“It’s common sense. Will you see any animals where male is to male and female is to female?” boxing great and Christian Manny Pacquiao answered when asked about his views on homosexuals and homosexuality.
“The animals are better. They know how to distinguish male from female. If we approve [of] male on male, female on female, then man is worse than animals.”
As you can imagine, the gay rights community went nuts. As expected, Nike ended its business relationship with Pacquiao. Diversity of opinion only goes so far.
I find all this very curious since homosexuals have used animal behavior to support their claim that homosexual behavior is natural. Since same-sex sexuality is found among animals, and humans are animals that have evolved from lower animal lifeforms, therefore, whatever animals do must be morally legitimate for human animals.
For example, And Tango Makes Three is an illustrated children’s book about two male penguins that raise a baby penguin. It’s based on a true story of two male penguins in New York City’s Central Park Zoo that “adopt” a fertilized egg and raise the chick as their own. In this case, supposed same-sex animal behavior is approved of. ((Cristina Cardoze, “They’re in love. They’re gay. They’re penguins…. And they’re not alone” (June 6, 2006).))
In his book Biological Exuberance, Bruce Bagemihl claims “The world is, indeed, teeming with homosexual, bisexual and transgendered creatures of every stripe and feather. . . . From the Southeastern Blueberry Bee of the United States to more than 130 different bird species worldwide, the ‘birds and the bees,’ literally, are queer.”
And as we’ll see, some birds are cannibals.
Here’s the premise of such thinking: Whatever animals do in nature is natural. What’s natural is normal. What’s normal is moral.
So if chimpanzees engage in murder and cannibalism and penguins engage in homosexual behavior, then these behaviors must be natural, normal, and moral. How can human animals impose a different moral worldview on what’s natural in the animal kingdom? Homosexuals extrapolate that what animals do naturally in nature applies to what higher “animals” can do naturally without any moral judgments attached.
Check out this video of a violent attack from chimpanzees, an animal that evolutionists say share 97% of human DNA:
But the lower animal/higher animal model breaks down when other so-called “natural behaviors” found in animals are considered. For example, the Bible states, “It has happened to them according to the true proverb, ‘a dog returns to its own vomit’ [Prov. 26:11] and, ‘A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire’” (2 Pet. 2:22). Should these and other disgusting animal behaviors be followed?
A few years ago, I saw an advertisement for the television series The Trials of Life: A Natural History of Behavior, a BBC nature documentary series written and narrated by David Attenborough. The full-page advertisement showed a composite picture of six animals, one of which was the bald eagle, with the following caption:
“Discover how similar the face of nature is to yours. The way you love, the way you fight, the way you grow, all have their roots in the kingdom we all live in: the animal kingdom.”
Attenborough, a Darwinian evolutionist, was making the logical connection between animals in the wild and evolved human animals. Human animal behavior is rooted in the animal kingdom.
While channel surfing sometime later, I came across the second installment of the series. I soon learned what Benjamin Franklin meant when he described the eagle as “a Bird of bad moral Character” in a letter to his daughter. With two eaglets in the nest and not enough food to go around because of a drought, the adult eagle allows the weakest eaglet to die. She then cannibalizes the dead eaglet and feeds it to the survivor. Was this natural or unnatural? Is this moral animal behavior that we should match? How do we know? Should we follow the example of the eagles or just the homosexual penguins?
A 2002 article carries this title: “Bald eagle kills, eats its young”:
“Wildlife biologists are baffled and intrigued by two incidents captured on videotape at a bald eagle nest in Portsmouth, Virginia — an eagle parent attacks, kills, then eats its two scrawny young.
“According to several experts, the footage from a nest at the Hoffler Creek Wildlife Refuge in Portsmouth spurs numerous questions about animal behavior and the bald eagle, a federally protected species. Among them: Does cannibalism occur more often in nature than scientists believe? Were the parents of this troubled eagle brood just practicing euthanasia? Was pollution or contamination a factor?”
We mustn’t forget other “natural” animal behaviors. Animals rape on a regular basis. Should we make the leap homosexuals want to make regarding penguins and apply it to animal rape? If homosexual behavior in penguins is a template for human sexuality, then why can’t a similar case be made for rape among humans? As hard as it might be to believe, the connection has been made.
Randy Thornhill, a biologist, and Craig T. Palmer, an anthropologist, attempt to demonstrate in their book A Natural History of Rape (also see here) that evolutionary principles explain rape as a “genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human life because it is a kind of sexual selection — a successful reproductive strategy.”1
Given what we know about animals, Manny Pacquiao was wrong that that “animals are better.” They are not. At the same time, defenders of same-sex sexuality are also wrong in appealing to the world of animals for the moral and natural justification for homosexuality.
Randy Thornhill, and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000). ↩