Homosexuality in Nature

Homosexuality in Nature March 10, 2014

homosexuality in nature same sex marriageChristians often argue that homosexuality is unnatural. That is, the purpose of man/woman sex is clear—it’s what propagates the species. Any other kind of sex simply isn’t using human anatomy for what it was meant for. There’s only one way to properly fit the jigsaw puzzle pieces together.

The Catholic Church is a vocal proponent of this idea that homosexuality is unnatural. Let’s pause to savor this for a moment—that’s a community of celibate men, if you can imagine such a thing, calling another lifestyle unnatural.

But the fact is that homosexuality is natural. It’s widespread in nature and has been observed in 500 animal species, including all the great apes, of which humans are a part.

The science that explains homosexuality is immature—homosexuality might be the consolation prize, for example, or maybe it’s nature’s way of reducing competition among males—but why isn’t the point. It’s clearly natural, and that’s been recognized within society. We’re decades past the time when homosexuality was categorized as a mental disorder.

But natural doesn’t mean good, the Christian will say. Rape, violence, and cyanide are natural, and they’re harmful.

That’s true. Then let’s move the conversation from natural vs. unnatural to where it should be: good vs. harmful. Rape, violence, and cyanide are inherently harmful, but homosexuality isn’t.

Saying “I have homosexual inclinations, so I should act on them” is like saying, “I have alcoholic inclinations, so I should act on them.”

Once again, the issue is harm. Alcoholic inclinations cause harm, and homosexual inclinations don’t. What’s the problem caused by consensual homosexual sex (besides offending the Old Testament god)?

Homosexuals can be treated. They can become un-gay.

In 2012, Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, then the largest ex-gay organization in the U.S., said:

The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could  never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.

The organization disbanded less than two years later.

No, there’s little evidence that someone who is gay can become un-gay. And why would that be a goal, anyway? I love desserts and, frankly, it would do me some good to become an ex-lover of desserts. There are health benefits to doing so. But why become un-gay? (I mean, besides avoiding all the artificial obstacles homophobes erect against gays.)

But if everyone were homosexual, the population would die out!

Yes, and if everyone were female, the population would also die out. So what? No one’s saying that being female is bad or immoral or unnatural. It’s not the case that everyone is female, and it’s not the case that everyone is homosexual. No problem then! Anyway, animals have apparently been gay since forever, and evolution stumbles along just fine.

I’ll close with something that I wish I’d said:

Homosexuality exists in 500 species.
Homophobia exists in only one.
Which seems unnatural now?

I fear that we [Christians have] lost not only the culture wars,
but also our Christian identity,

when the “right to refuse” service has become
a more sincerely-held and widely-known Christian belief
than the impulse to give it.
— Rachel Held Evans

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/26/12.)

Photo credit: Gabludlow

"bs: You just sort of blunder into these things, don't you? Pro tip: think before ..."

Outrageous Kim Davis: Homophobe and Hypocrite
"Yes, thats the point, marriage is not some recently made up institution by Christians."

Outrageous Kim Davis: Homophobe and Hypocrite
"Virgin birth exclusive to christians? No such thing among "pagans"? "and is utterly unlike anything ..."

Was Jesus Born to a Virgin? ..."
"Jesse H. is happy to just declare something "refuted" and list a name and carry.This ..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • RichardSRussell

    I could never understand why people dressed in clothing, wearing watches and glasses, with a roof over their heads, having recently eaten food trucked in from 1000 miles away, and popping a vitamin and iron supplement as a chaser, could sit down (in a chair) in front of their computers and start bitching about things not being “natural”.

    • Excellent idea for a retort!

      “Homosexuality isn’t natural”
      “Neither is wearing clothes, but you’re doing it!”

      Okay, not entirely accurate since homosexuality is actually natural, but I think it might work.

    • smrnda

      I have to say, in many cases artificial beats natural.

    • Sophia Sadek

      They will really be pissed off when they find out that their deity was made in the image of homo sapiens. I suspect they will try to change the name to hetero sapiens.

