Business as usual in Canada.

I'm a bit surprised this post went up without a background check by someone with your stellar reputation.
You are most entitled to your opinion, informed or not.
I'm curious. Did you ask one of your esteemed collegues in Canada to provide you with resources perspectives,laws, procedures, prior HRT rulings etc., to review?

I don't think you'll see reasonable Canadian Christian organizations bothering to respond to this post or other outrage coming from south of our border.
There is certainly nothing to be gained by believers in Canada bcoming reactive to WND and it's counterparts north.

Do you think a bit of research beyond the World Net Daily article might give you better information about Boissoin, his affiliations, cohorts, agenda, the name of the former group, prior behavior, it's paying model, current name, reasons for the change, current problems, behaviours, history, and the reasoning behind Lund's appeal against Boissoin in his past role as head of the CCC?
Or not.

If at the end of some solid research, you maintain your agreement with WND, that's fine, Canadian Christians aren't too likely to be sucked into reaction. We have other issues to attend to. I hope and think the more noise US lobby groups and US lawyers make, the more the former head of the CCC is seem as a false victim.

And the more he and CCC are courted as a heroes and darlings by US religious lobby groups, and are paid to do the lecture circuit in the US, the better it is for Christians in Canada.

Thank you, I encourage you make to all the noise you'd like, post your outrage and disgust - you can assist educated Canadian believers in reminding our faith groups about the purposes and problems with the CCC and it's few and troublesome Canadian cousins.

We have our home grown moon bats, and if groups in the States are prepared to make this man a hero in articles and posts, then please knock yourselves out.

Bene Diction wrote:

I'm a bit surprised this post went up without a background check by someone with your stellar reputation. You are most entitled to your opinion, informed or not. I'm curious. Did you ask one of your esteemed collegues in Canada to provide you with resources perspectives,laws, procedures, prior HRT rulings etc., to review?

I did research the facts of the question as best I could. I found nothing to contradict the claims in WND in this particular case (I bash them enough for dishonest reporting that I'm obviously not going to take at face value anything they say. What is important here - the only thing that is important here - is whether the act of writing the letter he wrote should be regarded as a criminal act. The answer is no.

Do you think a bit of research beyond the World Net Daily article might give you better information about Boissoin, his affiliations, cohorts, agenda, the name of the former group, prior behavior, it's paying model, current name, reasons for the change, current problems, behaviours, history, and the reasoning behind Lund's appeal against Boissoin in his past role as head of the CCC?

Yes, and I did that research. I know about Concerned Christians Canada, Inc., the for profit organization he is affiliated with. But that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. It doesn't matter what group he belongs to, it doesn't matter what history they have. It only matters whether this particular bit of speech is criminal or not. Having read the letter, there is no way it should be. It's really that simple. If he has done something else that could fairly be regarded as criminal, then he should be charged for whatever that might be. But the act of voicing one's opinions, no matter how obnoxious they are, is not a crime and making it one amounts to tyranny, period.

And the more he and CCC are courted as a heroes and darlings by US religious lobby groups, and are paid to do the lecture circuit in the US, the better it is for Christians in Canada.

I'm certainly not making Boissoin a hero. I think he's a repugnant man preaching bigotry. But he has a right to do so, a right that far supercedes any imagined right others - even others that I care about - have not to be offended. You either support freedom of speech and thought for those whose views you find vile, as I do in this case, or you don't support freedom of speech at all.

My goodness, Ed, I find myself agreeing with you totally when you decry the antics of Canadian thought police. Would that it were limited to Canada. This hits home as just a few days ago my similar thoughts were published in our local Connecticut paper and I am waiting for the vitriol to hit the fan!

"Canada has joined the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain in legalizing same-sex marriage.

"An official who refuses to perform such a marriage will be accused of intolerance and homophobia and discrimination. If he quotes scriptures against sodomy, it will be labeled hate speech.

Last month in Concord, Mass., the father of a six-year-old spent the night in jail for protesting the teaching of homosexuality in his son's kindergarten.

"Somehow the tolerance only works in one direction. You must accept homosexuality being taught in the classroom or approved from the pulpit, and speaking out against it becomes a hate crime, not to be tolerated.

