Homosexuality Propounded (Part of the Biblical Knowledge Series) Pt.2: "GAY ANIMALS?" (LGBTQ Animals?)
Listen I am a master of Biblical knowledge in both senses, and sometimes you just have to come right up behind the truth and PROPOUND it, also in both senses (if available).
I don't mean that "propound" has two senses. Pretty sure it only has one: to put something forward for consideration. It isn't even necessarily pro- or con-, as you see. A very even and unbiased approach. I propound it.
No, what I meant had both senses was the truth. Because sometimes it can. And then I put "(if available)" to signify to you yes, sometimes also it doesn't. We must cover both sides of the truth, even if there is only one. Today's topic is one such perfect example. It seems like two sides, but upon fair and thorough examination, there aren't. Begin.
Homosexuality does not exist in the animal world except in common experience, widely-observed and easily verified. There's no sense in which such behavior can be compared to human homosexuality, which does not depend on empirical verification, but upon the moral dimension.
You have to understand the distinction. With animals, there isn't any. Humans, though, are completely different! When an animal engages in a sex act, it's just there. Doin' it. Doin' it doin' it doin' it. Done! With a human, though, there has to be a sanctifying aspect or else you're basically mocking God's creation by behaving like monkeys. Anyone who can say this doesn't have a moral dimension is by-God deficient in poor reasoning. Sometimes they lack the moral sense entirely.
Homosexuality by definition is between a human and a human.
This is what the term has always meant, and no moral or immoral revisionist no matter what claims of "SCIENCE!" they let drop all sly can redefine what the term means, and has always meant, since time immemorial. Proof? Well, for one thing, people didn't even know about this animal business until quite recently! With the exception of certain perverts who, evidently, must have gone out beating the bush looking for it. Therefore by definition, obviously, "homosexuality" means and has always meant humans, because such were the limits of human knowledge. To deny that is to crap in the Oxford English Dictionary, of an edition and year prior to any gay animals coming into its definitions, or coming out in them. Whatever so-called “reality” you may shamelessly discover, does not change the Dictionary.
Only humans can do it, and if they do it amorally, they do it without reference to right and wrong. Considering the Dictionary is a reference book, to do it without reference to right and wrong is by definition as amoral as it gets!
Animals are not gay, because "homosexuality" does not entail or pertain to the blameless things they do to each other. Because they are innocent, even if unruly and stinky sometimes. Even if out-and-out disgusting. Whatever grabbing and slobbering, wet spray of pheromones, seizing roughly and poke-thrusting unto they do to each other is (utterly regardless of biological sex) not immoral. It is only in animals that sex can be biological, at least, primarily. They do that behavior and - if it's with two males, or two females, any combination or quantity past that - it doesn't matter; it's an innocent frolic like children too young to know better, only with the difference of clothes (hopefully). That comparison stank. I just meant animals have the innocence of children. Please stop sexualizing animals: their acts, in this area, are not remotely similar to ours.
Not "ours," I didn’t mean to say! But certainly, some people's.
It's because of the moral dimension. That's what makes animal sex so incomparable. THERE IS NONE. No moral dimension whatsoever! In an animal, so-called "gay behavior" is just a light-hearted slap n' tickle with sometimes a full-bore encore that means as little as the prelude did. But in animals it is first and foremost, totally insignificant!
In humans, by comparison, homosexuality is first and foremost, an immoral act. The two could not be more dissimilar. If animal gay sex is incomparable, human gay sex is even moreso. Nobody’s in any position to compare the two. Only God.
The moral component, its nature and status and essence and character as (first and foremost) an immoral act, means that whatever trivial similarities may appear to exist in the physical realm, true homosexuality is a whole other barrel of Bob's apples. The moral (IMMORAL!) component is so primal, so central, that whatever physical actions go with it are entirely by-the-way, and are only really used to unmistakably signal the immorality of the act. But it makes sense, doesn't it, that given the unique, almost awe-encompassing immorality of homosexuality, the acts chosen to go with are mostly the most gross and disgusting acts unimaginable (and don't try to!)? It makes sense, because this really is an example of the symbolic. That's when something makes sense in a tricky way, that lets you know: God did it. The disgustingness of certain acts, which aren't disgusting at all but perfectly blameless when animals do them, are, revealed for every bit how disgusting they are when chosen to crown and symbolize the truly disgusting: which exists wholly in the moral dimension.
