Article about animal homosexuality

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hafen
As far as the nature/nurture arguement goes, I see it as this:

Children have little interest in the opposite sex, then suddenly something turns on at puberty, and they are all the world. Normally, little boys start to like little girls (and vice versa.) Now what causes this? Presumably some hormone comes on, flips a switch and causes this change. Now what if for gays, there is some variation and causes the opposite switch to be turned on? All the genes to make a woman are present in a man, so why cannot this be so?

The arguement that homosexuality is just choice, and not a deep seating feeling or desire brings some disturbing consequences. To say that one's sexual inclinations are just a product of social conditioning, as a means to invalidate them, falsifies not only homesexual behavior, but heterosexual behavior as well.
You would then have to say the love I have for my wife is not real, but the outcome of this same conditioning that I have chose not to rebel against.

In the end, where does my love for her (woman) really come from? I do not know, I just feel it as a fiber of my being, just as my my need for food and drink. I can only guess the feelings of a gay person, I do not understand them. But I can empathize their feelings are just as integral to their being as my love for woman is to mine.

I personally feel that Homosexuality is a little of both. Some, as you say, are hardwired that way. Some choose to be that way or learn it.

Some may chose it, due to abuse, social trends (like now, much of the pop lezzie stuff right now is an act *cough, Britney, cough,*) whatever, but I think overall this is rare. I knew this kid in HS that ended up hanging himself because he couldn't deal with the fact that was attracted to men. No one knew he was gay before it happened. He hid it from everybody and was quite ashamed of it (obviously.) This kid didn't chose to be they way he was, no matter how hard he had tried to fight it. He didn't come from an abusive family (religously conservative, but a good family,) molestation, mental illness, etc etc or any of the other reasons people attribute to "turning" someone gay.
These are the people I feel bad for. They are something that their families/friends will never accept beacuse they are seen as defective or perverse.


As far as evolution goes; I don't think you can look at it so simply. Evolution often takes directions that on face value seem illogical or counterproductive, yet they exist. Take the plume of a peacock or the cheeks of an orangutan for example. Our inability to to find meaning does not speak to the abscence of fact, but to our lack of imagination.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheBDB
It doesn't matter whether homesexuality is natural or not. If you use the definition of natural to be things that are common in nature then as stated rape and murder are natural. The difference between these things and homosexuality is rape and murder are harmful to other people. That is why society decides to make them unacceptable behavior. I don't see how homosexuality harms me in any way, which is why I don't have a problem with it.

Actually, Murder(killing of one's own kind) is very rare in Nature. Rape really depends on how you define it, social norms vary greatly in Nature, some species pair off into Monogamous relationships, others don't.

About half of all male chimps are killed by other chimps. Just one example of how common murder is.

Perhaps common amongst Chimps, but not Nature as a whole.

 

[Bitek]

This is off the subject but...

Infanticide is very common in the wild, with strong evolutionary rewards. This doesn't mean its moral/immoral. It just is.

Humans can't really go by what happens in nature.

 

[markuskidd]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Let's take a completely secular view (Darwinian perspective):

In the article from the first post it mentions two gay penguins that tried to nurse a rock, pretending it was an egg. No matter how long they sit on that rock, it will never hatch.

Theoretically if it were genetic, then

From a purely Darwinian perspective:
1) Heterosexuality is rewarded with offspring.
2) Bisexualality is still rewarded with offspring, but that the same-sex interactions are not beneficial and are at best benign.
3) Homosexuality is punished with no offspring.

Homosexuality is not logical from a Darwinian perspective. In theory if it were simply genetic, then homosexuality would cancel itself out within a few generations. Therefore it is not mere genetics but most likely a constant reoccuring phenomenom among animals in which slight genetic variation that occurs post conception changes the offsprings' sexual orientation to something other than it's parents.

that only works in species without social organization -- with groups like primates or humans it's reductionist since there are other factors at work than simply biological ones

 

[0roo0roo]

only thing really unnatural is celibacy. damn priests...

 

[chess9]

Rei:

You need to revisit that tautology.

