“Animals Do It Too?” — The Flawed Logic Behind Justifying Homosexuality
- Muiz As-Siddeeqi
- May 29
- 3 min read
This image makes a fallacious argument often used in liberal and LGBTQ+ propaganda:
“Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?”
Here is a comprehensive, evidence-based, deeply rational, and morally sound refutation of this flawed argument:
1. Fallacy of “Natural = Moral”
The core mistake here is the “naturalistic fallacy” — assuming that if something exists in nature, it must be morally acceptable.
Murder, rape, cannibalism, and infanticide are also observed in animals. Are these then “natural,” and should we normalize them for humans?
Many animals eat their own offspring, live in violent dominance hierarchies, or engage in forced copulation. Would this logic make those acts moral for us too?
Just because something occurs in nature does not make it morally or spiritually right. Humans are held to a higher moral standard—we are not animals, but beings of reason, soul, and accountability.
2. Misleading Zoology: Homosexual Acts ≠ Homosexual Orientation
Even secular scientists admit:
What’s observed in animals is often temporary same-sex behavior, usually driven by dominance, lack of mates, or hormonal changes, not a lasting orientation or emotional same-sex love.
These behaviors have nothing to do with modern LGBTQ+ identity politics or what humans define as “gay.”
Dr. Antonio Pardo (Professor of Bioethics, University of Navarra) says: “Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist in animals. For sexuality to be truly homosexual, it must be exclusive and permanent—something which has not been observed in any animal species.”
3. The Number “450” Is Arbitrary and Debunked
The claim that homosexuality is “found in over 450 species” is often cited from Bruce Bagemihl’s book Biological Exuberance (1999). But:
It includes isolated behaviors, unverified reports, and anthropomorphized interpretations.
The book itself is written with a pro-LGBT agenda, and even Bagemihl admits:
“These behaviors do not necessarily indicate a sexual orientation as we understand it in humans.”
Real zoologists criticize such works for drawing ideological conclusions from limited data.
4. “Homophobia” Is a Politicized Term – Not a Scientific One
“Homophobia” is not a scientific or objective concept. It's a loaded term meant to shame or silence moral or religious disagreement.
Disagreeing with homosexuality on religious, ethical, or biological grounds is not irrational fear (phobia). It is a reasoned moral stance grounded in Divine Revelation and the fitrah (natural disposition) of the human being.
In fact, true “unnaturalness” is denying the Creator, the design of the male-female pair, and the purpose of procreation and family.
5. What’s Found in Humans That Isn’t in Animals?
Animals don’t build civilizations.
Animals don’t write Qur’ān.
Animals don’t have shame, or ḥayā’, or marriage.
Animals don’t care for morality.
So by this logic, should we also stop praying, modesty, and worship because these are “not found in 450 species”?
This argument insults human dignity, strips man of his soul, and tries to reduce him to an animal driven by urges, not a vicegerent of Allah on Earth.
6. Islam’s Clear Position: Homosexual Acts Are a Major Sin
The Qur’ān is explicit: Lūṭ's people were punished not because they were “different,” but because they committed immoral, unnatural, shameful acts.
Every major religion (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam) historically condemned homosexual behavior until liberalism and secularism invaded them.
“Do you approach males among the worlds, and leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a transgressing people.”— Sūrah ash-Shuʿarā’ 26:165–166
7. The Real Question: What Is Natural for the Human Heart?
The fitrah of a child is to recognize male-female pairing.
A child instinctively knows the mother-father model of love and family.
Same-sex ideology needs indoctrination. It doesn’t occur naturally without media, propaganda, or grooming.
Homosexual acts may appear in desperate animals — but they are never celebrated as “identities.” Only modern humans invented “LGBTQ” as a moral revolution against divine law.
Conclusion: Homosexuality in Animals Doesn’t Justify Sin in Humans
The statement in the image is scientifically flawed, and morally dangerous.
Animals aren’t our moral guides.
Truth doesn’t come from behavior, but from Revelation and reason.
Islam teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and opposing it is a virtue, not “phobia.”
Comments