Posted: Thu 29 Jun 2006 00:12 Post subject: Gay Agenda(s): Who's Been Marginalized?
This is a continuation of a discussion that started on another board.
I think it's safe to say that the face of the homosexual (or non-heterosexual) agenda in the West is:
1. Liberal to moderate
2. In pursuit of marriage rights
3. Male - as in attention is focused on gay men rather than lesbians, bisexuals or transsexual/transgendered people
GLAAD's (http://www.glaad.org/)website paints this picture, and I think it is the most recognized LGBT advocacy group in the US at least.
What I'm less clear on is whether this show of LGBT unity masks massive differences in agenda on the sub group level, because there definitely are differences. For example:
4. Issues of race and gender also don't seem to get much airtime unless it is about the "down low" phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low).
I'm sure there are more.
My question is this: Is it fair to say that there is one gay agenda, when the group seems pretty diverse? The only common theme seems to be that their sexuality/gender identification marginalizes them from mainstream society once they declare it. Especially since the nature or nurture debate over whether people are born with a predisposition towards a certain sexuality continues. It seems like moderately liberal White men are declaring their agenda as the gay agenda. What do other people think?
Last edited by sagascend on Sat 15 Jul 2006 14:44; edited 1 time in total
It seems like moderately liberal White men are declaring their agenda as the gay agenda.
I would amend that by changing moderately liberal White (gay) men to liberal to leftist white gay men (that's how I see things). In my opinion, these are the gay men who are declaring their agenda the gay agenda and are attempting to speak for some idealized, monolithic gay community.
Gay writer and conservative (to his critics, but sensibly liberal) , Bruce Bawer writes extensively about the crowding out if you will of other voices in the "gay community" by the aforementioned.
Sadly, these are the people who get to define how gays are supposed to think and feel on a whole host of issues, so our perception of gays is shaped largely by these men..... And the gay men we see on televison.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 19 Jul 2006 22:01 Post subject: Gays are not an ethnic group
Hi,
What makes me feel upset about this thing of the "gay movement" is that they call themselves a "minority". They classified themselves in the cathegory of "opressed minorities", together with Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Indians and other people.
Well, gays are not a minority. It is a group of persons of any ethnic group that have sexual behavoir in common. They are not an ethnic group and I believe they should not be treated like an ethnic group at all.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1076 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 14:19 Post subject:
Omar wrote:
What makes me feel upset about this thing of the "gay movement" is that they call themselves a "minority". They classified themselves in the cathegory of "opressed minorities", together with Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Indians and other people.
Well, gays are not a minority. It is a group of persons of any ethnic group that have sexual behavoir in common. They are not an ethnic group and I believe they should not be treated like an ethnic group at all.
People define themselves in all sorts of ways, not just ethnically or "racially." To some, their sexual orientation is more important. To others, their religion trumps everything else. To still others, status and wealth (or lack thereof) carry the most weight. Any group can protest or start a movement. The question is which movements will be honored and taken seriously. In America, "racial" issues seem to be the most important.
The question is which [self-identity] movements will be honored and taken seriously.
Interestingly, the notion of solidarity in homosexuality as a self-identity (as opposed to being a mere hobby or personal experimentation) dates only from around the 1930s. National-origin ethnicities arose about a century before that. And "Blackness" as self-identity arose about over a century before that. I wonder why demands for rights on behalf of a "gay" self-identity took so long to coalesce. After all, homosexuality (as behavior, not self-identity) goes back to before the chimp-human split 5 mYA. It also makes you wonder what on earth will be invented as the next rights-demanding self-identity?
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 14:47 Post subject: Suggestions
fwsweet wrote:
...It also makes you wonder what on earth will be invented as the next rights-demanding self-identity?
Some suggestions:
Nerds self-steem association,
Chess players against sportmen.
Stamp collectors rights.
League against discrimination of Rich people.
Test tube children ethnicity.
Mafia's heritage.
The question is which [self-identity] movements will be honored and taken seriously.
Interestingly, the notion of solidarity in homosexuality as a self-identity (as opposed to being a mere hobby or personal experimentation) dates only from around the 1930s. National-origin ethnicities arose about a century before that. And "Blackness" as self-identity arose about over a century before that. I wonder why demands for rights on behalf of a "gay" self-identity took so long to coalesce. After all, homosexuality (as behavior, not self-identity) goes back to before the chimp-human split 5 mYA. It also makes you wonder what on earth will be invented as the next rights-demanding self-identity?
