If homosexuality isn’t natural, why does it appear in nature?

One of the main arguments against Marriage Equality is that being gay isn’t natural, and it is a choice.

Here is a summary of animals, as in, creatures of nature, as in, natural being something that is of nature, that show homosexual behaviours.

One of the most clear examples are black swans that pair up as a gay male pair, and then chase a heterosexual pair off their nest and raise the cygnets as their own.

Some more examples over the break, but only bother if you’re not easily offended by natural animals having natural gay sex

and

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • starboard

    you have abnormalities in all species , it must be a chromosomal defect .Either way, its not natural.

    • Clutching at really thinning straws using the genetics argument aren’t we?

      Last I looked it was could be biological – that is genetic – chromosomal defects however I suspect it is more environment being a catalyst there. In which this case it is deemed natural.

      “Natural” like “normal” are subjective human social constructions any way as continue with our anthropological must categorise everything to try and either understand it or compartmentalise it… So what is unnatural to you might be natural to someone else.

      By the looks of it, homosexuality is occurring in nature without our interference so it must be natural

    • Ahhh duh! ….abnormalities in nature ARE natural….they may not be the norm…hence the designation “abnormality” but they are as natural as anything else within nature.

    • So Down Syndrome isn’t natural?
      Does something have to be the majority in a population before it is natural?
      If the world has 51% men, and 49% women, are only men natural?

    • Gayguy

      And you would be one of those abnormalities.

      • Come on now. Aim a little higher. Argument, not the person.

        • Gayguy

          I managed to do both.

          Hate is a choice, SB chooses hate, thus he gets what comes with it.

          • Mostly_Harmless

            Can you honestly say you don’t hate people with anti-gay opinions?

          • starboard

            he has said it before. He hates anti homosexuals. GG is a very angry hate filled homosexual.

          • Gayguy

            So saytih SB the homophobic hate filled human.

          • Mr_V4

            You guys could get a room and have a mutual hate love-in session.

          • Gayguy

            SB is not my type. I prefer evolved men, not backward retards.

            Anyway, I am taken.

          • Travis Poulson

            Yet you have sex backwards. Go figure.

          • Gayguy

            This will sound odd, but I hate hate.

          • surfisup

            Some people cannot .

    • starboard

      LOL..toss in a hook and watch ’em go rabid..

    • Rodger T

      That`s the beauty of being a creationist,you can deny the evidence before your eyes.

  • interspecies sex and incest are also prevalent in the animal kingdom. As well as rape and even necrophilia. (i think… am i right? some one with more brains than me will know)

    • aaaand.. there are clearly planty of queer MALE animals. i dont oft see queer FEMALES. i wonder if this is a case of….

      boy sheep one: “i spies me a nice bit of lamb of there”

      boy sheep two: “hey im not a lamb…. hang on… that aint too bad”

      boy sheep one: “gee….. if i hadve know you wasnt a lamb i never would have gone there”

      • Cadwallader

        Have you ever had sex with a homosexual? No but I have had sex with a man who has! This debate is pointlessly circular.

    • JC

      I’ve seen close to necrophilia on a poison line for possums. A couple of female possums ingested the cyanide bait first, were immediately in trouble and got nailed by the accompanying males.

      JC

  • Andrei

    And Baboons manage reproduction by the alpa male raping any female that takes his fancy – if she doesn’t want to comply she gets a good wack

    We see similar behaviour among some human beings too but try telling the judge it is natural if you try this way of being……..

    • unsol

      Good grief, that is almost a valid point.

      • Rubbish. If it happens without human interference in nature, it is natural. Case closed.

        The fact humans place moral restrictions on their behaviour doesn’t mean those moral restrictions come from nature. They come from nurture and from culture. There are cultural boundaries.

        Andrei’s example is deeply flawed.

        If I call that judge a sack of shit, I’ll be held in contempt of court.

        If I do the same, but it is known I have Tourettes, then the judge will not hold me in contempt of court.

        This means that the judge will allow a certain behaviour if he considers it comes from nature, whereas he won’t if he considers it came from my poor upbringing.

      • Andrei

        Any human abberation you can think of will have an analogue in the animal kingdom.

        Using a video of a donkey sodomizing another donkey does not provide an argument as to why gay “marriage” is a good and necessary thing – there is a huge gap in the logic chain there

      • starboard

        Do you still think oral sex is the same as sodomy unsol?

        • unsol

          Look up the definition of sodomy portside….oh hang on, that requires the ability to understand basic concepts & the ability to actually read….but just in case, let me spell it out for you:

          sod·om·y [sod-uh-mee]

          noun

          1.

          anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

          2.

          copulation with a member of the same sex.