It is said to be not loving. We are called to love one another, are we not? Surely it is a beautiful thing when two men or two women love each other. What can be wrong with pledging to love one another and stand by each other and care for each other?

"What it boils down to is this: The love is great. The sex is not.

"We all know what the marriage act is. Homosexuals cannot perform it. They can "mess around" but it is not mating. Not only is it not mating, but it can be harmful.

I will refrain from listing the numerous diseases that flesh is heir to because of homosexual sex. "It is not without reason that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned blood and sperm donations from sexually active gay donors.

"It is sad but true that male homosexuals have a life span 20 years less than the average. Lest I get too explicit for a family newspaper, just log onto one of the following Web sites:

www.narth.com/docs/consequences.html

www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

"Gay marriage and promoting homosexuality are on the fast track in many states, including ours. It is time we got ourselves educated."

I know you think I have the right to have my say.
Now tell me what I said that you disagree with.

I suspect that you will hear from someone. The only thing that I want to say about this is that the man in Massachusetts who spent the night in jail was arrested for trespassing, not for what he said. (Without knowing exactly where he went or exactly what he was doing, I cannot say for certain that having him arrested was the appropriate response, but it is important that he was arrested for something other than talking.) It also is not clear that they were "teaching homosexuality" (were they advocating it? Were they giving instructions?) at the school.

Karl, I read that David Parker's 5 year old son was given books promoting diversity, including Who's In A Family by Robert Skutch which included same sex couples raising children. When he was refused advance notice and opt-out privilege for his kid he would not leave the meeting room and was arrested for trespassing. If you have any doubt that homosexuality is being aggressively introduced in kindergartens, just google "homosexualtiy" and "kindergarten."

Dorothy Vining wrote:

Would that it were limited to Canada. This hits home as just a few days ago my similar thoughts were published in our local Connecticut paper and I am waiting for the vitriol to hit the fan!

If you published a letter as idiotic as Boissoin's letter, you deserve to get vitriol in return. What you don't deserve, and will not get in this country, is any official punishment. And if an attempt were made by the government to punish you for such a thing, people like me who think such sentiments are vile beyond belief would still come to your defense as a legal matter. Getting a nasty reaction from people doesn't violate your free speech rights; getting punished by the government does.

"It is sad but true that male homosexuals have a life span 20 years less than the average. Lest I get too explicit for a family newspaper, just log onto one of the following Web sites:

Sigh. It's not "sad but true", it's false but popular. How many times does this ridiculous lie have to be debunked before people stop citing it as though it were true?. It has been thoroughly and completely debunked in the scientific literature. It's based on a patently ridiculous study with an almost surreal methodology. They took a few weeks worth of gay newspapers, counted the ages of the deceased in the obituaries and averaged them. That would make a great case study for a beginning statistics class in how not to do a study. You'd get flunked in a statistics class if you put together a research project that shoddy, yet this claim keeps circulating in the right wing literature as though it had any credibility whatsoever. For more information on this phony study, see Walter Olson's critique.

Karl, I read that David Parker's 5 year old son was given books promoting diversity, including Who's In A Family by Robert Skutch which included same sex couples raising children.

A book that acknowledges that there are families that have same sex parents is "promoting homosexuality"? Does that mean that if a book shows an interracial couple they're "promoting" interracial marriages? Or are they just acknowledging something that does exist and reinforcing that someone shouldn't be treated differently if they have same sex parents? What would you have them teach, that if there's a kid in the school who has same sex parents, they should be insulted and spit upon? Your objection here isn't to "promotion" of homosexuality, it's to the very existence of homosexual parents being acknowledged. Well get used to it, there are tens of thousands of gay parents in this country raising children.

And study after study has shown that their children are no worse off than the children of straight couples. Despite the social disapproval from bigots that they must face every day, their self-esteem, self-image, educational achievement and emotional stability are all pretty much the same as children raised by straight parents.

"Karl, I read that David Parker's 5 year old son was given books promoting diversity, including Who's In A Family by Robert Skutch which included same sex couples raising children."

I also read that, but as Ed pointed out, that is not "teaching" homosexuality -- from the description of the book that I read in an article about this controversy, I would have thought that its purpose was to prevent kids from mistreating other kids because they had been adopted by homosexuals.

