Posted by jeff on August 20, 19102 at 15:52:35:
In Reply to: The ol' "Animals Are Gay" argument posted by Chris H. on July 09, 19102 at 02:30:18:
These discussion boards are great for revealing circular arguements for what they are- take this whole "nature" arguement, and how easily we get suckered into defending ourselves from it. The supposition is that to be gay is not "natural". We take this to mean "occurs in nature", and make efforts to find instances in nature where animals exhibit similar behaviours. The rejoiner from the right is that therefore it must be okay to eat your young since we see examples of it in nature - when it was THEIR argument that humans shouldn't indulge in "unnatural" acts. It is a damned if you do/damned if you don't proposition.
If you want the best evidence that homosexuality is "natural", then it is safest not to leave your species at all. Remember that gayness predates Leviticus (apparently) and therefore has been around a LOOOONG time. Though it is true that pigs don't generally fly, IF, for the past 4-5 thousand years, a certain number of pigs DO fly, and, despite the mutters of scorn and outright violence of the grounded pigs, CONTINUE to fly, then I'd say it was "natural" for them to do so.
When a straight person says that its "unnatural" to love someone of the same sex, what they are really saying is "i find gay sex unnatural". Of course they do - they're straight.
The irony in the whole thing is that, when evidence in the Bible doesn't seem sufficient, the right wing Christian will even turn to DARWIN for support.