Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 306 (374970)
01-06-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Fosdick
01-03-2007 7:50 PM


Re: a benefit or not ...
quote:
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.
Probably a bad guess, seeing that there have been (and probably still are in the areas that have not yet been saturated by Christian or Muslim missionaries) lots of "pre-civilized" human societies where pederasty, ritual male homosexuality, and even non-ritual male homosexuality have been an accepted part of the tribal organization.
I'm just curious; since you have nothing to support your speculation, what led you to these conclusions?

I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Fosdick, posted 01-03-2007 7:50 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Fosdick, posted 01-06-2007 7:20 PM Chiroptera has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 47 of 306 (375008)
01-06-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chiroptera
01-06-2007 4:02 PM


Re: a benefit or not ...
Chiroptera, re:
Probably a bad guess, seeing that there have been (and probably still are in the areas that have not yet been saturated by Christian or Muslim missionaries) lots of "pre-civilized" human societies where pederasty, ritual male homosexuality, and even non-ritual male homosexuality have been an accepted part of the tribal organization.
I'm just curious; since you have nothing to support your speculation, what led you to these conclusions?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 01-06-2007 4:02 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Taz, posted 01-06-2007 9:42 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 50 by Chiroptera, posted 01-07-2007 1:32 PM Fosdick has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 48 of 306 (375031)
01-06-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Fosdick
01-06-2007 7:20 PM


Re: a benefit or not ...
And the fact that an experimental procedure could "cure" a gay animal of homosexuality tells me that at this point it is simply more than just a choice, wouldn't you say?

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Fosdick, posted 01-06-2007 7:20 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 11:25 AM Taz has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 49 of 306 (375105)
01-07-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Taz
01-06-2007 9:42 PM


Re: a benefit or not ...
Tazmanian Devil, re:
And the fact that an experimental procedure could "cure" a gay animal of homosexuality tells me that at this point it is simply more than just a choice, wouldn't you say?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Taz, posted 01-06-2007 9:42 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taz, posted 01-07-2007 2:15 PM Fosdick has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 306 (375120)
01-07-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Fosdick
01-06-2007 7:20 PM


Re: a benefit or not ...
quote:
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.)
Heh. I think your choice of porn is skewing your view point.
-
quote:
I really don't know about gay genes at this point.
Neither does anyone else, whatever they might think. What relevance animal studies have to such specific human behavior I won't pretend to understand. Especially with animals that are so distantly related to humans.
Certainly, any real study of actual human behavior suggests a very complicated picture. Not to disparage human studies; neurology is interesting in its own right, and who can't help but be interested in human sexuality? What makes me cringe, though, is the attempt to bring this into the political arena. Not only are these studies ultimately irrelevant to the current civil rights/civil liberties debate, but by the time what might be carefully nuanced scientific conclusions make it into the public awareness it has pretty much become junk.

I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Fosdick, posted 01-06-2007 7:20 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 2:31 PM Chiroptera has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 51 of 306 (375122)
01-07-2007 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fosdick
01-07-2007 11:25 AM


Re: a benefit or not ...
Hoot Mon writes:
If a gay gene could be switched off then I certainly would agree.
And I have not suggested that it was a gene responsible for homosexuality. All I said was if an experimental procedure could turn an animal from gaydom, then it appears to me that homosexuality is more than just a conscious choice biggots and homophobes often make it out to be.
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?
I think you just made the argument for me.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 11:25 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 52 of 306 (375125)
01-07-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Chiroptera
01-07-2007 1:32 PM


