Comments on: Gay Animals http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:11:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: redcowboyhat http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/#comment-14 redcowboyhat Mon, 08 Jan 2007 07:30:25 +0000 http://nathanjunker.com/?p=41#comment-14 First off, I believe that homosexuality is wrong because God prohibited it. Second, natural/unnatural can be interpreted two ways. Natural, as I use it, is in the sense that God intended it to be a certain way. However, because of the Fall, what we now call natural or normal from observation and experience, is not necessarily the same as what God intended Nature to be, what was originally natural. I in no way think that just because something is uncommon that that makes it unnatural. Nor would I be so blind to assume that because I don't have certain feelings that those foreign feelings are wrong. In fact, I tend to sympathize with those people in spite of the fact that I don't personally struggle with the same things. The thirst of alcohol addiction and the despair of depression are both foreign feelings to me. And, as an example, there is both in them an element of the natural (what we would call normal and common, even biological) and the unnatural (that they were originally unintended yet now have become a plague to mankind). The many feelings and desires we have toward things that are prohibited to us isn't the sin, it is the temptation which we are called to resist and overcome. Just because something <em>feels</em> natural does not mean that it is right. Sometimes I feel like strangling someone. It is my "natural" reaction, but to carry out that action would be wrong. The argument doesn't hinge only on the outcome of procreation, although I think it plays an important part. The mystery of sex goes beyond that period of time where procreation is possible. If it wasn't so, we should all stop having sex at menopause or whenever offspring is no longer possible. In fact, it is that mystery which swirls emotions and intimacy into a bond between two people, that is probably the main reason this issue is so sensitive. A gay person, such as yourself, begins to experience that bond long before the actual act is undertaken, even before foreplay (which is where, I think, we would place oral sex in the discussion). The greater the intention to follow those feelings, the greater the bond becomes. It feels very natural, yet there is something that tells us deep down that it isn't right. We do our best to quiet that voice, yet we can't escape it. Unfortunately sin is hard to unravel. The bond of friendship and the bond of marriage (which is represented by sex) have been blurred both by us as evil men and through the Enemy's lies. Where one sees a slap on the butt as an expression of friendship, another might see it as a sexual advance. Observing humans can lead to as many wrong interpretations as observing animals. The desire for love, for friendship, for sexual intimacy we all experience, yet often in a warped way. Finding a way back to the Original Natural Way is hard. It's just as difficult to stop wandering eyes and lust and divorce and adultery. To say that homosexual sin is the only abberation in God's design for sex is idiocy. Sin is missing the mark, but we must be clear on what that mark is, not so we can judge others but so we can aim better ourselves. First off, I believe that homosexuality is wrong because God prohibited it. Second, natural/unnatural can be interpreted two ways. Natural, as I use it, is in the sense that God intended it to be a certain way. However, because of the Fall, what we now call natural or normal from observation and experience, is not necessarily the same as what God intended Nature to be, what was originally natural.
I in no way think that just because something is uncommon that that makes it unnatural. Nor would I be so blind to assume that because I don’t have certain feelings that those foreign feelings are wrong. In fact, I tend to sympathize with those people in spite of the fact that I don’t personally struggle with the same things. The thirst of alcohol addiction and the despair of depression are both foreign feelings to me. And, as an example, there is both in them an element of the natural (what we would call normal and common, even biological) and the unnatural (that they were originally unintended yet now have become a plague to mankind). The many feelings and desires we have toward things that are prohibited to us isn’t the sin, it is the temptation which we are called to resist and overcome.
Just because something feels natural does not mean that it is right. Sometimes I feel like strangling someone. It is my “natural” reaction, but to carry out that action would be wrong.
The argument doesn’t hinge only on the outcome of procreation, although I think it plays an important part. The mystery of sex goes beyond that period of time where procreation is possible. If it wasn’t so, we should all stop having sex at menopause or whenever offspring is no longer possible. In fact, it is that mystery which swirls emotions and intimacy into a bond between two people, that is probably the main reason this issue is so sensitive. A gay person, such as yourself, begins to experience that bond long before the actual act is undertaken, even before foreplay (which is where, I think, we would place oral sex in the discussion). The greater the intention to follow those feelings, the greater the bond becomes. It feels very natural, yet there is something that tells us deep down that it isn’t right. We do our best to quiet that voice, yet we can’t escape it.
Unfortunately sin is hard to unravel. The bond of friendship and the bond of marriage (which is represented by sex) have been blurred both by us as evil men and through the Enemy’s lies. Where one sees a slap on the butt as an expression of friendship, another might see it as a sexual advance. Observing humans can lead to as many wrong interpretations as observing animals.
The desire for love, for friendship, for sexual intimacy we all experience, yet often in a warped way. Finding a way back to the Original Natural Way is hard. It’s just as difficult to stop wandering eyes and lust and divorce and adultery. To say that homosexual sin is the only abberation in God’s design for sex is idiocy. Sin is missing the mark, but we must be clear on what that mark is, not so we can judge others but so we can aim better ourselves.