          3.

          bestiality ( def 4 ) .

          • starboard

            bollocks….oral is sodomy..you must be a gay school teacher

          • unsol

            No, just someone who is more intelligent than you.

            You can say bollocks all you like. But it is there in the fine print if you bothered to do your homework before coming on here & mouthing off half cocked.

          • Kacanga

            Oh dear, by your definition I am a sodomist!!!

            But then, I really don’t give a flying fuck what bigots like you think about me. I do so enjoy oral sex with partners of the opposite sex, both ways, it’s fine according to my morals, and I don’t believe God (as I understand him) is too upset about it.

            I think God must feel pretty sad sometimes when he sees what you fundies claim in his name.

          • unsol

            Did you just call me a bigot…& a fundamentalist? When I am not religious & have no issue with what anyone does in the privacy of their own homes provided it is consensual & legal?

            Who are you again?

            Like portside you should probably do your homework before jumping in half cocked

    • Gayguy

      Until we developed humans were much the same.

    • Mostly_Harmless

      The point of this post was to refute the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong by pointing out that it does occur in the natural world. A better argument, though, would be that whether or not something is natural is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong.

      • Andrei

        The point of this post is to refute a strawman argument, that I don’t believe anyone is actually making, against gay “marriage”

        • Mostly_Harmless

          Perhaps not this time. It was certainly a common argument in the past.

  • DrCP

    Murder occurs in nature as well.

    Let’s legislate equality for that as well.

    Yeah right.

    • Murder by definition involves the unltimate violation of the rights of another…and hence is properly subject to legal action….homosexuality does not so should not be.

      • DrCP

        That’s not the point. The attempt is made to justify it by the existence of it in nature alone – its simply not a valid thing to do. And try your explanation on a lion – it will simply eat you.

        • A lion has a nature specific to it….Homosexuality is a specific thing in nature too….it happens….it doesn’t violtae the rights of anyone else who doesn’t want to be involved….so who cares? Why aren’t people as upset by and as against Albinos,or left handers or Gingers…? Its really about hatred based on personal insecuritys about oneself and ones Deity….

          • It’s only because of respect for other people’s life choices that we even allow that deity to be real for the sake of the argument. Some would insist that denying two people to enter into a marriage contract because a 3rd person’s imaginary friend says its wrong is… well… absurd.

        • There is nothing wrong with murder. It’s only culture that decides what to do about it. You are absolutely right. The taking of a life is a natural act. It may be morally and culturally unacceptable in most places (not in others!!), but that doesn’t make it any less natural.

          • Mostly_Harmless

            Murder is both natural and wrong – there’s no contradiction between the two.

          • It is also not wrong. If someone is about to kill my family, and I kill that person. I wouldn’t feel that was wrong at all.

          • Mostly_Harmless

            True. The point I was trying to make though, is that whether something is natural has no bearing on whether it’s right or wrong.

          • Agreed then :) There is no morality in nature.

          • In Human nature their is. Man needs a moral code to live and survive with others…That code comes from mperception of reality and mans nature as man…and what that nature entails for man to live and survive….its always there…it just needs to be realised and enacted.

          • I can debate against that. These are cultural belief systems that show a wide variance all over the planet. In some places the killing of a 12 year old girl that was raped is considered just. In most other places it is considered abhorrent. Just and abhorrent aren’t natural states, they come from a moral code that is absent in nature. We would have to strip culture away from humans to discover what our natural behaviours are. (I suspect they are pretty.. errr, natural) But this is turning the argument around. This posts says that X claims that Y isn’t natural is wrong because Y is observed in nature, outside of cultural and moral norms.

          • Orange

            I think that’s just a incorrect definition of “murder” you’re using.

          • Could be. I just see it as the taking of a life. To eat a cow, you murder it. To dispose of a threat by a dog, you murder it. The intent is to remove the life force of the other creature or being. As the intent is to kill, it is murder.

            Culturally, we have a sliding scale of how we approve or disapprove of murder, or the taking of life, depending on the situation.

            Not so long ago, taking the life of a slave in the US wasn’t considered a bad thing, in the same way as most people dispose of a perfectly good phone and replace it with another perfectly good phone.

          • LesleyNZ

            “To eat a cow, you murder it.” Nonsense. To eat a cow you kill it. A cow is not a human being.

          • Murder is the taking of a life with intent. Yes or no?

