On Gay Penguins and Apologetics

On August 14, a New York Times article appeared under the title, “Gay Penguins and Their Hope for a Baby Have Enchanted Berlin” (here). Apparently, a pair of male penguins in a Berlin zoo has taken over the care of an egg. Articles have appeared all over the internet celebrating the “gay penguin couple” as somehow a vindication of a gay lifestyle.

Then August 16, Jerry Coyne, on his website, whyevolutionistrue.com published an article (here) refuting the notion. Just in case you haven’t figured it out already, the criticisms fell along these easy to predict lines.

Inappropriate anthropomorphism.

We’re not at all sure, for instance, that animals who form same-sex couples have that feeling (and how could we know?), and I doubt that these male penguins are sexually attracted to each other. 

Human beings project their emotions and motives onto animals all the time. It is a fantasy that is not based on any sort of reality.

The article also points out the bigger issue.

Animal behavior is a totally insufficient guide for human ethics.

What I mostly object to here is not same-sex coupling in any species, but the use of phenomena in nature to justify human behavior, using traits like same-sex coupling. This is what we call “the naturalistic fallacy”: what is natural is good. Or, in this case, what is natural in nature is natural—and good—in humans.

We shouldn’t base our moral judgments on what we see in other species. For if we go that route, then we can justify all kinds of behavior as “natural”: the killing of your new spouse’s children (lions do it), xenophobia and carnage against other groups (chimps do it), or rape (ducks and bedbugs engage in forced copulation that can kill females).

Now make no mistake, Coyne is in no way “anti-gay” and makes that point clearly in his article. He just affirms that the “gay penguin” case for a gay lifestyle is no real case at all. Natural processes in animals cannot justify human ethical behavior. The officials at the Berlin Zoo and the authors of articles at the New York Times and other media sites should know better—they do know better. They just ignore basic reasoning for the sake of a popular societal agenda.

While it is entertaining to watch the gay apologists and evolutionists argue, we must admit that this situation identifies a problem for Christians too.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, we could prove that these penguins are not actually gay. Whew! Dodged that bullet! Think again. Proving the penguins aren’t gay does not prove a gay lifestyle wrong any more than lions killing the babies of their rivals justifies infanticide. Christians make these kinds of arguments regarding social agendas all the time. We know others do not believe the Bible so we make reasonable and naturalistic arguments that fall flat. Appealing to natural processes or consequences is not a justification for Christian morality.

Trying to convince those who do not acknowledge God to live like they do is a fruitless endeavor. Even if we could convince unbelievers to live like followers of Christ, what would we have accomplished? God certainly would not be impressed.

We cannot hope to reform the lifestyle of those who reject the existence of God. Isaiah said it this way.

Let grace be shown to the wicked, yet he will not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he will deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord. Lord, when Your hand is lifted up, they will not see. (Isaiah 26:10-11a)

It is a world-view/faith issue. There is a place for Christian apologetics, but it is most effective for solidifying the faith of those who already believe. With the lost, God simply declares Himself and His authority. The Holy Spirit convicts and draws, and the Blood of Jesus Christ cleanses.

But shouldn’t we work for a moral society—a moral nation–even if Christ is not acknowledged? We must always stand up for justice, but we also have to be honest about the difficulty that lies ahead. All believers must understand that our constitutional freedoms are based on an acknowledgment of God.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We do not believe that only Christians should enjoy these rights—after all, they are for all. But we also understand that the concept of individual rights is based upon the acknowledgment of God. Once a society abandons the Creator, the rights of individuals will fade as well. Yes. We are in trouble.

The gospel is the only answer to the societal/spiritual crisis in which we find ourselves. Sin is not sin because it does not make sense, or because the animals don’t do it. It is sin because God says it is. The solution to the sin problem is salvation, not reformation.

Share Christ boldly. As much as you possibly can, live peaceably with all.