Tuesday, October 17, 2006


OSLO (Reuters) - The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals.

With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural". (link to article below)

Of course there has been a fairly noticeable uproar among the heterosexual community and those who value marriage, as a result of this news article, but I will not take the time to address this, because I do not want this post to turn into a large discussion on whether or not homosexuality is "natural." Obviously, animals do many things (such as mate in public, lick their own genitals, use the bathroom in public, murder and even eat their own), which humans do not accept nor do (without consequences), and we do not base our morals and standards of conduct on what we see animals doing. However, there is something kind of humorous in the way that the press has now equated gay people with penguins, giraffes, beetles, and whales.

NO, I would like to turn my attention to a much more overlooked part of the article:

One radical Christian said organizers of the exhibition -- partly funded by the Norwegian government -- should "burn in hell"

This is the most offensive part of this whole article to me, much more so than the opinion presented as fact that homosexuality is natural. If it was one "Christian," then why give all the Christians in the world this assocation by mentioning that this person identifies himself with Christianity? The slanted news media is trying to estrange the entire Christian population by assocating them with this ONE PERSON. They take a single individual and use him to paint a picture of "Christians." And since when does anyone in the media care what "one radical Christian" says? Any time a sports coach starts to mention anything about God in an ESPN interview, they cut him off immediately.

Furthermore, this article uses a typical fiction story structure to sway the minds of the masses:
The Protagonist: The gay community
The Antagonist: The Christian community (and anyone who agrees with them)
The Hero: The "gay" animals aka "Nature"

A new question: If a dog tries to mate with a stuffed animal, what is he? fluffosexual?

See The Article


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think the issue is whether or not homosexual practice is "natural" or not. Obviously, it does happen in nature and has been around since the beginning of time. Whether it's right or wrong isn't exactly the point, I think. It was to show that the practice is in nature.

Wed Oct 18, 03:57:00 PM  
Blogger Jeannine said...

just because they may have found bugs and "dozens of other animals" in nature that are "homo" doesn't mean we as humans should follow suite. unlike animals, we wear clothes, eat with utensils, and enter into a covenant of marriage with one person (at least thats how its supposed to be).

Mon Oct 23, 10:46:00 AM  
Blogger van.diesel said...

You've got to be kidding me. This is the worst argument I've ever heard for homosexuality.

Wed Oct 25, 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger Bradley said...

ANIMALS ALSO TRY TO HUMP ANYTHING IN SIGHT WHEN HORNY (those who have had dogs know what I'm talking about). They (and I have seen this on one occasion) also try to hump little children. SO, since it's "natural" for dogs to hump anything when horny (including little girls or boys) does this justify child molestation and child rape?

Only if we base our morals on animal behavior. But of course, we should never base our "oughts" on "is'z" if you catch my drift (ethics 101....hello). Rejection of Divine Revelation leads to real moral chaos (as my conversation with Scott and his wife on my blog [and your blog] about homosexuality and child molestation and beastiality, etc. for example, demonstrated).

Fri Oct 27, 02:02:00 PM  
Blogger Bradley said...

by the way...

These are the questions my youth pastor asks.

1) Name, School (and then he asks if there are any other kids that go to their school who also are either present at youth or go to church at our church).

2) How many times OR how long have you been coming to our church?

3) What have you learned (if anything) since you've been coming?
usually at this point, he elaborates on whatever it is they mention that they have learned in order to make whatever they have learned an occasion for a teaching moment.

4) If you had one peice of advice to give to people your age, what would it be?

Now, of course, given the immaturaty level of kids, this doesn't always go as smooth as you might think. If the kid isn't taking the questions seriously, then he will ask them to sit down and he will laugh at them and asks someone else if there are any volunteers that think they can take the questions seriously.

Sometimes their advice is something stupid like, "Stay in School" because they really don't know what to say. So, it makes for a laugh, and that OK.


Sorry it took me so long on those...

Fri Oct 27, 02:19:00 PM  
Blogger Bradley said...

Obviously you never even thought through your criticism of this article. For if you had, you surely would not have made such hollow remarks about it. But I give you one irrefutable argument: if what your saying is really true, then why would so many people disagree who are really really smart.

Jake say's "hey."

Anyone can see the utter contradictory nature of your viewpoint. I don't even need to really point it out.

Fri Mar 02, 03:26:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home