Jason Stark

It should be noted that the in the fall, it was not simply mankind that became fallen. The world, which was given to humanity as our stewardship, fell along with it. In a very general sense, Romans 8 speaks to this sort of concept.

"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

"We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies." (8:18-23)

Obviously, this passage doesn't speak to homosexual behavior in animals, but it does represent the idea that not only the human race is affected by the fall. The entirety of creation is affected,and is subject to corruption and death. Animals do not sin, per se, since they have no law given to them against which to sin. 

So in the context of a fallen cosmos, occurrences such as this might not be out of the realm of possibility. Since sin exists as a concept in the context of a relationship between God and humans, it would not be correct to refer to homosexual behavior in animals as sin, though it would be considered unnatural and outside of God's intent for the created order.

October 06 2013 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

David Whitley Deacon at Orange View church of Christ

You are confused or gravely mistaken that their is documented factual evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. There have been many scientific studies over the years by nefarious (pro-homosexual) individuals and organizations, attempting to prove this point. They have all failed. Similarly some have tried to prove a genetic predisposition in some humans and that too has failed.

Homosexuality is a choice of free will reserved for humans. Odd or differentiating behavior in animals is not homosexuality. And it could not be -- as there would be no offspring and thus the end to such a confused species. It would necessarily have to be bi-sexuality at best. Darwinian evolutionary theory would be proved out and this weak strain of genetics would be long gone -- yet it persists. Why?

There are some species who reverse instinctive duties such as hunting or gathering or feeding, protecting, guarding or nurturing. Some are monogamous, some not, but none are homosexual. Sexual behavior, courtship, affection and other displays are part of God's great creation in the animal kingdom. Same sex interaction is a natural phenomena. The fact that we see it and it as observable doesn't necessarily follow that we have interpreted it correctly. To interpret these actions as homosexual or bi-sexual is to put your interpretation or those who want it to be such, upon what is otherwise natural social interactions or possible confusion by the young. The behavior is strongly shifted towards the males. Odd? Some of these behaviors do not happen in the wild only in domesticated animals -- so there are influences added that obviously contribute to it that is not fully explainable.

Stick with God's word and God's plan and you will be fine. Elevate the corrupting influence of the human mind and those who wish to put more faith in their opinions and you will surely fail to find the answers for which you seek.

October 08 2013 • 5 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

Chris Dibbern

As far as I know, the Bible is mum on animal homosexuality. God probably didn't deem it important enough to put in the Bible. It looks like it was designed result of the fall, and might not be necessary, otherwise. I read that, with respect to people (and probably at least some animals), it likely came about as a result of the need for younger children of one mother to help rear the elder siblings' children (who would probably begin reproducing, first). Younger offspring are statistically more likely to be born gay (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_order#Sexuality), and therefore, without offspring of their own, would be more available to help the family or community with their own survival. Thus, gay offspring still contribute to the survival of their bloodline, just less directly.

But what am I saying, here? That they exist because they help with survival; they help delay death for kin. Death is a result of the fall, and therefore, there might not be a need for homosexuality in an unfallen world.

Now, does this apply to other, non-human animals? I don't know. If so, you'd maybe expect to see it be more prevalent in other animals that live communally, or in packs, like humans.

Regarding the assertions on which you predicate your question, I have to ask: from a relational perspective, how is a homosexual relationship any different than a hetero one? I don't think it is. You have one strong partner, one weak. One in submission to the other, but equal. You have two people who love each other, and, if married, are more interested in love, and, potentially, in glorifying God, than in chasing after their lusts. Successful marriage demonstrates this. How many people stay together 50 years out of pure lust? Can you imagine a straight couple staying together that long out of lust?

You quote Leviticus, yet you don't demonstrate general prohibition, unless you're willing to accept that commands like "don't wear clothing of more than one fiber" (Lev. 19:19) are not general prohibitions. It's my personal opinion, only partially "on my own understanding," that homosexual relationships (marriage, specifically) are not prohibited, by the Bible. Only gay rape (Lot and Sodom), promiscuity, worship of Baal (sleeping with often same-sex temple prostitutes, Leviticus), and straight people having gay sex (Romans 1), are sinful behaviors. Likely, marital gay sex is a mixture of concession and blessing in ordinary circumstances (to prevent promiscuity), and a former (and maybe current?) necessity of the fall.

To get a better understanding of solid, praiseworthy reasoning of concessions and blessings in marriage, it's worth reading all of 1 Cor 7; keeping in mind (critical for proper understanding) the full context afforded it by, e.g., 1 Cor 7:26 ("the present crisis"). In my humble opinion, it paints a great, glorifying picture of God's "love logic" regarding marriage and sexuality.

Thank you for your question! :-)

October 08 2013 • 12 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report