"When he was refused advance notice and opt-out privilege for his kid he would not leave the meeting room and was arrested for trespassing."

I am aware that he and his wife claim to have been denied notice and the "opt-out privilege" (though this is disputed by the school), but this does not change the fact that he was arrested for trespassing, not for complaining about the books or anything else.

"If you have any doubt that homosexuality is being aggressively introduced in kindergartens, just google 'homosexualtiy' and 'kindergarten.'"

Even if true, the question still is whether they were "teaching" homosexuality in the specific kindergarten that this person's son attended.

See? Not only are those who are against homosexual marriage bigoted and hateful, but they are "vile beyond belief." Oh, well, I should know better than to tangle with you, Ed. You like to ignore the central issues and quibble about peripherals. For example, you question the methodology behind Cameron's finding that gays have a lifespan 20 years less than average. Do you know of any better study that shows they have an average lifespan? No, of course not. One would almost know a priori that it would be less than average, given their promiscuity and sexual proclivities. (Shall I list them?)

You seem to have a vested interest in defending homosexual marriage. I still say: Homosexuals should not marry; they cannot perform the marriage act; what they do is not mating; it invites diseases. Look at the websites I listed above.

Dorothy Vining wrote:

See? Not only are those who are against homosexual marriage bigoted and hateful, but they are "vile beyond belief."

I didn't say that those who are against homosexual marriage are vile beyond belief. The phrase "vile beyond belief" was used in reference to the sentiments in Boissoin's letter, which went far beyond just opposing homosexual marriage. It accused homosexuals, as a group, of "horrendous atrocities" and claimed that homosexuals are "just as immoral as pedophiles". THAT is vile beyond belief. A little reading comprehension goes a long way.

For example, you question the methodology behind Cameron's finding that gays have a lifespan 20 years less than average. Do you know of any better study that shows they have an average lifespan? No, of course not. One would almost know a priori that it would be less than average, given their promiscuity and sexual proclivities. (Shall I list them?)

I am not aware of any such study ever having been done other than Cameron's, and his study is patently absurd. The problem is the difficulty of performing such a study because it's almost certainly true that a large portion, perhaps a majority, of gay people who die are not identified as gay. The closest I am aware of are the studies on the number of homosexuals among the elderly, where the estimates are that there are about 1.5 million out of some 35-40 million over 65. That is about 2.5%, or roughly the same as the number of homosexuals in the general population. Not conclusive, of course, but it's a start. It's certainly a lot better than citing a study that any sane person knows is nonsense.

As far as the alleged promiscuity of homosexuals, I am always amused by people who seem to know everything about the lifestyle of people they don't even know. The studies claiming that the average homosexual has some stunning number of partners are every bit as absurd as Cameron's study on lifespans. I have a wide range of friends, gay and straight, and the gay ones are no more promiscuous than the straight ones. Indeed, as a group they are less so.

More importantly, of course, promiscuity is a personal choice (orientation is not). If that lessens their lifespan, that's their choice. Just like people who smoke cigarettes have a lower life span than those who don't, or those who skydive or eat too much. We all make such choices. We all have a right to.

You seem to have a vested interest in defending homosexual marriage.

I have a vested interest in seeing the people I care about treated with the same dignity and legal protection that I as a straight man can just take for granted.

Homosexuals should not marry; they cannot perform the marriage act; what they do is not mating; it invites diseases. Look at the websites I listed above.

There is no such thing as "the marriage act". Smoking invites diseases too; should we ban smokers from marrying now?

There is no such thing as the marriage act? Think back, Eddie, to what you did on your honeymoon with your wife and how you made your kids. THAT was the marriage act. Without it, a marriage is not consummated. Whether you call it sexual intercourse, or mating, or copulation, it involves the union of the sexual organs, which, of course, homosexuals cannot accomplish. Brute animals know how to mate. How did homo sapiens get so off course?

I, too, think homosexuals should be treated with dignity and legal protection. And I have known some well. That does not give them the right to redefine marriage and family and tell me I have to buy into it.

