It completely blows apart the whole bogus argument that "homosexuality is un-natural" that the religious right uses so often. Of course, it refutes it with science, truth and facts, and religious bigots have already made it clear that they have no use for those.
This very same article, by the way, is the one that caused all the stir in Alton, IL, when a teacher assigned it as class reading to his class, which got him first suspended, and then reinstated after the students protested his suspension:
I remember a PBS "Nature" show that showed all these monkeys doing each other. They commented that the level of violence among this troop was remarkably low compared to others. They were all Bisexual and screwing around was thier primary activity, after gathering food.
Those "monkeys" you are refering to are the peace-loving Bonobos ( physically they look very much like chimpanzees) but unlike the "society" of the chimpanzees ( where a lot of bullying and violence occur).
Sex, food , leisure.. and peace rules in Bonobos ( heard of penile fencing and vulva kisssing?).
So apparently we are 'closer' to the chimps than Bonobos.
However, as soon as you counter with these facts, they'll say that humans aren't like animals. They'll claim that we must live in the spirit and reject carnal ways.
They can't accept that we can be just as filled with the spirit as they are and those "carnal" thoughts are just as real as their own attraction to the opposite sex.
False belief systems (pick your poison of religion / superstition / cults ... it's all the same stuff) make up stuff as they go along.
Homosexual behavior is everywhere in nature. Having grown up on a ranch in Nebraska, I've known that since I was very young, and I absolutely am against false belief systems.
False belief systems often guilt their brainwashed subscribers into all sorts of crazy beliefs like "God is real", "God is vindictive" "Queers are just wrong", "If you jerk off you'll go blind", "Using a condom is denying life", etc. Those false belief systems, while falling aside in some cultures, are still the biggest plague to modern civilization in all the horrible damage that they do to civilization.
The brainwashing of the false belief systems begins in early childhood (Sunday school) and continues, in some cases for a life time, where folks throw out all common sense, and any logic. In particular, these systems prey upon the weak-minded, and the illiterate, within our cultures. It's a very sad statement about Man that folks are still being brainwashed and persecuted in 2009.
The best defense is to try to steer folks towards truth-based belief systems, but, because folks are brain washed early in life, it's a tough road to get folks thinking clearly...but, you have to try, or the terrible outcomes of those false belief systems will continue.
Maybe it's just me, but you have to have something better than a FABLE of a talking animal to convince me homosexuality is wrong or unnatural. I likewise do not believe lions can talk simply because one is claimed to have done so in The Wizard of Oz.
Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it OK. Murder, incest, rape, and a lot of awful things occur in nature, but that doesn't mean we condone them. This is called the Natural Fallacy, whereby you proclaim something must be inherently OK because of its natural existence. The idea doesn't dismiss homosexuality as being bad, just that saying it happens in nature isn't enough to make it logically OK. Rather, there's a lot of scientific and psychological evidence to support the claim of homosexuality being OK, and we don't need to revert to fallacies to justify our life.
calibro saidJust because it happens in nature doesn't make it OK. Murder, incest, rape, and a lot of awful things occur in nature, but that doesn't mean we condone them. This is called the Natural Fallacy, whereby you proclaim something must be inherently OK because of it's natural existence. The idea doesn't dismiss homosexuality as being bad, just that saying it happens in nature isn't enough to make it logically OK. Rather, there's a lot of scientific and psychological evidence to support the claim of homosexuality being OK, and we don't need to revert to fallacies to justify our life.
Agreed. But I have been hearing that old (bad) argument all year long, from opponents of marriage equality and repealing DADT, that homosexuality is un-natural and that their opposition to gay rights is not based on their particular religious beliefs, but on nature itself. The value of this article and all the research it documents is that it blows that whole "homosexuality is un-natural" canard out of the water.
