Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Cedars]

The description of dragonfly behavior is fascinating, because I've seen it hundreds of times without knowing what I was seeing.

 

--lemit

 

One of the things I noticed in one of the pdf links was how many of these observations were in captivity or lab settings (with some lab settings seeming to be experiments to increase the chances via scent triggers or populaton triggers). There is some validity that some of these species are not easily identified (ie male/female) in the wild, so we wouldnt know if these behaviors are occurring in a natural setting.

 

I didnt post my findings on penguins because the post was getting too long. But we have examples of ss pairings in zoos, and it seems to be a sex ratio pairing. Some examples:

 

Roy and Silo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Widow a wedge between zoo's male penguin pair

 

The above are two examples of MM pairings which were broken up when one partner was attracted to a female (either new or recently single). Now these are both examples of captive penguins outside of their natural environment (and I dont know how close to a natural environment their captivity is). Close enough that other couples are reproducing.

 

But the next example bothers me. And this is why:

 

"Gay rights advocates were outraged when the zoo brought four new female penguins into the colony in a bid to encourage the penguins to reproduce, and the zoo later nixed the idea. (In the zoo's defense, Humboldt penguins are classified as vulnerable to extinction, so it does make a certain amount of sense to be concerned about them reproducing. And since Z and Vielpunkt have done just that, everyone wins!)"

 

Gay penguin dads in German zoo hatch their first chick | L.A. Unleashed | Los Angeles Times

 

First, if the actions of the MM coupling is not their natural choice, advocates are forcing them to stay coupled that way.

 

Second (and similar to above) If the penguins are homosexual, the introduction of females shouldnt change the coupling.

 

Third, everyone does not win. Both of the genetics of the MM partnering are being deprived of the chance of being selected for, by what appears to be needless human intervention, when the zoo personal were trying to balance the male/female sex ratio.

 

Now because we really cant compare animal and human behaviors absolutely, but then again, we have male prisoners forming couples in a population where they are female deprived, so are these men homosexuals? or are they homosocial (a word I picked up in a different forum). Because most male prisoners who couple up with someone while in captivity (forced sex is excluded in this concept) return to their heterosexual ways upon release (for the most part because I cant say for sure all of them do). And this doesnt need to be exclusive to male prisoners because the reality is women form lesbian couplings in prison also.

 

So can we really use the captive penguin example as homosexual when its obvious at least 2 of 3 couples were broken up by the introduction of a single/available female. And do we really know if the german MM couple is homosexual/ homosocial or forced by captivity to remain in this partnership?

[Turtle]

gay bugs!? really? good grief. :singer: well i wonder then if there are homophobic bugs? :hihi:

 

Prejudice & Attitudes to Gay Men & Lesbians - Homophobia

What causes people to be prejudiced against gay and lesbian people?

There are many factors that can cause a person to be homophobic. Research has shown that prejudice against gay people and homosexuality can be influenced by the person:

 

Having strong religious beliefs that disapprove of sex and/or homosexuality

Having little/no social contact with lesbian and gay people

Reporting no homosexual experiences or feelings

'When you're scared, especially of something you actually know nothing about, hatred is a natural reaction.' Robert, 25

Prejudice among young

 

frontline: assault on gay america: how 'homophobic' are you?

... For much of this century, homosexuality was defined by the medical and scientific community as a psychiatric disorder. In the last several decades, however, "homosexuality" has been removed from the diagnostic manual of disorders, and research emphasis has shifted to the other side of the problem: the study of the negative, sometimes pathological, reactions to homosexuals by heterosexuals. ...

[lemit]

While nature or the lack thereof as it relates to sexual orientation is the text of the title, the subtext of the thread is certainly discrimination. With all the permutations of nature, nurture, and a few forces we don't quite understand, it would seem that the best course would be a certain legal and moral modesty.

 

So, a parallel question: Is discrimination based on homosexuality unnatural?

 

--lemit

[Moontanman]

While nature or the lack thereof as it relates to sexual orientation is the text of the title, the subtext of the thread is certainly discrimination. With all the permutations of nature, nurture, and a few forces we don't quite understand, it would seem that the best course would be a certain legal and moral modesty.

 

So, a parallel question: Is discrimination based on homosexuality unnatural?

 

--lemit

 

Being the father of a gay son I'm not sure I can be objective about discrimination against homosexuals. I know my son is a good man and I see no reason what so ever why he should be discriminated against what so ever. He has endured the exclusion perpetrated by the so called straight community, been denied a ROTC scholarship after they insisted he sign a document saying he was not homosexual even though he was rated at the top of his ROTC class, he has been denied jobs and even beaten several times by men who thought he had no right to even exist. Through it all he has maintained his humanity and dignity. I think discrimination against homosexuals is based entirely in the supernatural and so being is by definition unnatural.

