I hesitate to post this, but... (1 Viewer)

[TPS]

>>to the point that the Omega in any mammal hierarchy is the "gayest" of the bunch, servicing all of the males above him and getting little female action himself.

Here's hoping that if the Hindus have it right, and I happen to make it back as a simean, I come back at least as a Gamma or Beta if not the Alpha. Who wants to be the 'prostitute' in the Russian penal system?

TPS

 

[crosswatt]

Also, while I think it is important to recognize that something similar to what we call homosexuality does happen among animals, we should also recognize that the mere fact that it does happen among animals does not necessarily make it acceptable behavior for people, in and of itself. Animals also eat their young, beat each other up, mate with a different partner every day, week, or year, and lots of other things that we humans could also do, if we felt so inclined. So although I happen to have no problem with homosexuality, I don't think this exhibit or study or whatever it is really changes the terms of the debate that much, other than to help refute the "it doesn't happen in nature so it's not natural" claim. That was never a good argument against homosexuality in the first place.

exibit A as to why TulsaSaint is one of the best posters on the boards.

 

[LSSpam]

Exactly lss, it was partially tongue-in-cheek.

What I meant about animals, is that dogs, horses, etc.., act mostly on instict. Humans have the capability of rational thought. vive le difference. It's like comparing bananas to satsumas.

I agree.

And if this were a discussion on the morality it would be entirely different. Animals wouldn't enter into the equation at all. Morality appears to be a largely human construct and should therefore be treated as exclusively human. But the original arguement that was taken on (perhaps a straw man since I never see it) was is homosexuality "natural" wherein the answer is "uhhhh, duh".

 

[GW93]

It's called Kin selection. It explains, among other things, why mammals are willing to engage in self-sacrafice, care for others kin, etc. i.e. Things which do not nessecarily promote your gene line, but do promote the gene line of your relatives.

In otherwords, if a population has a high propensity for self-sacrafice which results in a high survival rate for that specific population, the gene will survive because even as an individual dies (say a beta Antelope to fight off a predator while the rest of the herd runs away) his family (all of whom carry similiar genes) survive and keep propogating the gene.

It's theorized that something similiar occurs with homosexuality in certain animal species, ie that having gays around provides some sort of overall benefit to the population (such as helping care for the young) so that even though gay animals do not pass on their individual genes, their relatives pass on the propensity for homosexuality. ie "Kin selection"

It's just a theory though.


As for the first part, I argue SOME (maybe most) animals are not exclusively homosexual and ALL animals "do what comes naturally" to them, which in the case of animals with a pre-disposition to be homosexual, is be homosexual.

Interesting. If I read this right, would this theory serve as an argument for gays in the military?

That's two anti-homosexual arguments debunked with one thread! Bravo!

 

[LSSpam]

Interesting. If I read this right, would this theory serve as an argument for gays in the military?

That's two anti-homosexual arguments debunked with one thread! Bravo!

No I don't see how you make that connection.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I agree.

And if this were a discussion on the morality it would be entirely different. Animals wouldn't enter into the equation at all. Morality appears to be a largely human construct and should therefore be treated as exclusively human. But the original arguement that was taken on (perhaps a straw man since I never see it) was is homosexuality "natural" wherein the answer is "uhhhh, duh".

I actually see the natural argument as a reason to discriminate against homosexuals all the time. After the Bible it's the second most common argument I hear.

 

[LSSpam]

I actually see the natural argument as a reason to discriminate against homosexuals all the time. After the Bible it's the second most common argument I hear.

Really? I'm honestly fascinated by that. I'm not doubting you in the least. I've just never heard someone suggest that to me.

 

[bclemms]

12 characters

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Really? I'm honestly fascinated by that. I'm not doubting you in the least. I've just never heard someone suggest that to me.

Yes. The argument basically boils down to procreation. Since homosexuals can't procreate it isn't natural and thus they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals.

I'm actually surprised you haven't seen that argument. We get it at least once anytime we have a thread discussing it here.

 

[GW93]

No I don't see how you make that connection.

That's because I was making an intentionally specious argument.

 

[St. Widge]

I agree.