The sad part is that this information about the animal kingdom and homosexual behavior is not new. We studied this in the 8th grade....don't ask me how many decades ago!! Now granted, they now have far more evidence in the animal kingdom, but some of these behaviors have been recorded 40-50 yrs ago.
Celticmusl saidThe sad part is that this information about the animal kingdom and homosexual behavior is not new. We studied this in the 8th grade....don't ask me how many decades ago!! Now granted, they now have far more evidence in the animal kingdom, but some of these behaviors have been recorded 40-50 yrs ago.
I was reading a book on this not too long ago, and the information is surprisingly new. Old observations reflected the attitudes of the time. Two male monkeys didn't have sex because it was hot. Rather, it was a rape power game. It fit in with their attitude of gay sex=perversion.
Over the last two decades, as attitudes have improved considerably, the number of observed animal species who have gay sex and even have same-sex families has exploded: from a few primates to everything from apes to birds to insects. What used to be just sex, we now have species that raise families together, discovered dozens of species where homosexuals are at the top of their society, and even found that the more certain species engages in homosexual sex, the more children they have. At this rate we will find gay electrons whirling around lesbian protons.
I just started a book that goes into more detail about transgendered animals... That's right, I said transgendered. It is fascinating so far.
Celticmusl saidThe sad part is that this information about the animal kingdom and homosexual behavior is not new. We studied this in the 8th grade....don't ask me how many decades ago!! Now granted, they now have far more evidence in the animal kingdom, but some of these behaviors have been recorded 40-50 yrs ago.
I was reading a book on this not too long ago, and the information is surprisingly new. Old observations reflected the attitudes of the time. Two male monkeys didn't have sex because it was hot. Rather, it was a rape power game. It fit in with their attitude of gay sex=perversion.
Over the last two decades, as attitudes have improved considerably, the number of observed animal species who have gay sex and even have same-sex families has exploded: from a few primates to everything from apes to birds to insects. What used to be just sex, we now have species that raise families together, discovered dozens of species where homosexuals are at the top of their society, and even found that the more certain species engages in homosexual sex, the more children they have. At this rate we will find gay electrons whirling around lesbian protons.
I just started a book that goes into more detail about transgendered animals... That's right, I said transgendered. It is fascinating so far.
As you said, there were "old observations" of what I said "homosexual behavior". That's exactly what I stated. Just like all science, Comparative Psychology has progressed considerably over the last couple of decades.
Once again, it is sad that this type of scientific evidence has been ignored by the general public and conservative christians FOR DECADES because the case to label homosexual activity as being unnatural or abnormal would be curtailed.
Those other animals can't choose to go against their nature, but you can....just playing Devil'd Advocate. But, why the fuck would I choose to go against my nature, that's what would be unnatural.
Maybe this is a surprise to people who have never been outside of a big city... It hardly bears remarking about to country people who see it every day.
(Related? A couple of months ago some clueless guy who had apparently never been outside of the psychology building announced some breakthrough never-before-seen behavior, called press conferences, lots of headlines. It was like, WTF? I see that every day.)
Anyway, for a lot of animals, one or a few dominant males get all the females and the rest of the males are left with... each other. Some of it's also seasonal. For some examples, deer, peacocks and turkeys (just some creatures in my yard) run in-mixed sex herds during mating season but solitary or in small same-sex groups the rest of the time.
The peacocks (besides being extraordinarily annoying) are kind of funny. During mating season, each male establishes a little "stage" area and does a continuous mating display - kind of like a stripper on stage. Anything that steps into his stage area gets nailed. The most dominant birds get spots close to the barn and the youngest get stuck half a mile away at the other end of the orchard. Those younger ones are mostly doing each other.
Celticmusl saidvulva kissing......I think I'm gonna be sick
Who wants to kiss a Swedish car.....
What? Oh. Oh, sorry. Never mind.