No credible studies exist demonstrating lower gay lifespan. The Cameron figures are complete frauds not worth the paper they are written on. The "20" figure actually comes from an original source (not Cameron's) that said 8-20 years. So the citation of "20" right off the bat is misleading; why didn't they pick "8" instead? Maybe because they are dishonest and have an axe to grind?

The original 8-20 figure did come from an unbiased source, but the number was never meant to apply to the entire gay population generally -- just the gays living in one metro urban subculture. And more importantly, even the authors admit right here the figure is no longer valid because it was taken during the height of AIDS before the introduction of newer meds.

Money quote from the authors of the study:

In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.

Dorothy Vining wrote:

There is no such thing as the marriage act? Think back, Eddie, to what you did on your honeymoon with your wife and how you made your kids. THAT was the marriage act. Without it, a marriage is not consummated. Whether you call it sexual intercourse, or mating, or copulation, it involves the union of the sexual organs, which, of course, homosexuals cannot accomplish. Brute animals know how to mate. How did homo sapiens get so off course?

I've never been married. I have had sex, however, which is more than enough to prove that what you describe is not "the marriage act". Married people have sex, of course, but so do single people (from what my married friends say, more often than married people). Sex is one aspect of a relationship; it's not the relationship itself.

By the way, homosexuality has been observed in more than 450 species to one extent or another. Central Park Zoo in New York has two male penguins named Roy and Silo who are gay mates to each other. They have been inseparable for 6 years now. The zoo has put female penguins in with them and they show no interest in them. In fact, their keeper put an egg in their nest and they took care of it, kept it warm until it hatched, and raised the baby penguin until it was ready to live on its own.

Bonobos, one of our closest relatives, are almost all bisexual and spend about half their time having homosexual sex, both male and female. Routine homosexual couplings have been observed also in Rhesus monkeys, in gulls and in dolphins, just to name a few. Are these animals "sinning"? Is that because Eve ate the apple too?

If one understands and believes in the biblical account of creation, man cannot be compared to Penguins, Primates or any other animal. Instead the Bible teaches that man is the crowning glory of God's creation. Unlike animals and other critters, man was created in Gods image with the ability, while in relationship with Him, to understand the difference between right and wrong, in addition to having the ability to rise above our carnal nature and choose that which is right.

Even though it is obvious to see and experience the damage that our unrestrained lusts can cause, we nevertheless still have the ability to draw strength from Gods Spirit and apply self-control.

I do not see this attribute with Penguins though.

Peace

Cameron's sampling error is real, but is thesis hasn't been disproved. Maybe gay men really do have a shorter life span on average and Cameron got the number of years wrong. A followup study would be in order.

Assessing human sexual psychology on the basis of the sexual behavior of nonsentient beings is asinine.

Oh, and just because some lower animals exhibit homosexual behavior does not mean that such behavior does not constitute a malfunction.

Sometimes I think there isn't a homosexual on the face of the earth that doesn't trot out the Bonobos' "homosexual" behavior to prove that his is "normal."
For all the Bonobos' sexual play, which seems to have a social function, they go right on mating and reproducing (heterosexually, need I add?) As far as I know, there is NO evidence that they engage in anal sex! While I'm on the subject, can you give me ONE instance of any lower animal engaging in anal sex?

As for your 450 other animals that sometimes behave homosexually I would guess that it is as disordered as human homosexual sex is. Back to Jigsaw Puzzle Bascs 101: Do the pieces fit? Do the colors match? Does it complete the overall picture?

I know. You're going to tell me there is no overall picture. So I'll wait.

Stephen Boissoin wrote:

If one understands and believes in the biblical account of creation, man cannot be compared to Penguins, Primates or any other animal.

The biblical account of creation, while fascinating as a piece of literature, is no more valid or relevant, in my view, than the Dogon or Hindu or Native American accounts of creation. Humans are primates, regardless of what anyone in the bronze age might have thought.

Alan Henderson wrote:

Cameron's sampling error is real, but is thesis hasn't been disproved. Maybe gay men really do have a shorter life span on average and Cameron got the number of years wrong. A followup study would be in order.

