Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...

by Albert Einstein 113 Replies latest jw friends

  • sir82
    I don't think you have made a specific case that God actually created homosexuality in animals. we know they are imperfect so it could have developed later.

    Animals are imperfect?

    Hey wait, I thought everything that was created on the "6th day" was "very good"?

    So, did animals start out as perfect and then begin sinning by "becoming homosexual"? If so, what caused them to "descend into sin"? The Bible says "sin" started in humans as a result of Eve's deception. Was Elsie the cow deceived by Satan disguised as a blade of grass?

    Or did the animals start out as imperfect to begin with? If so, why would God create imperfect animals?

    Not questions for a JW, but instead questions for someone who goes to great lengths to defend God's supposed actions.

  • Megachusen

    "If you believe in evolution then you believe we are animals and so we can be equated with them"

    I hate to break it to you: we are animals. To say that we are not is absurd.


        [ an - uh -m uh l ] Show IPA



    any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

    Which one of those doesn't apply to us?
  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    I've been trying to lick my own balls because my dog does it.

  • DaCheech

    reniaa keeps on coming out of hiding.

    lets run a lottery to see when her (him/it) next hybernation starts

  • Spook

    P1 Please explain.

    You could remove "naturally" necessary if you also were postulating supernatural necessity as in God causes homosexuality. I'll dismiss this as a minority opinion which I'm not addressing. Any situation, such as the having of homosexual desires, can either be contingent or necessary. If it is necessary then it cannot have been different. If it is contingent, then it can be different. If it is contingent, it could be random or teleological.

    P3 How are homosexual actions a natural necessity?

    By natural necessity you could understand this as equally accounted for by natural explanations when compared to the alternative, heterosexuality. Consider: At least some people are left handed by natural necessity. This could include genetics and environment and exclude individual teleological choice.

    P4 What is your basis for knowing the nature of a non-existing god if he did exist?

    This is how you write a philosophical proposition and talk about a contrary position. If the assumptions are not true for a particular theism, then neither are the conclusions. If you're a Deist or a hindu theist this obviously does not apply. This argument, as stated in the terms, only would apply to a theism which contained those assumptions.

    C5 Why? Are you saying that God can't exist if there are homosexuals?

    Some God's can't exist if there is natural homosexuality. Any theism which entails the claim that homosexuality is a choice is false if it is true that homosexuality is natural. C5 follows primarily from two points: P3 and P4b where if the probality is high that at least some homosexuality is natural and also the probability is low that if God were to exist he would have created natural homosexuality, then one of several disjuncts is probably true. The one this argument was phrased for is the argument that probably theism is false as laid out in the premises. There are many possible theological counter arguments here which mainly question or reinterpret P4 by adding additional characteristics to the theistic God which trump the 3 listed. Note I did not make this list exclusive of other possibilities.

    P6 What is the basis for this assumption? How did you observe both conditions? How do you make a comparison when only one set of conditions are known to exist? How do you know that this isn't a "less similar" condition?

    The same comments as above apply here. Further I clearly stated this premise as hypothetical reasoning. Christian theism entails the claims that humans are special and distinct from other species in many important ways. Naturalism, if it entails evolution, posits that we should expect to find many similarities. Even if, all other things being equal, the claims were identical, Christian theism is claiming difference. This is not a logical proof, but an evidential argument because some things aren't ruled out by theism absolutely. That's why I'm constantly saying probably, at least some, etc.

    C7 So? You can choose any similarity you want.

    Being charitible, I understand your claim to be that the preceding arguments were arbitrary. It may be the case that some similarities are arbitrary, such as equal frequency of bowl movements or equal number of teeth. However, for any theism which entails moral claims then this is not arbitrary. A hypothesis which is necessary for naturalism and confirmed a posteriori provides some evidence for naturalism. The same datum, not being associated with the theistic hypothesis, may either simply have no bearing on the arguments or may count as evidence against it. My conclusion here is strong and is derived from the premises. I could only choose another similarity if it were likewise derived from equally strong assumptions.

    C9 Reading this as written, you are saying that theism is likely true (double negative) and we have one instance of evidence for naturalism. This contradicts C5.

    I made a typo.

    And when I said bingo bango, my intention was "And here we go!" or off to the races with the argument. I may not post additional responses to your brief criticisms after the failure of our last scientific/philosophical discussion. I'd rather do so on economics since I enjoy it more these days! No offense meant by that, we've had good interchanges since our fist evolution tussle - but as you identified last time these subjects are so huge, your time is limited and we wind up talking past each other. If we wanted to tusssle it out we'd have to discuss:

    1. Necessity and contingency.

    2. Free will, agent causation and predestination.

    Among others. And in general I'm still not gonna argue against a principled skeptical position unless I get to change the terms of debate, which would be hijacking the OP. Cheers, though. Really not trying to be a snot as I write this. Thanks for the reply.

  • BurnTheShips
    part 3: Homosexual animals...

    This argument may convince some JWs, but it is inherently flawed. There are a number of "natural" behaviors in animals that most of us find debased, abhorrent, or unacceptable. For example, interspecies humping. For humans, the term is "bestiality." I doubt many of us are into getting freaky with barnyard buddies. Humping your mother/father, offspring, or a sibling. Many animals will do this, yet we deprecate incest almost universally in our society. Nearly all of these "natural" sexual behaviors are considered deviant to varying degrees when humans do them. A certain list of sexual rules exist in most successful cultures for a reason. Sexuality is more than mere pleasure, it is the means of transmission for future generations. A society that does not handle reproduction right will not last in competition with others, it is evolutionarily unfit. We derive pleasure from eating food also, yet few here would espouse eating without restriction or consideration for what is consumed. And we have not even gotten into other "natural" activities animals engage in, such as consuming members of the same species, or the offspring of a competing male. There have existed a number of cannibalistic societies, yet I am sure few of us would use these examples to justify the practice in our own.


  • Spook

    I'd probably say not as flawed as Burn might think, if it is the theists which are distinguishing homosexuality. But I'd agree not as straight forward as the OP, either. Again, I mention the "is/ought" problem here. It's important to distinguish any "should" questions from the inferences about the non-normative "state of affairs" questions. My reasons as a naturalist for supporting gay rights don't rely as much on the fact of whether it is natural or teleological as do most reasons given by Western theists.

  • Albert Einstein
    Albert Einstein

    BTS: The issue here is not to prove gays "righteous" because animals do it as well ... the point is the fact there are homosexual animals contradicts the presumption there is a God, who extremely hates homosexuality. If this was so, God would not create homosexual animals.

    No mention here about human homosexuality - thats clear: Adams sin - imperfecton - unnatural desires - death in Armagedon, blah blah blah.


  • BurnTheShips

    the point is the fact there are homosexual animals contradicts the presumption there is a God, who extremely hates homosexuality

    Not really, if animals and humans are held to different standards of behavior. As I mentioned, animals engage in all sorts of behaviors that humans would generally find unacceptable. We have differing standards too.

  • I quit!
    I quit!

    Jesus did have a lot to say about a lot of things. The things that were important to him. For instance he condemned those who would put rules above saving lives. Does that sound like anyone we know? So lets look at what he had to say about homosexuals.........Anyone??

Share this