.

If it wasn’t making a moral statement then it really isn’t saying anything at all.  If homosexuality is found in more than 450 species, so what.  It’s merely an observation like “one in 17,000 people are albino”.  I don’t buy that the graphic is merely an observation.  It uses the term Homophobia, a term that is derogatorily applied to people with moral objections to homosexuality.  The originator of the graphic is making a moral statement here even if the blogger on whose page this was posted was not.  What I find humorous is by making the moral judgement that found in nature = moral benignity (which I think it is), then “homophobia” is also natural and therefore morally benign.  But I find it disingenuous to claim the graphic is not making a moral statement even if you aren’t.

Comments

  1. Excellent post, John.

    Although animals have been seen to be behaving in what some could call homosexual behavior (mounting – but not penetrating), homosexuality is still not “natural” – all one has to do is look at the plumbing and that tells the natural design!

    “Homophobia” by etymology means fear of sameness. While those who practice homosexual behavior like to through that word around to marginalize and silence the opposition, I have yet to meet anyone who is afraid of those who practice homosexuality. We find it to be disgusting, perverse and unnatural behavior and don’t want to be forced to legitimize it or give it social sanction in any way. But that doesn’t make us afraid.

    Oh, and the sign is definitely making a moral statement by charging a “species” with “homophobia” and implying something is natural or unnatural.

  2. Oh, yes – this one was quite popular among my facebook friends (well… the minority that thinks they’re a majority) a while back. I ended up blogging about it, too, if you’re interested. http://gottagetgoing.blogspot.ca/2011/09/revealing.html

    I agree with your statement; it IS intended as a moral judgement. At least the folks I know who were sharing it are willing to admit that is their intention.

  3. TerranceH says:

    John,

    I don’t understand the point of the sign if it’s not making a moral statement. If there is no ulterior meaning, then it’s just a random fact that has no bearing.

  4. Blondin says:

    As a non-believer and a supporter of equal rights for all I can tell you that one of the more annoying statements I hear a lot of is that homosexuality is unnatural. It’s annoying for two reasons: A) it is demonstrably not true, b) so what? so is cooking our food. It’s a bit like the “have you stopped beating your wife” gambit. No matter which aspect you choose to respond to you leave yourself open to attack on the other.

    I thought the wording of the last line: “Which one seems unnatural now?” makes it fairly obvious that the sign is supposed to be a retort or response to the oft-touted claim that homosexuality is unnatural. The point being that there is no point proceeding to argue whether this has any bearing on morality because the premise isn’t even true in the first place.

    I find it ironic that John interprets this sign as some kind of claim to moral standing. In fact I think this is at the root of one of the biggest misunderstandings or misinterpretations that non-believers face all the time. It is the root of the is/ought argument. Many religious people seem to think that accepting the Darwinian concept of evolution by natural selection means deriving our morals and social guidelines from observations about nature and “survival of the fittest”. Atheists/humanists do not support this idea. Arguing that we should structure our society based on observations about what we observe in nature would just be another type of argument from authority.

    Atheists/humanists argue that morals emerge from what benefits the most and harms the least, not from any interpretation of divine instructions or natural survival techniques.

    As for the use of the word “homophobia” my opinion is that it is meant in the sense of any other “phobia” – that is an aversion, dislike or fear of something. Many people experience a revulsion at the thought of homosexual acts but they don’t all believe that this gives them a right to dictate others’ behaviour. That would be “bigotry”. I am personally repulsed by the thought of homosexual acts but I have yet to hear an explanation for how the behaviour of consenting LGBT individuals with each other poses any threat to me or anyone else.

  5. The graphic is typical of the bumper-sticker mentality of the pro-sodomy movement. Name one other species that has any phobias or that makes moral claims. And “homophobia” is a foolish pejorative manufactured to dismiss the legitimate claims of the opposing side. After all, if your opponent is certifiably psychotic you don’t even have to respond to them. Isn’t that convenient?!

    The true homophobes are those who are so scared of the gay lobby and of being politically incorrect that they mock God, the Bible, natural law and common sense. Verses about millstones, “woe to those who call evil good and good evil” and “I never knew you” come to mind.

    Re. homosexual behavior in animals, it seems bizarre that the pro-LGBTQ lobby would point to that (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.?

    Finally, if they look at the research on homosexual behavior in animals they my just discover that it occurs in substandard conditions.

  6. The post is spot on. Homosexuality is UNnatural because you can’t have homosexuality without a perverted form of sex. Natural sex and lust are two different things, and to justify one’s actions by saying the “animals do it too” reveals one’s self-worth and rationale, or the lack thereof. HomoSEXuality is not just harmless sexuality – it’s out of control sexuality in the form of out of control lust.

    I am not afraid of homsexuals, I am afraid for them spiritually. Often times, those who throw around the term “homophobe” are actually guilt of the very contempt that they accuse others of having, but they don’t want to admit it as John’s conversation with the blogger revealed. I think the abbreviations of his blog name may reveal this fact…at least that’s what it sounds like unless “gd” are the intials of his name???

    • Eugine

      His name is actually that. It just so happens that being an atheist it provides a clever URL.

      But he wasn’t being belligerent, I think his understanding of the graphic and the originator’s intention are different. It is making a moral judgement and I think he and the others were reading it far too rigidly.

  7. Marshall Art says:

    Blondin,

    Are you suggesting that the mere fact that homosexual behavior takes place at all means that it is not unnatural? I would point you back to the post wherein John describes what is meant by the use of the term. There you’ll find that it is indeed unnatural on at least two levels.

    The threat is in the impact to our culture of enabling such behaviors, but not only sexual behaviors of this kind. The difference, of course, is in the fact that those who engage in it are striving to alter civil law, religious understanding and to stifle opposing opinion. THAT is where the threat comes in.

  8. I understand. I saw the “g” on his site, but I didn’t see the “d” anywhere other than in the site’s name.

  9. Blondin says:

    “Are you suggesting that the mere fact that homosexual behavior takes place at all means that it is not unnatural?”

    Yup.

    “I would point you back to the post wherein John describes what is meant by the use of the term. There you’ll find that it is indeed unnatural on at least two levels.”

    Well, John said: “The first intended meaning, in my experience, is that homosexual sex runs contrary to the natural sexual order of the animal kingdom. Males cannot reproduce by sexual interaction with other males. It is in this way homosexual sexual relationships are unnatural.”

    Fair enough. That’s my understanding of the statement. As for reproduction, I don’t think you’ll find very many gays engaging in same sex activities for the purpose of procreation. Are you suggesting that procreation is the only reason humans should have sex?

    John also said: “The other meaning of unnatural would be that even though it may be witnessed in nature, the number of species and frequency within species in which homosexual sexual activity is witnessed is miniscule compared to the overall number of species in existence – the number is statistically irrelevant.”

    As far as I’m concerned the number 450 could be completely made up (like 87% of all statistics). If anybody were to make the argument that same-sex sexual activity is unnatural because it doesn’t occur outside of the human species then only 1 exception is needed prove the statement false. We’ve all seen male dogs hump each other as some kind of dominance behaviour or just for fun or whatever. I can’t claim to know why they do it but I doubt they are under any illusion they are “mating”. That’s one. I have it on good authority that dolphins are randy little buggers. They try to screw anything of any sex. Again, I doubt if they have any ideas of producing some kind of hybrid offspring – they probably just enjoy sex. That’s two. So, including humans, we know of three species that seem to engage in sexual activity, with same-sex members, for other-than-mating purposes.

    The main gist of my other post was a rebuttal to the interpretation that the graphic is implying that natural = moral. I have no doubt that many people do make that association (theists and atheists) but I’m not one of them and most of the atheists/humanists I know of are clearly not, also. I’m just saying it’s not a foregone conclusion.

    “The threat is in the impact to our culture of enabling such behaviors, but not only sexual behaviors of this kind. The difference, of course, is in the fact that those who engage in it are striving to alter civil law, religious understanding and to stifle opposing opinion. THAT is where the threat comes in.”

    So you’re saying that granting equal rights to LGBT people poses a danger of having a society accepting of LBGT people? And… I’m sorry but I still don’t see the threat. How does my neighbour’s bedroom shenanigans affect me? Where are the studies showing the harm same-sex couples cause to society?

    • Blondin

      Thanks for your comments. But I don’t think framing this as a plight for equal rights is fair for two reasons. First homosexuals enjoy all the same rights as heterosexuals in this country regardless of marriage laws, you can find where I argue this under the homosexuality tab above. Second, this isn’t about homosexuals, its about those who object to homosexuality as being unnatural. Shifting the discussion doesn’t help.

  10. Those who claim homosexual behavior is “natural” and that there is nothing wrong with it, are doing nothing but suppressing the truth about how abominable it is, as well as how destructive to society it is, just so they can satisfy their sexual urges. They know intrinsically that it is deviant and unnatural, as well as medically and psychologically damaging, not to mention spiritually damaging.

  11. Blondin,

    Homosexual activity is UNnatural due to the very perverted nature of the act itself. Yes, there are plenty of animals that give into uncontrolled lust! What’s your point? People should have the right to act like animals???

    You said, “How does my neighbour’s bedroom shenanigans affect me?” Here’s where you show your ignorance, whether intentional or not, on the matter. The homosexual agenda is NOT interested in keeping what happens in the bedroom in the bedroom. It’s that simple.

  12. Blondin says:

    John,

    I appreciate your indulgence. I think a plight for equal rights is exactly what this is all about. I read some of your posts regarding equal rights and it seems you’re saying that as long as same-sex partners can technically obtain legally recognized similar standing to opposite-sex partners, even though they may have to jump through a few more hoops, then they have nothing to bitch about. The main thing is that we must maintain the distinction that they are abominations and NOT “normal”.

    What about this as an analogy? Imagine that you relocated to Canada for work reasons and, after a couple of years, decided that you liked it so much that you wanted to stay. So you obtain permanent resident status and get involved in your community and local politics and eventually you decide that you really want to call Canada your home. So you apply for citizenship.