I think it's because heterosexual society, in general, has extreme distaste and fascination about homosexual behavior. Gays themselves, especially those who are religious Jews/Christians/Muslims, must struggle mightily with accepting their behavior and its effect on other people.
An otherwise reasonable person who is heterosexual may honestly think that gay people are "flaunting their sexuality" by holding hands in public or displaying pictures of their significant other at work. There is something about homosexuality that is threatening to a lot of people.
IMO, most gay people wouldn't form a gay self-identity if homosexuality was seen as natural variation of human sexuality, which it seems to be.
The question is which [self-identity] movements will be honored and taken seriously.
Interestingly, the notion of solidarity in homosexuality as a self-identity (as opposed to being a mere hobby or personal experimentation) dates only from around the 1930s. National-origin ethnicities arose about a century before that. And "Blackness" as self-identity arose about over a century before that. I wonder why demands for rights on behalf of a "gay" self-identity took so long to coalesce. After all, homosexuality (as behavior, not self-identity) goes back to before the chimp-human split 5 mYA. It also makes you wonder what on earth will be invented as the next rights-demanding self-identity?
I think it's because heterosexual society, in general, has extreme distaste and fascination about homosexual behavior. Gays themselves, especially those who are religious Jews/Christians/Muslims, must struggle mightily with accepting their behavior and its effect on other people.
An otherwise reasonable person who is heterosexual may honestly think that gay people are "flaunting their sexuality" by holding hands in public or displaying pictures of their significant other at work. There is something about homosexuality that is threatening to a lot of people.
IMO, most gay people wouldn't form a gay self-identity if homosexuality was seen as natural variation of human sexuality, which it seems to be.
True, certain ancient societies such as egypt roman & greece to name a few seem to had it as an integrated part of society.
I saw a program called Love in th Ancient World:Egypt Greece & Roman and they pointed out some interesting things, even in the mythology which I love mythology.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 14:16 Post subject:
Some folks might think my views on this issue as not mainstream. While some may support some aspects of the homosexual agenda, when the issue of homosexual marriage comes before the people, it is overwhelmingly rejected. I can't stand it when the left, particularly White leftists, compare this with so called "interracial marriage". That is like comparing apples with peanut butter. Here is an article from WorldNet Daily:
Quote:
Same-sex marriage
on rocks with voters
20 out of 20 times, Americans choose
to protect institution from changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 27, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Yesterday's stunning decision by Washington's Supreme Court upholding traditional marriage is not the only setback dogging same-sex marriage advocates.
In fact, 20 out of the 20 times it has come before voters, Americans have chosen to protect by constitutional amendment the idea of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
So this year as it's brought before voters in another six – or eight – states, what do opponents plan to do to get their first single?
Obfuscate.
"The best that they (traditional marriage opponents) can do is confuse the issue," States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive look-ahead at this fall's election season.
"What they're running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected," she said.
"We have six states that will have marriage amendments on their ballot (in 2006)," Passignano said, identifying them as Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Two more, Arizona and Colorado, still have yet to reach either deadlines for turning in petition signatures or decisions for whether enough signatures have been turned in. Arizona's marriage supporters turned in 300,000 names, for a requirement of 184,000, but they still are being verified. In Colorado, the deadline to turn in names is Aug. 7, and 68,000 verified names are needed, she said.
"The atmosphere (around the issues) right now is actually positive," she said. "But you can expect that to change in October." Then, the campaigning will get confusing.
Colorado's potential battle already is typical of what she expects.
There probably will be four ballot initiatives on the fall Colorado ballot addressing marriage or civil unions and the like. One would think that would be confusing, and Passignano said that's the plan.
"The campaign in Colorado already is to confuse the voters. The more confusion, the better the chance (for same-sex marriage being endorsed)," she said. "It's not exactly a new campaign, it's exactly the strategy that unfolded in Texas last year."
During that battle, same-sex marriage supporters actually "tried to get people to vote against the marriage amendment by pretending they were from the attorney general's office and telling people they were going to nullify actual marriages with their vote," Passignano said. Senior citizens, especially, were targeted.
She said she took calls in her office at Focus Action from Texans who would hesitate. "I think I voted the wrong way," they would tell her. "Yes, you did," she told them.
The salvation of the Texas amendment came from Christian pastors, she said.