  • avalpert

    To be fair to the Catholics when they say something is ‘natural’ they don’t mean to imply it exists in nature. They are simply saying that it doesn’t conform to the manufactured ‘nature’ of Thomism that was artificially made when cognitive dissonance caused by the philosophy he learnt drove a Dominican priest to abusively twist Aristotelian language to fit into the preordained Catholic framework of right and wrong.

    • Huh, what?

      … oh, okay, that makes sense.

      • avalpert


    • OverlappingMagisteria

      Yea… the “natural” purpose of sex is procreative and unitive. Therefore if one of these is missing it is a sin.

      Similarly, the “natural” purpose of sight is both to appreciate beauty and to navigate. Therefore walking through a drab office is sinful.

      …or are we only supposed to apply the logic when we want to beat up on gays, condoms, and IVF?

      • Where it truly gets weird is when they say that the purpose of marriage is procreation. (I wonder if they only give lubricating oil at wedding showers.)

        • RichardSRussell

          In fact, if anything, it’s probably the reverse. If they hadn’t started in on that “wait till you’re married” crap, girls would probably have started popping out babies about the age of 13 or 14. By then, biology was already issuing a clarion “you’re ready!” call, and only various forms of socialization (including religion) mitigated against answering it at every available opportunity.

      • smrnda

        Yeah, the Thomist ‘natural’ is a lot of twisted rhetoric that’s probably more so true believers can pretend to have an intellectual justification for their beliefs, since it seems so desperate and unpersuasive to anyone else.

    • MNb

      Wow, Avalpert – that beats Russell’s final comment on Thomas of Aquino.

    • Scott_In_OH

      But they claim God’s commands can be derived from observing nature.

      • smrnda

        In that case, it appears that god commands we all screw like bonobos.

        • MNb

          Not a bad idea – “make love, not war” and such.

      • avalpert

        Do they? I thought they said God’s commands can be derived through ‘true reason’ which of course you know to be true when it aligns with ‘natural law’ that is God’s commands.

        • I thought you knew that True Reason was on target was when it aligned with what makes sense to you.

        • avalpert

          Nope, pretty sure you need to run it by SeveK first…

        • Scott_In_OH

          Interesting. I thought it meant we were supposed to observe the world around us and uncover, through the application of reason, how God was trying to tell us to behave. For example, we should look at same-sex couples, see that they can’t procreate on their own, and realize God is against such couples. I’ve certainly heard a priest make this argument against SSM, although he didn’t explicitly say that was “natural law.”

          But googling “natural law” and looking at the Catholic catechism, I see a lot of language that suggests you are right.


  • King Dave

    “…a community of celibate men, if you can imagine such a thing, calling another lifestyle unnatural.”

    I think you’re onto something Bob

    The writers of the Bible who first condemned homosexuality were probably flamboyant gay men who simply couldn’t ever get any

    At least that makes a lot of sense to me

    • I’ve heard that said about Paul, that his anti-gay comments are a “methinks the lady doth protest to much” kind of problem.

  • OverlappingMagisteria

    “But if everyone were homosexual, the population would die out!”

    I love it when Catholic priests make this argument. And what would happen if everyone became a priest/nun?

    • !

    • wtfwjtd

      Definitely a case of the blind leading the blind!

    • Sophia Sadek

      Al-Qaeda needs more nuns in the world. They are starting to run low on virgins in the after-death.

  • MNb

    “Homosexuals can be treated. They can become un-gay.”
    This is the lamest argument ever. Period. If this is correct than heterosexuals can be treated too. There was a time – between 20-25 I was rather awkward with women – that I very much preferred to be homo. Alas, it didn’t work out.
    Man, if it weren’t for social stigma bisexuals would be the happiest people on Earth.

    “But if everyone were homosexual, the population would die out!”
    This one is a strong contender though. Given the overpopulation of the Earth this argument means that in our time we need more people to be gay.

