In greylag geese, nearly a fifth of all long-term couples are composed of two males.Â They're not alone: More than 130 bird species are known to engage in homosexual behavior at least occasionally,Â a fact that has puzzled scientists. ...
Updated: June 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM Seattle time.
Second, it is my view at present that the article is playing fast and loose with the definition of homosexual. It's stretching behaviors into being classified as homosexual in human terms without giving sufficient specifics as to where and why the particular line has been drawn if any clear line has been drawn at all. Two males hanging out together daily doesn't in and of itself constitute homosexuality. We all know that or should.
Homosexuality is exclusive sex, or very nearly so, with the same gender. It is also a matter of "attraction," which has yet to be adequately defined scientificallyÂ consistently so we are all on the same page or reasonably so. People are left talking at cross-purposes for lack of speaking the same language. Connotations are left to fly all about willy-nilly. Perhaps the article has stretched bi-sexual behavior into homosexual. It seems so to me – and then some.
As far as I'm concerned, I would not classify an animal as homosexual out in nature (in the wild) where that animal is not exclusively, or again, very nearly so, attracted to the same gender and where that one, when given the opportunity, doesn't have same-sex sex to the point of ejaculation or orgasm (and inside the other animal for males). It may be viewed by some as an unnecessarily strict arbitrary line, but choose some line. My line is designed to err on the side of not falsely classifying animals as homosexual in human terms. If there are thousands of such species with statistically significant populations of homosexuals, I'd be surprised but accept the data.
Most importantly though is that regardless of any other species' sexual behavior, human beings are human beings and not birds or what have you. We are not spiders that kill our mates and feed them to our offspring, for instance. It is not for humanity to take its cues from "nature" but rather rise above beastliness.
I understand that many if not most of all self-identified Christian Fundamentalists say that homosex is not natural and that then others point to same-sex sex behaviors (well short of the most prevalent male-on-male anal intercourse in human homosexuals) in other species in nature, but that doesn't mean that those Fundamentalists are wrong given their context. After all, what the flesh will do via Darwinian evolution is not necessarily to be concluded as being right. In other words, I can definitely state that regardless of any explanations extended by evolutionary scientists concerning why homosexual behavior to any degree may not have been "selected" out, I can still rightly say that homosexual behavior is inferior and actually immoral, wrong, a poor choice, and can do so based upon my own higher learning and experience over and above that of other species. I can also call it unnatural with good reason. The term "natural" is a term of connotations. The two camps are using decidedly different connotations but not consistently, at least on the side of the Fundamentalists.
The point is that other creatures cannot be pointed to as excuses for engaging in sub-enlightened human, degenerate behaviors. Animals steal from each other. They murder each other. We don't condone such behaviors human-on-human, at least the decent of us don't. So, we can't point to other species (and under questionable/vague definitions at that) to justify human homosex. I say this because it is very obvious that the LiveScience article is not merely a defense of the study of sexuality in animals but also a not-so-veiled promotion against anti-homosexuality in humanity.
In the article, "...same-sex courtship, mounting, or pair bonding...." is all lumped under homosexual. Yet what is pair bonding? Does it include friends who do not engage in other acts labeled as homosexual? I suspect so what with the wording there. How is "courtship" defined? Is it conveniently defined by homosexual scientists to further their own activism?
There are certainly many homosexual activists at the American Psychological Association, for instance, who co-opted that organization for what are termed "politically correct" reasons and not for scientific ones. That has been well documented but covered up by the mainstream media, also co-opted, even brainwashed. I'm sure there are many homosexuals in other fields such as the study of animal sexuality. Alfred Kinsey was a zoologist, and he was all over the map with his own sexuality — in my view, one of his main motivations for proselytizing for relaxing public standards concerning even pedophilia, which he was sadly successful at managing with the loosening still occurring, though I don't see that trend continuing indefinitely contrary to the homosexualists' oft stated opinions.
As for mounting, how long does that last? Is it to ejaculation, as mentioned above? How can human notions of sexual attraction be transferred onto animals the thinking of which we are unable to understand?