[Cedars]

I had stayed out of this thread until just today because of the politics/emotion involved, for some people. But as I reviewed things in the background (and as I stated via multiple forums where this topic keeps arising) I immediately encountered misrepresentation of what the science was stating and what the various posters were presenting. It is often claimed we dont spend enough time viewing the news with the eye of a skeptic, yet within hours of my posts, attempts are made to derail the topic and my legitimate questions regarding what the news presents as fact and what I was finding as exaggeration of fact or speculation.

 

Here is a lengthy snippet from one of the pdf links:

 

"We mainly focus on same-sex behavior per se, without inferring anything about the sexual preference or orientation of individuals engaging in the behavior. Sexual behavior, sexual preference and sexual orientation are distinct but often conflated concepts (see Glossary).

 

Confusion among them can undermine the clarity and accurate interpretation of scientific research, so here we emphasize that same-sex sexual behaviors are interactions between same-sex individuals that also occur between opposite-sex individuals in the context of reproduction. For example, many Drosophila studies examine genetic mutations that affect pheromone receptors (Box 1). Sex-specific pheromones and their accurate detection are crucial for sex recognition in fruit flies, and alterations in sex-recognition pathways can produce males that court other males, females that court females, or males that switch from same-sex to opposite-sex courtship within minutes [4– 13]. In other words, the mutations cause same-sex sexual behavior. However, this behavior often occurs alongside opposite-sex courtship as well, with males mating indiscriminately [8,10,11]. So although they show same-sex sexual behavior, males might not actually be exhibiting a preference for one sex over the other (see Box 1).

 

Individuals exhibiting a same-sex preference choose to engage in sexual behavior with a member of the same sex, when given the option of engaging in sexual behavior with an opposite-sex individual. Preference implies that the animal has made a choice. Examples of same-sex preferences in non-human animals are far more rare than examples of same-sex behavior. Nevertheless, in the damselfly Ischnura elegans, researchers demonstrated that males exposed to all-male groups preferentially courted other males when they were given a choice between a male and a female [14]. Their preference for one sex over the other was flexible, and could be switched by manipulating the social context they experienced previously [14].

 

Same-sex orientation implies a more permanent set of preferences—an internal predisposition to desire sexual interactions with members of one sex or another—and although commonly used to describe sexual identity in humans (see Glossary), it is rarely applied to other animals. In part, this is because it is impossible to know what animals ‘desire’; we can only observe what they do. Individuals in a handful of vertebrate species have been described as having same-sex orientations, among them male chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarcticus), which have been documented to form long-term pair bonds in captivity [15], and some male bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), which will only mount females if the females adopt male-like behavior [16]. Categorizing an individual animal’s orientation is fraught with the added difficulty of not knowing for how long an animal must retain its sexual preference to be considered same- versus opposite sex oriented. Considering sexual orientation using this set of criteria is likely of limited use to biologists studying same-sex behavior in non-human animals."

 

If I remember right, the above article was printed before the chinstrap penguin couples had broken up and one of the couple mated with a female.

[Turtle]

I had stayed out of this thread until just today because of the politics/emotion involved, for some people. But as I reviewed things in the background (and as I stated via multiple forums where this topic keeps arising) I immediately encountered misrepresentation of what the science was stating and what the various posters were presenting. It is often claimed we dont spend enough time viewing the news with the eye of a skeptic, yet within hours of my posts, attempts are made to derail the topic and my legitimate questions regarding what the news presents as fact and what I was finding as exaggeration of fact or speculation.

 

 

with all due respect, bs. you are anti-gay, your many posts on the topic make it clear that you are anti-gay, and i have no intention of letting that aspect slide for you or anyone else with your slant.

[Moontanman]

To some extent I do agree with you Cedars, claiming incidence of homosexuality in non-sentient creatures as unnatural seems to be a stretch to me. Same sex behavior in flies, lizards with only one sex, and fish with the same population of one sex or even fish that routinely change sex is obviously natural. These animals do and and cannot question the way they are made. Even bonobos do not in any way display any discrimination against or toward members who engage in same sex act or even sex acts with their children. as far as I have seen only humans question such behaviors or try to categorize them as unnatural or natural. The gist of the conversation is the idea that same sex sexual acts are some how unnatural. l think that is is obvious that humans have coined the idea of natural and unnatural based on the supernatural. We are not equipped to make a neutral call on this due to our own reliance on the supernatural for guidance. since only humans can make the call of natural or unnatural the idea can only apply to humans. The penguins in question are obviously in an unnatural situation much like humans in prison, if men in prison who are having same sex acts with each other are offered woman most would choose women, does this mean the sex was an artifact of the captivity or an expression of a natural urge to have sex with men? All creatures are programmed to have sex at some point, in non sentient creatures there is no natural or unnatural, there is just sex. the reason for sexual contact is not always reproduction in most animals I think this says that same sex contacts are natural. the only unnatural aspect of this is our categorization of sex acts.