-Robert

-

 

[gordy]

Dolphins are one of the few creatures that will kill not just for food as well.

 

[bozack]

This article was actually first posted in the New York times I believe and this version linked to seems to be missing some information, however they did include the quote by Dr. Vasey which I found rather interesting:

"Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."

"For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."

-Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada

For all who have an account:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html

 

[Zephyr106]

Some animals commonly commit infanticide.... some animals commonly commit murder and rape. Maybe humans should not emulate the behaviors of the other animals that resort in harm to others. But for behaviors that do not harm others, studying nature may yield some answers.

Zephyr

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Some animals commonly commit infanticide.... some animals commonly commit murder and rape. Maybe humans should not emulate the behaviors of the other animals that resort in harm to others. But for behaviors that do not harm others, studying nature may yield some answers.

Zephyr

Yeah, just pick and choose based on what's most convenient for your argument...splendid.

 

[Zephyr106]

Well jeez, that's what just happened nary one post before me.... The thread was discussing homosexuality similarities between humans and other animals, when a poster brings up the selectively chosen fact that some animals commit infanticide.

Zephyr

 

[Puwaha]

Originally posted by: HotChic
I happen to take the stand that people can control their sexual behavior much more than our society tends to assume they can, and that means hetero and homo sexuals as well married and unmarried people of any age.

Of course you can control your behavior, but you can't control what you are attracted to.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Dman877
or does the religious right think gay people choose to be gay...?

correct.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Dman877
or does the religious right think gay people choose to be gay...?

correct.

Choose or are made to feel that way by their conditions, but that's a whole other thread.

 

[zephyrprime]

Homosexuality is not logical from a Darwinian perspective. In theory if it were simply genetic, then homosexuality would cancel itself out within a few generations.

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. It's entirely possible for certain negative to traits to stay within a population for a long period of time for various reasons. For instance, there are some populations in africa that have a very high incidence of sickle cell anemia which is caused by a single gene. The reason for this is because having only 1 of the gene makes you immune to malaria and not have sickle cell anemia while having 2 makes you have sickle cell anemia.

And the thing is, because of the way most human societies are, for most of history, whether or not you were gay had little impact on whether or not you had children. People got married and had children because the social pressures to do so were great. And in societies that didn't recognize the existance of homosexuality, this is especially true.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Dman877
or does the religious right think gay people choose to be gay...?

correct.

Choose or are made to feel that way by their conditions, but that's a whole other thread.

huh?

 

[QueHuong]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Text

At first glance I find this to be a pretty well-written article but I didn't examine it for loopholes, just skimmed it in the course of my reading. I'm part of the religious right, so I am not in support of human homosexuality...

That last sentence tells me just because your parents embedded a certain belief system in you, you're going to conform to that system and force your mindset to believe in a certain way that have adverse effects a very large population of human beings. Gays are denied the most sacred unions, denied parenthood by adoption, and are sometimes beat to death, just because christians are taught by their parents and church that homosexuals are bad people*. YAY FOR RELIGION. :disgust:


* yes, I'm very well aware that the official Catholic stance (which can be applied to other denominations) is that the chuch condemns the act, and not the people, but who do they think they're fooling?

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Originally posted by: HotChic
Text

At first glance I find this to be a pretty well-written article but I didn't examine it for loopholes, just skimmed it in the course of my reading. I'm part of the religious right, so I am not in support of human homosexuality...

That last sentence tells me just because your parents embedded a certain belief system in you, you're going to conform to that system and force your mindset to believe in a certain way that have adverse effects a very large population of human beings. Gays are denied the most sacred unions, denied parenthood by adoption, and are sometimes beat to death, just because christians are taught by their parents and church that homosexuals are bad people*. YAY FOR RELIGION. :disgust:


* yes, I'm very well aware that the official Catholic stance (which can be applied to other denominations) is that the chuch condemns the act, and not the people, but who do they think they're fooling?

thats pretty presumptuous of you. but hey, who am i to criticize the highly enlightened?

 

[QueHuong]

Originally posted by: Genesys


thats pretty presumptuous of you. but hey, who am i to criticize the highly enlightened?

Exactly.