    It turns out, though that Canada only allows full citizenship to natural-born Canadians or immigrants from countries other than USA (not true – it’s hypothetical, eh?). By various legal arrangements you have all the same rights and privileges as full citizens but you can never be called a full citizen; you are only a “quasi-citizen”. You may have to produce a bit more photo ID or get documents notarized or sign affidavits for things that full citizens can do without restriction but you still have all the same rights (technically).

    You may also have to put up with some people thinking they can treat you like a second-class citizen. You may have to take your landlord to court, you may have to sue some in-laws, you may have to decide whether it is worth it to fight for your rights sometimes or just drop it.

    And there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s not like you chose to be born a Yank.

    Don’t worry, John. Stuck-up, red-neck, homophobic, bigoted or queer, same-sex, married Yanks and everything in between can all become full Canadian citizens.

    • Blondin

      Here’s what you miss even with your own analogy. The rules are the rules and I don’t have the right to demand the country of Canada conform to my sensibilities. I have the options to conform to the rules or find another job. Why should I expect the rules to change just because I’m show up?

      But your problem with marriage laws are precisely that everyone is treated equally. Homosexuals and heterosexuals all have the same rights and prohibitions. The institution of marriage has rules, the same rules, for everyone.

  13. Blondin says:

    Eugene, can you tell me where I might get a copy of this “homosexual agenda”?

  14. Blondin,

    The more you talk, the more you make my point.

  15. Here’s samples of the agenda — http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/080213 .
    Those who deny the existence of an agenda are utterly uninformed (bad) or disingenuous (worse).

  16. TerranceH says:

    Are you suggesting that procreation is the only reason humans should have sex?

    Reproduction is the only biological purpose of sex. And do not do the typical liberal thing whereby you confuse “purpose” with “benefit.”

  17. TerranceH says:

    The Canadian citizenship analogy is perhaps the single most ridiculous thing I have ever – and I mean EVER – heard.

    And here I thought American education was broke…Whew.

  18. Blondin,

    Your illogic is typical of homosexualists. BEHAVIOR is what the issue is about. There is no “equal right” to have a sexual behavior sanctioned. It there was such a “right,” then you couldn’t condemn pedophiles, zoophiles, those who practice incest or necrophilia. If you claim sexual behavior requires equal rights no matter what the behavior is, then you have to accept all those.

  19. Blondin says:

    John, all analogies tend to break down at some point; of course you wouldn’t expect another country to change their immigration policy just for you. Also, one would assume that any nation’s immigration rules were based on some kind of sound reasoning and prior experience. Outdated or unfair laws are often challenged and occasionally overturned. Especially if they apply undue stress or hardship for no good reason. And I’m still waiting to hear a good reason why same-sex marriage is bad.

    The point is that marriage laws do vary greatly from place to place and there are differences in spousal rights and levels of legal protections. Your weasel definition of equal rights just doesn’t cut it:

    “…anyone who is not currently married can marry:
    one person, of the opposite sex, who is not of close relation (as defined by the individual State), who is currently free to marry (i.e. not currently married).

    So what is the disparity of rights? That standard applies to everyone, heterosexual and homosexual alike.”

    That’s like saying, “everyone is free to marry within their own race. How does that discriminate against anybody?”

    Did somebody use the word “disingenuous” a few posts back?

    • Blondin, part of the problem is that marriage is NOT a human right. It’s a privilege, sacrament, rite, responsibility, obligation, and many other things, but it is not, and has never been, a human right. At most, it is a granted right, like getting a driver’s license or a diploma. Granted rights and priviliges have standards that need to be qualified for. At risk of appearing to promote my own blog, http://gottagetgoing.blogspot.ca/2012/03/marriage-debate-why-marriage.html discusses the purpose of marriage and it’s role in society.

      It is not up to society to prove why heterosexual marriages have a privileged status in our society – it has done that over thousands of years of cultural development and change. We need only to look at cultures that allow, say, polygamous marriages (no culture has fully recognised SSM as equal in status to heterosexual marriages) and see the harm it has done, to women and children in particular. Despite efforts to portray monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as being harmful, evidence shows that it is beneficial not only to the couples involved and any children they may produce, but society as a whole. Monogamous 1M1W marriage is recognised as the foundational structure of society. What SSM proponents need to do is prove that their relationships are equally beneficial to society, and deserve to be granted the same privileged status and recognition. The evidence, however, is against them. The examples put forward that show long term SS relationships are “just as good” as 1M1W marriages are exceptions, not the rule. SS relationships are notorious for being unstable and damaging to the people involved. Even the concepts of “long term” and “monogamy” rarely apply. When faced with the evidence, the few activists that are willing to accept it are instead trying to claim that monogamy is harmful and that long-term relationships are unnatural.

  20. Blondin,

    You said, “And I’m still waiting to hear a good reason why same-sex marriage is bad.”

    Because its sin. The homosexual agenda is not interested in tolerance. It is interested in acceptance. It is interested in making people approve of something to which there is no logical reason to approve of. It’s a relationship based upon pure lust. It is an act that is unnatural and no definition or cultural movement wil change that. There is much truth to Glenn’s point that so many try to ignore.

    The only defense that you have given in support of homosexuality is that the animals do it too. Why don’t people who use that excuse apply it across the board of morality if it’s such a good one?

    You also said, “John, all analogies tend to break down at some point” and then said, “That’s like saying, “everyone is free to marry within their own race.”

    Your analogy broke the moment you said it. Comparing the issue that you’re trying to defend to race is a pitiful comparison. People are born a certain race through no choice of their own through genetics. Homosexuality is a choice and has nothing to do with genetics.

  21. Another area where homosexual conduct is unnatural is that it violates Natural law as promulgated by nature’s Creator. There was once a time when our forebearers believed that all laws must be found in Natural law. Sodomy was not merely proscribed because it tended to satisfy men’s sexual appetites, reducing birth rates. It was proscribed because the laws of Nature and Nature’s God condemned the practice.

    Originally our laws were not merely “positive” law that have no concern with the “ought.” William Blackstone said “This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”

    Sodomy violates Natural law, thus, it is unnatural.

  22. Here’s a very good article with an excellent analogy to the whole homosexual agenda:
    http://townhall.com/columnists/stevedeace/2012/04/07/urination_orientation/page/full/

  23. Glenn, you’re joking, right?

    Analogies are supposed to be analogous. What is the connection between Deace’s tale of willful damage of other people’s private property and relationships between same-sex couples?

  24. TerranceH says:

    That’s like saying, “everyone is free to marry within their own race. How does that discriminate against anybody?”

    Here we go. I was wondering how long it would take before you introduced interracial marriage into the mix…

    Only problem is that interracial marriage never changed the definition of marriage.

  25. Blondin,

    The analogy is the claim of an orientation, which means you can exercise whatever behavior that orientation calls for and no one should chastise you because, after all, that is how you are oriented.

    Homosexual behavior is destruction to society. The urinator only destroyed some private property, not a whole society.

    • It boils down to conflating oriented toward, and determined to. People are more inclined and oriented to all kinds of different behaviors, that doesn’t mean they are required to act on them. Why this issue is so hot is because sexual desires are so strong and the drive to fulfill them feels urgent.

  26. “Homosexual behavior is destruction to society.”

    How? This statement keeps getting thrown around as though it is self-explanatory. It is not. It is an unsubstantiated assertion. Please explain how it is destructive and maybe you can also explain why that doesn’t seem to apply in countries where same-sex marriage and LGBT orientation have been accepted.

    Glenn, your ‘urinating’ analogy refers to direct willful damage to other’s property. This bears no resemblance at all to LBGT activities.

  27. Dogtags said…

    Sodomy violates Natural law, thus, it is unnatural.

    And that is a fine (if less than rational) opinion to hold, but just because you state something does not make it true, agreed?

    Who decided that healthy gay relationships “violates” natural law? Says who?

    If you can’t cite anything greater than your opinion or your human traditions (and I have yet to see the first person who could do that), I hope you can understand that other people seeking to do the right thing and seeking just and good relationships may choose to disagree with your opinion.

    I also hope you who say such things can understand why you’re going to lose this argument in our culture. Those who value righteousness and justice and can see not a single argument against healthy gay or straight relationships are increasingly writing these opinions off as irrelevant, unjust and immoral.

  28. John…

    Why this issue is so hot is because sexual desires are so strong and the drive to fulfill them feels urgent.

    The problem with this, John, is that there are many folk such as myself with “no dog in the race,” so to speak – who have no “strong desire” that we need to fulfill, thus probably the majority of folk who support equal rights for all do so as a matter of seeking justice and moral righteousness (as hard as that might be for you to understand), not for selfish reasons. This is probably true for the majority of gay folk as well as straight folk.

    The problem, as blondin noted, is folk keep saying “it’s unnatural,” or “it’s destroying our culture,” or “it’s immoral,” etc, and yet, no one is presenting any rational, objective evidence to support these claims.

    If you could support these claims with objective, rational evidence, you might be able to make your case, but that just has not been happening.

    • that has been done elsewhere. I don’t need to start from scratch with every post I write. You can pretend that no one has ever made arguments for those points, but that would be dishonest.

  29. Blondin says:

    John, I’m not being dishonest. I have seen lots of responses to the question indicating that homosexuality is an abomination because it’s destroying civilization or it’s unnatural or it’s proscribed by the bible or it’s immoral or it’s repugnant or it doesn’t support propagation of the species, etc, etc…

    These are all opinions or unsupported claims. I have yet to see one single explanation of how acceptance of LGBT people is going to destroy society. You people act like it would be the death knell of actual baby-making, heterosexual sex. Really? Allowing the gay couple down the street to marry and have all the same spousal rights and privileges is going to turn you or your family members gay?

    Honestly, I just don’t get it. What are you so scared of?

  30. Whoever you are speaking to, the question remains unanswered. Oh, you’ve addressed it, but not answered it.

    I know it may be sort of off topic here, but the point that Blondin and I are making is that until such time that you all can provide some objective, rational, moral reason to support these unbelievable claims (gays are destroying marriage, society; homosexuality is not natural, etc, etc), you all will only continue to make claims that sound to more and more people as unbelievable, immoral and based on cultural prejudices, not real world evidence.

    For your sake (if you value your opinions), you need to be able to address them.