[lemit]

Sex acts, sexual behavior, and sexual orientation are three separate things. I missed a few twists and turns in the conversation and probably agreed with some people I don't agree with. I believe it's unnatural to discriminate based on orientation. The question of practices has little bearing. I think that's where we get lost.

 

My great uncle lived with his partner 30 very peaceful and productive years, until the partner's death. That is the separation of orientation from practice. Sleaze comes in all orientations. It should not be used as an excuse to discriminate against sincere, honest, hard-working people like my great uncle.

 

--lemit

[lemit]

Being the father of a gay son I'm not sure I can be objective about discrimination against homosexuals.

 

Soooo, you don't think you can meet the high standard of objectivity we've set in this thread?

 

I for one will miss you. I understand, though. The rest of us are just so damned objective.

 

--lemit

[Moontanman]

You're such a comedian lemit ;) Since I started this thread I think I'll hang around objective or not. Your uncle is a prime example of why discrimination against homosexuals is so wrong but your remarks about sleaze is where the rubber meets the road. The definition of what is sleazy behavior is for all practical purposes different for each person. It's why we need laws to protect everyone from being persecuted for non criminal behavior. Many people consider any thing but married man on top get it over with quick to be "sleaze" that needs to be stopped. Where do we draw the line? Who decides what is behavior than needs to be stopped or should be allowed?

[lemit]

I was just searching for a simple, resonating term for bad behavior. "Bad behavior" isn't easy to define either.

 

I don't know how to say what I mean to say. It's just that I think some people misidentify behavior that is actionable as a whole lifestyle.

 

Really, I think you know what I was trying to say, even though I haven't said it here. We need to find a way of saying what we are trying to say to those people who don't understand. If we can't figure out how to talk to each other, we don't stand much of a chance of being able to talk to those other people.

 

--lemit

[Moontanman]

I was just searching for a simple, resonating term for bad behavior. "Bad behavior" isn't easy to define either.

 

I don't know how to say what I mean to say. It's just that I think some people misidentify behavior that is actionable as a whole lifestyle.

 

Really, I think you know what I was trying to say, even though I haven't said it here. We need to find a way of saying what we are trying to say to those people who don't understand. If we can't figure out how to talk to each other, we don't stand much of a chance of being able to talk to those other people.

 

--lemit

 

You are correct lemit, i have a huge emotional investment in this issue. It's almost impossible for me to tolerate anyone who is intolerant of homosexuals. i have always been a very tolerant person about most things but this issue hits very close to home, I love my son very much!

[Turtle]

i love emit & his luncle; they crack me up too mooman. but like you, i can not get past that the very continuance of these characterizations of gay as a disease is hurting people. from teasing, to job discrimination, to beatings and to murder, all on account of characteristics completely out of an individual's control. moreover it's not simply a united states problem, or an iran problem where there are no gays, but it's a wordlwide problem. it's liberty deprived unjustly. ;)

 

Hated to Death | Human Rights Watch

... IV.BACKGROUND...

HIV/AIDS in Jamaica

Homophobia in Jamaica and its role in driving the HIV/AIDS epidemic

V.FINDINGS OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH'S INVESTIGATION...

Police abuse

Police abuse based on sexual orientation and gender identity

Police abuse of sex workers

Police interference with access to HIV/AIDS information and health services

Abuses in the health care system...

Discrimination by health care providers

Discrimination in health care provision

Inadequate protection of confidential information

Driving men who have sex with men and people living with HIV/AIDS from health care services

Fostering dangerous practices and complicating health care provision

Denial of access to transportation

Other abuses by non-state actors: violence in the family and in the community

Abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity

Abuses against people living with HIV/AIDS ...

[lemit]

I'm not sure how, but I'd forgotten about a friend of mine who committed suicide in the '70's after his partner was beaten to death in San Francisco by a mob shouting "Kill the fag!"

 

My friend was in his thirties and left behind several books on the history of photography in the American West, from William Henry Jackson to Edweard Muybridge. I'm credited in at least one of his books.

