Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals • Hacker News Board

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#41

Post by fenwick67 » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #40

traderjane wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, people are talking about what's spiritually natural. Talking about what's biologically natural is just missing the point. Also, why do you feel the Christian sacred texts doesn't really condemn homosexuality? I feel you have to do a lot of extra-textual analysis and theory-crafting to reach that perspective, so it's no surprise that Christians in general don't buy that idea.

It's been a while, but IIRC, the Bible only condemns homosexual sex specifically. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are modern inventions. Many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks) saw no conflict between their ideals of what we would consider "straight" sexuality and homosexual relationships. And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women insid…

> it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics.

There is a very convenient Christian doctrine where there are "three types of law in the Bible", which explains that some rules are meant for Israelites and some are meant for everyone (and you [or the church] basically get to guess which apply to you).

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#42

Post by presscast » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

traderjane wrote: post #37

presscast wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people are talking past each other when discussing "unnaturalness". Opponents of homosexuality often use the word "unnatural" in the sense of "not in humankind's nature". This is distinct from "unnatural" as "not occurring in nature". The argument is more like "eating dirt is okay for earthworms, but it's unnatural for humans", so appeal to the behavior of other animals completely misses the point. This is a…

I think they're talking about spiritual aberration, and not merely what's biologically common for humans. By natural people mean a perspective rightness, as opposed to merely some notion of statistical frequency.

Sure. That's very much my point (or have I missed yours?)

"Natural" is used to mean "in the ontology of Man".

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#43

Post by bigodbiel » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

fenwick67 wrote: post #4

I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. It relies on the naturalistic fallacy which I don't like, but it also shuts down people who make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad, which I do like. Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they wa…

plain simple english, how hard can it be to be understood

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#44

Post by CptFribble » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 10:44 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #40

traderjane wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, people are talking about what's spiritually natural. Talking about what's biologically natural is just missing the point. Also, why do you feel the Christian sacred texts doesn't really condemn homosexuality? I feel you have to do a lot of extra-textual analysis and theory-crafting to reach that perspective, so it's no surprise that Christians in general don't buy that idea.

It's been a while, but IIRC, the Bible only condemns homosexual sex specifically. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are modern inventions. Many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks) saw no conflict between their ideals of what we would consider "straight" sexuality and homosexual relationships. And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women insid…

I don't normally do this, but I believe it's very relevant:

This comment you're reading has a dead sibling that pointed out the commonly-held Christian doctrine that some of the Bible's laws don't apply to modern Christians.

The commenter is absolutely correct, and here is a link from a famous and well-regarded theologian on the subject (R.C Sproul).

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/which-laws-apply/

In summary, there are civil, ceremonial, and moral laws in the Old Testament. For example, "no murder" is a moral law, while dietary restrictions are a ceremonial law.

I'm not commenting on the validity or "correctness" of this doctrine, as I am not a theologian. I just think it's worth confirming that this is something a lot of Christians believe.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#45

Post by balfirevic » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 10:52 PM UTC

presscast wrote: post #10

fenwick67 wrote: post #4

I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. It relies on the naturalistic fallacy which I don't like, but it also shuts down people who make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad, which I do like. Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they wa…

I think people are talking past each other when discussing "unnaturalness". Opponents of homosexuality often use the word "unnatural" in the sense of "not in humankind's nature". This is distinct from "unnatural" as "not occurring in nature". The argument is more like "eating dirt is okay for earthworms, but it's unnatural for humans", so appeal to the behavior of other animals completely misses the point. This is a…

It should be made clear that "unnaturalness", when used by opponents of homosexuality (and in many other debates of moralistic kind), is used in a question-begging way which carries no information at all and is nothing more than a shorthand for "I don't like it and I think it's bad". But, alas, it does sound like it has some meaning beyond that, which is why it's used in debates in a first place.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#46

Post by pesmhey » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 10:54 PM UTC

traderjane wrote: post #35

krapp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. The motivation is mostly religious. Homosexuality must be a choice, otherwise God created homosexuals as they are, and homosexuality is just another part of Nature. But if that's true, homosexuality can't be a sin, because sin is always a choice. But homosexuality is a sin because the Bibl…

Right, people are talking about what's spiritually natural. Talking about what's biologically natural is just missing the point. Also, why do you feel the Christian sacred texts doesn't really condemn homosexuality? I feel you have to do a lot of extra-textual analysis and theory-crafting to reach that perspective, so it's no surprise that Christians in general don't buy that idea.