*chuckles*
--------
i have also seen that PBS program on homosexuality in animals. They also talked about some famous scientist in the 19th century who had observed homo trends in certain animals , but following strict scientific protocol he simply dismissed it because he didn't agree with it. At least he noted it in some notebooks which is how we know about it. Forgot his name now but no matter.
calibro saidJust because it happens in nature doesn't make it OK. Murder, incest, rape, and a lot of awful things occur in nature, but that doesn't mean we condone them. This is called the Natural Fallacy, whereby you proclaim something must be inherently OK because of it's natural existence. The idea doesn't dismiss homosexuality as being bad, just that saying it happens in nature isn't enough to make it logically OK. Rather, there's a lot of scientific and psychological evidence to support the claim of homosexuality being OK, and we don't need to revert to fallacies to justify our life.
Um, animals do not murder. The term implies malicious intent, and animals only kill to defend themselves or their young, or in competition for resources. Humans are "evolved" enough to kill for reasons unrelated to survival...
calibro saidJust because it happens in nature doesn't make it OK. Murder, incest, rape, and a lot of awful things occur in nature, but that doesn't mean we condone them. This is called the Natural Fallacy, whereby you proclaim something must be inherently OK because of it's natural existence. The idea doesn't dismiss homosexuality as being bad, just that saying it happens in nature isn't enough to make it logically OK. Rather, there's a lot of scientific and psychological evidence to support the claim of homosexuality being OK, and we don't need to revert to fallacies to justify our life.
Um, animals do not murder. The term implies malicious intent, and animals only kill to defend themselves or their young, or in competition for resources. Humans are "evolved" enough to kill for reasons unrelated to survival...
Both incorrect: The observations of animal homosexuality don't make it "OK," it simply counters the argument that homosexuality is somehow "unnatural."
Non-human animals do kill for no apparent reason but for fun, although it's most common to see that behavior in domesticated dogs and cats, who are well-fed enough that they don't need the protein. Call it "joy of the hunt" or "instinct," it's not a walt disney world, and animals don't care about political correctness. Kind of off the point though.
Both incorrect: The observations of animal homosexuality don't make it "OK," it simply counters the argument that homosexuality is somehow "unnatural."
Non-human animals do kill for no apparent reason but for fun, although it's most common to see that behavior in domesticated dogs and cats, who are well-fed enough that they don't need the protein. Call it "joy of the hunt" or "instinct," it's not a walt disney world, and animals don't care about political correctness. Kind of off the point though.
Actually, not really. What you are saying is "Yes your point is correct it doesn't sufficiently address another question that is inherently illogical because it is based on fallacy." Of course it doesn't counter the argument, because it says the argument is ridiculous and meritless.
And to the point of animals murdering (jarhead), actually, they do. It's not the same rationale and complexity people espouse, which is because animals simply aren't cognizant enough, but it does occur. Many primates kill their young or others in their clan that they feel threatened by or believe should not be there.
Franz de Waal (sp?) is a primatologist who studied bonobo's and other great apes as well. He wrote the book titled "Our Inner Ape" which is well worth reading and actually a fun read to. The bonobo's have it figured out. Unit cohesion and peace through lots of same sex contact instead of violence like chimpanzees.
Wow! Spam is getting too damn smart. That's why they should only allow verified users to post in the forums. They'll learn soon enough when people start leaving the site because of that.
indeed. please see: mother nature ... e.g., bonobos, dolphins, meerkats, canines, felines, ..., homo sapiens. heteronormative society ... lemme upgrade u ...
the use of this video is intended to follow a critical perspective of homosexuality in post-modern america ... however, there is an inherent adherence to such a society within the elements of this video, especially concerning her dress, lyrics, and merely shining for the pleasure of ' her man ... ' at least under this particular lens of subjective scrutiny.