    Saying “I have answered that before and won’t answer it again” is not addressing it. It sounds like a dodge to a rational question. And if you do answer it by pointing to a post that offers opinions, not objective and rational reasons, well, you’re still in the same position of losing out the argument in the popular culture.

    Which is, I think, the only way this can end since there simply seems to be no rational or moral answers to these questions.

    • This post defines how homosexuality is unnatural, you just don’t like the answer. As for the effects on society and marriage, I will do that in a follow up post. But it in dishonest for you to pretend I and others have not addressed your concerns on homosexuality in the comments of other posts.

  31. In this post, you appear (to me, at least) to be confirming that homosexuality is natural. You state…

    it wasn’t making a moral statement then it really isn’t saying anything at all. If homosexuality is found in more than 450 species, so what.

    Your point appears to be that, “It’s natural, but being natural doesn’t make it good…”

    You do cite one answer as being…

    The first intended meaning, in my experience, is that homosexual sex runs contrary to the natural sexual order of the animal kingdom.

    But that is a truth/fact claim without a single bit of evidence to support it.

    “Homosexual sex runs contrary to the ‘natural order’ of the animal kingdom…” says who? According to what evidence?

    That is a statement of opinion, not objective fact and certainly without any moral support to it.

    If you do offer some objective support in this post, John, would you mind pointing it out to me, because I can’t see it. Thanks.

    • I have said more than once, found in nature does not mean natural per se.

      And if you’re going to suggest that the natural sexual order is not male/female you are just being obtuse

  32. Oh, by the way, “not liking the answer” has nothing to do with what I’m asking. I’m saying, “I don’t see any objective, moral support” for your claims, whether or not I “like” it, I simply factually see nothing offered. If it’s there, be a dear friend and point it out to me, please? Thanks.

  33. John, I know you’re addressing Dan but I think he and I are kind of making the same argument.

    I look forward to your post on effects on society and marriage.

    As for homosexuality being unnatural, I have to disagree that you defined anything except an opinion. I understand that it is your opinion but I think you’ve been shown to be wrong. It’s a simple matter similar to stating that there is no such thing as a black swan. It only takes one black swan to disprove the assertion. We know there are species, other than humans, who indulge in sexual-like behaviour with same-sex members for other than procreative reasons. Maybe you don’t like that answer but demanding a large enough number of species to meet your standard for “relevance” is kind of weaselly.

  34. “I have said more than once, found in nature does not mean natural per se.

    And if you’re going to suggest that the natural sexual order is not male/female you are just being obtuse”

    Again, I think this is just moving the goal posts. Found in nature is found in nature. I don’t think anyone was arguing that same-sex sex could ever produce offspring.

  35. Marshall Art says:

    A black swan is not “unnatural”, it is “uncommon”. That’s a big distinction. Homosexual behavior is unnatural because it is contrary to the natural function of the biological components involved. At this point, any suggestion that there being a natural function is a matter of opinion is worse than dishonest, as any Biology 101 textbook explains function of biological components very well.

    To say that there is lacking a “moral” support for our position is quite ironic since sexual behavior is a decidedly moral issue, and homosexual behavior is distinctly immoral and every bit so (if not more so) as adultery, incest and other forms of sexual behavior that fall outside the Biblically defined parameters of that which occurs between a man and woman who are married to each other. Thus, what is absent is any moral argument in support of this immoral behavior or any union based upon it.

    So, Dan has indeed seen objective and moral arguments in support of our opposition to homosexual unions/behavior/enabling, but merely denies them without basis.

  36. MA…

    Homosexual behavior is unnatural because it is contrary to the natural function of the biological components involved.

    Says who? Where is the “natural function of the human body” rule book that dictates this as an objective fact?

    Human bodies naturally have things that feel pleasurable to them. Human bodies natural have nerve endings in various places that feel pleasant when touched in various ways.

    THAT is demonstrable, Marshall. Where is your evidence?

    Is your entire evidence “because two guys or two gals together can’t produce a baby, therefore it’s not natural…”? because, if so, the conclusion does not logically follow. You’ve skipped over several logical points and reached a personal opinion not based on fact.

    MA…

    To say that there is lacking a “moral” support for our position is quite ironic since sexual behavior is a decidedly moral issue, and homosexual behavior is distinctly immoral

    Says who? Where is your objective support for such a claim?

    MA…

    adultery, incest and other forms of sexual behavior that fall outside the Biblically defined parameters of that which occurs between a man and woman who are married to each other.

    Again, that is an opinion. It is,

    1. Your opinion that God does not like faithful, loving monogamous behavior between folk, gay or straight. God has not told you that, it is your opinion;

    2. Your opinion that the Bible teaches that. The Bible does not say this, you are taking a handful of ancient texts and (according to some folk, like me) taking them out of context and irrationally applying them to all gay behavior, even self-evidently obviously moral behavior such as monogamous, faithful loving relationships. The Bible does not state that – it your opinion;

    3. Your opinion that the Bible is an objective rulebook with rules for all people in all times (and your opinion on how to interpret which rules are for all people and which ones are not); God has not told you that, it is your opinion.

    Do you see where you’re failing to produce objectively rational support for your opinions? I fully understand that you hold opinions such as the ones in question, that you hold opinions is not in question. The question is: Is there any objective, rational or moral support for your opinions. I have yet to see the first one that meets those criteria (objective, rational or moral).

  37. But this is easily resolved, friends. Complete the sentence…

    All gay behavior is unnatural because…

    And fill it in with some objective, rational answer. You tried this above, but I’ve pointed out the objective, rational problems with your answer. But if you can address it, by all means, please do so.

  38. As previously mentioned the naturalness or unnaturalness of homosexuality is not something that is being used to “justify” human homosexual behaviour by anyone in this debate. The sign and the ensuing discussion has been about how the accusation of unnaturalness is simply not true. So maybe you really should ask the people who go around making that claim. If they mean that attempting to procreate by means of same-sex activity is not natural then I don’t know anyone who would argue with them. The only response is “no shit”, but what does it have to do with human homosexuality? Do you think same-sex couples are under any impressions that they can procreate with each other? Are you suggesting anybody is arguing that homosexual sex could lead to some kind of pregnancy? Who, but an idiot, would suggest such a thing?

    There is ample evidence that homosexuality occurs commonly in the animal (non-human) kingdom. How often and among how many species are questions still being studied but it appears to be much more common than was previously thought. As far back as 2006 one study indicated up to 1500 species indulge in such activity:

    ‘”One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species,” explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the “Against Nature’s Order?” exhibition.’
    src: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

    So, by either standard, this is obviously not simply a matter of opinion. If you’re going to insist that “natural” can only relate to ability to procreate then there is no argument and clearly no claim being made by anyone. If you’re going to insist that non-procreative sexual activity between same-sex individuals does not occur outside of the human species then you’ve been shown to be wrong. If you want to conflate the two and insist that you meant the prior so you somehow are still correct about the latter then you are being disingenuous and silly.

  39. Here, then, would be some factual, rational truth statements one could make:

    Homosexuality is not normative (it is not “the norm” – it happens in the natural world regularly, but it is not the norm in any species of which I’m aware);

    Homosexual sexual activity can not produce babies (as Blondin notes, that is sort of ridiculously obvious and no one is debating this seriously);

    Many Muslims, Christians, Jews and other faith communities have the opinion that God exists and does not approve of any gay behavior…

    Those statements are objectively and demonstrably true/factual.

    These statements, though, are (objectively) subjective opinions with no objective support for their argument:

    Gay behavior is not natural;

    Gay behavior will destroy marriage;

    Gay behavior is immoral;

    There is a God and God does not like any gay behavior, even faithful, loving, monogamous, consensual behavior.

    See the difference?

  40. How does homosexuality harm society? Well, sure the Netherlands and other European nations have had sanctioned same-sex fake marriages for a long time, and they have some of the most morally degenerate societies. Marriages are not the norm any more, because the idea of marriage has been corrupted and family units are no longer seen as important; some of the highest rates of out-of-wedlock births take place because the couples don’t see the distinction of being married. Sex has become nothing but in-your-face-recreation. But here are some links for those who care to see the argument which says homosexuality – especially given government approval – harms society, as well as causing harm to individuals who refuse to be forced to accept it as right and proper behavior:

    http://www.creators.com/opinion/dennis-prager/california-decision-will-radically-change-society.html

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jun/10061806

    http://www.frc.org/testimony/peter-sprigg-testifies-before-rhode-island-house-judiciary-committee

    http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-top-ten-harms-of-same-sex-marriage

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

    http://reasontostand.org/archives/2011/09/28/evidence-of-homofascism

  41. @ Dan

    You said, “All gay behavior is unnatural because…And fill it in with some objective, rational answer.”

    People have given you objective answers but you reject them because of your subjectiveness toward them.

    So please do us all, or at least me, a favor and explain what you use as objective evidence.

  42. @ Blondin,

    You said, “There is ample evidence that homosexuality occurs commonly in the animal (non-human) kingdom.”

    There you go again! The only defense you can give to support homosexual behavior is the animals do it too. You sure do have everyone with that one don’t you! That sure is some justification you have there. Guess we should all just act like the animals and it’ll be okay.

  43. Eugene, I would be more than glad to listen to your point, IF you could just point to A SINGLE OBJECTIVE answer. If you are going to make another unsupported claim, then you might as well say that you are the Imperial Prince Wizard of Objective Knowledge and you hold the Pink Scepter of Smartness and thus, I should believe you.

    An objective answer right here, right now is worth one million claims that it’s been offered before.

    This is easy to make me a fool, Eugene. Just. Provide. One. Objective. Answer.

    The ball is in your court.

  44. Eugene…

    explain what you use as objective evidence.

    I am just using the standard English Merriam Webster definition of Objective:

    of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

    Objective evidence, then, is to provide something in the realm of sensible experience… and perceptible by all observers.

    Objectively speaking, homosexuality IS natural because all observers can see in the realm of sensible experience that homosexuality occurs in nature. By definition. Objectively.

    All you have to do is provide an argument that is in the realm of sensible experience, perceptible by all observers.

    Have at it.

  45. Or, consider your conduct and comment towards Blondin, Eugene. You said…

    The only defense you can give to support homosexual behavior is the animals do it too. You sure do have everyone with that one don’t you! That sure is some justification you have there. Guess we should all just act like the animals and it’ll be okay.

