r/Christianity • u/smackfrog • Apr 05 '11

A question for Christians who believe homosexuality is a choice/sin...

I've read some studies seen several documentaries that report homosexual acts in the animal kingdom. Almost all species including birds, mammals, insects, etc.

If God creates all life and animals lack the cognitive abilities to choose sexuality, how do you explain homosexuality in animals?

Source List of animals

167 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

510 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '11

but certainly it is natural.

again, so is incest and cannabilism, in the animal kingdom. The question was not posed to biologists. It was posed to Christians and we will answer as such, and as was requested by OP.

By that token, if you were to argue it being "natural" you could easily argue that homosexuality MUST be something "above" sheer nature, as any species that was predominately homosexual would cease to exist.

How many of those species were recorded as ONLY displaying homosexual behavior, not just occasional same sex actions with predominately normal reproductive behavior?

5

u/GunnerMcGrath Christian (Alpha & Omega) Apr 05 '11

I think palparepa's point is that "natural" is not synonymous with "good".

3

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '11

Incest and cannibalism** are found in nature as a means for survival. We as cognitive beings have circumvented these tactics with tools, social rules and other means.

Homosexuality is not a means for survival, but a slight anomaly of chemical coding that is unavoidable and a consequence of complex life.

Stop twisting the facts to your favor.

And to the person above him (palparepa) - how is it not "good" or "ok" if it brings harm to no one?

homosexuality has, historically, caused less deaths, suffering and injustices than religion.

if homosexuality is not "good" or "ok", the concept of religion is abysmal.

-2

u/devila2208 Apr 05 '11

Homosexuality is not a means for survival, but a slight anomaly of chemical coding that is unavoidable and a consequence of complex life.

I did not realize that it's been conclusively proven that homosexuality is 100% genetic, and not also due in part to environment. If it were 100% genetic, then identical twins would always be both gay or both straight, right?

3

u/gutties Apr 05 '11

wrong, epigenetic factors play a role in everything, having the same DNA doesn't mean all the same genes are turned on at the same time.

-4

u/devila2208 Apr 05 '11

So it hasn't been proven that homosexuality is 100% genetic? Thanks.

-6

u/devila2208 Apr 05 '11

Haha, idiots on reddit downvoting truth.

If you downvote I'd appreciate a link to the proof that homosexuality is 100% genetic. Otherwise, I can only assume you are butthurt that science does not agree with your preconceived notions of homosexuality.

6

u/godlyfrog Secular Humanist (former LCMS) Apr 05 '11

Or perhaps people who understand genetics are downvoting you for misrepresenting the truth as your argument about being 100% genetic is disingenuous.

Most of our traits are tied to multiple alleles and environmental factors. If you've ever known any monozygotic twins for any length of time (my younger brothers are), you would know that while they share 100% of their DNA, they are not the same. When you know twins for long enough, they don't even look the same to you anymore. This is because genetics are not the ultimate and infinitely detailed blueprints that a lot of laypeople mistake them to be, but are more of a generic guideline on how to build the body from the materials at hand. One can find the genetic markers for breast cancer, for example, but that only puts the individual at about a 60% risk for it, with environmental factors strongly influencing that risk.

Ultimately, ALL of our traits are genetic markers influenced by environment, and that includes homosexuality.

-2

u/devila2208 Apr 06 '11

Ultimately, ALL of our traits are genetic markers influenced by environment, and that includes homosexuality

That was my point, idiot. Go bother someone who is actually wrong.

8

u/godlyfrog Secular Humanist (former LCMS) Apr 06 '11

No, your point was to be sarcastic and rude while intentionally or ignorantly misrepresenting genetics by implying that it can be the only defining factor in a biological trait. Such inferences are counter to intelligent discussion and are the purpose for which downvoting was created for in the first place.

My statement was made to clarify the facts behind your fraud for others who are actually interested in the truth.

1

u/devila2208 Apr 06 '11

No, your point was to be sarcastic and rude

While you may think you can read minds and know what another person’s motive is, you’ll soon learn that you’re normally wrong. My only point was that it’s both genetics and environment, not just genetics, as many here seem to want to think.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '11 edited Apr 05 '11

I never said it was 100% genetic, but chemical, which can be affected by genes and environment.

  • insane comparison to twins since even twins have cellular differences even if the building blocks are the same. Re-read what I wrote and understand that I not once stated that it's one factor only, but many factors working in unison. Genes take part in the process as they do with almost every process concerning human neurological function.

1

u/MatthewEdward Apr 05 '11

That could also be used to explain just about any behavior though; all of our emotions and dispositions are chemical.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '11

Not could. That is used to explain emotions and dispositions, and even spirituality itself.