    • Guest

      Heh I had this argument a while back when there was speculation about homosexuality being triggered by conditions in the womb.

      Ubiquitous “them”: ‘great! now we can form a treatment to correct homosexuals without scarring them for life with crappy therapy!’

      Me: ‘mm couldn’t people make their straight children gay with this?’

      Them: *gasp* ‘but that would be WRONG’

      Oversimplified of course but still… fun times.

      • And I keep coming back to this: if conservatives are so freaked out about gays, they should tell straight people to stop having gay children.

    • Pofarmer

      I had the last part of that conversation the other day. “I’ll support Gay Marriage when they can have kids.” Me, “Its not like we,re in danger of extinction here.” It just seems to me like perpetuating the species is pretty well taken care of, and I can gaurantee you that there are plenty of people they would rather not breed.

      • “I’ll support Gay Marriage when they can have kids.”

        My response: And I’ll consider your position consistent when you declare that married couples who don’t have children have illegitimate marriages.

        • Nemo

          As I recall, Justice Scalia himself said in his dissenting opinion for Lawrence vs Texas (which struck down laws criminalizing homosexuality) that the case essentially allowed gay marriage, since infertile and elderly couples could marry. If you can find the quote, it would make a good article closer.

        • You mean this?

          Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.


    • RichardSRussell

      Man, if it weren’t for social stigma bisexuals would be the happiest people on Earth.

      “The best thing about being bisexual is that it doubles your chance for a date on Saturday night.”
      —Woody Allen, American filmmaker

  • Guest

    I’m not sure I’d deal with absolutes over the whole ‘homosexuals can un-gay’ thing. I mean there are lots of examples of people, down the line, re-evaluating their sexuality and not all of them have overt tales of suppression at their core.

    If I suddenly developed same-sex attraction I’d probably be a bit weirded out and, because I’m a very neurotic person at heart, obsess a little over what it means considering my very straight-focused attraction until that point in my life. But in reality the end point is people need to be able to openly explore those feelings and come to their own conclusion.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there are people who ‘un-gay’. The whole of human experience is diverse enough to accommodate this. The issue is that forcing people to undergo therapy as an ideal to ‘correct’ them is misplaced. It imposes a solution that may not lead to an honest reflection and realisation of the person on what they want.

    ‘The population would die out…’

    This interests me on a slightly different note from the article. The whole pro-life thing is more pronounced in the US but it has its proponents here in the UK who can be noisy from time to time. It intrigues me that the arguments on that front basically favour giving government the implicit power to highly intrusive population control. I’m sure they think ‘more babies are good’ but it effectively says government has a vital interest in regulating procreation. One-child policy in China suddenly not a big imposition on the family?

    Also I’ll buy that argument more when laws start enforcing breeding quota’s on straight couples as opposed to trying to get gay people to hook up with the opposite sex.

  • smrnda

    Homosexuality not being natural is one of the easiest things to explode with actual data.

    And nature contains some harmful things, but the evidence for the harm of homosexuality is lacking. Perhaps the reason this issue gets people to fight so hard is that once harm is being used as the basis for morality, lots of religious beliefs about morality, particularly on sexuality, no longer make any sense.

    • Another factor may be some kind of Haggard’s Law going on. The more I protest against gays, the less likely people will point a finger at me and question my masculinity.

      • smrnda

        Maybe it’s just toxic masculinity; a *real man* is bothered by homosexuality. I tend to find most secure men aren’t, but I do think conservative religions either attract insecure men or create them.

    • Kodie

      Marriage isn’t natural. Suppressing one’s sexual urges for the sake of purity isn’t natural. I’m pretty sure it isn’t. One of the things I used to think about religion is how there are animals and there are people, and part of the idea behind a lot of religious rules was to acknowledge in some way that our animal nature was kind of like, I guess, the sinner, and so the rules were meant to remind us to refrain from our urges, like we do. What I mean is, it’s pretty natural to see food and grab for it and stuff it in our mouth if we’re hungry, so a human being goes through setting mealtimes and all kinds of mealtime customs, such as waiting for everyone to be served or saying a grace. Likewise, we’re not just hooking up with attractive strangers right where we meet them, maybe get to the nearest public bathroom or behind some trees, at the very least? I’m not like that, but I’m not judging.