Re: a benefit or not ...
Chiroptera, re:
Hoot Mon wrote:
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.)
Heh. I think your choice of porn is skewing your view point.
Porn? How so?
Certainly, any real study of actual human behavior suggests a very complicated picture. Not to disparage human studies; neurology is interesting in its own right, and who can't help but be interested in human sexuality? What makes me cringe, though, is the attempt to bring this into the political arena. Not only are these studies ultimately irrelevant to the current civil rights/civil liberties debate, but by the time what might be carefully nuanced scientific conclusions make it into the public awareness it has pretty much become junk.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Chiroptera, posted 01-07-2007 1:32 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 01-07-2007 4:17 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 59 by ReverendDG, posted 01-07-2007 10:25 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 69 by Chiroptera, posted 01-08-2007 1:16 PM Fosdick has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 306 (375131)
01-07-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Fosdick
01-07-2007 2:31 PM


Re: a benefit or not ...
Why can't they just be civilly united?
I dunno. Why can't the darkies just have their own drinking fountains?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 2:31 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 7:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 54 of 306 (375168)
01-07-2007 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
01-07-2007 4:17 PM


Re: a benefit or not ...
Why can't they just be civilly united?
I dunno. Why can't the darkies just have their own drinking fountains?
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 Mon
Edited by Hoot Mon, : tiffles

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 01-07-2007 4:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 01-07-2007 8:16 PM Fosdick has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 306 (375187)
01-07-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Fosdick
01-07-2007 7:17 PM


Re: a benefit or not ...
It's not really clear to me what you're talking about. Perhaps you're just simply repeating the empty arguments of same-sex marriage's reactionary, moralist opposition without thinking about them?
I don't see where the gays lose anything by gaining a civil-union status.
What, besides the 1000+ Federal rights accorded to, and only to, married couples?
And to continue the same analogy - what do the African-Americans lose by gaining their own public water fountains?
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.
Why does that necessarily follow? Moreover - how can dogs consent to marriage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 7:17 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 8:38 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 62 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 11:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 56 of 306 (375189)
01-07-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
01-07-2007 8:16 PM


Gay "marriage" & gay genes
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 01-07-2007 8:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 01-07-2007 9:03 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 01-07-2007 9:30 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 60 by ReverendDG, posted 01-07-2007 10:26 PM Fosdick has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 57 of 306 (375193)
01-07-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Fosdick
01-07-2007 8:38 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Hoot Mon writes:
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.
You keep claiming to have an open mind, but I really haven't seen any evidence of that.
The real issue is so what if it is 100% choice? It makes no difference if tomorrow we find out that gay people are gay without any biological reason whatsoever. Since when did we as a society have the right to exclude other people from certain rights simply because they made a concious choice?
In other words, whether homosexuality is a choice or not should have no bearing on what rights homosexuals should or shouldn't get.
I am happily married, and I love the fact that whenever I tell people that this is my wife people automatically assume that she is the most important person in my life. I love the fact that if my wife ever gets hospitalized, I could simply say "that's my wife" and automatically nothing regarding the matter is excluded from me. Joint tax filing is a plus. So is insurance. If I ever get arrested for something I might or might not have done, I love the fact that by law my wife cannot be made to testify against me. These are just a few things that popped up in my head right now.
I know some gay couples that have been together for years and years and years and they are still can't enjoy some of the things we take for granted. In fact, a couple years ago I attended a symbolic wedding between two men who had been together for 15 years. 15 years. That sure beats Britney Spear's 52 hour just for fun marriage. That beats Rush Limbaugh's 5 or so marriages and divorces.
A few years ago, I hosted a gay couple from Norway who had 2 adopted sons with them. The affections they had for each other and the love they had for their non-biological sons made me had no doubt that these people probably made better parents than most straight couples out there, including myself.
I see no reason why these people who are committing their lives to a monogomous relationship can't be legally recognized and yet straight people like me can marry, get a divorce, remarry, get another divorce, and remarry again and again and again.
But on a different note, I couldn't help myself from writing out a script about the gay cure. Guess where I got this from.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Professor: I don't have to be psychic to know something is bothering you.
Sara: I don't get it. Eric is now a fugitive. We finally have a president that understands us. Why are we still hiding?
Prof: We're not hiding. We still have a lot of enemies out there, and I must protect my students.
Sara: You know, we can't remain your students forever.
The professor chuckles.
Prof: My dear, I haven't thought of you as my student for years now. In fact, I thought you might take my place some day.
Sara: But I thought Scot...
Prof: Scot's a changed man. He took Jean's death so hard. Yes, things are better out there, but you of all people should know how quickly the weather can change.
Sara: There's something you're not telling us.
The professor looks as though he is about to say something but then stops and proceeds to the guest room.
Inside the guest room, Secretary McCoy is is greeted by the professor and Sara.
Sara: Hank, it's good to see you.
McCoy: I'm sorry to see you on such a short notice.
Prof: You're always welcome here, Hank. You're a part of this place.
McCoy: I have news.
Prof: Is it Eric?
McCoy: No, but we have been making progress on that front. We recently apprehended Mystique.
Sara: You think your prison can hold her?
McCoy: For now, we have a more pressing matter. A major Pharmaceutical company has developed a chemical agent that suppresses the gay gene X.
Logan: Suppresses...?
McCoy: Permanently. They're calling it the “Cure”.
Sara: That's ridiculous, you can't cure being who you are.
McCoy: Well, scientifically speaking...
Sara: Since when did we become a disease?
Professor: Sara, they're announcing it right now.
As people around the country watches on their tv screens, the head of the pharmaceutical company addresses to the press.
Bush: These gays are people like you and me. They suffer from a genetic defect and should be pitied, not persecuted. But it ends today.
Bush holds up a chemical vile.
Bush: Ladies and Gentlemen, we finally have a cure for homosexuality.
In the professor's guest room...
Sara: What kind of a coward would take the easy way out like that?
McCoy: It depends. Is it cowardice to try to save oneself from persecution? Not everyone can blend in so well.
....