And if this were a discussion on the morality it would be entirely different. Animals wouldn't enter into the equation at all. Morality appears to be a largely human construct and should therefore be treated as exclusively human. But the original argument that was taken on (perhaps a straw man since I never see it) was is homosexuality "natural" wherein the answer is "uhhhh, duh".

Exactly, in the context of the question of whether homosexuality is natural or occurs in nature, it doesn't matter that we are smarter animals or different kinds of animals. Although, some higher primates probably do rationalize things and do probably have sense of morality and they also participate in homosexual behavior. Not all animals, act solely on instinct. Some, like humans, use logical thought and deductive reasoning.

But, as I have said before, it's irrelevant to me whether or not it is natural. What they do doesn't affect my life so I don't really care if they choose to do it, or if they are acting on a natural, biological imperative.

 

[Wombat]

You can't just out of hand dismiss tons of observation by scientist. It's not like if they DON'T see homosexual behaviour they're going to lose funding. It's also not like you can't just pick up any video tape of chimps and see them masterbating each other. I mean this stuff is extremely well documented, through video, photography, recorded by multiple people, etc. It exists in human legend and mythology before hand.

Why resist the idea so much?

The problem I have is with anthropomorphising animal behavior. The reasons reported for the behavior are very much subject to the observer's opinions.

As someone has already stated just because a behavior appears in the animal world and is therefore called "natural" doesn't mean that it's normal for humans. Cannabalism, assault, etc. also exist naturally as well amongst animals.

I'm not resistant to the idea, it's just one of my triggers when "scientific research" is quoted as justification for a particular idea that is politically charged. Personally I don't really care what causes homosexuality and who it is that engages in the behavior. There is so much junk science in every field (medicine and health, environment, child-rearing,etc.) that I'm always wondering if what we hear in any given study is legitimate. For example, studies about what types of foods may or may not prevent or cause cancer should be taken with a grain of salt because the interests of many ebb and flow with these results.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

The problem I have is with anthropomorphising animal behavior. The reasons reported for the behavior are very much subject to the observer's opinions.

As someone has already stated just because a behavior appears in the animal world and is therefore called "natural" doesn't mean that it's normal for humans. Cannabalism, assault, etc. also exist naturally as well amongst animals.

I'm not resistant to the idea, it's just one of my triggers when "scientific research" is quoted as justification for a particular idea that is politically charged. Personally I don't really care what causes homosexuality and who it is that engages in the behavior. There is so much junk science in every field (medicine and health, environment, child-rearing,etc.) that I'm always wondering if what we hear in any given study is legitimate. For example, studies about what types of foods may or may not prevent or cause cancer should be taken with a grain of salt because the interests of many ebb and flow with these results.

Yep. Read the book Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information Is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers by Ruth Hubbard who is a Prof. of Biology at Harvard and also a lesbian. She goes into great detail about how science has become a political tool.

http://www.amazon.com/Exploding-Gene-Myth-Information-Manipulated/dp/0807004316

 

[LSSpam]

The problem I have is with anthropomorphising animal behavior. The reasons reported for the behavior are very much subject to the observer's opinions.

As someone has already stated just because a behavior appears in the animal world and is therefore called "natural" doesn't mean that it's normal for humans. Cannabalism, assault, etc. also exist naturally as well amongst animals.

Cannabalism, assault, etc is also found in humans as well :dunno:

You're making a distinction between "natural instinct" and "morality", which is fine. Again, if you want to have an arguement about the morality of homosexuality, whatever, have at it.

If however the question is "is it natural?" the answer is an unequivocal "yes".

I don't think politics enters into this. The observations are what they are. Some animals engage in sexual acts with other animals of the same sex. Some do so exclusively.

Whatever conclusions you want to draw from that, again, whatever. If the question is "is it natural?" ie, does it happen in nature under normal circumstances, the answer is "yes, it does". So does cannabalism, assault, etc., even in humans. Those things are immoral. You might consider homosexuality to be part of the same grouping. But some people naturally want to screw people of the same sex, and this is common in many species. So it occurs naturally. It is natural.

 

[covingtondog]

It's obvious to me that bonobos need to find Jesus.