Research Proves Homosexuality In Animals
Recent research study has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought.
Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world.
Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide. For instance, observations indicate that Humboldt, King, Gentoo, and Adélie penguins of the same sex engage in “mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another.” In addition, male giraffes have also been observed engaging in homosexual behavior by rubbing their necks against each others’ bodies while ignoring the females. Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates.
Biologists Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk from the University of California, Riverside have investigated the evolutionary consequences and implications of same-sex behavior, and their findings demonstrate benefits to what seems to be an evolutionary paradox. For example, their studies of the Laysan albatross show that female-female pairing can increase fitness by taking advantage of the excess of females and shortage of males in the population and provide superior care for offspring. Moreover, same-sex pairing in many species actually alleviates the likelihood of divorce and curtails the pressure on the opposite sex by allowing members to exhibit more flexibility to form partnerships, which in turn strengthens social bonds and reduces competition. Thus, not only do animals exhibit homosexuality, but the existence of this behavior is quite prevalent and may also confer certain evolutionary advantages.
Scientists have proved that outside the context of the Bible homosexuality is found in nature and is thus natural. It is perfectly natural for certain animals to eat their offspring as part of their survival strategy but it is rather clumsy to compare that to the context of animal or human sexuality.
Also it is impossible to live 100% according to the Bible which is in any case very much based on cultures, contexts and times which are archaic and no longer relevant for todays changing times. No homosexual or evangelical preacher or any person for that matter can say that they have lived or currently live 100% according to the Bible because the Bible is a guideline.
I can also quote verses from the Bible saying that people shouldn’t wear garments of different kinds of thread or eat shellfish or eat venison or have sex while being on one’s period. That would be futile as in today’s modern context which is radically different to ancient times such rules are no longer relevant. You can preach as much as you want to people but they are going to live their lives the way they want to in any case and interpret the Bible the way they want to because the Bible is a guideline.
Also coming with a list of judgemental verses from the Bible does more to drive Queer persons away from Christianity and the Church than to reconcile who they are with their religion.
What kind of God should Christians be promoting to Queer persons? Is it a God who is loving and tolerant or a God who is judgemental, intolerant and bloodthirsty? The latter version is still being promoted by Christians today and this version is becoming increasingly unpopular. The exponential rise in atheism in recent years is testament to this.
Much negative, unwarranted and unjustified things have been done in the name of Christianity to Queer persons which have just driven them away from the very support structures religion has to offer like counselling, sense of community, emotional and physical support. Either Christians radically rethink the way they treat Queers or their religion will continue to become irrelevant as people will seek out alternative and more viable belief systems.
This indeed does justice to the the Rev’s response.