    Objectively speaking, we can look at Blondin’s words and see his point has been that homosexuality is natural, because it occurs in the natural world. Objectively speaking and given standard English usage of the words in these sentences, he is factually correct. I don’t believe he has stated that “being natural” means “it’s moral.” He has just been taking your argument’s words and pointing out the objective problem with them.

    When you say “it’s not natural,” or “it will destroy the world” or whatever, you’re espousing opinions. That’s all he has noted that I see. He has not made an argument that we should act like animals (attacking blindly just anyone that’s around, for instance), that is a strawman argument.

    Why not deal with the words and arguments being made, rather than making up strawmen?

  46. Okay, now I see Arch-heretic Dan Trabue, defender of homosexuality, has joined in with his usual denials of all evidence which has been presented to him on numerous blogs. (And, Dan, don’t whine about “ad hominem” – what I have just written is factual (viz, you are an arch-heretic and you are a defender of homosexuality).

    Dan, first, it is NOT a subjective opinion that God exists. It is a 100% fact that God exists, the God revealed in the Bible – not the god you have invented to justify your claims about homosexuality and the rest of your false teachings.

    Second, just because something is observed in the natural realm, that doesn’t make it “natural.” By this evidence, one could say it is “natural” for rape to take place because it is observed in the natural realm of humans. One could say eating children is natural because it is observed in the natural realm. Natural, by the way, means “of nature” but since nature has been corrupted by sin, we can’t expect it to be always as designed. Appealing to nature, therefore, to justify the rightness of an action, is illogical.

    God stated that homosexual behavior is an abomination. That should be enough evidence about the immorality – as well as abnormality – of it for anyone who claims to be a Christian. It is a rebellion against God’s created order for human sexuality. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I’m going to give some quotations from a book by Robert A.J. Gagnon, titled, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics.” The guy is a top-notch scholar who knows a whole lot more about the subject than Dan or Blondin. And he does an excellent job of dismantling all the eisegesis – false hermeneutics – of all those homosexualist “scholars” who in the last few decades have “discovered” that thousands of years of interpreting Scripture have been wrong when it comes to homosexual behavior.

    “The objective of this book is to demonstrate two main points. First, there is clear, strong, and credible evidence that the Bible unequivocally defines same-sex intercourse as sin. Second, there exist no valid hermeneutical arguments, derived from either general principles of biblical interpretation or contemporary scientific knowledge and experience, for overriding the Bible’s authority on this matter. In sum, the Bible presents the anatomical, sexual, and procreative complementarity of male and female as clear and convincing proof of God’s will for sexual unions. Even those who do not accept the revelatory authority of Scripture should be able to perceive the divine will through the visible testimony of the structure of creation. Thus same-sex intercourse constitutes an inexcusable rebellion against the intentional design of the created order. It degrades the participants when they disregard nature’s obvious clues, and results in destructive consequences for them as well as for society as a whole. These consequences include matters of health (catastrophic rates of disease and shortened life expectancy) and morals (unstable and destabilizing patterns of sexual behavior where short-term and non-monogamous relationships constitute the rule rather than the exception).” p.37

    “So great is the complementarity of male and female, so seriously is the notion of ‘attachment’ and ‘joining’ taken, that the marital bond between man and woman takes precedence even over the bond with the parents that physically produced them. A descriptive statement about the creation of woman thus provides etiological justification for prescriptive norms regarding marriage. It is important than in the [Genesis story] of the creation of man and woman, attention is focused not on the goal of procreation (childbearing receives mention only in 3:16) but rather on the relational (including physical/sexual) complementarity of male and female, that is, on the companionship and support provided by heterosexual marriage.” p.61

    “To ‘lie with a man as though lying with a woman’ (Lev. 18:22; 20:13) was to treat a man as though his masculine identity counted for nothing, as though he were not a man but a woman. To penetrate another man was to treat him like…someone whose ‘masculinity had been transformed into femininity.’” p.75

    “The particularly ‘abhorrent’ character of homosexual intercourse cannot be explained solely or primarily by its lack of procreative potential. Rather, it is to be traced to its character as a flagrant transgression of the most fundamental element of human sexuality: sex or gender. Homosexual intercourse requires a radical ‘gender bending’ of human sexuality by the very creatures whom God placed in charge of the good, created order. Such an act constitutes a conscious denial of the complementarity of male and female found not least in the fittedness (anatomical, physiological, and procreative) of the male penis and the female vaginal receptacle by attempting anal intercourse (or other forms of sexual intercourse) with another man. Anal sex not only confuses gender, it confuses the function of the anus as a cavity for expelling excrement, not receiving sperm. Gender complementarity between male and female is expressed not only in basic sexual anatomy but also in a more holistic sense, as suggested by the…depiction of woman’s creation out of man’s ‘rib’.” p.138-139.

    “…idolatry is a deliberate suppression of the truth available to pagans in the world around them, but so too is same-sex intercourse.” p.254

    “If one disregards the book of Leviticus and asks oneself what clues existing in nature might aid in discerning the Creator’s will for sexual expression, then human anatomy and procreative function comprise the most unambiguous indications of divine intent.” p.264

    “Sex for pleasure is permissible (and even necessary to avoid temptation to adultery) but conducted in isolation from stable family structures it becomes unbridled excess.” p.273

    [Here’s one specifically for Dan Trabue and his ilk]
    “Few areas are so given to self-deception as the area of sexuality. Where the potential for pleasure is greatest, the potential for clever and self-serving sophistry is also greatest. Consequently, Paul and all other New Testament writers adamantly resisted a ‘situational ethic’ in the area of sexual expression. Instead they claimed that God had laid down clear rules that brooked no exceptions. … Forms of sexual expression that deviated from the kind of heterosexual union validated by God at creation can never, by definition, be legitimately construed as ‘loving’.” p.296-297

    [This one is also for the likes of Trabue]
    “…a wrong-headed view of God would invariably lead to a wrong-headed view of God’s will for human behavior – particularly in the area of sexuality where the temptation of erotic pleasure goes hand-in-hand with self-deception.” p.306

    “If the eternal destiny of unrepentant, practicing homosexuals is at stake, or even a full relationship with God in the present life, then it would be a ‘cruel abuse of religious power’ to give false assurance that these texts do not condemn homosexual behavior.” p.331

    For those so-called Christians who defend homosexual behavior under the rubric of “love,” you must remember that Jesus did not confuse love with toleration of all behaviors, and neither should the church.

    By the way, as I pointed out in my first comment at the beginning of this string, when male animals sometimes “hump” other male animals, to my knowledge there is no actual penetration any more than a dog humping a person’s leg. So the fact that on rare occasions some animals use other male animals to relieve their sexual tension does not have an analogy with normal homosexual human behavior.

  47. @ Dan

    You make me laugh. Your obejctive standard is the dictionary, but you put down people who hold the Bible as their obejctive standard??? No wonder people’s standards keep changing. At the Greek language that the Bible manuscripts were written in haven’t changed. Just look at how many times Webster’s has been updated. Plus, I could be wrong, but I wonder if you would agree with every definition that Webster’s has ever had in the past.

    You said, “Objectively speaking, homosexuality IS natural because all observers can see in the realm of sensible experience that homosexuality occurs in nature. By definition. Objectively.”

    You can play all the word games you want with “natural” and “moral” but it won’t change what homosexuality is – out of control lust! No dictionary and no cultural movement will ever change that.

    By the way, just to save you the time – Lust: n. ME < OE, pleasure, delight, appetite, akin to Ger pleasure L lascivus, wanton, larva, specter, ghost: sexual senses in E chiefly < rendering Vulg. concupiscentia carnis (1 John 2:16) as “lusts of the flesh” 1. a desire to gratify the senses; bodily appetite 2. a) sexual desire b) excessive sexual desire, esp. as seeking unrestrained gratification 3. a) overmastering desire [a lust for power] b) intense enthusiasm; zest 4. Obs. a) pleasure b) inclination (verbatim from Webster's New World College Dictionary – 4th Edition, copyright 2008)

    Thanks for trying to answer though.

  48. Rather than post someone else’s opinions, Glenn, how about just answering a direct question with some objective support? You say…

    God stated that homosexual behavior is an abomination. That should be enough evidence about the immorality – as well as abnormality – of it for anyone who claims to be a Christian.

    Who says? What is your objective support for the opinion that God thinks that all gay behavior (including innately obviously moral, good behavior like faithful, loving, respectful, monogamous marriage relationships) is “an abomination”? You are citing, no doubt, your interpretation of a passage in the Bible that calls some gay behavior an abomination (along with eating shrimp and other “abominations”).

    But you DO recognize, don’t you, that YOUR interpretation of an ancient text (one which you have demonstrated not to understand very well – in addition to your demonstration of not understanding even my modern English words) is YOUR subjective opinion, and not in any sense an objective support for your claim?

  49. Eugene, shall I take that as a “No, I have no objective support for my argument, just my own human subjective opinions…”?

    I repeat: I would be more than glad to listen to your point, IF you could just point to A SINGLE OBJECTIVE answer.

  50. Dan,
    
I didn’t state someone else’s opinions – rather I stated what that scholar presented as factual conclusions based on proper hermeneutics of the various texts in question, as well as using extra-biblical sources for examining the language used in the Bible. My objective support for the fact that God calls homosexual behavior a sin and an abomination is the proper exegesis of the biblical texts, the same as has been understood by the Jews from the time the O.T. was first written by Moses, and by Christians since the first century. You prefer to take the subjective evidence of homosexualist “scholars” who, in their self-denial, twist what the Scripture says so as to support their bias. It is called eisegesis. Funny how no one discovered this until just a few decades ago. (Did you really read all that I posted or did you just skim over it so as not to be shown your guilt?)

    You again pull out the trite homosexualist canard about other “abominations” in the O.T., but you refuse to place them in context, and if you would study something other than your biased “scholars” you would discover that homosexual behavior was given a specific charge of “abomination” above and beyond all others.

    I thoroughly understand what the biblical texts say and have studied the issue in depth for over a decade. The citations I posted are pointed directly at people like you who are in self-denial and in rebellion against God. There cannot be “loving” homosexual behavior since it degrades the individuals involved.