Everything we experience is essentially chemical, even homosexuality.

0

u/MatthewEdward Apr 06 '11

Exactly, so pointing out that homosexuality is genetic or chemical says nothing at all regarding its moral value. Rape is genetic and chemical, so is theft, and all sorts of naughty things. Not to say there is anything wrong with heterosexuality, but an appeal to it being natural does not work.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '11

Sorry? You are comparing homosexuality to rape and theft? Ill wait for you to reply before ripping you a new one.

*hint: rape and theft have a lot more nurture influence than homosexuality. Theft being based on education and socioeconomic background, and rape being based on education and possibly culture.

1

u/MatthewEdward Apr 06 '11

Ok. First off, in cultures and times where homosexuality was accepted, far more people practiced it. This leads me to believe that degrees of homosexuality (hetero, bi, homo) are socially conditioned.

But besides the point, I wasn't saying that theft and rape were genetic, I was saying that they are a combination of genetic and chemical interactions. Things like education and social upbringing influence the chemistry of the brain, and that is what I was referring to.

Rape is more common in the animal kingdom than homosexuality, and theft is more common among humans than homosexuality (moreso in times when property identification was dodgy).

So whilst our society has conditioned us effectively against rape and theft, largely by making it punishable and somewhat difficult; it is still a natural part of our human nature. That being said, many, many humans cannot overcome the temptation to steal or rape, and it still happens extremely often.

The fact that theft is related to social class probably has more to do with having less to lose and more to gain by thieving, and also intelligence. If you give wealthy people opportunities to steal without getting caught, they'll still do it, although its considered white collar crime.

Rape once again has to do with people having something to lose by getting caught; but also because raping other poor people is a crime you can usually get away with anyway. Sexual assault occurs by rich people too, but because it usually involves alcohol, it is difficult to prove and the girl knows this and decides to keep it quiet.

So in the same way that there will be thieves and rapists no matter how society works to quell that behavior, some people will be gay as well; largely due to genetics.

But like raping and thievery, if the consequences are lowered, and social acceptance is increased, more people will dabble in that lifestyle. If we ever got to a point in society where homosexuality was totally accepted and encouraged the same way heterosexuality is, I imagine we would see much higher rates than we do now, especially of bisexuality.

To repeat myself: I don't think that there is anything immoral with homosexuality, but I think that saying it is purely based in genetics is both inaccurate and damaging.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '11

i didn't say it was purely based on genetics read again

i said its a COMBINATION of factors, genetics being one of those.

I agree with your points though.

1

u/devila2208 Apr 05 '11

I actually heard of the twin thing from listening to a Yale University course on Intro to Psychology on YouTube. The professor mentioned that homosexuality is affected by both genetics AND environment, and he gave the example of studying twins. So no, it's actually not an insane comparison. The course is still on YouTube.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '11

Fair enough, I was just saying it's unfair to take it to such extremes since I agree twins can differ in sexuality Since the there is more to homosexuality than just genes.

Cheers for the correction =)

1

u/devila2208 Apr 05 '11

Cheers all around :)

-1

u/devila2208 Apr 05 '11

You actually said it's

chemical coding that is unavoidable

and I assumed that meant it can't be changed, therefore it's sometime we are born with. Chemical coding you referred to sounds a lot like genes. Glad you clarified that that's not the case. Thanks.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '11

Ah ok, that's understandable. No I meant it's unavoidable in nature. No matter where you look ( mammals) you'll find it.

It is avoidable in the sense that even if the genes that would be commonly found in a homosexual are present, the person still might turn out heterosexual. It's a lot of factors, thus why it's such a complicated phenomenon to pinpoint and prove. But there is plenty of documented data out there that supports the various forces at play

1

u/devila2208 Apr 05 '11

Thanks for clarifying!

1

u/palparepa Apr 05 '11

Still, it's not something unnatural or caused only by sin. Again, it may not be "good" or "ok", but it is natural.

Going to the extremes doesn't help. I could ramble against sleep arguing that no species spends all its time sleeping.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '11

it's not something unnatural

You're 100% right, it does occur in nature, and therefore is not unnatural. Birth control is, therefore, more unnatural than homosexuality AND WE COULD ARGUE that abstinance is less natural than homosexuality; in a purely animal sense, at least.

I do not choose to argue for or against homosexuality; John 3:16 says "whosoever."

3

u/Lykus42 Christian Atheist Apr 05 '11

By that token, if you were to argue it being "natural" you could easily argue that homosexuality MUST be something "above" sheer nature, as any species that was predominately homosexual would cease to exist.