[Um, animals do not murder. The term implies malicious intent, and animals only kill to defend themselves or their young, or in competition for resources. Humans are "evolved" enough to kill for reasons unrelated to survival...[/quote]
Chimpanzees are documented to frequently commit " murder" -- often members of neighbouring/rival tribes/groups. The way the "hunters " (mature males) would gang up and corner the victim and bash him/her is nothing short of malicious......
what planet are you people living on? Sorry, but what on earth makes u see homosexuality as natural. It is obviously acceptable now, it's not a choice, etc. so it is natural in that sense. But NOTHING compared to heterosexuality -- and you know exactly what I mean by that.
kinkyzulu said[Um, animals do not murder. The term implies malicious intent, and animals only kill to defend themselves or their young, or in competition for resources. Humans are "evolved" enough to kill for reasons unrelated to survival...
Chimpanzees are documented to frequently commit " murder" -- often members of neighbouring/rival tribes/groups. The way the "hunters " (mature males) would gang up and corner the victim and bash him/her is nothing short of malicious...... [/quote]
What!
No way, animals frequently tear apart members of other tribes or prides that challenge their dominance or invade their territory
AKA_B1GK saidWell, taking it up the ass is NOT natural - it wasn't meant for that biologically. Thats one point.
Actually that is speculation and not proof. First, the argument could be made that using the same organ to both urrinate and inseminate is unnatural.
Secondly, physical stimulation for pleasure is natural and built into the body for the purpose of repetition; one of the outcomes of which is procreation but by no means the only one. On women there are several of these zones which I needn't address here. For men, there are several as well including the internal massaging of the prostate. The most natural way to do that is obvious considering natural instinct.
Researchers are constantly finding secondary, and tertiary functions of physiological actions that were often considered inconsequential or irrelevant and are now finding these to be essential. These secondary tasks of organs add to the complexity of the human body and help produce a progressively clearer picture of it's entire function. Being told that something is unnatural based on some moral judgment has no scientific basis and is therefor arbitrary. Being gay would likely have a specific function in the genetic makeup of a biological group. While we may not have defined it, doesn't mean that it's untrue. I realize that that statement is a speculation, but it is a perfect balance to the theory that it's unnatural. If it were a truly 'functionless' aberration, then why hasn't it been genetically eliminated through hybridization and natural selection from humans and all other species that exhibit it? The only justification of it as 'unnatural' is an arbitrary moral one and not one of science.
Mepark saidwhat planet are you people living on? Sorry, but what on earth makes u see homosexuality as natural. It is obviously acceptable now, it's not a choice, etc. so it is natural in that sense. But NOTHING compared to heterosexuality -- and you know exactly what I mean by that.
No, I don't know what you mean by that. You should try to lucidly spell out exactly what you mean so that you can examine your own internalized prejudices. "Socialization" does not equal "natural". Religion and social customs do not dictate what is natural. What is natural is what is. It is the job of science to describe and understand the natural world.
If you read the article in the link in the original post, it gives excellent examples of how scientists have just recently documented hundreds more species that engage in homosexuality than was previously thought, and it gives very good examples of how social and religious prejudices blinded early scientists who looked into this and steered them towards drawing the wrong conclusions from their findings.
Chasingdreams saidI don't suppose anyone has read how homosexuality could be a form of population control?
That is a theory that has been pretty much obliterated by observations. In some species, animals that have the most sex gay sex, are more likely to produce children. In others, when there are just a few creatures left in an area, some animals will chose gay sex over hetero sex which could lead to repopulation.
So, why they chose their sex partners is unrelated to the population of the species.
Maybe it's just me, but you have to have something better than a FABLE of a talking animal to convince me homosexuality is wrong or unnatural. I likewise do not believe lions can talk simply because one is claimed to have done so in The Wizard of Oz.
He, he, he. Of course it's just you. The lion who talked in the Wizard of Oz was none other than Bert Lahr who was just a "dandy lion."
Mepark said Sorry, but what on earth makes u see homosexuality as natural. It is obviously acceptable now, it's not a choice, etc. so it is natural in that sense. But NOTHING compared to heterosexuality -- and you know exactly what I mean by that.
