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

Dan Carroll, re: Sorry. Not going there.”Hoot Mon

Dan, you said: Daah, I duuno, Dan, there's just something about your request...”Hoot Mon

crashfrog, re: Good point! Human rights”civil rights”rights of the human race.My main issue is determining whether or not people make a CHOICE to be gay. If they are gay by way of genetic predisposition, that's one thing”it's not a matter of choice for them. But if they CHOOSE to be gay, that's quite another. Personally, I suspect they do not choose to be gay; I think it is probably genetically predisposed. So they should have all the rights they deserve. I even think they deserve to be civilly united if the choose, but I don't think they deserve to be married per se.Question: Do I have to be a frickin' fundy to think that "marriage" is a heterosexual affair, and that "civil union" is a homosexual affair? What part of this is so oppressive to gays?”Hoot Mon

TD wrote: The last time I got sexually aroused over Jello was when my high school girl friend dropped it down her blouse and I went fishing for it. That was over 50 years ago.”Hoot Mon

crashfrog wrote: If I'm a black person and you say I can't drink water from a public fountain, is that the same thing as if I'm gay person and you say I can't get "married" at a public courthouse? Is it? That's really what I'm questioning here. Let me ask you why gays suffer when they can't get "married" under the law but still gain, via civil union, all of the technical rights that heterosexual married people enjoy. I say let them have everthing but the title of being "married." What's so bad about that? I must have the obnoxious gene for questioning half-baked opinions.”Hoot Mon

Chiroptera, re: OK. If you say so. But I happen to observe that MOST human behavior is naturally predisposed. Of course we could quibble or the meaning of "predisposed." And then someone is bound to bring up "free will." You are going to have a hard time convincing an evolutionary biologist that Homo sapiens had natural ancestors but somehow it became un-natural or a-natural. Seriously, what makes you think humans are biologically exempt from a natural status? E. O. Wilson, Bill Hamilton, Richard Dawkins, Stephan J. Gould, John Maynard Smith, Richard Lewontin, and many other good biologists would not agree with you.”Hoot MonEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

Dan Carroll, re: By way of what reasoning? Where's the harm?”Hoot Mon

Chiroptera, re: I begin with the null hyopothesis that EVERYTHING about humans and other animals is naturally predisposed. Then I go looking evidence to the contrary. I haven't found very much. Please tell me what is so un-natural or a-nature about human behavior. (This subject harps back to the 1970s, on the campus of the University of Michigan, when Wilson and Hamilton were vilified for suggesting that human behavior had genetic roots in common with other animals.) You are right about this. Harvard and Oxford have battled mightily over this issue. Dawkins seems to have won the battle, though, by showing (in "The Extended Phenotype," especially) that genetic determinism accounts for a large part of the evolutionary equation. Randomizing effects are important, too, but it's still a game of allelic combinations.”Hoot Mon

Chiroptera, re: You tell me and I'll see if I can find a genetic cuase somewhere. Yes, I am aware of numerous studies that seek to disprove genetic predisposition. All of the ones I've seen so far regarding evolution are vulnerable to Gould's argument for "deep homology." As you know, homology is all about genes. I'll admit, however, that I am pedisposed to "nature over nurture" from the start. That is my bias. Please, coax me out of it. Most arguments for "nurture over nature" are not very convincing to me. No, he really didn't, so far as genetic determinsim is concerned. Gould eventually agreed with Dawkins that genes are extremely deterministic in matters of survival strategies (i.e., the selfish gene). They do that by way of homology (which is about as deterministically predermined as you can get!). But genetic determinism is not the only operative in evolution, of course. Gould and Dawkins were at odds mostly over the functional meaning of phenotypes.”Hoot Mon

crashfrog wrote: I didn't have a point, not originally, I had a question about the natural-ness of gay behavior. I got three competing answers: 1) gay-ness is natural, 2) gay-ness is unnatural, and 3) gay-ness is neither of the above. So what is it? If I have a point at all it's that I suspect gay-ness is natural, genetically predisposed, and that gays should be treated accordingly.You know, some people would argue that the separation of men's and women's restrooms is somehow limiting their rights and freedoms. Others might insist on having rights to their children's diaries. The Hells Angels say their rights are abused if they can't have fist fights in the parking lot. People say a lot of things.”Hoot Mon

Indeed!I think it is germane to mention here that I am in love with my sailboat Pearl. Yes, I know she’s made of fiberglass, but she’s beautiful nevertheless. Sexy too! When I’m inside her I feel like I’m back in the womb. We have been going together now for about 10 years, so we think it is time to get married. But when I applied for a marriage license at the county courthouse they said that the law didn’t have provisions enabling me to marry Pearl. How absolutely devastating! How can they refuse to grant a sailor his right to marry whomever he loves? Pearl and I feel very abused. (We could not have children, of course, but there is a dinghy involved from a previous relationship with another sailboat.)”Hoot Mon

crashfrog, re: I certainly did get that impression from reading Sonny Barger's "Hell's Angel."”Hoot Mon

Jaderis, re: I agree with your first sentence, but your second sentence makes me want to ask why the word "marriage" should make any difference...as long as you get the same rights entitled to heterosexual couples. The word makes a great deal of difference to many of those who are married in the traditional way; after all, they came first. Wouldn't the gays be more graceful and garner more acceptance if they respected that tradition? What do they want to accomplish? Protecting their rights or exercising their pride?Personally, I don't believe it is homophobic (as others do) to make my claim, because I support civil-union rights for gays. I don't think we need to pass special or affirmitive-action-type laws for them, nor do I think we should pass such laws for sailors, nuns or football players. The elephant here in the room is that annoying, out-of-the-closet "gay pride." I'm not even in favor of "human pride"!”Hoot Mon

Chiroptera, re: Well, first off, I'd have to say that the Y chromosome seems to have a lot to do with determining the sex of an individual. Given that, sex seems genetically predetermined to me. Second, I'd say that environmental stimuli can affect the expressions of genes. Have you taken this into account? I don't think any organism can do anything or behave in any way that is not somehow coordinated with or otherwise allowed for by gene expression.”Hoot Mon

crashfrog, re: Because, in my mind, gays and blacks are not equivalent entities for lawmaking purposes”not if gays CHOOSE to be gay, which seems to be the popular opinion. Blacks don't choose to be black; that's a biological fact. But if gays are gay by choice then I don't see the need for special laws for them.You know, some people choose to get tattooed and have spiked hair. And, you know, some businesses don't like to hire tattoooed people with spiked hair”looks bad. Well, according to your reasoning tattoed people with spiked hair ought to have special laws that protect their rights. Even if they do CHOOSE to get tattooed and have their hair spiked, this should not mean they can be discrimitated against by employers or anyone else.May I ask you this: Are gays gay by choice or by nature? Should it even make a difference? And one more really stupid question: Should a brother and his sister have the right to get married?”Hoot Mon