          • LesleyNZ

            Human beings yes – animals no – there is however unlawful killing of an animal called animal abuse. Killing a cow and eating it is lawful. http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/324585/words-matter-you-cant-murder-animals
            “This may seem like a small thing, but it really isn’t. Using the word “murder” to describe the unlawful killing of animals is just another way to blur the crucial distinction between us and fauna. Animals can certainly be abused. They cannot be murdered.”

          • There is no “lawful” in nature. I can accept that murder is a cultural definition of killing, and am happy to set it aside as a word because of this. But we are discussing what is “natural”, and if murder is a cultural definition of a killing, then it isn’t natural. Because in nature, there isn’t a value judgement attached to the taking of life.

          • Orange

            It really doesn’t help debate by redefining commonly accepted terms with your own meaning. Cults do it all the time, they say one thing that you recognise, but actually mean something altogether different. Murder does not (normally) include the concept of judicial killing or that decreed by governments in wars against armed opponents. So I think we’d all agree with you but not with the misdefinition of murder as simply taking of life. It’s never meant that wider catch all, eg. the 10 commandments.

          • I understand your point, but the fact is that “murder” has a social component to it. It depends on context, does it not?

            I wasn’t so much trying to redefine it as I was trying to draw the comparison that nature doesn’t have murder, it only has killing with intent. And the the word humans use is for killing with intent, is murder.

            The original post’s point was that 1) if it happens in nature, then 2) it’s natural. It’s very much harder to do it the other way around, because human behaviour is partially, if not totally, guided by cultural criteria not present in nature.

            Anyway, enough, I think. ;)

          • Orange

            “And the the word humans use is for killing with intent, is murder.” But it’s not…

            But like you said, moving right along..

  • LesleyNZ

    We live in a fallen world. If you say that it is natural when animals practice homosexual behaviour and it is OK and also natural for human beings to practice homosexual behaviour, then you are putting human beings at the same level as animals. Animals also practice rape, wanton murder, incest, rampant theft, physical abuse, and cannibalism – this is natural animal behaviour. That being the case, and because it is natural behaviour, it must be OK for human beings to also practice rape, wanton murder, incest, rampant theft, physical abuse, and cannibalism – after all it is only natural. The difference is we have a conscience (well we are supposed to have one) and we know what good and evil is and what right and wrong is. We have the ability to think logically (most of the time) and animal behavior is an instinctive response to environmental stimuli. Surely you don’t think these animals are born gay? You can not use the argument of “gay” animals to justify gay marriage.

    • Macca

      I couldn’t agree more Lesley! Lets face it, as the old saying goes, ‘If you roll a turd in glitter….. Its amazing the lengths the pro gay will go to in an attempt to get their point across.
      The point that should be made here also is once again, do Labour not have something better to do than release a policy like this? Here’s an idea, how about coming up with some solutions for all the problems they keep dribbling on about…… like housing! Wait sorry, I forgot! Sheep has already sorted that one hasn’t he! Building house packages for $300,00 on fictitious sections! Jobs… no, Wussell has that under control too. We’re all going to sit around and smoke dack and imagine that we have a green job! What a bloody joke! The country ends up wasting millions of dollars of tax payers hard earned on this utter crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks Labour! The gift…

  • Callum

    You do realise thaty homosexuality in nature actually leads to those genes dying out? Is THAT natures intent? Personally I think homosexuality falls on a scale between nature and nurture, either way though you can live your life as you want without impacting on others but there is no need or benefit for society in supporting or condoning it.

  • J.M

    Not sure that these articles really achieve much. Sure it happens in the natural world, as do a lot of other things. That does not mean we should encourage it.

  • Mr_V4

    This is actually quite an interesting ethical debate, because as you say it does occur in nature, however that does not mean it can easily be the subject of scientific inquiry.

    Try to obtain public money to investigate say the genetics of the topic (as you would any other form of scientific inquiry) and see how far you get. Reason being of course is the gay lobby who would be fearful of homosexuality being linked to a set of genes, and perhaps opening the door to identify it genetically or manipulate those genes.

    Personally I don’t think it is solely genetics or environment but a complex interaction of both so it wouldn’t be that simple, however nonetheless it is interesting and fascinating that scientific inquiry in the area is difficult.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html
    http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

  • Blair Mulholland

    Great big holes you can drive a truck through in this argument. Besides which, whether homosexuality is “natural” or not has no bearing on whether the government should redefine marriage. None at all. It’s not an argument anyone uses to oppose the proposal.
    And besides, I’m still waiting for someone to point out where the gun is. You know, the one that forces certain men to have sex with each other. Because it’s not a choice, right?

40%