      What I’m learning more and more about Christians or theists in general is that they like strict parameters to please god, but mostly these strict parameters align them more closely with animals I thought they were trying not to resemble. They don’t like birth control, the sex between a man and his wife should be barrier free to perform the magic spell to please god. Pregnancy should just happen whenever it happens. Women are to submit to their role as helpmeet as per their biological function. Men have a lot of leeway with their natural anger or lust, it’s just how men are and we have to watch out for them. I’m not actually sensing a “let’s be more civilized than animal” except when it comes to enforced purity and marriage. Every life, every soul is unique, and when you are born, you are forced into a mold that tries to control the animal that you are by making you a slave to your animal role.

      Except the kind of animal that we are is an innovative one. Religions try to force policy on us all because they probably sincerely think the way everyone else is doing things is what’s ruining everything. If we don’t even believe it, if they can force things to go their way for everyone, then the system will work. If all women are forced to carry pregnancies all the way through, then they might be more cautious and then they will just get married and have their babies like they’re supposed to, and if they just submit to their role, then the men don’t have to compete for work or be emasculated by a female boss or tempted by a female co-worker. If gay people aren’t allowed to get married, they’ll just have to settle for marrying someone of the opposite sex then, and everything will work like it’s supposed to. Neat and orderly, unlike nature.

      Another thing was that they oppose things that are natural, like evolution, and instead, hang onto a fantastical story, and fantastical set of science-like “facts” just to try to compete with science’s legitimacy and authoritative appeal. They don’t seem to like nature. They don’t prefer natural explanations, and they claim to find them cold and clinical, i.e. unnatural, and therefore meaningless. What they do like is made-up answers to everything so they can feel satisfied and ordered and purposeful. So their solution to guard them against nature is to fear an invisible being and try to obey it, because “random chance” is too natural an explanation that they can’t believe it. They make note of a few patterns and strongly hammer that down and establish that this is how we were designed, um, pretty much like animals, and that we’re not allowed to veer off course and decide for ourselves, with our brains and rational logic that supersedes animals, to disobey our nature as god intended, to have intercourse like animals, to incubate our young in the womb, to eat and digest food and poop out waste like animals, to sleep like animals, but go to the grocery store unlike animals, watch tv unlike (most) animals, invent a way to keep beer fresh, and a device to remove the bottlecap unlike animals.

      • smrnda

        You’re right on the rigid rules and boundaries. I think sexual ethics is based on consent. If 2 people want to have an open marriage, let them do it. If they don’t, it’s a bad idea. If you want to have tons of sex with lots of people, go ahead, if you don’t, don’t. Religious people feel the need for One Right Way For Everyone, probably because they can’t stand having to actually make choices.

        They also probably feel threatened by change is the old rules don’t help you in a changing society, so they fight to keep society the same.

        • Kodie

          You know what’s really weird is I can’t think of anything they would order to consent. Do what you’re supposed to do, fit into your role. Marital rape is an oxymoron, etc., honor and obey your parents, etc., for, like, you have to be indoctrinated to even think all of this is a good idea. Children are inclined to resist because they are not yet civilized, but I had read some disturbing accounts of what Christians do to entertain their friends by making a parlor trick out of their obedient children. Now, some parents make their kid play the piano for their company to show off, but Christians tease the fuck out of their children just to show off to strangers how obedient they are at such a young age. Prodigies. I guess their consent starts and ends at a young man asking an older man if he can marry his daughter, and he probably doesn’t ask unless he already knows the answer will be yes, as they will have been set up and chaperoned and encouraged to find each other not defective for the purpose of fitting in to god’s holy plan by meeting the expectations of their respective genders.

