Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)

Just curious: Are there any observations of male bonobos giving each other oral or anal sex?”Hoot Mon

RAZD, thanks for the info on evidence of gay bonobos behavior. Maybe I should ask if there are ANY observations of males of ANY species, other than humans, that have oral or anal sex with each other. The fact that human males do it may reflect some kind of perverse bottlenecking brought on by civilization. I'll hazard a guess that pre-civilized humans, in their tribal organizations, did not have gay sex, but I have nothing to support my speculation.”Hoot Mon

Setting aside Lesbians for a moment. I think homosexuality in human males arises from either nurturing influences or a natural predisposition, which would seem to be genetic. I don't think nurturing alone will do the trick”if nurturing encourages the gay gene to express itself, the trait is still genetically predisposed. If there is a gay gene on the Y chromosome or any where else I suppose scientists will locate it. Aferwards I expect them to learn how to turn it on and off. And after that being gay will be entirely a matter of choice.”Hoot Mon

Scaryfish, re: Thanks. I've been curious about this, mainly bercause I was chasing an idea that civilization and its consequences of excess may account for such sexually deviant behavior. Given these occurances in other mammals I'd have to say the origin of gay behavior is genetic. I suspect that no amount of gay nurturing in a human male will cause him to become gay UNLESS he has gay genes.”Hoot Mon

Chiroptera, re: Ignorance. I was proceeding on the assumption that male homosexuality was extremely rare in nature, maybe even exclusive to humans. (I tend to see female homosexuality as a different thing.) Obviously, now, gay behavior does not seem to be exclusive to human males. What I was looking for was any evidence suggesting that gay behavior was a consequence of nurturing or the environment, as opposed to being entirely genetically predisposed. What I found was evidence to the contrary”maybe womb nurturing (hormones), or maybe tribal nurturing (ritualistic), or maybe peer nurturing (male bonding). I really don't know about gay genes at this point.”Hoot Mon

Tazmanian Devil, re: Frankly, I don't know. If a gay gene could be switched off then I certainly would agree. But what about other experimental procedures? I'm not sure. I suppose I could submit to castration, rendering me a sexually neutral eunuch, but does this mean that I am a male heterosexual BY CHOICE?”Hoot Mon

Chiroptera, re: Porn? How so? The out-of-the-closet gays seem to be playing at the political arena. It's not a show I particularly care to see, but I don't disdain them. No gay person should ever be abused for being gay, and I don't count the current marraige laws as a form of gay abuse. (Why can't they just be civilly united?) The issue of being gay by choice vs. being gay by nature IS relevant. If it has a genetic component then this issue over choice will be varified when the gene(s) can be switched off. If it has other complications, as you contend, then of course the problem is greater. Maybe there is no "problem" at all. Maybe gays are natural. That's why I wondered about gay behavior in other animals. Not being gay myself, I see it as an aberration. Maybe I should accept it as fringe characteristric, like musical savants and dwarfism. I'm still muttering over this issue, trying to keep an over mind.”Hoot Mon

Score one for the crashfrog. I'll give you two points for a safety for catching me in the endzone. But if you are equating civil rights for blacks' access to water with "civil rights" for gays' access to matrimony I would need to call a foul for unnecessary roughness of the metaphor. I don't see where the gays lose anything by gaining a civil-union status."Her Comes the Bride" just isn't what it used to be. Today she might even have a penis. I suppose "Here Comes The Bitch" will be accorded some legal urgency, when humans petition to marry their dogs.”Hoot MonEdited by Hoot Mon, : tiffles

All right, I carried the analogy a little too far. This entire issue will evaporate like hot sweat when gay-gene therapy becomes a clinical out-patience procedure.”Hoot Mon

crashfrog, re: My idea of a "civil union" for gays allows them all the RIGHTS enjoyed by married heterosexuals. The only thing I object to is calling their civil union a "marriage." Why do they insist on this? If all of their rights are in place, as I prefer them to be, then what's the big problem? I dunno. MLK died before I was able to ask him that question.”Hoot Mon

Tasmanian Devil, re: No problem there. I'm not out to take any RIGHTS away from anyone. Once again, why would gays have to be "married" if a civil union ceremony with equivalent rights was available to them. It comes down to a just a single word, which is NOT a right. (Remember, I want gays to have ALL the rights they deserve.)And since you took the liberty to post one of your gay soap operas, I'll post one of my poems along the same lines:Doe Bay Is OKWhat’s queer about Doe Bay, they say,
is bathing in the buff.
Those mineral springs will do strange things
to tenderize your duff.The other day I did Doe Bay
and took the mineral splash.
We ate kumquats and microdots
and it was quite a bash.
They passed a bottle of something around
for everyone to sip.
I watched it skip from lip to lip.
I went ahead and I took a nip
and then began to wonder
if maybe I was rash.
You see, while in the drink I had happen to think
about the ones among us
who carried germs and maybe worms
and probably toenail fungus.What I want to say about Doe Bay
is how nice the people are,
and how politely they invited me
to put out my cigar.
And when I abused the pop machine,
left my litter on the green,
called my mate a bloody queen,
and failed to use the camp latrine,
they never lost their cool.
We chilled out in the pool.So who’s to say about Doe Bay
that being gay is not OK?
Besides, they were only a fraction.
Plenty were there in the pool that day
who were not gay and didn’t stray
from heterosexual action.Hoot Mon

If I were a black person I might be insulted by your remark. Please, how should racial rights extend all the way to homosexual rights under the law? Aren't you mismatching your principles? I'm pretty sure blacks are black by nature, and not by choice. I don't know yet if the same thing is true about gays. That's why I bothered to ask if gay-ness occurs naturally in other species. Apparently it does. But I would not be so inclined to equate racial GENETICS with sexual PREFERENCE, simply because they are matters of different contexts.”hoot Mon

So it is YOU, not ME, who regards gay sex as pornographic. Gosh, I didn’t know I had such enormous powers! Whoever said that? Maybe because He’s gay? Has anyone ever bothered to ask?”Hoot Mon

Tasmanian Devil wrote: Nah. You don't really know what's "deep down" inside me, do you? I'm only asking if gay-ness is "natural," as in "biologically natural." And there IS evidence suggesting that it IS natural. The alternative, of course, is that homosexuality is achieved by choice. That's my direction of inquiry. Why is it wrong for me to ask these questions?And then you wrote: Then I wrote: Then he wrote: Opps. Are you really paying attention here?”Hoot Mon

Chiroptera, re: Ah! I see the rub. You and I differ on a key point”I think humans are ENTIRELY natural, and you think we are UNNATURAL, at least in part.What is the alternative if humans are not regarded as "natural"? I don't see much that sets us apart from other animals. In truth, I'm not even sure if we are the most advanced species. (Termites and orcas are impressive, too.)”Hoot Mon