Sorry, but what on earth makes u see left-handedness as natural. It is obviously acceptable now, it's not a choice, etc. so it is natural in that sense. But NOTHING compared to right-handedness -- and you know exactly what I mean by that.
AKA_B1GK saidWell, taking it up the ass is NOT natural - it wasn't meant for that biologically. Thats one point.
Actually that is speculation and not proof. First, the argument could be made that using the same organ to both urrinate and inseminate is unnatural.
Secondly, physical stimulation for pleasure is natural and built into the body for the purpose of repetition; one of the outcomes of which is procreation but by no means the only one. On women there are several of these zones which I needn't address here. For men, there are several as well including the internal massaging of the prostate. The most natural way to do that is obvious considering natural instinct.
Researchers are constantly finding secondary, and tertiary functions of physiological actions that were often considered inconsequential or irrelevant and are now finding these to be essential. These secondary tasks of organs add to the complexity of the human body and help produce a progressively clearer picture of it's entire function. Being told that something is unnatural based on some moral judgment has no scientific basis and is therefor arbitrary. Being gay would likely have a specific function in the genetic makeup of a biological group. While we may not have defined it, doesn't mean that it's untrue. I realize that that statement is a speculation, but it is a perfect balance to the theory that it's unnatural. If it were a truly 'functionless' aberration, then why hasn't it been genetically eliminated through hybridization and natural selection from humans and all other species that exhibit it? The only justification of it as 'unnatural' is an arbitrary moral one and not one of science.
Ahem........duly noted. Your argument here is well stated. One point though.......... your suggestion of internal messaging of the prostrate is quite interesting. Could you expound further on exactly how you propose to go about accomplishing that - as you put it so succinctly - "internal massaging of the prostate?" Socio-biologically speaking, my genes demand more information!
What brings animals so much peace and humans so much pain, is that they can accept things as they are and we cannot. It is simply human nature to try to assign meaning to things. To assume that actions have purposes.
Sometimes when I watch the nature channel and the narrator is explaining how the bird is arranging blue pieces of yarn into his nest to attract a mate, I question if the bird species just likes blue in general and it is only coincidence that females are extremely attracted to this natural tendacy of males to put blue in their nests.
In that sense, its the same thing with homosexuality for me. Its clear that it exist in the animal world, but to them it has no name. They just do it and they don't think about it. Whereas a human being will question if its natural or not.
I suppose the biggest argument against homosexuality is its inability to produce offspring, but who's to say that the sole purpose of sex is to reproduce? If that was the case as human beings we'd smell the scent of vagina during ovulation and would only try to breed at the moment, instead sex is a constant need for us. The endorphines it releases are healthy and good for us whether that ejaculation took place from anal, vaginal or hand stimulation.
Some of the ancient societies we praise and envy the most openly practiced bi-sexuality. It has always existed. But humans won't accept that until we prove its significance and meaning and the purpose it serves in both our world and the animal world. In that sense our minds are our best friends and our worst enemies.
The issue at stake is the ghost of "natural" and "unnatural" actions, which arise from an obsolete conception of morality as virtues revealed through nature. The logic behind this view is circular: namely that its long-dead theological proponents (like St Thomas Aquinas) argued that nature reveals divine intent for morality, and that humanity should follow it without realising that they had in fact projected their understanding of human society onto nature.
It is for this reason that few still make such arguments and so, intellectually beheaded as it were, the word "unnatural" remains as an incoherent utterance bereft of a philosophy. To be sure, same-sex behaviour exists in many species, but this is irrelevant to the question of morality; rather it is the idea of inferring moral values from nature that is intellectually bankrupt.
AKA_B1GK saidWell, taking it up the ass is NOT natural - it wasn't meant for that biologically. Thats one point.
Neither is dental work for that matter, but I wouldn't want to die of an abscessed tooth. Point is, we're complicated and always transcending our biology in one way or another.