    You have been presented with objective evidence over and over again and do nothing but deny and claim it is all just opinion. I refuse to continue in this string with you as you have been proven to be a fool by biblical definition, and I don’t keep throwing my “pearls before swine.” You are a proven heretic and false teacher. I challenge you to repent before it is too late.

  51. @ Dan

    “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

    Fornicators: πόρνος (pornos)
    Homosexuals: μαλακός (malakos)
    Sodomites: ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs)

    If your objective standard is an English dictionary that changes often, then I will use the Koine Greek language the New Testament was written in to be mine.

    Homosexuality is nothing but out of control sexual lust. The same as rape. The same as incest. The same as orgies. The same as beastiality. You can try to pretty up homosexuality by adding butterflies and rainbows and nice sounding words like gay, but it is still what it is: UNNATURAL, IMMORAL AND LUST FILLED BEHAVIOR.

    No matter what answer a person gives you, your “nature” based subjective standard mind will still be in the pro-homosexual crowd that proclaims homosexuality as natural simply because the animals try (and again I repeat try) to have sex with eachother.

    I hope when I grow up I can learn to justify my acceptance of things from the way the animals behave.

  52. Eugene…

    Homosexuality is nothing but out of control sexual lust. The same as rape.

    That is a subjective (and incredibly stupid and offensive) opinion, one that is not borne out by reality, any more than the equally suggestion that all heterosexuality is the same as rape.

    In fact, your comment comes much closer to an objectively immoral behavior. Slander and spreading falsehoods (as this statement objectively does) is not that far from rape – it is the rape of another’s good name.

    That is, of course, one man’s opinion. But a much more rational one than your scurrilous charge.

  53. IF at any point, you’d like to offer an objective support for your ridiculous opinion, you could begin to engage in a respectful adult dialog.

  54. Glenn…

    I thoroughly understand what the biblical texts say and have studied the issue in depth for over a decade.

    You may do better to begin to study communication skills and a dictionary. If at any point you have an actual objective argument to support your hunches, Glenn, feel free to offer it.

    Objective: in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

    Your hunches about biblical interpretation (besides being questionable) are neither in the realm of sensible experience not perceptible to all observers.

    So, anything OBJECTIVE to offer?

    • Dan,

      Just shows you have no clue about me. I have studied much about communication skills (part of my training at the USAF War College and FAA management schools) and know how to use a dictionary.

      I gave you actual objective arguments – but you are in denial (and I don’t mean the river in Egypt). It seems to you that everyone who disagrees with you have “hunches” but you have only “objective” claims.

      So, all scholars who interpreted the Bible for the past 6000 years are wrong and your apostate heretics who have come up with new interpretations over the past few decades are the accurate ones.

      I have something very objective to offer you Dan: You are a FOOL in complete denial. THAT is an objective evaluation from observation and “in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.”

  55. @ Dan

    You’re still making me laugh. Did you not read Webster’s definition of lust that I gave you???

    I see, Webster’s definitions are good when they support your views, but bad and not acceptable when they support the views of others.

    Homosexuality, like rape, like incest, like orgies and like beastiality is something done due to an uncontrolled lust. It’s as simple as that.

    You said, “That is, of course, one man’s opinion.”

    But wait, I thought it was “an objectively immoral behavior” like slander? Which is it Dan? Your opinion or an objective immoral behavior. And by the way, who says slander is immoral???

  56. @ Dan

    And while you’re at it – where do you get your definition for immoral? Or objective morality for that matter?

  57. Blondin says:

    Quoting or citing all the biblical scholars in the world objectively supports nothing except that a lot of bronze age people believed some staggeringly preposterous claims on no good evidence. Citing scripture is only meaningful to people looking for reinforcement of personal bias. If that’s really your concept of the ultimate clincher then I see we’re dealing with people who have more invested in maintaining what they want to be true than finding out what is really true.

  58. @ Blondin

    Citing the support of “the animals do it too” is only meaningful to people looking for reinforcement of personal bias.

  59. As Blondin notes, you all keep responding with opinions and conflating that with objective support or (worse and more delusional) God’s Will.

  60. Blondin,
    “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.'” That, sir, means you are a fool. You reject God.

    And, I also cited in those quotes the argument from nature:
    “Such an act constitutes a conscious denial of the complementarity of male and female found not least in the fittedness (anatomical, physiological, and procreative) of the male penis and the female vaginal receptacle by attempting anal intercourse (or other forms of sexual intercourse) with another man. Anal sex not only confuses gender, it confuses the function of the anus as a cavity for expelling excrement, not receiving sperm.”

  61. Objective, Glenn. You are not God, nor do you speak for God.

    Can we agree that this is objectively true? Could we also agree that it is either a fool or a madman who presumes to do such? Objectively?

    • Dan, I can indeed speak for God when I repeat what GOD has said. God has indeed said that homosexual behavior is an abomination, and that fact is repeated by Paul, who stated that he received his teachings directly from Christ (who is God, by the way). We have been through this before with you, as have dozens of other bloggers, and you refuse correction. You are a foolish man, and I will not debate you.

  62. And where did God objectively say that all gay behavior is immoral or unnatural?

    It would appear that you won’t answer precisely because you can’t, but you could always prove me wrong. Provide some evidence that you’re speaking for God and not pulling “evidence” from your aforementioned anal cavity (you know, don’t you, that pulling evidence from your anal cavity is not the “natural” function of that, right?)

    • Dan,
      You know full well what the Biblical passages are, but you deny the truth of what they say.

      Now, how about YOU providing objective evidence that God did NOT say homosexual behavior is wrong! Provide objective evidence that God APPROVES of homosexual behavior.

  63. The problem here remains that you all simply can’t separate out opinion from fact.

  64. Blondin says:

    Eugene,

    “Citing the support of “the animals do it too” is only meaningful to people looking for reinforcement of personal bias.”

    Have you been reading all the words or just looking for trigger phrases to react to?

    Glenn,

    I do understand that butt-sex doesn’t lead to conception. I thought I made that clear. Would you be shocked to learn that gay sex can consist of many acts other than butt-sex? Perhaps it will shock you to learn that many of those acts (including butt-sex) are indulged in by heterosexual couples. Believe it or not, many heterosexual couples use contraceptives so they can have sex with little or no chance of conceiving! Many of them read their bibles and believe in God, too!

    Is it completely beyond your understanding or just outside the realm of what is permissible in your narrow little world that many loving, consenting couples do things together because they feel good and they enjoy doing them and they harm no one and are nobody else’s business?

    To quote Adrian Cronauer, “You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history.”

  65. Blondin,
    Of course I know there is more than anal sex involved, but that doesn’t alter the fact of how human beings are designed. And, by the way, those heterosexuals who abuse the woman by anal sex are just as morally wrong.

    Male to male sex and female to female sex are unnatural biologically, and proven by the fact that it is inherently dangerous medically, emotionally, physiologically and socially destructive. And those are indeed facts from empirical evidence no matter how much you want to deny it.

    SO if you want to evolve, go be an animal and have sex with animals. After all, that is just natural.

  66. Glenn…

    how about YOU providing objective evidence that God did NOT say homosexual behavior is wrong!

    First you would have to demonstrate OBJECTIVELY that YOUR (you, Glenn, YOUR – not God’s, but YOUR) interpretation is what God would teach. You can’t do that. You have not done that. You have offered ancient text and interpreted to mean that God would hate all gay behavior. That is all your interpretation. SUBJECTIVE.

    Seriously, a dictionary is a good thing, my brother.

    • No, Dan, I don’t have to first demonstrate anything. You made the claim against me, no you have to prove your claim is something besides just your subjective “hunch.” And quit insulting me by insinuating I don’t know what a dictionary is – it is you who has problems understanding the written word.

  67. “1. Your opinion that God does not like faithful, loving monogamous behavior between folk, gay or straight. God has not told you that, it is your opinion;”

    Right here we have it. The goal posts have been moved, Now it’s time to get bogged down in this “faithful, loving monogamous” diversion.

    It seems that the post is about using non rational, instinct driven animal behaviour ( ie my dog will hump anything whenever he gets the urge), to justify a behaviour that bears only physical similarities to the animal behavior.

    I’m pretty sure my dog doesn’t love my leg, I know for a fact he’ll climb on yours if given the option, which pretty much rules out faithful, loving and monogamous from his perspective.

    I could be wrong but it seems like using a non rational, instinctive animal behavior to justify any human behavior (many animals interbreed between relatives, so I guess we can justify incest now too) tosses rationality out the window.

  68. Glenn,

    How can you ask Dan to provide objective evidence of his contention, when he’s done so many times previously. If it will help I’ll summarize his evidence. (This is not a direct quotation, but a paraphrase. Quotes just for seperation. ) “The Bible does not actually address same sex marriage, therefore it must be a wonderful thing, blessed by God.”

    Or words to that effect. I realize how effective the argument from silence is, but it seems to work for him.

    Glad to be of assistence.

    ;)

  69. That is not my position, Craig. Nor is it anyone’s position here that “if animals do it, then it must be okay.”

    Part of the reason you all are losing this debate (and let’s be honest, really, you’ve already lost it nationally), is that you can’t even repeat back what the “other side” is saying in a way that represents their views. If you can’t understand what Blondin or I or millions of others are saying, coming from the same culture and language, how can you expect us to believe that you and you all alone have a right understanding of text written thousands of years ago in a different time, language and culture?

    As to the “objective” evidence being produced (“the Bible says this, I believe it to mean that, therefore, it is objectively true”), I would ask: Is it also objectively true that Jesus visited the Americas thousands of years ago after he died? I mean, after all, it IS objectively written down in somebody’s religious text that it happened. There it is in writing and they say it means just what it says it means, so it must be objectively true and their argument itself is objectively true?

    Why not? Could it be that it simply does not meet the definition of objective?

  70. Craig,
    With Dan’s rationality, there is no justification for not having sex with animals, especially if you have a loving relationship with your pet dog!

  71. Glenn…

    by the way, those heterosexuals who abuse the woman by anal sex are just as morally wrong.

    Just to point out another opinion entirely ejected from one’s rectal region.