"What's going to be the key is church participation," she said. "The IRS has said pastors have the right to talk about that, despite what we commonly hear, because it is a nonpartisan ballot issue. Pastors can talk about it all they want.
"Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you checked your rights at the door," she said.
Focus Action is a cultural action organization that is separate from Focus on the Family, the Christian broadcasting, publishing and ministry powerhouse. It was set up for Christians to have a platform for informing and rallying about moral issues.
Baptist Press earlier had cited a homosexual publication's report about a multi-point plan devised by the Democratic National Committee to combat the marriage protection plans.
Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the DNC told Baptist Press the committee opposes Republican efforts to use the issue to get voters to ballot boxes. But he didn't confirm or deny the homosexual publication's report about a plan that calls for labeling such initiatives "divisive" and training operatives in all 50 states how to campaign against them.
That report also said the plan included working with a homosexual advocacy group and campaign organizations in each state fighting marriage protection plans.
During 2005, Texas and Kansas voters approved marriage protection amendments, and in the sweep of the 2004 vote, 13 states took the same action, including voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon who did so on the same night. Five states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.
Representatives are especially tenacious in pursuing this particular issue, too. In Wisconsin state lawmakers went through the process a second time after first passing a Defense of Marriage law in 2003, only to see Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle veto it. The second time around, for this year's election, they pursued the constitutional amendment process, which does not require a governor's signature.
State lawmakers in Washington also battled back to overturn a veto by Gov. Gary Locke in their pursuit of their 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriages to couples of one man and one woman.
That battle was crowned with victory this week when the state's Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality. The court noted that there may be homosexual weddings at some point in the future, but it will be because people have brought it about, not because of a judicial opinion.
The underlying conclusion of the Washington state court was that the Legislature had a legitimate interest in protecting traditional marriage and that action did not violate equal protection and other laws.
Even in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court created a right to homosexual marriage to become the only state ever to recognize such situations, supporters have collected 170,000 signatures and court approval and hope to have a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2008.
One defeat for the traditional marriage supporters came in June in the Senate, which failed to endorse a change in the U.S. Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But that wasn't even on an up-or-down vote; only a procedural move.
It is "inconceivable" the U.S. Senate refused to even vote, said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America.
"If the founders could have imagined a time when same-sex 'marriage' would be forced upon the people by judicial fiat, they would have established a uniform rule of marriage in the Constitution just as they did for naturalization and bankruptcy," she said.
However, just in the past few weeks, other courts in Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee and New York have endorsed the legality of protecting marriage.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 16:03 Post subject:
gemini072 wrote:
True, certain ancient societies such as egypt roman & greece to name a few seem to had it as an integrated part of society.
I saw a program called Love in th Ancient World:Egypt Greece & Roman and they pointed out some interesting things, even in the mythology which I love mythology.
I appreciate mythology too, and I saw those programs as well. If I recall the only evidence in Egypt was a painting on wall in some kind of room or cave structure. It was of the creation myth of seed being poured into the earth. I founded that flimsy evidence myself.
True, certain ancient societies such as egypt roman & greece to name a few seem to had it as an integrated part of society.
I saw a program called Love in th Ancient World:Egypt Greece & Roman and they pointed out some interesting things, even in the mythology which I love mythology.
I appreciate mythology too, and I saw those programs as well. If I recall the only evidence in Egypt was a painting on wall in some kind of room or cave structure. It was of the creation myth of seed being poured into the earth. I founded that flimsy evidence myself.
There actually isn't much 'sexual' representation in Egyptian art, but I believe it was Ramses I or II that had a wife as well as a male lover. He also brought in the period of belief in 1 god
Some folks might think my views on this issue as not mainstream. While some may support some aspects of the homosexual agenda, when the issue of homosexual marriage comes before the people, it is overwhelmingly rejected. I can't stand it when the left, particularly White leftists, compare this with so called "interracial marriage". That is like comparing apples with peanut butter. Here is an article from WorldNet Daily:
But how is gay marriage not like the struggle to legalize interracial marriage? Bigots used the Bible and pseudo-scientific theories to justify anti-miscegenation laws similar to the anti-gay marriage leaders. Isn't a majority pushing its beliefs on who can't have their relationships recognized by the state oppressive?
