- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There was an article in the newspaper about this today, so I thought I’d raise it. ‘Scuse the wikipedia. Homosexuality in animals is quite well documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals I don’t know whether this is a completely good analogy for humans. Some homosexual behavior in animals is clearly primal, especially in cases where the animals kill their mate or injure them. Some of these animals will clearly hump anything – I’ve seen a tortoise at it with an old work helmet once, for example.
I find it more interesting where the animals form affectionate pairings, than when one spears the other through the chest, or just has a good rub.
I’ve heard about bonobos many times, surely the perverts of the primate world!!!
I think religion lost the discussion about homosexuality the moment it latched onto the “unnatural” argument. Period. I listened to a mormon podcast this week. Can’t remember the name now, but the guy, a professor from BYU clearly states, with evidence I might add, the homosexual behavior is exhibited in nature and other species. There is no argument, according to him. According to the studies, between 3-8% of male sheep, cows, and another species (cant remember right now) will NOT breed with females, and will stand be ridden by other males. GAY. According to this professor, who cited tons of empirical evidence (multiple studies and different aspects of genetics and chemistry) that homosexuality is
geneticallybased. It’s no longer an argument of IF homosexuality is biology, but, how MUCH of it is biological. In other words, he argues that instead of saying “one is homosexual.” What we should be asking is, “HOW much is one homosexual.” Using more of a 1 to 10 type of rating, since, homosexuality is so obviously biological, where is the cutoff? So you Sam, might be a 2 or 3, and still be attracted to females, whereas, your neighbor Joe Blow, might be 5 or a 6 and be confused, and your other neighbor Joe Wind might be a 8 or 9 and be fully out of the closet. As a man of science and a biology teacher, it makes perfectly logical to sense to me.
SamBee wrote:I find it more interesting where the animals form affectionate pairings, than when one spears the other through the chest, or just has a good rub.
fwiw — there are many species of nematodes, as well as the common sea horse, that are hermaphrodites, and will —READY FOR IT — penis fence while mating. Literally, they will sword fight with their penises, against other hermaphrodites, and the loser will get injected via the penis through the abdomen, with semen and have to bear the young and be the “female” mate, while the male trolls around “injecting” other hermaphrodites with semen until he loses the battle and then has to gestate and bear young.
Do you think BKP knows about that? Are they creatures of god, or were they created by the devil? It’s one of those, “come on BKP, do a little research before you speak for god in GC and say something really foolish that will get edited out of the conference edition of the ensign” moments.
Yeah p- fencing was mentioned in the newspaper yesterday,they’re hermaphroditic, so compete to see who gets to go on top. I don’t think this is so much interest to humans. Despite what some people say, our gender and sexuality is much better defined than flatworms. I believe that there are also some fish which change sex partway through their lives.
Sea horses are interesting, as the “stallions” gestate the young.
I’m not greatly interested in the homosexual issue, but I thought this was worth posting. I think some homosexuality is genetic, but also that some of it is a matter of choice. I have come across homosexuals who maintain their state is a result of the latter and ones with the former.
Bill Bradshaw is the former BYU Biology professor who did the Mormon Stories Interview. I think it’s looking more and more like this behavior is sometimes observed in human animals as well, and it just seems to be a naturally occurring variation.
I am not sure what animal behavior has to with acceptable behavior in humans. Brown wrote:I am not sure what animal behavior has to with acceptable behavior in humans.
Quite a lot actually.
Most human facial expressions can be found in chimps. Apes and monkeys form gangs, go to war, ostracize weirdos, form affectionate partnerships etc. In fact, just about all human nature can be found somewhere amongst the animals. I was trying to think of what animals have that we don’t. Writing – most of the rest are more highly developed versions of what’s there already in the animal kingdom – tools, love, language, clothing, farming, co-operation, politics, war, houses, dams, cooking, painting, weaving, masonry, bridges, slavery, the class system, jewellery and umpteen other things, can be found amongst other species in less developed forms.
Homosexuality in animals suggests that it is actually just part of nature, rather than some modern perversion dreamt up by man.
SamBee wrote:Brown wrote:I am not sure what animal behavior has to with acceptable behavior in humans.
Quite a lot actually.Most human facial expressions can be found in chimps. Apes and monkeys form gangs, go to war, ostracize weirdos, form affectionate partnerships etc. In fact, just about all human nature can be found somewhere amongst the animals. I was trying to think of what animals have that we don’t. Writing – most of the rest are more highly developed versions of what’s there already in the animal kingdom – tools, love, language, clothing, farming, co-operation, politics, war, houses, dams, cooking, painting, weaving, masonry, bridges, slavery, the class system, jewellery and umpteen other things, can be found amongst other species in less developed forms.
Homosexuality in animals suggests that it is actually just part of nature, rather than some modern perversion dreamt up by man. Yes, exactly. PERHAPS gays aren’t a bunch of perverts running around just deciding to “experiment” with an unorthodox form of sexuality, regardless of what BKP might think. Maybe GOD WOULD make them like like?