    Says who, Glenn? In this case, you don’t even have anything in the Bible that begins to make this suggestion. At least on the whole gay thing, you have some biblical text which you can twist to say it means what you interpret it to mean. But where in the Bible or anywhere in the rational world would you objectively find support to say that anal sex is morally wrong?

    The Bible does not say so, why do you? Do you truly think that every opinion you hold equates to God’s Word?

    Do you hold opinions on oral sex that you think are God’s Word, too? Did God somewhere approve only the Missionary position? Where can one find that?

    How about French kissing? What does God objectively say about that? How about so-called “eskimo kisses,” does God oppose that, too?

    What are you basing this on??

    Craig? John? Since I’d be willing to bet that Glenn isn’t going to respond, can you help? Are you with Glenn that God has spoken some official word on anal sex in general? Other sex positions? If so, where?

    • Hey Dan
      I never gave the Bible as evidence that heterosexual anal sex was morally wrong, did I. You claim to be so able to read and understand and yet, as you do with the Bible, you practiced eisegesis with what I wrote.

      Empirical evidence says anal sex is wrong because that orifice was not designed for penile penetration. Anal sex causes sever damage to the anus and colon, as has been proven medically.

      You have proven yourself to be a total pervert.

  72. @ Dan

    You said to me, “”In fact, your comment comes much closer to an objectively immoral behavior…That is, of course, one man’s opinion.””

    I asked quite a while ago, “Which is it Dan? Your opinion or an objective immoral behavior. And by the way, who says slander is immoral???…And while you’re at it – where do you get your definition for immoral? Or objective morality for that matter?”

    I thought since you were such an advocate for objective truth you should be able give me an answer real quick. Nothing yet! Only you telling people that they don’t know what objective is.

  73. Dan, we have only “lost” the debate nationwide because of a minority activist judges who legislate from the bench and totally ignore what rational people have to say.

    We fully understand what the other side is saying, but there is no rational logic to their arguments. All they have is subjective opinions, feelings and wants. Totally ignoring God.

    And you again have demonstrated your complete disdain for the BIble being the Word of God and yet you have the audacity to call yourself a Christian while blaspheming his name.

  74. Glenn…

    You made the claim against me, no you have to prove your claim is something besides just your subjective “hunch.”

    What “claim” have I made? You stated…

    how about YOU providing objective evidence that God did NOT say homosexual behavior is wrong!

    I’m just telling you that nowhere in the Bible does God say “All gay sex is wrong.” Nowhere in the Bible did God stake out a position on anal sex, or on fellatio, or on French kissing. I’m just stating an objective fact: God has spoken to no one that we have any reliable record of, and God does not say in the Bible, “all gay sex is wrong.”

    It simply isn’t there. That is just an objective fact. If you can find it, produce it. You can’t and you can’t.

    • Dan,
      You claimed that I was wrong to say that in the Bible God says homosexual behavior is wrong (there is nothing “gay” about it). So I am asking for empirical evidence which says God did NOT say that!

      I don’t have to cite the passages which support my claim because you know them – you just deny what the correct interpretation is. Self-denial, rebellion against the real God so you can worship a God of your own making.

  75. Glenn…

    we have only “lost” the debate nationwide because of a minority activist judges who legislate from the bench and totally ignore what rational people have to say.

    If all the judges agreed with you, you’ve still lost the debate because you sound so irrational and immoral in your judgmentalism. You profess to speak for God and that makes you sound delusional and arrogant, to boot.

  76. @ Dan

    Your intelectual ignorance amazes me! You just said, “I’m just telling you that nowhere in the Bible does God say “All gay sex is wrong.””

    “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

    Fornicators: πόρνος (pornos) Homosexuals: μαλακός (malakos) Sodomites: ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs) The English and the Greek for you.

    There you have it! Those who practice those things will not enter Heaven. Objective proof for your pitiful subjective naturalistic morals.

  77. Dan,

    Well done, misstate my comment and argue against your misstatement.

    If you read the pithy statement that inspired John’s post, it seems quite clear that the point is exactly “if it occurs in 450 species, it must be natural”. Or to restate “if animals do it it must be OK”. What I didn’t say, is that anyone here was necessarily making that argument.

    The problem with your response is it dodges my point. Which, to clarify, is that one can’t rationally use irrational instinctive animal behavior to validate “rational” human behavior. Or to carry this further, if one agrees that the presence of “homosexuality” in some (a small number) of animal species makes homosexuality in humans “natural”, then what other (more widespread) behaviors can also be validated by comparing humans with animals.

    I’m sure you’ll be happy to provide objective evidence to prove me wrong.

  78. Glenn, you want me to prove that God never said something that we have no record of God saying?

    Does that even make sense? Listen closely: We have no record of God saying “I disapprove of all gay behavior.” That does not exist anywhere in any record of which I’m familiar. You aren’t actually asking me to go out and check every document ever written to try to find somewhere where God didn’t say that?

    That’s not rational.

    Craig, you’re not making sense either.

    Pretty much, that says it all. If at any time you have any actually objective evidence to support your claims (ie, not, “I think God thinks this, therefore, that is objective evidence…” but something demonstrable in the physical, sensible realm outside your opinions), let me know.

  79. TerranceH says:

    Dan,

    I couldn’t care less about the nuts and bolts of this debate, but I must step-in so as to preserve its form.

    The task of biblical exegesis belongs to the person rejecting the inerrancy of biblical passages. You should explain why the interpretation is incorrect, because the “neener, neener” approach you’ve taken is intellectually lethargic and debases the whole discussion. If you’re going to reject the interpretation of those passages – which, by the way, seem clear to me – then you must provide an ulterior meaning. Your rejection of biblical inerrancy is also fine – and directly tied to your leftist ideology – but you must explain.

    I recommend your removal if you continue on the schoolyard path. If this blog is to promote serious discussion, then let’s have a serious discussion and remove all those who impede it.

  80. TerranceH says:

    Dan,

    No loving God would throw us into a snake pit without a manual. The Bible is our manual. If you reject it as nothing other than a man-made document, then I fail to see the basis upon which to claim there is a loving God.

  81. Dan,

    Thanks for making my point vis-a-vis your argument from silence.

    One way one can deal with a disagreement is to disparage the person who disagrees with you “you’re not making sense” another is to misstate that person’s position and argue against that misstated position, yet another is to ask for something “actually objective evidence” that you are not willing to supply in support of your own positions. Or you could actually address what was said, your choice.

  82. Dan,
    Listen closely: We DO have a record of God saying homosexual behavior is an abomination to Him. It exists in the Bible, firstly in Leviticus. There are other mentions throughout the O.T. and then Paul in the N.T. specifically calls it unnatural, indecent and a perversion. You can deny the clear meaning of the texts all you want, but they are there and have been recognized as such for at least 5,000 years. You have put yourself above all the teachings of the Jews and Christians over the past 5,000 years and have put yourself and your beliefs (hunches) above thousands of biblical scholars over the centuries just because you want to justify that which is not justifiable. What I am asking you to do is to prove that what has been taught for 5,000 years (since Noah’s flood) and by thousands of scholars, is actually erroneous, and then demonstrate why.

    Again, you are a fool. And you prove it every time you write such nonsense.

  83. Marshall Art says:

    Dan says,

    “What is your objective support for the opinion that God thinks that all gay behavior (including innately obviously moral, good behavior like faithful, loving, respectful,
    monogamous marriage relationships) is “an abomination”?”

    There’s so much wrong here, aside from the question itself in it’s most basic form. God’s position as stated in Lev is that a man should not lie with a man as he would with a woman. (Don’t bring up the punishment for it, Dan. That is irrelevant here as it is in every discussion of the behavior itself) It provides no exceptions. There is no place anywhere in Scripture at which an exception can even be hinted. To suggest that the Levitical proclamation is not comprehensive, that is, prohibiting ALL forms of homosexual behavior, loving or otherwise, compels YOU to provide proof that it DOESN’T. Said another way, what makes you think the Levitical law isn’t speaking about the very form you defend, and all others are lesser examples morally? Quite clearly, though, the law speaks to the act alone and not to any intention, emotion or context in which it might take place. The act alone. Thus, the onus is upon YOU to provide any proof, evidence or even the slightest suggestion that there might be some “loophole” in Scripture that would grant the indulgence in such behavior at all, ever. There is no subjectivity on our parts to understanding this edict. There is nothing but on your end.

    Regarding “natural function”, this is another area where you ignore the facts and pretend it personal subjective opinion on my part. Natural function is not something about which one CAN be subjective if one is to be honest. That people might commonly use a hammer as a paper weight does not alter the natural function of the hammer. The sexual organs have a designed purpose, a natural function, that you deceitfully confuse with personal use preferences. Biologically, there are two natural functions of the male sexual organ and sexually speaking, it is for the purposes of procreation.

    It is only in recent times, perhaps even less than 100-150 years, that ANY Christian denomination has come to allow for sex for pleasure’s sake alone, even within a legitimate marriage. The issue of contraception as allowable is relatively new. Thus, any sexual activity that does allow for the possibility of reproduction is not the traditional viewpoint BECAUSE it is contrary to the natural function.

    Indeed, we see time and time again that Dan has not seen any objective arguments because he refuses to look at and acknowledge them.

  84. Glenn, I can actually work with this, if you want to try to reason a bit…

    I never gave the Bible as evidence that heterosexual anal sex was morally wrong, did I.

    I never claimed you did, did I?

    Glenn…

    Empirical evidence says anal sex is wrong because that orifice was not designed for penile penetration.j

    Okay, let’s presume that there are studies out there that support this premise. I would imagine the report does not say anything about what “that orifice” was “designed” for. Rather, I would guess it probably says something like, “People who engage in anal sex more than X times [on a monthly/daily… SOME amount] can cause damage (or irritation) to the anus…” is that what the reports say that you are referencing?

    IF so, then one can reasonably conclude based on the objective evidence (again, if the evidence is as you say)…

    Too much anal sex is not healthy;
    Frequent anal sex can cause harm to the rectum;
    Doctors advise not making a habit of anal sex;

    Ideas of that nature. But, does “not in moderation” = “unhealthy” mean that it is immoral? Says who? Is even one time immoral? Says who?