        • smrnda

          I’ve read about that, and it’s rather scary. If I saw an adult doing such a thing, I would tell them off and probably call DCFS.

          Heck I work with kids, and I think disobedient kids are great. They’re going to be the leaders and innovators and rabble-rousers of the future.

      • Pofarmer

        Humans are social animals. Most higher social animals have groups structures and ways to enforce those structures. I am starting to see religion as just a little more complicated way of maintaining a social structure than, say, what cattle or dogs use. I agree with you, however, is that what a lot of theology does, is force is BACK into the animal role, by saying you can’t have sex without procreation, for example. It’s a 2000 year old mindset that has gone on too long, but, unfortunately, looks poised to continue.

  • InDogITrust

    Darn sight more natural than talking snakes and people coming back from the dead!

    • Sophia Sadek

      Perhaps, but fabulous tales are more natural than lobotomies and brain damaging pharmaceuticals.

  • Pofarmer

    Some days I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. Visiting coming home from school. Boys say that 3 of the 8th grade girls are talking about getting married and how many kids. Well, one of the girls, from a staunch Catholic Family, who’s Dad is a brit, says, well, I guess I’ll just have to have how ever many babies God decides. The boys are like whaaatttttt?????? But how sad is it, that a 14 year old girl has already accepted that she is intended to give up the most personal part of her life to be an incubator for Jesus? I just feel so sad for her. Not only that, but it scares me that , woth mo actual sex education or idea of consent, she is setting herself up badly. Just bothers me.

    • wtfwjtd

      The twilight zone or the 19th century? Or maybe both?!

    • MNb

      Ask your sons what she’s going to do when the father of her children leaves her, a realistic option given divorcion rates.

  • ImRike

    To find out more about homosexuality in the animal world, read: “Biological Exuberance” by Bruce Bagemihl. Very in depth and extremely interesting. It would make a great gift to your nearest homophobe (though it would probably not get read).

  • Kodie

    Here is the situation with forcing people to be ex-gay: they have a problem with gay people at some point, confusing them with pedophiles. They don’t seem to have similar worries that a straight man might be a pedophile around girls. I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia, but for a large number of Christians, they are confused about a few things. For as precious as a girl’s virginity is, their solution is to make her unsexy rather than to find a man at fault. It will be her fault if she makes him stumble. They don’t have the fear that a sophisticated older man will ruin her, predate her, groom her, or drive her to prostitution (or whatever the analog situation would be), only that she ended up there herself as a result of disobedience. It would not be an older man’s fault if he gave her the idea (for his benefit) to dress in shorter skirts or she saw sexier classmates getting more attention and approval. It is sort of normal and creepy to hear grown men talk about being attracted to younger women under the age of 18 and that it is perfectly normal. Somehow as normal as it is, a large number of men also manage to refrain from finding themselves in an illegal situation. It is “OK” to think things, but not “OK” to do things.

    But they have a problem with gay men in positions where they might creep around their sons. They don’t have a way of making their sons unsexy – he is a growing young man and not at fault for anything. It is the predator’s fault, and the problem they have with gay men as scout leaders or coaches has more to do with how they think boys get gay. They seem less consumed with worry that their sons will be sexually violated than they are with them being led to homosexuality by a model of the lifestyle. But let’s say the scout leader was gay and he went through ex-gay treatment. All better! Acceptable to the scout programs and such.

    The problem here is that they fail to acknowledge, the gay man is still attracted to men. Not necessarily their sons, although if it’s normal for straight men to lust after pubescent girls, I’m sure the same is true for gay men to see a teen boy the same way – and largely fail to act on that attraction, for they do know it is wrong and they can find someone of the appropriate age. So the attraction is still there, it is just not acted upon by the openly gay man or the closeted gay man or the ex-gay man. They don’t have a problem with closeted or ex-gay men because they pass. They are acting appropriately and demonstrating for all the world they don’t like guys at all. No threat to your boy. But an openly gay man can suddenly not be trusted to control lust around anyone or not teach them the filth of their ways.