I messed up about the sea horse, as they are not hermaphodites, but yeah, the sea horse gestate and raise the young. There is another species of hermaphroditic fish that “penis fence,” but it escapes me right now.
I still can’t buy “nature” as an argument in favor of homosexuality. Just because animals do something does not make it acceptable for us. Animals have been known to kill, abandon, mate with or even eat their young! Does that make it even remotely excusable for humans to neglect or abuse their children? Promiscuity, violence and rape are also commonplace in the animal kingdom. I think we all know those are not desirable behavior for humans, even if many humans to give into their impulses for those kinds of actions. I am not trying to argue for or against homosexuality here, but saying it is OK because animals do it, is a poor line of argument. Most of what makes us humans is the ability to reason and overcome natural tendencies and impulses when it is our best interest.
Brown wrote:I am not trying to argue for or against homosexuality here, but saying it is OK because animals do it, is a poor line of argument. Most of what makes us humans is the ability to reason and overcome natural tendencies and impulses when it is our best interest.
I don’t believe the argument here is that it is OK because animals do it but rather that it occurs in animals at about the same percentage that it does in humans and that therefore at least some of it is genetic or random variation or some other way of saying that gay tendencies are the luck of the draw and that you are born with it.
That in itself does not establish that it is OK. Alcoholism seems to be genetic. Narcissists and psychopaths are probably a combination of nature and nurture, but our prisons are filled with such people. It does not make it OK, but it does seem to be a starting point for a more constructive dialogue.
I remember a conversation I had with a good friend who outed himself to me in high school. He said that even though he was attracted to and felt affection for other guys; the process of anal sex was not appealing. I told him that a clinical description of vaginal sex would probably sound just as disgusting.
What is it that makes heterosexual sex OK and desirable? Is it that it produces children? What about oral or protected sex? Is that OK or is that deviant?
What drives us to mate? Is it our primal nature with pheromones and hormones, etc.? Why is sex pleasurable? Why do some people have seemingly inexhaustible libidos and others have very little interest in sex? Why does a person’s interest in sex sometimes change as they age?
I am attracted to women. I have natural tendencies and impulses to mate with DW. Although I find other women attractive, it also seems like part of my nature to “mate for life.” I am unsure that I could overcome these natural tendencies and impulses with the use of reason and pursuit of my best interest. If my circumstances changed and I found myself in prison and in need of protection, could I form a gay relationship to receive that protection? Could I use my powers of reason to ultimately find enjoyment and fulfillment in that gay relationship?
I acknowledge that my analogy is flawed, but I do think it is worthwhile to imagine a circumstance where heterosexuality is the natural tendency and impulse to be overcome for our best interest and how we might use our powers of reason to overcome our heterosexuality.
So say we agree that sexual orientation is primarily a function of nature. What then? Does it change anything about the debate? Quote:So say we agree that sexual orientation is primarily a function of nature. What then? Does it change anything about the debate?
Absolutely – as long as one side keeps insisting that it’s unnatural and that all gay people choose to be gay. (especially if the claim is that they choose to FEEL homosexual attractions)
Does it change the “right” vs. “wrong” debate? Not really, especially for those (like Mormons) who don’t have a “natural is right” philosophy in the first place. However, it absolutely makes those who condemn it find a “valid” reason to condemn it, since calling it unnatural simply isn’t valid. It’s an ignorant, incorrect argument, and it really shouldn’t be made.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m NOT saying all homosexuality is biological and unavoidable and inevitable and fine and dandy. I’m NOT saying there is no choice in the matter of one’s sexual activity. I’m not saying anything like that. I’m not even arguing in this thread that homosexuality is good, bad, ok or reprehensible. There’s no moral judgment in this thread at all. I’m just saying the discussion ought to be grounded in reality and solid arguments, and saying homosexuality (the feeling AND/OR the action) is unnatural simply isn’t real or solid.
That’s why I say religions lost the debate the minute they latched onto the unnatural justification. That argument simply is wrong.
SamBee wrote:I’ve heard about bonobos many times, surely the perverts of the primate world!!!
Or not. What is more perverted, killing each other “in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets” (Voltaire) or diffusing hostilities with promiscuous eroticism? Humans could stand to be a little more like bonobos, all while keeping our clothes on and our bodily fluids to ourselves. AKA Hugs not slugs. AKA Make love, not war.
Brown wrote:I still can’t buy “nature” as an argument in favor of homosexuality. Just because animals do something does not make it acceptable for us. …
Okay, that is true, we are expected to be more civil than the common animal. We do not accept rape and murder, like what happens in the animal kingdom. That is true.
So, do we just ignore the fact that other species in the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual behavior, and tell our gay friends that their sexual orientation is a choice and that if they act on their inclinations, they are little more than “animals” and only following thier animal urges at the expense of their humanity?
Do you see the problem with that? What the biologists are saying, is that sexual attraction is not black and white – male attracted to females, and females attracted to males. Sometimes, in the animal kingdom it doesnt’ work that way, so it’s only logical and reasonable to conclude that its doesn’t always work that way in the human animal as well. The chemistry doesn’t always work the same way in everyone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.