The problem is the difficulty in doing such a study. The only way to do such a valid study is to do one that is prospective (meaning the subjects are picked before they die) and longitudinal (meaning the study follows the subjects until they die). There are other methodological difficulties as well, particularly the fact that many gays do not self-identify. The fact that there is no valid study that has been attempted so far does not mean that Cameron's study is credible by default. You don't accept a study you know is wildly off the mark because of an obvious sampling error just because you don't have a better one to point to. It may well be true that gay men live shorter lives than straight men, but then you'd also have to account for gay women, who are at far lower risk of AIDS, for example, than are heterosexuals. That's the problem with trying to make a moral argument against homosexuality based on lifespans. What happens if you find out that lesbians live longer? What then?

Assessing human sexual psychology on the basis of the sexual behavior of nonsentient beings is asinine.

Good thing I didn't do that, then. I didn't assess human sexual psychology, I was merely responding to Dorothy's "where did Homo sapiens go wrong?" question. Homosexuality is not exclusive to homo sapiens, it is observed throughout the animal world. But I do wonder how a creationist explains this. Why did God create so many gay animals?

Dorothy wrote:

Sometimes I think there isn't a homosexual on the face of the earth that doesn't trot out the Bonobos' "homosexual" behavior to prove that his is "normal."

A) I'm not a homosexual. B) I mentioned the almost universal bisexuality among bonobos, not their homosexuality. They almost all participate in homosexual sex on a virtually daily basis, while also mating for reproduction. Now that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about humans. I was just responding to your "where did homo sapiens go wrong" question.

While I'm on the subject, can you give me ONE instance of any lower animal engaging in anal sex?

I really am baffled by the obsession so many anti-gay folks have about anal sex. It's almost as if when you hear the word "gay", the only thing you can think of is "anal sex", as though that's all gay people do all day long is have anal sex. Sex is an act that one participates in for, at very most, perhaps 5% of the time; being gay is an orientation. Why not focus on straight people who have anal sex (and there are a lot of them)? And why not focus on all of the other aspects of gay relationships, which are for the most part identical to straight relationships? And of course, the answer to your question is yes, many mammalian species have been observed having anal sex.

As for your 450 other animals that sometimes behave homosexually I would guess that it is as disordered as human homosexual sex is. Back to Jigsaw Puzzle Bascs 101: Do the pieces fit? Do the colors match? Does it complete the overall picture?

But how did gay animals become "disordered"? God created them, right? They don't have "free choice" like we do, right? So why did God create so many gay animals if being gay is so horrible? If the gay penguins are doing such a horrible thing, why did god create so many gay penguins?

First, I think the entire "animals do or don't do X" is a red herring. We don't measure human morality by what animals do in the wild.

Second, I too an amused by antigay forces fixation on gay anal sex. It's quite bizzare.

Third, yes, I'm sure there are many animals that have anal sex. Not only that, I know of at least one species (probably many) that not only has anal sex, but PROCREATES while having anal sex.

I'm sure I've got everyone's attention through that.

I have to look a word up before I can explain this in more detail. But does anyone think they can crack this riddle?

Penguins, I would guess. But they have a cloaca, not an anus. Looking forward to your answer.

Well I was thinking of Chickens. But yes, you are right, it's probably penguins too. In fact, as this link points out, the Cloaca is something that "reptiles, birds, amphibians and many fishes" seem to have.

"But they have a cloaca, not an anus."

What an arbitrary distinction.

All this illustrates a problem inherent in Thomistic natural law philosophy -- trying to observe biological nature to find its "ought" essences. The Creator, if there is one, apparently has an interesting sense of humor, probably more like Sam Kinison's than the Pope's.

In all mammals He seems to have placed our excretory and reproductive organs quite proximately close to one another; who can blame us gays for being so confused?

And can't we glean the Creator's same logic of utility from the penis as from the cloaca? One hole: both excretory and reproductive.

Yeah, I'm curious what exactly Dorothy thinks is the difference between an anus and a cloaca. The only difference, and it isn't the least bit relevant for the purposes of her argument, is that a cloaca is the opening through which both urine and feces (and in many cases, egg or sperm) is released, whereas in humans the anus handles feces and the urethra handles urine and sperm.