]]> By: John Gaede http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/#comment-13 John Gaede Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:57:00 +0000 http://nathanjunker.com/?p=41#comment-13 Nathan, are you're arguing that homosexuality is wrong because it is "unnatural?" If homosexual acts are "unnatural" because they don't lead to procreation, then oral sex between heterosexuals is just as "unnatural." And don't even get me started on birth control. If the main argument against homosexuality is that it is unnatural, I think we need to redefine "unnatural." Do we mean that it doesn't feel natural, because I know many people who would argue otherwise? Do we mean uncommon? Nathan, are you’re arguing that homosexuality is wrong because it is “unnatural?” If homosexual acts are “unnatural” because they don’t lead to procreation, then oral sex between heterosexuals is just as “unnatural.” And don’t even get me started on birth control. If the main argument against homosexuality is that it is unnatural, I think we need to redefine “unnatural.” Do we mean that it doesn’t feel natural, because I know many people who would argue otherwise? Do we mean uncommon?

]]> By: redcowboyhat http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/#comment-12 redcowboyhat Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:34:45 +0000 http://nathanjunker.com/?p=41#comment-12 Good point. Animals do plenty of things that are unacceptable for humans. Also, maybe George the Giraffe suffers the same way certain men do in prison--whatever's available when the need arises, like the leg-humping hound. Good point. Animals do plenty of things that are unacceptable for humans. Also, maybe George the Giraffe suffers the same way certain men do in prison–whatever’s available when the need arises, like the leg-humping hound.

]]> By: Chris Wicklund http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/#comment-10 Chris Wicklund Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:24:13 +0000 http://nathanjunker.com/?p=41#comment-10 So I'm just curious how we are deriving anything from the way animals act out there need for gratification of any desire. So a dog humps my leg, does that mean cross species mating is natural and therefore OK? An alligator eats its young so if I'm hungry I can cannibalize my children! I think it's awfully reaching to assume homo-sexuality because an animal commits a sexual act with the same sex. Maybe it has nothing to do with love, attraction or preference, maybe there is simply a need for gratification and the closest easiest release for that desire is George the Giraffe who just happens to be standing there and willing to put up with it. I've always thought being human is putting away selfish/animalistic desires, using our ability to reason to determine what is beneficial for all. So I’m just curious how we are deriving anything from the way animals act out there need for gratification of any desire. So a dog humps my leg, does that mean cross species mating is natural and therefore OK? An alligator eats its young so if I’m hungry I can cannibalize my children!

I think it’s awfully reaching to assume homo-sexuality because an animal commits a sexual act with the same sex. Maybe it has nothing to do with love, attraction or preference, maybe there is simply a need for gratification and the closest easiest release for that desire is George the Giraffe who just happens to be standing there and willing to put up with it.

I’ve always thought being human is putting away selfish/animalistic desires, using our ability to reason to determine what is beneficial for all.

]]> By: redcowboyhat http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/#comment-9 redcowboyhat Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:44:37 +0000 http://nathanjunker.com/?p=41#comment-9 True, we don't understand how attraction works and how much is physical, mental, emotional, or social. I think the "unnatural" part of homosexuality comes from the obvious natural use of the sex organs: procreation. Which needs both sexes to be successful. True, we don’t understand how attraction works and how much is physical, mental, emotional, or social. I think the “unnatural” part of homosexuality comes from the obvious natural use of the sex organs: procreation. Which needs both sexes to be successful.

]]> By: kenan http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/#comment-8 kenan Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:01:43 +0000 http://nathanjunker.com/?p=41#comment-8 we still dont really understand how attraction works. or love for that matter. so how can we say being gay is unnatural if we can not truly explain why someone is gay. yes there are a few who make the choice, but i for one did not make it a choice it is who i am we still dont really understand how attraction works. or love for that matter. so how can we say being gay is unnatural if we can not truly explain why someone is gay. yes there are a few who make the choice, but i for one did not make it a choice it is who i am

]]> By: redcowboyhat http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/#comment-7 redcowboyhat Sat, 06 Jan 2007 06:50:27 +0000 http://nathanjunker.com/?p=41#comment-7 If I understand you right, you're saying that homosexuality isn't a choice in the same way that other traits like impulsiveness, addictive tendencies, or selfishness aren't a choice. I would agree with that. Depravity has left us with sinful desires that we didn't choose. However, the choice does remain, like you said, to embrace them or turn away from them. I also see your point that the purpose of science is to find how the world works, "the mechanics" so to speak. Yet, someone has to interpret their findings. The scientific community has no reservations about doing so, though they give their interpretations/opinions as if they were the unquestioned authority on the subject. The dog's vomit cliche is a valid point. I don't think we should immediately assume that if an animal does something that it makes it normative or acceptable for humans. Female praying mantises eat their spouses after copulation. I'm glad my wife spared me that fate. However the cliche works in the natural sense, Proverbs 26:11 uses it to draw a spiritual lesson: Fools repeat their folly. Or as it's used in 2 Peter 2:22 to show how terrible it is for someone who knows righteousness to return again to an immoral lifestyle. Maybe gay animals offer a similar lesson, not as an example to follow, like the article states, but a lesson of warning. The new proverb "Like a male animal mating with another male...." now becomes a lesson keeping us from some moral folly. If I understand you right, you’re saying that homosexuality isn’t a choice in the same way that other traits like impulsiveness, addictive tendencies, or selfishness aren’t a choice. I would agree with that. Depravity has left us with sinful desires that we didn’t choose. However, the choice does remain, like you said, to embrace them or turn away from them.
I also see your point that the purpose of science is to find how the world works, “the mechanics” so to speak. Yet, someone has to interpret their findings. The scientific community has no reservations about doing so, though they give their interpretations/opinions as if they were the unquestioned authority on the subject.
The dog’s vomit cliche is a valid point. I don’t think we should immediately assume that if an animal does something that it makes it normative or acceptable for humans. Female praying mantises eat their spouses after copulation. I’m glad my wife spared me that fate. However the cliche works in the natural sense, Proverbs 26:11 uses it to draw a spiritual lesson: Fools repeat their folly. Or as it’s used in 2 Peter 2:22 to show how terrible it is for someone who knows righteousness to return again to an immoral lifestyle. Maybe gay animals offer a similar lesson, not as an example to follow, like the article states, but a lesson of warning. The new proverb “Like a male animal mating with another male….” now becomes a lesson keeping us from some moral folly.