 

I also live where Matthew Shepard died, for a more up-to-date reference. About half of the information I have posted about gay life and opinions has come from rural and small town Wyoming and Colorado, from friends who trusted me although they had no reason to. I feel honored that they felt safe around me.

 

Oh, also, I live a couple miles from the church of a minister who spends his life "anointing" public buildings against the stain of homosexuality.

 

I have a feeling that the people who are capable of killing because of sexual orientation are still out there. The subject is so emotionally charged that many people could turn violent with a few drinks in them, as Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson did.

 

This post has little to do with the naturalness or unnaturalness of homosexuality, and more to do with the unnaturalness of heterosexuals and their self-righteousness. Sorry, our self-righteousness. It's not always pleasant to be associated with the majority.

 

--lemit

[Cedars]

 

This post has little to do with the naturalness or unnaturalness of homosexuality, and more to do with the unnaturalness of heterosexuals and their self-righteousness. Sorry, our self-righteousness. It's not always pleasant to be associated with the majority.

 

--lemit

 

And this is a problem across several topics. This is a problem in several arenas. Wilson was rude when he shouted out "you lie" but Carter was wrong to label it 'racism'. I was listening to the same speech and clearly remember the claim of "not raise the deficit" and thinking "thats a lie". I thought "thats a lie" with Bush and his tax cuts to the wealthy being a good thing for me (and my taxes went up when they took away head of household) and I thought "thats a lie" with Clinton and NAFTA. I mean seriously, how many of you are tired of Sharpton or Jackson labeling everything that doesnt meet their agenda as 'racism'.

 

Newspapers who label some of these animals as 'homosexual' are wrong. I cant say the researchers are wrong because most of them are not labeling the behavior as homosexual (though I have not read the Bruce Bagemihl book, the most often quoted reference). What I have read (of research papers) always cautions against equating these behaviors with human orientations.

 

But the reality of the situation is tossed aside and allegations are posted against anyone who is skeptical of the claims made in the news sites. Yet the context of the posts is left undisputed.

 

The penguins. I remember reading about them and never thinking, "they should be separated, thats horrible". I do remember thinking "I wonder how fundamentalists will explain this to their kids when they visit these zoos". I also guessed extreme fundies would not visit the zoos to avoid having to discuss the issue. Sound familiar? We cant even discuss these issues here in a science site, as grown ups without the conversation being dragged down into name calling and personal attacks (note very few posters are guilty of this).

 

But then, the MM penguins was before I found out about sex ratio bias and didnt know several of these pairing dissolved when the bias was removed/reduced.

 

The penguins. When I read there was an outburst from gay advocates who insist the zoo not introduce new females to the pen (note the zoo was not going to separate the MM penguins), and outcry also occurred in san fran cal with their MM paired penguins and the plan to balance the sex ratio, I was angered. How dare they support an unnatural condition (remember the studies of FF pairings of gulls being during sex ratio bias). I mean, do you agree that this sex ratio bias should be continued to artificially induce a situation where social creatures have no option as with these penguins? Are you comfortable with calling these situations (captive penguins with sex ratio bias) behavior science?

[Moontanman]

For all practical purposes I think all animal behavior in captive situations is suspect. Not wanting to add females to the penguin group to preserve the MM pairs is just plain silly. Only humans categorizes same sex behavior as anything but sex, our own categorization of sex is what is unnatural not the sex acts themselves.

[freeztar]

This article seems appropriate.

 

"...Because I’m a biologist, I started asking myself some difficult questions. My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of anomaly. But if the purpose of sexual contact is just reproduction, as Darwin believed, then why do all these gay people exist? A lot of biologists assume that they are somehow defective, that some developmental error or environmental influence has misdirected their sexual orientation. If so, gay and lesbian people are a mistake that should have been corrected a long time ago. But this hasn’t happened. That’s when I had my epiphany. When scientific theory says something’s wrong with so many people, perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people.”

 

The resulting book, Evolution’s Rainbow, was an audacious attack on Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. To make her case, Roughgarden filled the text with a staggering collection of animal perversities, from the penises of female spotted hyenas to the mènage à trois tactics of bluegill sunfish. As Roughgarden put it, “What’s coming out [in the past 10-15 years] is to the rest of the species what the Kinsey Report was to humans.”

 

The Gay Animal Kingdom § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM

 

The article states that over 450 different vertebrate species practice homosexual sex. That sounds pretty natural to me.

 

I share your concern, Cedars, of how this translates to humans, but many cases show that it's not dependent upon bias. It happens in healthy populations in the wild.