My view is that humanity has been heading way down the wrong path by not expecting more of itself rather than pointing to animals to say, they do whatever, so it's "natural" for them and for us.
"...homosexual behavior amounted to less than 5 percent of all sexual activity in the 93 species...." However, again, homosexual is not defined the way human homosexuals appear to have defined themselves.
This is not to say that there is nothing to be gained from inquiry, etc. It is interesting that some of what the report more than seems to be suggesting actually reinforces my own position that more parenting (which is better, and I don't need a "scientific" study to tell me that), more monogamy, means less homosex (in males anyway). Of course it is my contention that humanity is to be more and more nurturing, parenting, monogamous, etc., rather than heading backwards to homo confusion, unenlightenment.
And with plenty of reproductive prospects, a little homosexual behavior won't have much effect on long-term reproductive success, MacFarlane said. "That's quite different to what the traditional argument is in the literature, where homosexual behavior is seen as a cost."
Well, it may be being interpreted in the short-run for a lower species as being successful and then supposed to extend to the long-term simply because life is still around at lower levels. I certainly won't accept that though as being a proper interpretation.
However, let me make clear here that currently mere reproductive existence of the flesh is not the same thing as intellectual and moral enlightenment, which intellectual and moral enlightenment come together – are not separable. How long species can continue existing, not being selected out, while remaining at the lesser nurturing states remains to be seen. Forever is a long time.
Here's language from another article on the same site:
As gay couples celebrate their newfound right to marry in California and opposition groups rally to fight the ruling, many struggle with this question: Is homosexuality natural?
On this issue, Nature has spoken: Same-sex lovin' is common in hundreds of species, scientists say.
Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo, were a couple for about six years, during which they nurtured a fertilized egg together (given to them by a zookeeper) and raised the young chick that hatched. ("Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild")
First of all, note two major things there. The penguins were in a zoo. That's not nature (in the wild) or natural in the common usage. Also, if a baby were given to a male friend and me, what would we do as heterosexuals, just not bother nurturing it — leave it to fend for itself like snakes/serpents? It's Biblical. Jumping to the conclusion that what occurred in that zoo as showing homosexuality as humans use the term is just false propaganda at best. You will also note that "love" between two heterosexual males is just that. There is no homosexuality in male heterosexual love bonding. A man can love his male friends without being homosexual.
So you see the fast and loose use of the language in furtherance of homosexuality for humanity, which will not work out. I guarantee it. It's co-optation and limiting the term "love" by homosexualists for purposes of distortion, whether conscious or subconscious. Don't fall for the trick.
According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter BÃ¶ckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others.
As I suspected all along, this is proof that the definition is being severely abused. Same-sex coupling is being superimposed onto every male-male close friendship as necessarily being homosexual. For years and years and years, I hung out with my male friends day after day after day. That didn't make even one of us homosexual. Really, this is false propaganda, not good science reporting.
Human males went out to hunt together. The women, the mothers, their mates, stayed home to tend to the upbringing of the children. Were all males who hunted in pairs therefore homosexuals? That doesn't explain everything, but such thinking must be applied when deciding whether or not words are being used properly and even honestly.
I would love to reproduce the entirety of the rest of that article, but I don't want to fall afoul of some homosexual activists who would scream copyright protection at me even though I'd be reproducing it all here to go at it point-by-point for intellectual reasons as opposed to reasons of just stealing the work to deprive the author or publisher of some gain or benefit (if there really is any with it).
Anyway, the LiveScience article goes on to attempt to anticipate and psychologically negatively couch those who disagree.
It's interesting that the article, a science journal, employed the term "homophobia" meaning an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Well, there's nothing irrational with my view that what's best for humanity and individual humans is rising above non-and-lesser-nurturing species and polygamous species. It's very rational. It's the most rational. Do I "fear" humanity going in the wrong direction? I fear for humanity that it does that. That's not irrational. It doesn't stop me from functioning on a daily basis or otherwise though.
So, again, definitions must be established. Context must be established and not left floating for distorting effect. What is "fear" here? There are many degrees of fear. There are many synonyms. Did Moses fear homosexuality? He sought to wipe it out eugenically but also by psychological and spiritual means. Obviously, he hasn't yet been successful.