Could the argument be made that in the New Testament, it's not necessarily homosexual activity that is condemned, but rather it's the act of emasculating a man. The criticism against the Romans was that they were laying with men as they would woman, which at the time would mean to rob a man of something absolutely sacrosanct. 2000 years of history, and a lot of progress on the front of women's equality (probably not enough still), and it seems less of an issue for two consenting adults to engage in homosexual activity, whereas in Roman society, could a slave, or a man of lesser status truly consent to a homosexual relationship?

It always read to me that it was more about turning men into women than it was about actually performing homosexual acts.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#47

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 10:54 PM UTC

fenwick67 wrote: post #4

I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. It relies on the naturalistic fallacy which I don't like, but it also shuts down people who make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad, which I do like. Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they wa…

[deleted]

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#48

Post by int_19h » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 10:57 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #34

whatshisface wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Your friend's argument would not work at all against people who are against homosexuality, because their answer to all of those questions would simply be "no." The "it's no…

>The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. The motivation is mostly religious. Homosexuality must be a choice, otherwise God created homosexuals as they are, and homosexuality is just another part of Nature. But if that's true, homosexuality can't be a sin, because sin is always a choice. But homosexuality is a sin because the Bibl…

> But if that's true, homosexuality can't be a sin, because sin is always a choice.

Not if you believe in total depravity combined with unconditional election. Which just happens to be the cornerstone dogmas of one very popular Christian denomination.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#49

Post by paulddraper » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 11:01 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #34

whatshisface wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Your friend's argument would not work at all against people who are against homosexuality, because their answer to all of those questions would simply be "no." The "it's no…

>The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. The motivation is mostly religious. Homosexuality must be a choice, otherwise God created homosexuals as they are, and homosexuality is just another part of Nature. But if that's true, homosexuality can't be a sin, because sin is always a choice. But homosexuality is a sin because the Bibl…

> homosexuality can't be a sin

When you say "homosexuality" do you mean homosexual proclivities, or homosexual acts? It's an important nuance.

Judiasm/Christianity/Islam teaches that humans have a proclivity to sin (fallen nature), but God commands them to not sin, i.e. to act ccontrary to their nature.

There is no theological contradiction (or least, not anymore than normal) between natural homosexuals and God forbidding homosexual acts.

EDIT: The actual consequence of natural homosexuality is a difference of understanding. Birth condition vs self-inflicted. "Crack baby" vs "crack head".

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#50

Post by int_19h » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 11:02 PM UTC

CptFribble wrote: post #44

krapp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been a while, but IIRC, the Bible only condemns homosexual sex specifically. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are modern inventions. Many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks) saw no conflict between their ideals of what we would consider "straight" sexuality and homosexual relationships. And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women insid…

I don't normally do this, but I believe it's very relevant: This comment you're reading has a dead sibling that pointed out the commonly-held Christian doctrine that some of the Bible's laws don't apply to modern Christians. The commenter is absolutely correct, and here is a link from a famous and well-regarded theologian on the subject (R.C Sproul). https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/which-laws-apply/ In summar…

There's a NT-only argument against homosexuality that derives the prohibition from the general ban on adultery, combined with the definition of marriage as man + woman.

In general, NT has plenty of stuff that can be appropriated for fire-and-brimstone preaching. Most of it is Paul's, which is why some consider Pauline Christianity to be a mutilation of what was preached before.