Often, the anti-gay marriage proponents talk about the sanctity of marriage yet discount the very real 50% divorce rate.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2006 14:27 Post subject:
Quote:
But how is gay marriage not like the struggle to legalize interracial marriage? Bigots used the Bible and pseudo-scientific theories to justify anti-miscegenation laws similar to the anti-gay marriage leaders. Isn't a majority pushing its beliefs on who can't have their relationships recognized by the state oppressive?
Because marriage has been defined as the union between the male and female part of our species for thousands of years. This has been so in all cultures throughout the world and throughout history. The struggle to legalize "interracial" marriage was not a world wide struggle. It was "local" if you will. The quest for homosexual "marriage" is a world wide quest. Race is arbitrary, homosexuality is not.
You are correct that bigots grossly misinterpreted the Bible. The Bible contains no such reference to modern day racial perceptions, perceptions that did not exist in Biblical times. However, homosexuality existed, and they well understood that it was an act against nature.
triguy wrote:
Often, the anti-gay marriage proponents talk about the sanctity of marriage yet discount the very real 50% divorce rate.
Yes the divorce rate is 50%. Marriage as an institution is in a state of peril. How will changing its definition to reflect modern trends help the institution of marriage in its adverse condition?
But how is gay marriage not like the struggle to legalize interracial marriage? Bigots used the Bible and pseudo-scientific theories to justify anti-miscegenation laws similar to the anti-gay marriage leaders. Isn't a majority pushing its beliefs on who can't have their relationships recognized by the state oppressive?
Because marriage has been defined as the union between the male and female part of our species for thousands of years. This has been so in all cultures throughout the world and throughout history. The struggle to legalize "interracial" marriage was not a world wide struggle. It was "local" if you will. The quest for homosexual "marriage" is a world wide quest. Race is arbitrary, homosexuality is not.
You are correct that bigots grossly misinterpreted the Bible. The Bible contains no such reference to modern day racial perceptions, perceptions that did not exist in Biblical times. However, homosexuality existed, and they well understood that it was an act against nature.
I think using the term 'Homosexual & Gay' in terms of the scriptures is as wrong as using 'Black & White' in the scriptures.
Sodomites/Sodomy is generally what's being interpreted as Gay/Homosexual. Which is wrong.
triguy wrote:
Often, the anti-gay marriage proponents talk about the sanctity of marriage yet discount the very real 50% divorce rate.
Yes the divorce rate is 50%. Marriage as an institution is in a state of peril. How will changing its definition to reflect modern trends help the institution of marriage in its adverse condition?
But how is gay marriage not like the struggle to legalize interracial marriage? Bigots used the Bible and pseudo-scientific theories to justify anti-miscegenation laws similar to the anti-gay marriage leaders. Isn't a majority pushing its beliefs on who can't have their relationships recognized by the state oppressive?
Because marriage has been defined as the union between the male and female part of our species for thousands of years. This has been so in all cultures throughout the world and throughout history. The struggle to legalize "interracial" marriage was not a world wide struggle. It was "local" if you will. The quest for homosexual "marriage" is a world wide quest. Race is arbitrary, homosexuality is not.
You are correct that bigots grossly misinterpreted the Bible. The Bible contains no such reference to modern day racial perceptions, perceptions that did not exist in Biblical times. However, homosexuality existed, and they well understood that it was an act [i]against nature[/i].
Paul was the only one who used that statement.
lol I've heard many talks on monogamy and that same term(unnatural) used in reference to that. I don't think that was a world wide concept at all.
Sodomy was a term that dealt with anything outside of copulation for sake of having children. That term dealt with M/F who engaged in anal sex, oral sex and any other sex. The Catholic church presents the use of condoms as not the way of nature as well.
triguy wrote:
Often, the anti-gay marriage proponents talk about the sanctity of marriage yet discount the very real 50% divorce rate.
Yes the divorce rate is 50%. Marriage as an institution is in a state of peril. How will changing its definition to reflect modern trends help the institution of marriage in its adverse condition?
But how is gay marriage not like the struggle to legalize interracial marriage? Bigots used the Bible and pseudo-scientific theories to justify anti-miscegenation laws similar to the anti-gay marriage leaders. Isn't a majority pushing its beliefs on who can't have their relationships recognized by the state oppressive?
Because marriage has been defined as the union between the male and female part of our species for thousands of years. This has been so in all cultures throughout the world and throughout history. The struggle to legalize "interracial" marriage was not a world wide struggle. It was "local" if you will. The quest for homosexual "marriage" is a world wide quest. Race is arbitrary, homosexuality is not.