    I think one can make a case for healthy/unhealthy here (IF that evidence is as you report), but I don’t see how can rationally and objectively make the conclusion that it is immoral. Are you of the position that too much sugar is immoral? Too much fatty food intake is immoral? What amount is too much? Are you of the opinion that, “If a lot of sugar is unhealthy for your teeth, then it is immoral, EVEN in small doses…”?

    Glenn, do you eat sugar and does that make you immoral? Why not (by your reasoning)?

  85. Marshall…

    God’s position as stated in Lev is that a man should not lie with a man as he would with a woman… It provides no exceptions. There is no place anywhere in Scripture at which an exception can even be hinted.

    God’s position as stated in Lev is that men can not cut the hair on the side of their heads and that couples can’t have sex during the wife’s menstrual cycle. It provides no exceptions. There is no place anywhere in Scripture at which an exception can even be hinted at.

    Therefore, cutting the hair on the side of your head and having sex during the wife’s period is “objectively” immoral. Is that REALLY your position?

    There is also no exception given for the command to kill “men who lay with men,” and there is no place in the Bible that even hints at an exception. Therefore, NOT killing “men who lay with men” is immoral, by this reasoning.

    Am I following you?

    Marshall…

    To suggest that the Levitical proclamation is not comprehensive, that is, prohibiting ALL forms of homosexual behavior, loving or otherwise, compels YOU to provide proof that it DOESN’T.

    Says you. I don’t agree with your opinion. I think you all have the irrational, illogical and immoral position that says all gay behavior is immoral. You all are the ones irrationally citing an ancient text (and doing so out of context, repeatedly) as your proof of “objective” evidence, it is on YOU to provide some actually objective evidence to support your rather extraordinary claim.

    Marshall, how is, “I think this text means that God thinks all gay behavior is wrong” objective? Where is the evidence in the realm of sensible experience that is perceptible to all observers? I’m observing the evidence and it appears to be all in your all’s heads which, by definition, is NOT objective. In what sense does your opinion about biblical interpretation and your hunches about what God thinks “objective?”

  86. Glenn…

    We DO have a record of God saying homosexual behavior is an abomination to Him. It exists in the Bible, firstly in Leviticus. There are other mentions throughout the O.T. and then Paul in the N.T. specifically calls it unnatural, indecent and a perversion.

    No. No. No. No. No. It doesn’t. None of those passages which YOU INTERPRET to mean “God doesn’t like any gay behavior” say that. NONE of them. Go ahead, read it, cite it here.

    There are no other mentions of even apparent general gay behavior in the OT other than the two times in Leviticus. There, God is quoted as saying “man shall not lie with a man. If he does, kill them.” BUT in both cases, it is in the context of pagan practices AND right along other rules that YOU don’t think apply today. It simply does not say that God disapproves of all gay behavior for all times in all circumstances. That is AN INTERPRETATION of a text, not what the text says.

    Do you truly not see that you are speaking of subjective opinions, rather than objective facts here? If so, I don’t see how there is any hope in talking to you, as you are acting delusional and irrational, at least on this point.

  87. Marshall Art says:

    Dan,

    You’re a liar. It is NOT in the context of pagan practices. It states that the Hebrews are not to do what the people of the land they are entering have done, among which is engage in homosexual behavior. It is YOU who insists it is speaking only of sexual practices during pagan ritual or sexual practices as related to pagan religion, but the text itself does not say this in the least.

    Also, it says not to engage in the behavior. It makes no reference whatsoever to context in which it takes place, no regard to the motivations to engage in the behavior, nothing more than “DO NOT”. Thus, without any hint that there is any exceptions, for none exist in the text, only those wishing to force into the text a preference would dare insist that the argument that “God does not specifically mention…whatever” is a mature, logical or HONEST argument. So if you wish to pretend that some allowance for some form of the behavior is possibly permissable, likely to be blessed in any way, it is YOU who must provide something more solid than your presumptions and desires.

    In addition, your continued presentation of the punishment for the behavior is further proof of your dishonesty and deceit. All punishments for breaking Levitical Laws were replaced by Christ’s death on the cross. Though civil society maintains penalties for certain sins also prohibited by civil law, we do not have the same penalties for all behaviors committed in our society. But as Christians, it is a lie to say that all behaviors addressed in Leviticus or the OT are no longer regarded as sinful. How one wears one’s hair is not a behavior on par with sexual practices or lying, stealing and murder. Touching blood during intercourse is not on par with intercourse out of wedlock, nor was it at the time. You insist on equating laws of purity and ritual with behavior and pretending the line dividing them is some mysterious and comples riddle that is difficult to understand. What is really true is your attempt to muddy that line in order to promote your willful disobedience as you live to enable prohibited sexual behaviors. You know, for example, that Jesus Himself stated that nothing that enters us makes us unclean or impure so that touching the wife’s flow or eating shellfish cannot make us so. Yet He also amplified the true understanding of actual behavior, such as hate equating to murder and lust equating to adultery.

    So it is hardly a case of you not agreeing with my position (which is a direct reflection of Biblical truth as far as this matter goes), but rather that you willfully choose to defy God’s clearly revealed intentions on the subject of human sexuality and sexual morality. You’re a reprobate by definition. I can cite Biblical scholars and researchers who are, if not homosexual themselves, supportive of the agenda that doesn’t exist, who are honest enough to admit that there is nothing in Scripture that suggests any possibility of any form of homosexual behavior being permissable in the least. You are not honest at all.

    To further illustrate your twisted perspective, you would actually try to make the case that the problems with anal penetration are the result of too much of it, as opposed to mere act itself. No reputable physician would take that position without also being a shill for the homosexual lobby.

    All this you know. All this has been covered repeatedly and in great detail in the past and you still have yet to come up with solid Biblical justification for your evil. You just deny, while we defend and present proofs. IF your interpretations are different, you do not provide reasoned justification that counter what the actual words of Scripture say. You have been given over. May God have mercy on you.

  88. Marshall speculated…

    All punishments for breaking Levitical Laws were replaced by Christ’s death on the cross. Though civil society maintains penalties for certain sins also prohibited by civil law, we do not have the same penalties for all behaviors committed in our society. But as Christians, it is a lie to say that all behaviors addressed in Leviticus or the OT are no longer regarded as sinful. How one wears one’s hair is not a behavior on par with sexual practices or lying, stealing and murder. Touching blood during intercourse is not on par with intercourse out of wedlock, nor was it at the time.

    Those are some fine, fine hunches you have there, Marshall. All you have to do is show me the objective proof that your interpretation is the same as God’s Word and I shall bow down to you. Not really, of course, because, of course, you can’t provide objective proof. You have some mighty fine hunches that come from, oh, swamp gas or whatever, but you’re basing entirely on YOUR OWN OPINIONS, and then you’re conflating your opinions with God’s Word. Little brother, I know God, I’ve known God a long time and little man, you ain’t God.

  89. @ Dan

    Yesterday I mentioned your “intelectual” ignorance. Now I’m convinced it’s your intentional ingnorance. Either that, or you’re trying to bait people to be rude and crude as you and Blondin have been in some of your replies.

    “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the LUSTS of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to VILE passions. For even their women exchanged the NATURAL use for what is against NATURE. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL use of the woman, burned in their LUST for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a DEBASED mind, to do those things which are not fitting;” (Romans 1:24-28)

    Hmmm…sounds like what I, or rather Webster, said yesterday. Homosexuality is UNnatural. It is a choice solely based on LUST. People are not born that way – they CHOSE to be that way because they cannot control their sexual desires and chose to act like animals.

    Lust: n. ME < OE, pleasure, delight, appetite, akin to Ger pleasure L lascivus, wanton, larva, specter, ghost: sexual senses in E chiefly < rendering Vulg. concupiscentia carnis (1 John 2:16) as “lusts of the flesh” 1. a desire to gratify the senses; bodily appetite 2. a) sexual desire b) excessive sexual desire, esp. as seeking unrestrained gratification 3. a) overmastering desire [a lust for power] b) intense enthusiasm; zest 4. Obs. a) pleasure b) inclination (VERBATIM from Webster's New World College Dictionary – 4th Edition, copyright 2008)

    Still waiting on when I said, "You said to me, “”In fact, your comment comes much closer to an objectively immoral behavior…That is, of course, one man’s opinion.”"

    I asked quite a while ago, “Which is it Dan? Your opinion or an objective immoral behavior. And by the way, who says slander is immoral???…And while you’re at it – where do you get your definition for immoral? Or objective morality for that matter?”

    I thought since you were such an advocate for objective truth you should be able give me an answer real quick. Nothing yet! Only you telling people that they don’t know what objective is."

    Sounds like your idea objective truth is to just object to any evidence you are shown no matter how plain and contradictory it is to your nature based subjective "the animals do it so it's natural" excuse.

  90. Dan:
    Let’s see how many I can catch up with which were directed at me

    Here’s what you said above, including my statement for context:

    Me: “I never gave the Bible as evidence that heterosexual anal sex was morally wrong, did I?” Dan: “I never claimed you did, did I?”

    Here is your quote to which I responded, including my original statement:
    Me: “by the way, those heterosexuals who abuse the woman by anal sex are just as morally wrong.”
    Your response: Just to point out another opinion entirely ejected from one’s rectal region. Says who, Glenn? In this case, you don’t even have anything in the Bible that begins to make this suggestion.

    Now you say you never made that claim. I guess someone needs to do better keeping track of what he says!

    Beyond that, the rest of your argument about anal sex isn’t worth responding to because it is rank stupidity.

    Then you claim that what God says in Leviticus is only MY interpretation and that God really doesn’t say homosexual behavior is always wrong. You, of course, know better than all the Jews and Christians who understood God to be saying this for 5,000 years. You like to read into the context, twist the context and just do everything a cultist will do to justify approving of what God condemns. Of course according to you that would mean bestiality, and other sexual sins are okay now since they are included in the same passage. You are the delusional one, being self-deceived in your rebellion against God.

