Gay Animals
Apparently there is good documentation for homosexual animals according to an exhibition at the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway (see Times article). What does this do to the Christian’s belief that homosexuality is wrong? Hey, if the animals are doing it, it can’t be wrong. Right? Admittedly I struggle with what to do with this information.
Stage one in responding to homosexuality is that it is completely unnatural and a sinful choice of a sinful person. Just look at biology and nature; everything is against it. Stage two, there is genetic, biological tendencies but in the end it is still a choice. People with this tendency should fight against it. Stage three, homosexuality is natural, therefore it must be embraced and accepted.
Should the Christian proceed all the way to acceptance of homosexuality? To get there, one must rework the biblical passages against it. However, to keep holding on to the notion that there is no biological influence in homosexuality is to rework science. Which bias do you prefer?
I am going to seek the middle way.
On first reading the article, Birds do it, bees do it…, my response was that the scientists are misinterpreting what they’re seeing. What appears to be homosexual acts in animals may just be an incomplete understanding of the animal’s social system. They are reading into it because they already believe homosexuality to be normal and natural. This may be the case. Certainly past scientist observed similar behavior and didn’t jump to this conclusion. In the article, they brush off this notion by saying those scientists “choose to ignore it…[claiming] it is irrelevant to their work, or fear ridicule or the loss of their grants”.
The other way I am responding to the idea of gay animals is to realize that it is just another effect of The Fall. Adam and Eve’s sin caused them to die. It also brought death to the rest of the plant and animal kingdom which they were in charge of. Adam had to work to get plants to grow because now they died where before they didn’t. Mankind’s mind also fell into depravity affecting his reason and logic. Disease and defects, physical and mental, began to affect all bodies. If man now has a tendency for violence, so do animals–man-killing predators and the like. If man now has a tendency for sexual aberrations, so do animals. Sin has far-reaching side-effects.
While Bockman may look on these “new” findings with joy and enthusiasm, as a Christian we must mourn when we see the depths to which natural paradise has fallen. We should mourn this wherever we see it, in man as well as in nature. Pollution, extinction, severe weather, natural disasters, mutations, birth defects, retardation. The whole world is not as it should be.
“There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land…Because of this the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away.” (Hosea 4:1,3).
“For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now.” (Romans 8:22)
But there is hope for the land; the same hope that we have.
“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” (Colossians 1:19-20)
But, when you meet a gay person. Don’t think that they are broken and need to be fixed, unless you think of yourself the same way. God allows each of us to bear our own sinful tendencies, some are just more culturally accepted than others (greed, covetousness, pride, lust, idolatry, not keeping Sabbath…). Be a Good Samaritan and love them. If they are hungry, give them something to eat; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; if they need a friend, be their friend. Leave the judging to God, your job is to love.
Chris Folkestad wrote:
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
Posted 05 Jan 2007 at 11:47 am ¶
redcowboyhat wrote:
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.
Posted 05 Jan 2007 at 2:46 pm ¶
Nathan Tuttle wrote:
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?”
Posted 05 Jan 2007 at 11:11 pm ¶
redcowboyhat wrote:
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.
Posted 06 Jan 2007 at 1:50 am ¶
kenan wrote:
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
Posted 06 Jan 2007 at 2:01 pm ¶
redcowboyhat wrote:
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.
Posted 06 Jan 2007 at 3:44 pm ¶
Chris Wicklund wrote:
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.
Posted 07 Jan 2007 at 1:24 am ¶
redcowboyhat wrote:
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.
Posted 07 Jan 2007 at 1:34 am ¶
John Gaede wrote:
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?
Posted 07 Jan 2007 at 10:57 pm ¶
redcowboyhat wrote:
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.
Posted 08 Jan 2007 at 2:30 am ¶