So what if some people have defined marriage as a union between different sexes? Marriage has also been defined to include bigamgy and polygamy and the enslavement of woment and legalizing rape of women. Also, people have had same sex lovers throughout the ages and some cultures have allowed gay marriages (some Native American cultures). Moreover, not all cultures have formalized marriages.
You are correct that bigots grossly misinterpreted the Bible. The Bible contains no such reference to modern day racial perceptions, perceptions that did not exist in Biblical times. However, homosexuality existed, and they well understood that it was an act against nature.
First, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Secondly, people pick and choose what sins they recognize. Again, doesn't the Bible say that a disrespectful child should be stoned to death? And, saying it is against nature is a judgement and not fact. Homosexuality exists in nature, and it's unscientific to claim otherwise when facts speak differently. How can the gay penguins, monkeys, chimps, and swans be unnatural? How do you know for certain that evolution didn't provide homosexuality as an adaptation for the survival of species?
Moreover, how do dismiss the scientific explanations that point towards in utero and genetic factors that provide an explanation:
Again, bigots used the Bible to justify committing attrocities and subjugation of others.
triguy wrote:
Often, the anti-gay marriage proponents talk about the sanctity of marriage yet discount the very real 50% divorce rate.
Yes the divorce rate is 50%. Marriage as an institution is in a state of peril. How will changing its definition to reflect modern trends help the institution of marriage in its adverse condition?
But how does gay marriage imperil heterosexual marriage? Are heterosexuals so weak and simple that watching two lesbians in a monogamous, loving relationship dissuade them from marriage?
Again, the definition of marriage has always had plasticity in its definition to meet the whims of people. Henry VIII had no problems dumping or executing his wives to meet his needs. Thomas Jefferson had no problem cheating on his wife with her sister. Rudy Giuliani had no problem moving his mistress into the New York City mayoral mansion while his family lived there.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2006 18:02 Post subject:
triguy wrote:
So what if some people have defined marriage as a union between different sexes? Marriage has also been defined to include bigamgy and polygamy and the enslavement of woment and legalizing rape of women. Also, people have had same sex lovers throughout the ages and some cultures have allowed gay marriages (some Native American cultures). Moreover, not all cultures have formalized marriages.
I'm not sure if I would agree that marriage has been defined to include all those things you have mentioned, though they have clearly existed within marriages in various cultures. I remember you said some time ago that some Native American cultures allowed homosexual marriage. I found an article that stated that a particular tribe, outlawed it as against nature. I would like to see your evidence citing that some Native American cultures allowed for homosexual marriage.
Yes not all cultures have formalized marriages, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they woulf frown upon same sex unions.
triguy wrote:
First, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.
I did not say he did. Please go back and read my post. The one thing I cannot stand is someone who "puts words in my mouth" that I did not write.
triguy wrote:
Secondly, people pick and choose what sins they recognize. Again, doesn't the Bible say that a disrespectful child should be stoned to death? And, saying it is against nature is a judgement and not fact.
Hardly. Smoking is against nature. The reason why it is against nature is because the repercussions from smoking is disease. Polluting the environment is against nature. Is this a judgement and not a fact???
Anal sex is against nature, this is not a judgement, but a fact. The rectum was not designed for such activity, hence the propagation of disease that can result.
triguy wrote:
Homosexuality exists in nature, and it's unscientific to claim otherwise when facts speak differently. How can the gay penguins, monkeys, chimps, and swans be unnatural? How do you know for certain that evolution didn't provide homosexuality as an adaptation for the survival of species?
So are you trying to tell me that 2 male penguins will simulate a male/female relationship??? Methinks penguins have sex to procreate, not for recreational purposes. Homosexual sex is for recreational purposes only. I hardly doubt that 2 swans will link togther because they think they are "gay". The homosexual propagandists want the world to belive this to legitimize their life style.
Your statement about evolution: So homosexuality is used by evolution as a check on the population??? If so, how, since most reliable fugures put the percentage of homosexuals at 2% to 4%.
triguy wrote:
Again, bigots used the Bible to justify committing attrocities and subjugation of others.
I don't know what you are implying here. Please advise. This has really has nothing to do with the Bible.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2006 18:29 Post subject:
This article is professionally written. It is chock full of footnotes of the research that was put into it. It is rather lengthy.