We are clear on that, I believe.
I was going to say something about Darwin, but I forgot.
I don't mean that "propound" has two senses. Pretty sure it only has one: to put something forward for consideration. It isn't even necessarily pro- or con-, as you see. A very even and unbiased approach. I propound it.
No, what I meant had both senses was the truth. Because sometimes it can. And then I put "(if available)" to signify to you yes, sometimes also it doesn't. We must cover both sides of the truth, even if there is only one. Today's topic is one such perfect example. It seems like two sides, but upon fair and thorough examination, there aren't. Begin.
Homosexuality does not exist in the animal world except in common experience, widely-observed and easily verified. There's no sense in which such behavior can be compared to human homosexuality, which does not depend on empirical verification, but upon the moral dimension.
You have to understand the distinction. With animals, there isn't any. Humans, though, are completely different! When an animal engages in a sex act, it's just there. Doin' it. Doin' it doin' it doin' it. Done! With a human, though, there has to be a sanctifying aspect or else you're basically mocking God's creation by behaving like monkeys. Anyone who can say this doesn't have a moral dimension is by-God deficient in poor reasoning. Sometimes they lack the moral sense entirely.
Homosexuality by definition is between a human and a human.
This is what the term has always meant, and no moral or immoral revisionist no matter what claims of "SCIENCE!" they let drop all sly can redefine what the term means, and has always meant, since time immemorial. Proof? Well, for one thing, people didn't even know about this animal business until quite recently! With the exception of certain perverts who, evidently, must have gone out beating the bush looking for it. Therefore by definition, obviously, "homosexuality" means and has always meant humans, because such were the limits of human knowledge. To deny that is to crap in the Oxford English Dictionary, of an edition and year prior to any gay animals coming into its definitions, or coming out in them. Whatever so-called “reality” you may shamelessly discover, does not change the Dictionary.
Only humans can do it, and if they do it amorally, they do it without reference to right and wrong. Considering the Dictionary is a reference book, to do it without reference to right and wrong is by definition as amoral as it gets!
Animals are not gay, because "homosexuality" does not entail or pertain to the blameless things they do to each other. Because they are innocent, even if unruly and stinky sometimes. Even if out-and-out disgusting. Whatever grabbing and slobbering, wet spray of pheromones, seizing roughly and poke-thrusting unto they do to each other is (utterly regardless of biological sex) not immoral. It is only in animals that sex can be biological, at least, primarily. They do that behavior and - if it's with two males, or two females, any combination or quantity past that - it doesn't matter; it's an innocent frolic like children too young to know better, only with the difference of clothes (hopefully). That comparison stank. I just meant animals have the innocence of children. Please stop sexualizing animals: their acts, in this area, are not remotely similar to ours.
Not "ours," I didn’t mean to say! But certainly, some people's.
It's because of the moral dimension. That's what makes animal sex so incomparable. THERE IS NONE. No moral dimension whatsoever! In an animal, so-called "gay behavior" is just a light-hearted slap n' tickle with sometimes a full-bore encore that means as little as the prelude did. But in animals it is first and foremost, totally insignificant!
In humans, by comparison, homosexuality is first and foremost, an immoral act. The two could not be more dissimilar. If animal gay sex is incomparable, human gay sex is even moreso. Nobody’s in any position to compare the two. Only God.
The moral component, its nature and status and essence and character as (first and foremost) an immoral act, means that whatever trivial similarities may appear to exist in the physical realm, true homosexuality is a whole other barrel of Bob's apples. The moral (IMMORAL!) component is so primal, so central, that whatever physical actions go with it are entirely by-the-way, and are only really used to unmistakably signal the immorality of the act. But it makes sense, doesn't it, that given the unique, almost awe-encompassing immorality of homosexuality, the acts chosen to go with are mostly the most gross and disgusting acts unimaginable (and don't try to!)? It makes sense, because this really is an example of the symbolic. That's when something makes sense in a tricky way, that lets you know: God did it. The disgustingness of certain acts, which aren't disgusting at all but perfectly blameless when animals do them, are, revealed for every bit how disgusting they are when chosen to crown and symbolize the truly disgusting: which exists wholly in the moral dimension.
We are clear on that, I believe.
I was going to say something about Darwin, but I forgot.
Comments