AKA_B1GK saidWell, taking it up the ass is NOT natural - it wasn't meant for that biologically. Thats one point.
Who exactly *meant* what? You're presupposing that such things do have a purpose associated with them, and you have no justification whatsoever for doing so.
We can't win arguments with 'old haters'. They will use whatever 'fact' they deem appropriate for their line of reasoning and no counter-argument however scientifically sound, logical or compassionate will convince them that 'gay is ok' and we deserve equal rights.
All we can do is wait for them to die. It is comforting to know that their line of thinking is slowly becoming extinct.
We should focus on the impressionable young instead and convince them that we deserve equal rights.
kinkyzulu said[Um, animals do not murder. The term implies malicious intent, and animals only kill to defend themselves or their young, or in competition for resources. Humans are "evolved" enough to kill for reasons unrelated to survival...
Chimpanzees are documented to frequently commit " murder" -- often members of neighbouring/rival tribes/groups. The way the "hunters " (mature males) would gang up and corner the victim and bash him/her is nothing short of malicious...... [/quote]
Killer Whales and Dolphins are also known to kill for other reasons than food, territory, or threat.
ok I want to be a deviate - I don't want to be natural - if I wanted to be natural I wouldn't train at the gym! If I wanted to be natural I'd forage for berries instead of shopping at the supermarket! - I'd walk instead of driving and I'd never go to the doctor or brush my teeth! ALL UNNATURAL! COCK! THAT'S WHAT I WANT! MUTANT! COCKSUCKER! OK????
AKA_B1GK saidWell, taking it up the ass is NOT natural - it wasn't meant for that biologically. Thats one point.
Who exactly *meant* what? You're presupposing that such things do have a purpose associated with them, and you have no justification whatsoever for doing so.
Ack! Yeah I hate that type of assumption. Although I'm a vegetarian I do have a problem with a few vegetarians I know that espouse that we are "meant" to be vegetarian. That argument makes no sense. If we were "meant" to be vegetarian, we would "be" vegetarian.
jawrhed saidok I want to be a deviate - I don't want to be natural - if I wanted to be natural I wouldn't train at the gym! If I wanted to be natural I'd forage for berries instead of shopping at the supermarket! - I'd walk instead of driving and I'd never go to the doctor or brush my teeth! ALL UNNATURAL! COCK! THAT'S WHAT I WANT! MUTANT! COCKSUCKER! OK????
Too bad man, most of the new evidence in Comparative Psychology shows homosexuality to be a natural activity in many species. I guess now you will have to start having sex with robots or produce or something if you want to be a deviant.
bernd said, "We should focus on the impressionable young instead and convince them that we deserve equal rights."
Good point especially when you read all about 'god's warriors' in google. The religious right recruits thousands and thousands and thousands of young people constantly.
meninlove said bernd said, "We should focus on the impressionable young instead and convince them that we deserve equal rights."
Good point especially when you read all about 'god's warriors' in google. The religious right recruits thousands and thousands and thousands of young people constantly.
Usually the young have no problem supporting equal rights, it takes awhile to learn to hate.
TigerTim saidThe issue at stake is the ghost of "natural" and "unnatural" actions, which arise from an obsolete conception of morality as virtues revealed through nature. The logic behind this view is circular: namely that its long-dead theological proponents (like St Thomas Aquinas) argued that nature reveals divine intent for morality, and that humanity should follow it without realising that they had in fact projected their understanding of human society onto nature.
It is for this reason that few still make such arguments and so, intellectually beheaded as it were, the word "unnatural" remains as an incoherent utterance bereft of a philosophy. To be sure, same-sex behaviour exists in many species, but this is irrelevant to the question of morality; rather it is the idea of inferring moral values from nature that is intellectually bankrupt.
As usual TigerTim, more succinctly worded than my diatribe.
Jockbod48 saidCould you expound further on exactly how you propose to go about accomplishing that