Who would have thought it would come to this! Biology 101 next! The essential difference between an anus and a cloaca is that you can procreate through a cloaca but not an anus. Have you never considered the plight of Sammy Sperm when he thinks he is going to swim upstream to meet an egg, complete his chromosomes and become fully alive, only to find he is in a crappy rectum with not an egg in sight? Not only is there not an egg in sight, not only is he out in left field, but he is not even in the right ball park! And he has arrived in that place often at the cost of considerable tissue trauma and stretching of the anal sphincter which invites infection, especially as the colon lining is very thin, so as to easily absorb colon contents.

On the other hand, have you considered the wonders of a vagina? No sphincter! Very thick, practically impermeable walls, but very stretchy (after all it can accommodate a baby's head!) In addition the orgasmic waves urge Sammy upstream. All the secretions are friendly! And while Sammy is swimming as fast as he can towards his goal, his depositor gets to look at the face of his beloved. What a plan! Don't you love it?

Dorothy Vining wrote:

The essential difference between an anus and a cloaca is that you can procreate through a cloaca but not an anus.

But you can both procreate and reproduce through a penis, so the argument cannot be that if an organ can be used for excretion, it can't also be used for sex. You can't reproduce with your mouth either, but that also can be used sexually, as well as your hands. These body parts are not like an eye, which only has one function; they have multiple functions. If the argument is that it's "unnatural" to perform any sexual act that can't result in reproduction, then I'm afraid most people are going to tune you right out, and rightfully so.

Have you never considered the plight of Sammy Sperm when he thinks he is going to swim upstream to meet an egg, complete his chromosomes and become fully alive, only to find he is in a crappy rectum with not an egg in sight? Not only is there not an egg in sight, not only is he out in left field, but he is not even in the right ball park!

The same is true during masturbation and oral sex, not an egg in sight. Are we going to wax eloquent about poor Sammy Sperm in those situations and declare that masturbators and fellatrixes may not get married? I know this will come as a shock to you, but the vast majority of the human race only very rarely has sex for the purpose of reproducing, whether they are straight or gay. In fact, I have never had sex for that purpose in my entire life. Even those who have children have likely only had sex for the purpose of reproduction a tiny fraction of 1% of the times they've had sex. Far more Sammy Sperms die in a kleenex than ever get the opportunity to hunt for an egg.

On the other hand, have you considered the wonders of a vagina?

As often as possible.

And while Sammy is swimming as fast as he can towards his goal, his depositor gets to look at the face of his beloved. What a plan! Don't you love it?

There's a doggy style joke in there, but I'm not touching it. Of course it's true that the genitals work very well for reproduction. But they also have other purposes, as does the act of sex itself.

Sammy Sperm??

You are by far the wierdest Thomist I've ever debated.

(And Sammy Sperm probably doesn't like the inside of a condom either.)

Let me see if I understand the logic being proposed in some of these posts: if God exists, then if God created creatures that by their very nature exhibit homosexuality, then God is not inherently averse to homosexuality - thus there is no basis for God to oppose homosexuality in humans.

One of the assumptions here is that animal homosexuality is normal, and not the result of the critter finding itself in heat but, for whatever reason (like the absence of an opposite-sex partner) grabs a substitute (same-sex partner, a human leg to hump, etc.)

Another is that animals exhibit "homosexuality" in the same sense that humans do. Sexuality in animals is purely a thing of instinct. I suspect that a lot of this alleged "gay" activity is simply some critter going into heat and finding the first available outlet. Or being permanently imprinted on the first available outlet, in the case of swans. (Or a species of frog I heard about once that jumps every frog in sight until he gets one that doesn't let out the loud croak that only male frogs make - the only way he can tell the genders apart.) Sexuality is a vastly different concept in sentient beings that involves much more than just physical contact and gene implantation.

The Bible does not claim that God places any moral expectations on nonsenitent beings. Nor does it claim that the behavior of nonsentient beings is a benchmark for what types of behavior are acceptible in sentient beings.

Jon says: "You are by far the wierdest (sic) Thomist I'v ever debated."

Gee, thanks. If looking to the design makes me a Thomist, so be it. We do it with every other organ system; why not the reproductive system? Back to Jigsaw Basics: Do the pieces fit? Do the colors match? Does it help complete the overall picture?