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 8:38 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ReverendDG, posted 01-07-2007 10:31 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 63 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 11:30 AM Taz has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 306 (375202)
01-07-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Fosdick
01-07-2007 8:38 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
All right, I carried the analogy a little too far.
No, you're just avoiding my question. It's a simple one, but apparently it was too subtle, so let me ask it explicitly - if we rejected "seperate but equal" accomodations for black people, why should we accept them for gay people?
This entire issue will evaporate like hot sweat when gay-gene therapy becomes a clinical out-patience procedure.
Perhaps, but it hardly seems reasonable to discriminate against people now assuming that they won't even exist in the future.
And what makes you think everyone will get the treatment in the first place? Or that it will work on everyone? It seems to me that the hypothetical "gay cure" doesn't solve any issues; it makes them more complicated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 8:38 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 12:05 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 137 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 7:44 PM crashfrog has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 59 of 306 (375210)
01-07-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Fosdick
01-07-2007 2:31 PM


Re: a benefit or not ...
Porn? How so?
the bias that two gay men having sex or kissing is gross but two gay women are not
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.
it is abuse, you don't consider giving someone a right that everyone else has to be abuse? its just the same as any other group of people, they are discriminating aganst something that is part of the person.
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.
ok you don't get how it works, people don't consider it a choice at all! being gay is not the same as having same sex with someone, no gay person considers having same sex being gay.
do you consider someone who has hetro-sex hetrosexual? or do you not understand that the word referes to attraction and has for nearly 80 years?
by the way theres many factors why someone might be gay not just one, and the only people that would want it turned off are bigots, who are the main cause of gay people not wanting to be gay
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.
sorry but i find your bigotry sickining. for someone who's "trying" to have an openmind you already show you already closed the door on this issue
the fact is if it is found it nature it is part of nature and not an abberration
yes because they are gay or a dwarf or anything they are fringe and should be ignored till they are a problem for you.
my faith in humanity just went down a notch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 2:31 PM Fosdick has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 60 of 306 (375211)
01-07-2007 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Fosdick
01-07-2007 8:38 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
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.
yes because being gay is a bad thing and somehow effects your life and well being, get over it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 01-07-2007 8:38 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024