Jesus came along and raised the thinking standard to a whole new, higher level that is still an enigma to the vast majority of humans, which Jesus said would be the case until points of ultimate confrontation between truth and falsehood are resolved, which resolutions he said will occur and at some point never to revert — no backsliding from that level of enlightenment. That's sounds good to me. I wish it were already here, but I realize we are going through the fire.
I view homosex as the pathology, not the "homophobia," given humanities higher evolutionary position (if the literal interpretation of the Fundamentalists is not correct, what with its 6 24-hour days of creation, etc.). At least there are strains within humanity toward greater enlightenment while there are obviously throwbacks to homosex. Humanity is process. We are being refined from what to what? What are we consciously or otherwise choosing and why? What is best going forward?
Another thing I would like to interject here is that teenage male elephants lacking older, trained, educated male supervision and role modeling kill other species that when the wiser male adults are around to teach those teenagers, doesn't happen. So, when the scientists are looking at animal sexuality in the wild, aspects such as that need to be taken into consideration.
Does the increase in homosexual everything in human society stem from a lessening of the human equivalent of those wiser elephants? I'm sure it does. Everything I've read suggests it. Distant fathers results in more homosexuality. More mothers raising momma's boys results in more homosexuality. More homosexuality is directly connected with more roguish sexuality and homosexual abuse, especially of little children. Women are pushing for the relaxation of standards against buggery and other activities more than are men (even though male homosexuals are often the most heard), which I'm sure is directly tied to strong anti-male currents in a large portion of the feminist movement. The male homosexuals and female feminists have been in league against those older, wiser, male elephants even though the mother's can't control those teenage-boy elephants. It has not boded well for society in general. It doesn't help when man-haters lump all men together as women abusers either, which lumping is very, very prevalent. The abuse of women comes from fewer, not more, wiser, older males as male role models.
Getting directly back to the linked article on LiveScience, I never said animals don't engage in same-sex sexual behavior. I've questioned the overarching definitions that are being assigned. This article clearly shows why I'm on solid ground doing that.
I will risk one more direct quotation even though the article isn't very long:
Scientists who study the topic are often accused of trying to forward an agenda, and their work can come under greater scrutiny than that of their colleagues who study other topics....
As you will note from the above, it is not the work but the wording of the article and the interpretation and methodology that I question. I have zero problem with scientists studying animal sexual behavior, but if they are mis-lumping things together and also making statements concerning the appropriateness or inappropriateness and legitimacy of my own questions and position, then of course I'll debate head-on with them, even though their journals are cited by the biggest "news" portals on the Internet while mine is quite deliberately marginalized and censored by those same portals.
So, no, I'm not convinced that there are thousands of "homosexual" animal species in the wild. I'm convinced that there are thousands of species where behaviors raise legitimate questions about homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and heterosexuality in animals. I also don't preclude the rarity that proves the rule. There may be some animals in nature that truly are homosexual, every bit as much as the most homosexual human male. I have yet to see the proof of it, but if it's there, I'll accept it. It won't prove it's a good thing or should be accepted as human "nature" though just because it's there.
I believe at this point that homosexuality in humans is not inborn, per se, in the sense used by the homosexual activists but rather the result of conditioning. I am not discounting the existence of hermaphrodism and what that means in this regard. My point is more at overstating the genetics to excuse homosex where it would not occur absent environmental conditioning beyond DNA at conception, though environment bears upon that as well. DNA is not immune to the environment, quite the contrary.
Regardless, it is a matter of public policy that humanity should further what is best for the whole of humanity; and I say, even the studies held up by homosexual activists supports the opposite of their position, not that I need animals to tell me that heterosexual monogamy is superior and the unconfused-human way.
All of that said, I'm still not for coercing homosexuals, especially not violently.
Let me tie this in with a previous post of mine wherein I (again) expressly asked for evidence on these matters: "YouTuber: "Potholer54" (57,738 subscribers), Peter Hadfield, misled, misleading on homosexuality."
I'm still waiting.
Peace and truth,
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)