How far would you get with your car if you put wiper fluid in the transmission and oil in the gas tank? Why would you think you could deposit seminal fluid with its load of immunosuppressant into a battered up rectum and not fall prey to all the infections that gays fall prey to?

Things really work better if you look to the design.

Note to Alan: Animals are sentient beings. Look the word up.

PPS: Guess why there's immunosuppressant in the seminal fluid - presumably so that the woman does not reject the sperm and child from an unrelated person. It's part of THE PLAN.

Alan Henderson wrote:

Let me see if I understand the logic being proposed in some of these posts: if God exists, then if God created creatures that by their very nature exhibit homosexuality, then God is not inherently averse to homosexuality - thus there is no basis for God to oppose homosexuality in humans.

Not quite. No one has taken that position. But the question has been asked, what is the Christian explanation for this? If in fact homosexuality is such a great evil, and is a result of human sinfulness, why is it so universally observed in other animals? I don't think this alone tells us all that much about the subject, since there are other traits we observe in animals that we would all consider immoral if done by humans (killing a rival to gain access to females for mating, for example). But so far, no one has even attempted to answer that question.

One of the assumptions here is that animal homosexuality is normal, and not the result of the critter finding itself in heat but, for whatever reason (like the absence of an opposite-sex partner) grabs a substitute (same-sex partner, a human leg to hump, etc.)

This isn't an assumption, it's an observation. Many of the observations of homosexual behavior in animals are not instances of merely finding a substitute while in heat due to lack of the opposite sex. Bonobos in particular engage in homosexual acts about half the time, on a daily basis, even with opposite sex mates available easily. And of course, this really doesn't answer the question because, naturally, God could simply have created animals not to do so if he'd wanted to.

The Bible does not claim that God places any moral expectations on nonsenitent beings. Nor does it claim that the behavior of nonsentient beings is a benchmark for what types of behavior are acceptible in sentient beings.

Nor do I think they should be the benchmark, for reasons stated above. But it's difficult to make the "unnatural" argument when we observe the same behavior throughout nature. One can still argue that it's wrong, of course, but not on the basis of it being "unnatural".

Dorothy Vining wrote:

If looking to the design makes me a Thomist, so be it. We do it with every other organ system; why not the reproductive system?

But as I noted above, it's absurd to take the position that because an organ is "designed" for one purpose it's "unnatural" to use it for another purpose as well. The tongue is "designed" for tasting food, but it works quite well sexually, as do the hands and fingers. So does the anus, if that is one's preference, and there are lots of straight couples who enjoy that (and I presume, some gay couples that don't). So the equation of "gay" with "anal sex" continues to be problematic, and the concept of condemning any use of an organ for a secondary purpose. Some organs, like the penis, have multiple functions, both excretory and reproductive. And of course, it still remains true that sex is not solely engaged in for reproduction; indeed, it is rarely engaged in for reproduction. Sex also has more than one "purpose" (by which I only mean "useful function", not "intended function"). It is useful not only for reproduction, but also for building emotional intimacy in a relationship. And of course, one can argue that pleasure seeking is a virtue in and of itself (or at least that it is not necessarily wrong or unnatural to do - no one would argue that taking a hot bath is immoral merely because it brings one pleasure).

News Break!!! Silo has left Roy bereft and has had an EGG with female penguin Scrappy!! And they said it couldn't be done.

Ah, Wikipedia tells me I'm confusing "sentient" and "sapient." In which case, it would seem that only vertebrates are sentient.

Ed:

If in fact homosexuality is such a great evil, and is a result of human sinfulness, why is it so universally observed in other animals?

You haven't established that it's universally observed in animals. You claim that it's been observed in 450 different species (a tiny fraction of even vertebrate species); you offer no means of checking the validity of those observations.

One behavior that is clearly rampant among animals is indiscriminate sex. Such behavior exhibited by humans clearly stands at odds with their psychological development.

So why did God make animals that are promiscuous? Or, for another example, animals that make messes without cleaning up after themselves? Maybe to give humans an illustration of what the human ideal is not? How uncivilized we become when we totally abandon our sapient dimension and demote ourselves to creatures of pure emotion and instinct?