    The problem then turns into how they can trust a man who lies to himself and everyone else, but not the honest man. They do not think of an inner sexual orientation, it is all how you behave yourself. Anyone can be a pedophile, not everyone is a pedophile though. They make a huge mistake in labeling homosexuality as a perversion that puts their sons at risk when really it is the suppression, I think.

    When you take the priesthood, for example, men who tell the world “I’m celibate!”, you see what I”m talking about. Grown men with normal sexual urges suppressed and then having access to altar boys. In a world where they could develop healthy grown-up relationships with the opposite or same sex as they like, boys would probably be off-limits and not that attractive. But you suppress them and they will seek an outlet – an outlet they can threaten not to talk. They are after gratification and then, to gauge the reaction, are not even blamed for being secretly gay or pedophiles. They are just human and they found an opportunity. The violation is not taken to expose the boys to a gay lifestyle, since priests “aren’t gay”. Having gay sex with a boy does not make him gay, only the openly gay man is a predator because his goal is not to sexually violate the teen boy, but to seduce him to come to the gay side with him. Like I said, I don’t believe gay=pedophile, but they don’t seem to have another way to look at it.

    That is their fear, what turns their sons gay. Without open homosexual men at least in their sons’ havens if not the entire society, their sons would never know and automatically be straight. That makes no sense. To me, it just exposes what they are willing to care more about, what they are gullible enough to believe, and gives me another reason they are wrong and don’t know what they’re talking about with respect to all their other beliefs and how they discern them. Their bigger fear is that their sons will be gay, not that they will be violated even homosexually by a man.

    And if a boy needs to be taught to be gay from a gay man, he can be straightened by a program.

    • If my son had been molested by a male teacher, that would’ve been a catastrophe. If my daughter had been molested by a male teacher, that would also have been a catastrophe.

      Hmm … maybe it’s the violation that’s the problem, not the sex of any particular party.

      • Kodie

        But you’re not a Christian.

    • RichardSRussell

      It is sort of normal and creepy to hear grown men talk about being attracted to younger women under the age of 18 and that it is perfectly normal.

      Well, prepare to be creeped out, then, because here’s the testimony of a decidedly non-Christian but biologically ordinary male:
      • When I was 14, I thot 14-year-old girls were hot.
      • When I was 16, it was 14-to-17-year-old girls.
      • When I was 18, it was 14-to-21-year-old girls (and women).
      • When I was 21, it was 14-to-30-year-old females.
      • When I was 35, it was 14-to-50-year-olds.
      • When I was 50, it finally started to slip a little bit, and it was only 16-to-60-year-olds. The 14s and 15s were starting to look a little too dotterish (and now, of course, they’d be granddotterish).
      • When I was 65 and past the point where anything going on in my head was ever likely to be realized in reality, I figured I might as well have a rich fantasy life and started specializing in the in-their-prime 18-to-35-year-olds. Even so, 50-y-o Sandra Bullock looked awfully damn good in Gravity, and so do the cheerleaders at the state high-school basketball tournament.

      I fear that our half of the species is just wired that way. Don’t blame me, blame evolution.

    • wtfwjtd

      ” It is “OK” to think things, but not “OK” to do things.”

      Oh dear. Let me introduce you to Christianity, Jesus style: “…anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has *already* committed adultery with her in his heart.” –Matt 5:28

      “That is their fear, what turns their sons gay.”

      You’re right, many religious people have this crazy belief that being around a gay person will make their children gay. Uh-huh. Like a kid, or anyone, would want to “choose” a “lifestyle” that gets them bullied, ostracized, and downright shunned and hated by most of their friends and family. Please pardon me, but this is the some of the stupidest, bat-shit craziest, calloused, and just downright mean and hateful stuff that I hear Christians spew on a continuing basis. If they could only have a glimmering of an idea of the hurt and damage that their cruel bullying and torment cause many of the gay people that I have known…but then, empathy was never one of Christianity’s strong suits. In fact that’s one of the things I find most repulsive about Christianity in general, the nearly utter and complete lack of it.

      • this crazy belief that being around a gay person will make their children gay.

        That’s why I don’t hang out with short people. I don’t want to become short.

  • rg57

    “But if everyone were homosexual, the population would die out!


    Wait, what? You honestly buy that a 100% gay population couldn’t figure out how to reproduce? You do understand that sex isn’t actually required, right? There are other ways to get sperm to an egg.

    “Homophobia exists in only one.”

    That’s not a claim I think you can make.

  • J.T

    ‘God designed nature!
    ‘What about all the gay animals?’
    ‘That’s because of man’s sin!’
    ‘How did man eating a piece of fruit turn animals gay?’
    ‘God cursed the earth because of that sin!’
    ‘So God did make gay animals then?’

    • Ron

      ….but…but…I’ll pray for you to find the truth.

  • Jason Wexler

    I am not sure it is necessarily the case that a technological species would go extinct if all its members were gay.

  • Fallulah

    Love this. A thousand thumbs up!

  • Nemo

    I’ve noticed among some fundamentalists a move away from “it’s just a choice” to “well, maybe some people are born gay, but the Bible says everyone is born a sinner, so they’re just born as that type of sinner”. Most are still clinging to the “choice” nonsense, but I think they’ll abandon it eventually.

    • smrnda

      They also have made gay people having children a central issue, even though I’m not sure how many same sex couples will have or adopt kids. It’s all “think of the children” since they lost the other debate.

      • Kodie

        They seem to fear that the children will be abused (exposed to gayness as if it were normal) just by having bad role models as parents. The boys won’t know how to be men and the girls won’t know how to be women, and they will all think it’s ok to be gay, sort of like how your dad might be a carpenter and you want to be a carpenter like your dad. If marriage between two men or two women is legitimized and equal to heterosexual marriage, not “separate but equal” like civil unions, they can’t make any separate laws that forbid a gay couple from adopting a child.

        • Reminds me of the South Park episode where Big Gay Al was having an influence on the boys. The boys are being driven somewhere by one of the dads, and one calls another a “silly goose.” His father is having none of it.


        • Kodie

          Exactly. I was thinking of some other stuff where straight parents think they can model straightness as the correct way to behave. They really seem to think it’s just a behavior they can scold out of a kid or deprive them access to things they are curious about or like, and worry about being judged by other parents on their parenting skills because they ended up with a gay child anyway.

      • 10% of straight married couples have some fertility issue. If all the gays got married tomorrow, there would still be far more non-child-producing straight couples than gay.

    • Stephen Colbert did a bit a few days ago where he highlighted some House member (?) who wasn’t sure about whether gaiety was a choice or not. Colbert urged people to mail evidence of their gay choice (photos, presumably) to the representative (marked “Campaign Donations” so that he’d be sure to see them).

    • Pofarmer

      I don’t know if you are following the Catholics at all, but they are going with, “You can be Gay, but it’s a sin if you act on it.”. I think they were kinda forced into this position because either a very large minority or majority of their clergy is Gay, depending on which study you read.

  • $28895381

    “But if everyone were homosexual, the population would die out!”

    I disagree. Since when did homosexual start meaning sterile? While gays may not be attracted to members of the opposite sex – and therefore not find the sex enjoyable – there is nothing stopping them from having opposite member sex for the purposes of procreation.

    • Sophia Sadek

      It would be a Brave New World, indeed.

  • Sophia Sadek

    Wait a minute! You said, “No one’s saying that being female is bad or immoral…” Are you not aware that some of the orthodox believe that women are evil? There is an old-school interpretation of the story of the Fall that puts all the blame on Eve and the women who supposedly followed. This is one of the reasons I prefer the old Assyrian version of the story where the Eve character is a guy with long hair. (Of course, there is the “Adam and Steve” aspect of that story as well.)

    BTW, eating pork and shellfish could be considered natural, but the material Creator of the flat and immobile Earth says, “Don’t do it!” Enough said.