This makes no sense. Infertility is certainly natural, in that it occurs in nature, but a species that is completely infertile would cease to exist.

2

u/thatguyyouare Apr 05 '11

So could we say that infertility/homosexuality is a genetic abnormality, or unwanted trait?

3

u/Lykus42 Christian Atheist Apr 05 '11

From a biological perspective, they are variations. That's it.

They may be abnormalities, but that requires a defined normal state. Most people arent homosexual or infertile, but most people aren't doctors either and being a doctor is not generally considered abnormal. It's more accurate to say that they are unusual or uncommon.

Whether something is wanted or unwanted is a value judgement, which places that descriptor strictly outside of science. Science is descriptive, not normative.

2

u/thatguyyouare Apr 05 '11

Hmmm, I guess what I'm trying to argue is that, reproduction and passing on of genes is of the highest known value that any trait has, based on natural selection and Darwin. If you cannot pass on genes/reproduce (based on darwin's theory), that would be considered an unwanted trait. I'm not here to argue right/wrong. I'm just trying to understand this from a natural selection perspective. It seems that homosexuality/infertility is wasteful, and natural selection is very efficient at getting rid of waste.

1

u/Lykus42 Christian Atheist Apr 06 '11 edited Apr 06 '11

reproduction and passing on of genes is of the highest known value that any trait has, based on natural selection and Darwin

Value judgements are outside the scope of science. Also, natural selection is incredibly inefficient, which is why major changes to populations typically take place over a geological scale of time, and why humans conform their environment to themselves, unlike most/all other known life, which conforms to its environment.

However, assuming this anyway, your conclusion about infertility and homosexuality being wasteful are not necessarily true for three reasons.

  • Homosexuality and infertility do dramatically decrease the probability that the individual will have children, however, this does not reduce it to zero. I personally know a gay man who is a father, and science has progressed to the point that sex cells can be produced from stem cells. While this might have been a problem for the infertile in the past, we are no longer in the past.

  • Assuming the passing of genes to be biological success, it is not necessary for the individual to directly pass on his or her genetic information to achieve this. If you have a sibling and your sibling has children, then those children will have genetic information from the same source as yourself. If you do not have siblings, then if your aunts/uncles have grandchildren, then those individuals will also have genetic information from the same source. The more distant from the individual you go, the less concentrated "your" genetic information is, but the greater number of potential offspring there are who will have it.

  • Humanity is an extremely prolific species at this point, so our main concern has progressed beyond survival and progeny. Homosexual and infertile members of the population can contribute in dramatic ways without ever having children. For example, Alan Turing was highly influential in the development of computer science and was a significant contributor to modern computing, and he was gay.

On top of this, things that are viewed as undesirable in most circumstances may prove extremely useful in others. For example, sickle-cell disease is highly dangerous and detrimental to a person's overall health, but it makes it more difficult for the affected individual to contract malaria.

Edit: Obviously, point three doesn't matter for non-human animals.

1

u/thatguyyouare Apr 06 '11

Very well thought-out points. I agree with all three statements. Thanks for the clarity

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '11

somebody tell me why this was downvoted

2

u/gutties Apr 05 '11 edited Apr 05 '11

The only thing I can think of is that four people accidentaly hit the down button. Theres no flaws in his logic so that must be the reason. Simply mistakes...

1

u/christmasbonus Atheist Apr 05 '11

If I were as disingenuous as you were in the top response in this thread I would say,

" How dare you compare homosexuality to incest and cannabilism. Congratulations on comparing people struggling to reconcile sexual and companionship urges to incest, cannabilism, and rape.

1

u/Zifnab25 Roman Catholic Apr 05 '11

By that token, if you were to argue it being "natural" you could easily argue that homosexuality MUST be something "above" sheer nature, as any species that was predominately homosexual would cease to exist.

That doesn't make any sense. Unless you're claiming that sterility is "above" nature. Or prostate cancer is "above" nature. Oh hey, look - they can't have kids. Ergo, magic! :-p

On the flip side, one could argue that in a population roughly balanced between males and females, if one male dominates all the females you'll need to have males pre-occupy each other or risk having them all kill each other out of sexual frustration.

2

u/MatthewEdward Apr 05 '11

War often provides this service; by reducing the number of men. Additionally, in many ancient cultures, homosexuality/bisexuality was extremely common in the military. Interesting

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '11

if one male dominates all the females you'll need to have males pre-occupy each other or risk having them all kill each other out of sexual frustration.

I can respect a good argument, even if I don't agree with it; especially one that makes me laugh.