  91. TerranceH says:

    Why even bother with him anymore? It’s blatantly obvious that his only defense is obfuscation and double-talk…

  92. Marshall Art says:

    “All you have to do is show me the objective proof that your interpretation is the same as God’s Word…”

    This has been done repeatedly over the years, Dan. You simply deny the proof or call the proof “hunches” and the like. Lev 18 is clear when it says “Do not engage in this activity”, but because it doesn’t paint you a picture, you childishly use that as an excuse to suggest that your preferred context for engaging in the sinful behavior is not or might not be sinful. I’ve used the analogy before regarding the common STOP sign. It means “Stop!” in the same way Lev 18:22 means “Don’t do this”. There is no suggestion whatsoever of any exception. This is not a hunch, but an honest analysis of the verse. That is, an analysis honest people acknowledge. That leaves you out, but you could change if you truly cared to put God before earthly things. You say you know God. That’s debatable. What isn’t is that you aren’t as concerned with what He clearly reveals to you as you are with enabling your homosexual friends.

  93. Glenn: “by the way, those heterosexuals who abuse the woman by anal sex are just as morally wrong.”

    Dan’s response: Just to point out another opinion entirely ejected from one’s rectal region. Says who, Glenn? In this case, you don’t even have anything in the Bible that begins to make this suggestion.

    Glenn…

    Now you say you never made that claim. I guess someone needs to do better keeping track of what he says!

    I guess someone needs to do a better job of understanding other people. I repeat: I did not say you were making the suggestion of the Bible as a source for your subjective opinion. Read closely and understand: I WAS ASKING, SAYS WHO, GLENN and then I proceeded to note that you couldn’t POSSIBLY get it from the Bible because the Bible doesn’t even come close to dealing with your “morally-approved sexual positions

    You quote the right excerpt from me, Glenn, but you draw the exact OPPOSITE conclusion of what is obviously intended. You appear to THINK that I was saying you got your hunch from the Bible, but my words don’t say that. They say just the opposite.

    And again I would ask: If you all can’t understand words in your own language from a fellow Christian in the same century and culture, why would anyone trust your opinions about the best interpretation of an ancient book of wisdom like the Bible?

    And, Glenn, I notice that rather than deal with the problems with your subjective opinions about “anal sex is immoral,” you just say you won’t deal with it. You won’t deal with it because you can’t. You have no objective support for your position, you only have your less and less rational-sounding opinions. Objectively so.

    As to the rest of the false charges and chest thumping, friends, give it a rest. If you have objective support, provide it. If you don’t then have the decency and Christian honor to admit the truth of it. This engaging in ad hom attacks rather than dealing with the questions at hand only makes you all sound more and more delusional (well, that, and your arrogance in presuming you speak for God).

    In Christ, Dan

    • Dan,
      Since YOU continue to claim my beliefs don’t come from the Bible, and that the Bible really gives no evidence to support my claims, it was a reasonable inference on my part to think that was what you were implying.

      You continue to berate me and insult my intelligence by claiming I can’t understand the English language and the communications from you, but have you ever looked in the mirror and considered YOU are the problem with the poor communication skills, the one who is unable to express properly what you mean to say?

      I’m objectively saying I don’t have a “subjective” opinion about anal sex because my proof is biology 101. I don’t want to deal with the issue any more because of your abject ignorance and intentional stupidity in dealing with any objective evidence provided to you by numerous commenters on numerous blogs. Again, you are the “swine” to which I don’t want to throw my “pearls” any longer.

      And don’t you dare say “In Christ” – you don’t know who He is, you blaspheming heretic!
      (observed objective fact!)

  94. Glenn, I’m just stating a fact. You keep trying to repeat back what my positions are, and you keep stating it wrong. You have based it not on what I’ve said, but what you’ve inferred. In so doing, you demonstrate a poor ability to understand the written word, at least as far as it goes with me and others coming from a different viewpoint than you. These are just facts. There is no attempt to berate you or insult your intelligence, I’m just stating facts. What would you have me do? Lie and say “Yes, Glenn, that IS what I believe” when I don’t believe it and haven’t said it?

    And brotherman, you can’t take Christ from me. Neither heighth not depth nor arrogant brothers in Christ can separate me from the love of God, nor from the family of God. Like it or not, my friend, I am a part of the family of God and so remain, in Christ, your dearly beloved brother.

    Peace, in Christ, Dan

    • Dan,
      My last point to you and I’m finished. It is YOU lack of communication skills – no my lack of understanding. Period.

      You are not my brother in Christ. You deny proper interpretation of the Bible and make it say what you want it to say, hence having no respect for the Word of God. You have a christ of your own making – just like all the cults. You are a blaspheming heretic, and that isn’t an ad hominem – it is a fact.

  95. “And don’t you dare say “In Christ” – you don’t know who He is, you blaspheming heretic!”

    Yep. All about false-teaching-blog-stalking-Dan — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/false-teacher-profile/

    Be careful, Glenn, or Dan will contact your pastor and beg the question by citing Matthew 18!

  96. Seriously, read the link — and not for my comments, but those of a guy named Bubba who spent an unbelievable amount of time refuting Dan. Here’s one of my favorites where he refuted Dan’s silly fake Christian sound bite about Romans 1 being “just” about idolatry and not being even a hint that homosexual behavior is wrong:

    “Paul is also quite clear in Romans 1: because of man’s idolatry, God gave up the unrighteous to impurity (1:24), to dishonorable passions (1:26), and to a debased mind (1:28), leading to all manner of evil, including envy, murder, and slander. Even if one were to put a heavy emphasis on the fact that this consequence of homosexual behavior was in the context of idolatry, it’s still impossible to conclude that homosexual behavior is biblically permissible.

    AFTER ALL, God wouldn’t “hand over” an idolator to behavior that is good or even morally neutral. “They were idolators, and so God gave them over to prayer and almsgiving” DOES NOT WORK as a logical progression, nor does the idea that they were idolators, and so God would give them over to morally neutral behavior like square dancing and poetry readings.”

    In keeping with my “starve false teaching faux Bible-believers, don’t feed them” policy that is all I will say.

  97. And this is related to the topic here, how, Neil?

    John, do you allow slander and girlish gossip of this sort here?

    The sad part is, Neil will come to places like this, engage in his slander and demonizing, but he won’t have the decency to engage in a respectful conversation about it.

    Slander and gossip are real sins, Brother Neil. I encourage you in Christ to repent of this.

    • Dan

      I have read and save the link to Neil’s post and I should have posted it long ago. It is not slander if it is true. Moreover, calling what is evil good is also sinful and you do that when you defend what the bible clearly does not. Causing someone to sin is sinful, you potentially do that when you tell people it is ok to do what God has said not to. If you don’t like having your words used against you and analyzed, refrain from speaking.

      If you’d like me to go through ALL the comments on this post and delete ALL the one’s I determine are off topic, I could. But you’d be disappointed as well. While we’re at it, I could remind you that I asked you to only comment in the discussion section and not on posts directly — a request you hapily agreed to. What should I do about that disregard for my requests?

  98. Neil,
    I just read the link. Wow! I had totally forgotten that! I now have it bookmarked as a “Trabue response”. I should have linked to it a zillion comments ago!

  99. It always saddens me how one brother can put a post demonizing and slandering and gossiping about another brother – all behaviors which are clearly condemned in the Bible – and other members of God’s family can rejoice in this sin, all in the name of defending their cultural opinions on another supposed sin, although one that is never mentioned in the Bible. Oh, and on top of all that, the lies are being spread at a site where the “accused” has no chance to defend himself against the lies.

    This is an ugliness beyond the pale of Christianity. It is cowardice and shameful and sinful as hell.

    Repent, friends, this is no way to live the Christian life. Shame on you all.

    In the name of Jesus, our Christ, and praying for grace and redemption,

    Dan

    • Dan

      you are wrong. Even though it appears as though the bible clearly condemns demonizing, slandering, and gossiping about others, it is only in the context of pagan worship. Since the bible doesnt say ALL forms of those behaviors are sinful, therefore we are right to conclude that some forms are ok. You are just imposing your cultural bias onto the text.

      P.S.
      Its not slander if it’s true

  100. TerranceH says:

    Glenn,

    Ideology aside, it’s obvious to anyone with a brainstem that Dan has no clue what he’s talking about. He’s basically making a quasi God of the Gaps argument. It’s really weird. Since we can’t be sure that God had anything to do with the Bible, we can’t be sure that God actually opposes homosexuality…

    He’s pathetic. I agree with you, Marshall, and John 100%….And what’s more? I don’t really care if God accepts or doesn’t accept homosexuality. I’m not a religious person. I’m trying, but I’m not there yet.

    Dan is pathetic. That I know.

  101. It’s only demonizing slander when someone other than Dan does it. Strangely enough, Dan has accused me of slander for using his own words.

    John, great response.

    Back in the foggy recesses of Law and Ethics for Mass Comm in college, the one thing I clearly remember is “Truth is a defense against slander”/

  102. Is homosexuality natural? If we find it in nature, it is natural.
    Nature by itself has no porpouses, if natural living beings reproduce or do not it’s a consecuence not a goal.

    • Seems people like to equivocate with the use of the word “natural.” Natural has the meaning of “by design,” and in this case homosexuality is not natural. Natural also has the meaning of what is in the world of nature. In the world of nature we see all sorts of things that have mutated, been corrupted in many ways – sometimes by man’s breeding or genetic manipulation – and things that no one would want to accept as normal for human behavior. A major problem is that atheists and evolutionists see mankind as just another species of animal, but we are a totally different species all together. We did not evolve from anything else, rather we were created as humans. Once you throw God out the window, then you can justify any and all behaviors.

  103. DragonHawk1959 says:

    In the first comment, Glenn seems to be under the impression that only mounting, not actual anal penetration has been observed. This is erroneous. Penetration has been observed. Indeed in many species the male being mounted adjusts his position to facilitate penetration.

  104. All of our romantic feelings originate from our reproductive system. The ultimate goal is procreation. From the vantage point of evolution homosexuality is a redundancy which does not advance it’s course. And humans have evolved a “moral code” to contain and mitigate redundant sexual behavior such as incest and homosexuality. But just as man has always tampered with his environment to his detriment so are western societies tampering with a mechanism that took millions of years to be what it is today. The point is there is a good reason why we reproduce sexually and “homophobia” may not just be only natural but could be a vital part of human survival in his evolutionary ascend.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: