Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry) Video

Been a while since I've posted anything. Been busy with real life.

Here is a video that quickly lays out the secular argument against homosexual "marriage" that I've been using for quite some time. Well done.


23 comments:

Andrew Marburger said...

I'm not surprised there is not cited source for outlandish claims like homosexuality "harms society."

Care to point any out or do you prefer to just display unfounded claims?

bossmanham said...

I think a couple of ways were given in the video.

However, off the top of my head, homosexual marriage is bad for society because:

1. It denigrates what the institution of marriage is about.

2. It is immoral, and endorsing and validating immorality is bad.

3. It's bad for the next generation, because biologically there can't be one with purely homosexuals and kids need a mom and a dad (it denies adopted kids either a mom or dad).

4. It somehow misconstrues a strange sexual preference as an institutional civil right.

5. Children are never possible in the sexual relationship of homosexuals.

6. The state would be spiting itself by promoting and endorsing a behavior that doesn't benefit itself.

7. It would reduce religious freedom and force people to accept an immoral behavior.

Andrew Marburger said...

First, as you know, your list does not constitute a "source" or "evidence" at all. Its merely a list of your personal feelings on the subject. I'll address some of them anyway:

"1. It denigrates what the institution of marriage is about."

What IS the institution of marriage about? The Bible is ambiguous on this subject.

"2. It is immoral, and endorsing and validating immorality is bad."

No, your particular worldview / belief system classifies the behavior as immoral. Does your belief system also assign immorality to the animal world, where homosexual behavior has been observed in a number of species? Here's a well-cited list from Wikipedia. Before anybody whines about Wikipedia, notice I pointed out that the article is well-cited by third parties.

"3. It's bad for the next generation, because biologically there can't be one with purely homosexuals and kids need a mom and a dad (it denies adopted kids either a mom or dad)."

Why? Have you completely ignored the litany of studies (many of which are ongoing) that document healthy homes with two parents of the same sex? I will be the first to admit that there is no conclusive study that says children are decidedly fine and well-adjusted in same sex homes. There is also no study that all children are fine and well-adjusted in traditional marriage homes either.

"5. Children are never possible in the sexual relationship of homosexuals."

Why is this the litmus test for acceptable societal marriage? Should barren women not be permitted to marry, since they'll never be able to procreate? What about infertile men? Should we institute a fertility test before a marriage license may be obtained?

"6. The state would be spiting itself by promoting and endorsing a behavior that doesn't benefit itself."

This is where I would really like to see some data, and not just random claims that traditional marriage directly benefits the state and society as a whole. Considering the ever-expanding divorce rate among mostly Christian-married couples, perhaps you should concentrate on reducing that trend before you start telling people about the sanctity of marriage. You know, speck vs plank and all that.

"7. It would reduce religious freedom and force people to accept an immoral behavior."

Ah yes, my favorite claim among "woe-is-me and my rights Christians."

How is someone else's pursuit of their own affairs, for their own happiness, and purpose, and meaning...a direct effect on you? What an amazing claim!

It doesn't reduce your religious freedom. It reduces your religious ability to project (read: force) your beliefs onto everyone else.

Andrew Marburger said...

Sorry, here is the link from number 2 that I forgot to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

bossmanham said...

First, as you know, your list does not constitute a "source" or "evidence" at all. Its merely a list of your personal feelings on the subject. I'll address some of them anyway:

A lot of times, philosophical arguments don't have empirical sources. However, there are empirical studies that show that children are better off with two parents.

But I can't imagine what kind of empirical evidence you'd want me to show beyond that. You think it's okay, so if I showed you that society is becoming more accepting of homosexual marriage, or that fewer children are being born, or whatever, you'd not think that's bad because you have a faulty ethical foundation to begin with.

The cusp of the argument, which you're not dealing with, is what interest the state has in promoting and fostering certain sexual relationships. I was kind enough to indulge your question, but it's, quite frankly, beside the point.

But to address some of your other assertions:

What IS the institution of marriage about? The Bible is ambiguous on this subject.

This is false. God created a wife for Adam so he wouldn't be alone AND so they would be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. But regardless, God has always labeled homosexuality as a perversion, and to foster and promote a perversion would be counterproductive for the state.

No, your particular worldview / belief system classifies the behavior as immoral. Does your belief system also assign immorality to the animal world, where homosexual behavior has been observed in a number of species?

False. It is objectively immoral. It makes little difference that you don't think it is. Animals aren't moral agents.

Have you completely ignored the litany of studies (many of which are ongoing) that document healthy homes with two parents of the same sex?

There are published studies on both sides of the aisle, which is why the ethical and philosophical arguments are more helpful here. One can twist empirical data, especially in subjective studies like this. Simply, a home that teaches children that a sexual perversion is acceptable, and even preferable, is not good for the kids.

However, I can link to several articles that either cite studies themselves, or are the study itself, that show that children in that environment under-perform in many categories as compared to their counterparts in traditional marriages. Simply, kids need a mom and a dad to develop correctly sociologically and emotionally.

Why is this the litmus test for acceptable societal marriage? Should barren women not be permitted to marry, since they'll never be able to procreate?

Because that's truly all the state is interested in regarding sexual relationships. Creating new taxpayers. The exceptions to the rule, like sterile people, don't change the in principle fact that homosexual unions can NEVER conceive children. Only one man and one woman can do that. Why on earth would the state care if two gay people "loved" each other? You watched the video, right?

bossmanham said...

"6. The state would be spiting itself by promoting and endorsing a behavior that doesn't benefit itself."

This is where I would really like to see some data,


The data is what the main argument is; children aren't conceived due to homosexual couple's sexual relationship. Ever. That's all the data needed here.

Ah yes, my favorite claim among "woe-is-me and my rights Christians."

It really matters very little if you care about my religious rights. I do have religious rights, and they would be infringed upon if gay marriage were to be normalized.

How is someone else's pursuit of their own affairs, for their own happiness, and purpose, and meaning...a direct effect on you?

Because religious institutions would be forced to recognize it? It's not hard, dude.

Regarding your list of animals that display homosexual behavior....are you saying we should act like animals? Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

bossmanham said...

This article links to several sources that cite high level studies regarding some of the claims I made.

Andrew Marburger said...

A lot of times, philosophical arguments don't have empirical sources.

Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

This is false. God created a wife for Adam so he wouldn't be alone AND so they would be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. But regardless, God has always labeled homosexuality as a perversion, and to foster and promote a perversion would be counterproductive for the state.

Can you cite anything, that indicates the homosexuality degrades the state? Or even that traditional marriage benefits the state? Philosophy is, of course, always useful but I am interested in testable results, not vague assertions made in the name of philosophy of an ancient belief system.

Speaking of that belief system, which definition of marriage should we accept from the Bible? Were Adam and Eve even married, in an explicit sense? Here's a sampling of marriage ideas from the Bible:

http://i.imgur.com/nOZeL.jpg

False. It is objectively immoral. It makes little difference that you don't think it is. Animals aren't moral agents.

Your idea of objective morality is rooted in the idea or knowledge of a god for which there is no evidence.

Animals are not moral agents? I'm not going to argue that they are. I will say, however, that biologists have studied empathy and altruistic behavior in animals for some time now. This is similar research to the burgeoning science of altruism in evolutionary biology.

And if they're not moral agents, do humans have any moral obligation to them? If so, why? If not, why not?

Because that's truly all the state is interested in regarding sexual relationships. Creating new taxpayers.

Why on earth would the state care if two gay people "loved" each other?

Is that your argument on this point? That the state chooses to continue recognizing traditional marriage as a conduit to propagate new tax payers? I must say that's the first time I've heard such a claim. So I suppose economic principles such as limited resources, etc have no bearing here?

And regarding watching the video, yes I did. I was pretty much astounded the entire time that it doesn't even make an effort to defend its assertions.

Especially the part about equality. Wow. Not only was it completely vapid and inane (like the whole video, truthfully) it misses the mark. Where was this video produced? Because, the last I checked, homosexuals are not free to marry everywhere in the US (only six states in fact). Next the video predictably misses the point. How is it equal when a homosexual partnership must maintain dual health insurance as a result of their state not recognizing their union legally? What about filing taxes? Claiming dependents?

We clearly have different definitions of "equal," which seems like a simple definition to me.

The data is what the main argument is; children aren't conceived due to homosexual couple's sexual relationship. Ever. That's all the data needed here.

This isn't data. Next.

I do have religious rights, and they would be infringed upon if gay marriage were to be normalized.

Please explain, specifically, how your rights would be infringed.

Because religious institutions would be forced to recognize it? It's not hard, dude.

No, they wouldn't. Nobody is arguing that churches need to force religious institutions to recognize anything. Simply, homosexuals should have equal protection pursuant to the 14th Amendment.

You're right, this isn't that hard.

Regarding your list of animals that display homosexual behavior....are you saying we should act like animals? Really?

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying humans have exhibited similar behavior (including infanticide in the Bible, yay!) as animals.

Ah look, more evidence for evolution.

Andrew Marburger said...

To clarify this part:

The data is what the main argument is; children aren't conceived due to homosexual couple's sexual relationship. Ever. That's all the data needed here.

This isn't data. Next.

I am not arguing that zero births as a result of homosexuals' behavior isn't a piece of data. Of course it is. It just isn't the central tenet of the argument, nor should it be. It isn't relevant.

You also haven't considered a homosexual couple's ability to adopt. Certainly this could present an option for foster kids, or for mothers looking for an alternative to abortion.

Point is, if the simple lack of procreation is your central argument, it's not a very good one.

bossmanham said...

Can you cite anything, that indicates the homosexuality degrades the state?

It's simple logic. If the government dedicates resources to supporting something that has a net 0 gain or a loss, then it is degrading to the state. Fiscally and/or socially.

Can you give an argument to, for some reason, change our long held thoughts and traditions on marriage and family and accept a sexual perversion? The burden of proof would seem to not be on the traditionalist, but the one who would like to change that.

Philosophy is, of course, always useful but I am interested in testable results, not vague assertions made in the name of philosophy of an ancient belief system.

You have to have philosophy to claim that it's right or wrong either way. You have to assume that certain results are either good or bad on your end to even be able to know if the data presented is actually good data. For instance, you have to assume that good test scores and social skills are, in fact, good instead of bad. Philosophical assumptions are at the foundation of all the sciences.

Speaking of that belief system, which definition of marriage should we accept from the Bible? Were Adam and Eve even married, in an explicit sense? Here's a sampling of marriage ideas from the Bible

Really? An internet meme? That's not an argument. Have you actually read the Bible? The Bible only prescribes real marriage. It describes people who did things the wrong way too. But an historical narrative doesn't prescribe everything it describes. Take time to read the text before trying to make a point with it.

Your idea of objective morality is rooted in the idea or knowledge of a god for which there is no evidence.

False. It's rooted in the Creator of the universe of which there is plenty of evidence. Your failure to apprehend that isn't my fault.

Animals are not moral agents? I'm not going to argue that they are. I will say, however, that biologists have studied empathy and altruistic behavior in animals for some time now.

You're asserting animals are moral agents...big whoop. They're not. That's why they act like animals. Behaviors that look like empathy or altruism, while perhaps beneficial to them and interesting to me, don't prove anything about whether they are truly moral agents. And if you're really suggesting we should act like animals, I hope no one flings their crap at you. ;-)

Is that your argument on this point? That the state chooses to continue recognizing traditional marriage as a conduit to propagate new tax payers?

Yes. That is the only thing that could possibly interest the state.

bossmanham said...

last I checked, homosexuals are not free to marry everywhere in the US

Yes they are. Everyone in the country can get married. Just because marriage isn't what they want it to be doesn't mean they can't get married.

How is it equal when a homosexual partnership must maintain dual health insurance as a result of their state not recognizing their union legally?

A lot of businesses allow same sex domestic partners to share health insurance (though it does nothing to benefit their business). But that it's not a requirement is tough luck. Billy Bob can't claim that he loves his sister, two goats, and a chicken and demand that he be able to marry them and get them on his health care either.

The reason that benefit isn't extended to non-married homosexuals is exactly what I've argued; the state has no vested interest in promoting those relationships. Just because you don't think it's fair doesn't mean it isn't.

Same with taxes and dependents. That's the argument, man. You'll have to show that the state does have some vested interest in doing that to defeat it.

This isn't data. Next

It is.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying humans have exhibited similar behavior (including infanticide in the Bible, yay!) as animals.

And then using that observation to try to say that it's completely normal for humans to exhibit the same behavior. So then infanticide and poop flinging should also be considered normal, since we're now using the animal kingdom as our basis for human norms...Ridiculous.

bossmanham said...

It just isn't the central tenet of the argument, nor should it be. It isn't relevant.

It is literally the only relevant piece of information. Why would the state care about romantic interest? Are they a teenage girl who wants to play matchmaker with her friends? We're talking about grown up stuff here.

You also haven't considered a homosexual couple's ability to adopt. Certainly this could present an option for foster kids, or for mothers looking for an alternative to abortion.

You're right. I don't think they should be able to adopt. Remember, I don't think that environment is good for kids.

Point is, if the simple lack of procreation is your central argument, it's not a very good one.

It must be, because you've done nothing to undermine it.

Andrew Marburger said...

Can you give an argument to, for some reason, change our long held thoughts and traditions on marriage and family and accept a sexual perversion? The burden of proof would seem to not be on the traditionalist, but the one who would like to change that.

You want to discuss burden of proof now? Your argument against the traditional view is rooted in belief in god. Which there is no evidence for, despite your claim later that there is. Burden of proof for God's existence, since you claim it, is on you. I don't know that there is a god. I don't know that there isn't. I have nothing to prove. I simply reject the Biblical view of god on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

So, because I do not accept an ancient idea of marriage as the best one we can have, it is up to you to demonstrate why I should accept your god-given idea of marriage, lest I start making claims that leprechauns actually existed and demonstrated the best ideas for marriage (since I'm Irish).

Are you really claiming that traditionalism has any place in a discussion of the burden of proof? You're effectively claiming that your view carries more weight purely by virtue of its age. I don't think so.

But an historical narrative doesn't prescribe everything it describes. Take time to read the text before trying to make a point with it.

Really. So none of those were laws commanded of the Israelites in the Old Testament. What was it describing, exactly, when it spoke of a raped girl marrying her rapist? Your explanation sounds like a petty Christian cop-out to a clear OT rule that is difficult to explain today (because people shouldn't have to explain such nonsense today).

That's why they act like animals.

Would you agree that sometimes, some humans act like animals?

You continue to ignore the strong scientific implications of this research. It indicates exactly what we should expect to see in an evolutionary process: we exhibit behaviors noted in animals and vice versa. This isn't surprising and biologists have understood this for decades. Why are you so afraid of that idea?

Why would the state care about romantic interest? Are they a teenage girl who wants to play matchmaker with her friends? We're talking about grown up stuff here.

The state became involved in marriage because people were doing it anyway, through their churches and faiths, etc. That's not new. The government utilized an existing feature of society and exploited it...maybe exploited is a strong word...they utilized it for tax purposes. Once legal implication became involved (insofar as the public is concerned) it became not only the church's issue.

It must be, because you've done nothing to undermine it.

You've done nothing to support this idea! This is quite literally the first time I've heard the argument that government should only accept traditional marriage because it will make more babies and, thus, more tax payers. Have you completely ignored the financial burden irresponsible traditional marriages pose to the government? Let me assure you, those engaged in traditional marriage are quite capable of A) separating and B)over pro-creating and causing a fiscal burden on state and federal governments. How does this cause a net-0 or even positive benefit to the state?

One other question: Do you also recognize Muslim marriages or Hindu or Jew marriages as long as they're "traditional." Are those homes equally qualified to raise children as a Christian home?

bossmanham said...

You want to discuss burden of proof now? Your argument against the traditional view is rooted in belief in god

No, part of my argument would have to do with that, but not all of it. It's quite comprehensive, so other parts stand whether God exists or not. But you have a moral perspective as well that you've not argued for. No I've not argued for the existence of God here, but you'll find arguments for God's existence all over this blog, and other places. Frankly, there is no good argument against the existence of God, but that's not the topic here.

I don't know that there is a god. I don't know that there isn't. I have nothing to prove.

If you have no stance on the issue, then it doesn't seem rational to demand I prove my moral foundation. I assume we both believe in objective morality. If you didn't, I don't understand what your issue about 'equality' is. Just because your sense of morality is defective doesn't mean I need to or should kowtow to your view.

But if you are claiming that homosexuality is okay and that traditional views on the subject are flawed, you do bear a burden of proof because you are making a truth claim.

start making claims that leprechauns actually existed and demonstrated the best ideas for marriage (since I'm Irish).

You could make that claim, but you'd need to have arguments with premises more plausible than their denials, and that overcome the defeaters for belief in leprechauns. But let's stick to the issue at hand.

What was it describing, exactly, when it spoke of a raped girl marrying her rapist?

It doesn't ever say that. It says the rapist has to marry and provide for the woman he damaged forever. I'm not sure how punishing a rapist is suddenly endorsing a faulty view of marriage. It also never says she has to do anything for him. It'd be good if you actually understood the Bible before trying to use it as an argument.

Would you agree that sometimes, some humans act like animals? It indicates exactly what we should expect to see in an evolutionary process: we exhibit behaviors noted in animals and vice versa

That's irrelevant. The issue is whether we should act like that.

The state became involved in marriage because people were doing it anyway, through their churches and faiths, etc.

This isn't a prescriptive reason for anything. This is nothing but an historical description (that is false). The state got involved in fostering and promoting this behavior because of how it benefited the state, not just because.

This is quite literally the first time I've heard the argument that government should only accept traditional marriage because it will make more babies and, thus, more tax payers

Maybe that's why you're having such a hard time with it. It doesn't really matter how many times you've heard it. I have supported the argument. I've showed what the state has an interest in, and why fostering and promoting a behavior that it gets nothing out of is self deprecating. You've not challenged anything I've said. Just spouted your own personal incredulity toward the subject.

Have you completely ignored the financial burden irresponsible traditional marriages pose to the government?

That's irrelevant, because those marriages can still propagate a new generation. The incidental occurrences don't determine the in principle definition of an institution.

Do you also recognize Muslim marriages or Hindu or Jew marriages as long as they're "traditional." Are those homes equally qualified to raise children as a Christian home?

The state can and does because it profits the state. Whether these marriages are recognized by God I think is a different question, and not relevant to the discussion.

Andrew Marburger said...

If you have no stance on the issue, then it doesn't seem rational to demand I prove my moral foundation.

I disagree with your premise that there's a god who furnishes or in some way imparts moral objectivity in people. My only non-stance if you will is the existence of god because I find it irrelevant to the conversation.

traditional views on the subject are flawed, you do bear a burden of proof because you are making a truth claim.

What are these traditional views based on? What does their being "traditional" have to do with what should be considered societal norms? (We need not look too far in the past for many "traditional" approaches that have since been deemed reprehensible.)

Your shifting the burden of proof. Your argument hinges on the existence of god and his laws / commandments / rules. The non-god portion of your argument is, well, it's entirely disingenuous. You even drew it out:

That's irrelevant, because those marriages can still propagate a new generation.

I just want to be clear that this is actually your position. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that the government got involved with traditional marriage in order to procure new humans as new taxpayers, thus expanding national product and wealth. Mmkay. I would love to run this by an econ 101 professor.

By this brilliant logic, why aren't the overpopulated regions of India and Indonesia bursting at the seams with cash? This isn't incredulity, it's a simple observation of the abject failure of such an idea.

If I've missed something there, please elaborate. Honestly you argue other things much better. I feel like that can't really be your rationale for government's involvement in marriage.

So, as I mentioned, your argument ultimately hinges on god. What if the USA weren't a nation-state at all? Different governments also recognize marriage differently. This fact has nothing to do with god's ideas on the subject.

It says the rapist has to marry and provide for the woman he damaged forever. I'm not sure how punishing a rapist is suddenly endorsing a faulty view of marriage. It also never says she has to do anything for him. It'd be good if you actually understood the Bible before trying to use it as an argument.

Glad to see you've cleared that up. Just so I'm clear: it's actually the man being punished here? The rapist? And this is okay how? (Side question: how does such a ridiculous passage have ANY bearing on 21st century world denizens?)

That's irrelevant. The issue is whether we should act like that.

Not surprisingly, you missed the point. Again.

Not all animal behavior is...uhh, animalistic. For example, primates take steps to nurture their young and the males in their circles protect their families. So, yes, we should act like animals in that case.

Our status in our evolutionary development does not un-link us to the ideas I demonstrated earlier, which is the notion that human behavior, generally speaking, is exactly what we should expect to see in an evolutionary system.

The state can and does because it profits the state. Whether these marriages are recognized by God I think is a different question, and not relevant to the discussion.

You're right, it's not relevant to the conversation, I was just curious. Thanks for answering.

The first sentence though, regarding profiting the state, I will reiterate: this is the claim you keep making (and the video lamely discusses) that is the non-god portion of your argument that is untenable. Please explain to me, in clear terms, how maximization of the birth rate is equitable to maximization of domestic product. This leaves the crux of your argument pinned to god. Which, well, arguing god's deistic existence is one thing (and an idea I'm open to). Demonstrating the existence of the Bible god is another.

Ryan Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bossmanham said...

I disagree with your premise that there's a god who furnishes or in some way imparts moral objectivity in people. My only non-stance if you will is the existence of god because I find it irrelevant to the conversation

Then you are making a claim that requires a burden of proof.

What are these traditional views based on?

I don't know why that's relevant, unless you really think whole societies should change at the drop of a hat because a small minority demands it. You're demand of it is also based on a conviction, assumedly that it's wrong to keep homosexuals from marrying...so how isn't there a burden of proof for you again?

By this brilliant logic, why aren't the overpopulated regions of India and Indonesia bursting at the seams with cash?

Because their state subjugates their people, has a terrible social caste system that subjugates people, and wastes money. But their state still gets tax money from new people, does it not? Just because the state is irresponsible with it doesn't change that. The Cuban state, and other states that steals their people's money, also profits from more taxpayers existing. And their society, however good it is, survives by the propagation of new members. Simple social studies principles here. So....next.

So, as I mentioned, your argument ultimately hinges on god

Uh, just because you mention it doesn't make it true. You still lack an argument.

Glad to see you've cleared that up. Just so I'm clear: it's actually the man being punished here?

How is being forced to do things you don't want to do because you defiled someone not a punishment? See Exodus 22:17 for elucidation on how this law was enforced.

Not all animal behavior is...uhh, animalistic. For example, primates take steps to nurture their young and the males in their circles protect their families. So, yes, we should act like animals in that case.

No, you've missed the point. We don't nurture our young because apes do too, just as we don't bash other guy's babies over rocks because apes do it. Animal behavior is not a model for human moral norms, as anyone should agree with unless they're for eating their own infants. So to point out homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom and label it "natural behavior" is equivocation of the worst kind.

Our status in our evolutionary development does not un-link us to the ideas I demonstrated earlier, which is the notion that human behavior, generally speaking, is exactly what we should expect to see in an evolutionary system.

This makes no sense and has nothing to do with the discussion. Either you think animal behavior should be a basis for all human norms or you don't. That's how you're using the example of homosexual animal behavior. Otherwise why bring it up?

Please explain to me, in clear terms, how maximization of the birth rate is equitable to maximization of domestic product.

More people = more everything. Products, innovation, revenue, services, sharing of ideas, and the continuation of that society.

Now you answer, what on earth does the state care if two people loooove each other. Is the state a high school girl?

Andrew Marburger said...

"More people = more everything."

lol. okay, I'm done here...

bossmanham said...

lol. okay, I'm done here...

Lol. Lol-ing isn't an argument. Thanks.

Andrew Marburger said...

"Lol-ing isn't an argument."

No kidding.

This conversation was good until your idiotic statements regarding economics. Clearly not your strong suit. Worse, you continue to assert them.

I also don't discuss politics with my 12 year old sister.

So I'm done here.

bossmanham said...

This conversation was good until your idiotic statements regarding economics. Clearly not your strong suit. Worse, you continue to assert them.

Calling a statement idiotic isn't an argument either. So when you're able to formulate an argument that could challenge one of mine, come on back. You're clearly flustered and unable to respond at the moment. It happens when you have an irrational position.

Ana said...

Hi Andrew:

I read the first few exchanges between you and Brennon, not the whole thread (yet), as it's getting late and I'm going to sleep, but, I would like to interject with a link to a post that contains a concise answer to a question you asked: "Does your belief system also assign immorality to the animal world, where homosexual behavior has been observed in a number of species?"

From Catholic Answers Forum, Ask An Apologist section

Q:Should we forgive animals? Does God forgive animals?

A: There is nothing to forgive. Animals’ minds are so rudimentary that they cannot rationally reflect on the morality of an action. So it is impossible for them to sin. The more intelligent of them can feel emotions such as anger, jealousy, and sadness. But they cannot reflect on what such feelings mean.

[http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=683928]

kilo papa said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.