Quote:
The Animal Homosexuality Myth
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
The following article is adapted from the author's recently published book, Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.
In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement[1] turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:
Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
Homosexuality is irreversible;
Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.
Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises,[2] the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.[3]
Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?
In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:
There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
-- Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts
To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.
In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]
At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."
-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"
Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving "mixed signals" from their instincts:
Most female cats can switch between "play mode" and "hunt mode" in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of "hunt mode" may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the "hunting" instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue.... Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.[5]
Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes:
Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.[6]
-- Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States
To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.
Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man's disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.
Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:
There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]
Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:
Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]
Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:
Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]
Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.
-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]
It Is Unscientific To "Read" Human Motivation
And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior
Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:
The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[13]
Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:
Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.[14]
Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:
Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."[15]
Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books."
Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man
Some researchers studying animal "homosexual" behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man's nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.
Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:
Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. ... Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.[16]
Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal "homosexuality" will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states:
It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is "against nature": the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.[17]
Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:
For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural. They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18]
The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:
It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. .... The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.[19]
The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man's rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.
Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]
To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.
From Science To Mythology
Dr. Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance research displays his fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal mythology:
Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality...[21]
To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of "explanation" or "cause" or "rationale." In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds...[22]
Most Native American tribes formally recognize--and honor--human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the 'two-spirit' person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The 'two-spirit' is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes .... And often engaging in same -sex relations. ... In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or "supernatural" two-spirit(s)....A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirits--creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time--were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer.[23]
Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so widespread in today's homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace "a new paradigm:"[24]
Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle--back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions....Biological Exuberance is...a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable.[25]
Conclusion
In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.
Luiz Sérgio Solimeo joined the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) in 1959. As a researcher and writer, he specializes in philosophical and theological topics and has several published works. Mr. Solimeo has been in the United States assisting the American TFP since 1999.
In this article, Mr. Solimeo develops a section of Chapter 11, "Answering the Movement's Scientific Arguments," of the new book Defending A Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement (Spring Grove, Penn.: The American TFP, 2004) -- ISBN 1-877905-33-X -- 232 pages -- paperback -- $14.95 (s/h included) -- To order, call toll-free (866) 661-0272.
[1] The expression homosexual movement is used to designate a vast network of organizations, pressure groups, intellectuals and activists who strive to impose changes in laws, customs, morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Hence, movement activists pressure society to legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as same-sex "marriage," while relentlessly assailing those who defend traditional morals.
[2] For a brief overview of the evidence debunking the "it is in the genes" and the irreversibility of same-sex orientation theories see the TFP's flyer "Not Genetic! Not Irreversible! Not Natural!" www.tfp.org/tfc/boston_scientific.pdf.
[3] Cf. Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996). Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).
[4] Cf. Régis Jolivet, Traité de Philosophie, (Lyon-Paris: Emmanuel Vitte, Éditeur, 1950), Vol. 2, pp. 306-396.
[12] Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos médicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.
[13] "Exploding the Myth of Constitutional Homosexuality," National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/exploding.html. (Our emphasis.)
[14] "Cachorro Gay?"
[15] Bagemihl, p. 2. (Our emphasis.)
[16] Dinitia Smith, "Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name," The New York Times, Feb. 7, 2004. (Our emphasis.)
[17] LeVay, p. 209.
[18] Quoted by Dinitia Smith, "Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name."
[20] "Man is correctly defined as a rational animal; animal refers to the proximate genus; rational refers to the specific differentiation." Joannes di Napoli, Manuale Philosophiae (Turin, Italy: Marietti Editori, 1961), Vol. 2, p. 165.
[21] Bagemihl, p. 5.
[22] Ibid., p. 215.
[23] Ibid., p. 216.
[24] "The final chapter of part 1, 'A New Paradigm: Biological Exuberance,' calls for a radical rethinking of the way we view the natural world. This revisioning begins with an exploration of another, alternative set of human interpretations: traditional beliefs about animal homosexuality/transgender in indigenous cultures." Ibid., p. 5.
[25] Ibid., p. 262.
I even highligted where this article states that homosexual relationships were a part of many Native American cultures.
[color=red]First, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Secondly, people pick and choose what sins they recognize. Again, doesn't the Bible say that a disrespectful child should be stoned to death? And, saying it is against nature is a judgement and not fact.
The apostle Paul also said 'doesn't nature teach you that is't a shame for men to have long hair'
I Corinthians 11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