]]> By: Nathan Tuttle http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/#comment-6 Nathan Tuttle Sat, 06 Jan 2007 04:11:21 +0000 http://nathanjunker.com/?p=41#comment-6 I don't agree with you that homosexuality is a choice. It is as much a choice as any other psychosocial trait, and we could debate at length at how all of these traits could be declared 'choices.' But semantics aside do we really choose to be impulsive, addictive, or selfish. No, actually I don't think so. People DO however choose to NOT turn away. Furthermore, science is an irrelevent standpoint on homosexuality. If science proves that homosexuality does occur in nature and that it occurs naturally that still does not detract from the fact that God said that it is an indescent thing. People often use science as a scapegoat when all it really is, is a tool to describe what is fact. When we talk about morality we lose the objective construct that supports the backbone of science. Here's a twist on an old cliche "if your dog is eating it's own vomit, does that mean you should do it?" I don’t agree with you that homosexuality is a choice. It is as much a choice as any other psychosocial trait, and we could debate at length at how all of these traits could be declared ‘choices.’ But semantics aside do we really choose to be impulsive, addictive, or selfish. No, actually I don’t think so. People DO however choose to NOT turn away. Furthermore, science is an irrelevent standpoint on homosexuality. If science proves that homosexuality does occur in nature and that it occurs naturally that still does not detract from the fact that God said that it is an indescent thing. People often use science as a scapegoat when all it really is, is a tool to describe what is fact. When we talk about morality we lose the objective construct that supports the backbone of science. Here’s a twist on an old cliche “if your dog is eating it’s own vomit, does that mean you should do it?”

]]> By: redcowboyhat http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/#comment-5 redcowboyhat Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:46:53 +0000 http://nathanjunker.com/?p=41#comment-5 I think the bigger question is, "How does the church help <i>anyone</i> deal with their sin?" The first step is praying for them. When was the last time you have seen the church pray for someone's sin to become noticeable to them? And for that to be done with love, not judgment or gossip? The second step is exposure to the Word. Preachers <i>do</i> highlight certain sins deliberately in their sermons. We hope that they are giving equal attention to all sins and are acutely aware of their own as well. I don't honestly know where confrontation comes into play, but there must be some place for it. You would obviously take a stand in preventing people with certain sins from certain ministry positions. The Bible lays down the strictest guidelines for leaders and teachers. All that being said, Jesus taught that we should let the tares grow with the wheat and, in the end, <i>he</i> will harvest and separate the two. Praise God that it's not our responsibility, though some appear to want it. I think the bigger question is, “How does the church help anyone deal with their sin?” The first step is praying for them. When was the last time you have seen the church pray for someone’s sin to become noticeable to them? And for that to be done with love, not judgment or gossip? The second step is exposure to the Word. Preachers do highlight certain sins deliberately in their sermons. We hope that they are giving equal attention to all sins and are acutely aware of their own as well. I don’t honestly know where confrontation comes into play, but there must be some place for it. You would obviously take a stand in preventing people with certain sins from certain ministry positions. The Bible lays down the strictest guidelines for leaders and teachers.
All that being said, Jesus taught that we should let the tares grow with the wheat and, in the end, he will harvest and separate the two. Praise God that it’s not our responsibility, though some appear to want it.

]]> By: Chris Folkestad http://nathanjunker.com/2007/01/05/gay-animals/#comment-4 Chris Folkestad Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:47:45 +0000 http://nathanjunker.com/?p=41#comment-4 Nathan, great stuff! I like the way you think. Isn't it funny that so many of us look past our own sin and focus on others? My question is this, where does the church come into play here? How do we accept the person and help them without turning them away? Thanks for the thoughts man! Chris Nathan, great stuff! I like the way you think. Isn’t it funny that so many of us look past our own sin and focus on others?
My question is this, where does the church come into play here? How do we accept the person and help them without turning them away?
Thanks for the thoughts man!
Chris

]]>