The Gay Side of Nature

[Alonzo]

Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it. Humans beings--a lot of them anyway--like to do it too, but of all the planet's species, they're the only ones who are oppressed when they try.

What humans share with so many other animals, it now appears, is freewheeling homosexuality. For centuries opponents of gay rights have seen same-gender sex as a uniquely human phenomenon, one of the many ways our famously corruptible species flouts the laws of nature. But nature's morality, it seems, may be remarkably flexible, at least if the new book Biological Exuberance (St. Martin's Press), by linguist and cognitive scientist Bruce Bagemihl, is to be believed. According to Bagemihl, the animal kingdom is a more sexually complex place than most people know--one where couplings routinely take place not just between male-female pairs but also between male-male and female-female ones. What's more, same-sex partners don't meet merely for brief encounters, but may form long-term bonds, sometimes mating for years or even for life.

Bagemihl's ideas have caused a stir in the higher, human community, especially among scientists who find it simplistic to equate any animal behavior with human behavior. But Bagemihl stands behind the findings, arguing that if homosexuality comes naturally to other creatures, perhaps it's time to quit getting into such a lather over the fact that it comes naturally to humans too. "Animal sexuality is more complex than we imagined," says Bagemihl. "That diversity is part of human heritage."

For a love that long dared not speak its name, animal homosexuality is astonishingly common. Scouring zoological journals and conducting extensive interviews with scientists, Bagemihl found same-sex pairings documented in more than 450 different species. In a world teeming with more than 1 million species, that may not seem like much. Animals, however, can be surprisingly prim about when and under whose prying eye they engage in sexual activity; as few as 2,000 species have thus been observed closely enough to reveal their full range of coupling behavior. Within such a small sampling, 450 represents more than 20%.

That 20% may spend its time lustily or quite tenderly. Among bonobos, a chimplike ape, homosexual pairings account for as much as 50% of all sexual activity. Females especially engage in repeated acts of same-sex sex, spending far more than the 12 or so seconds the whole transaction can take when a randy male is involved. Male giraffes practice necking--literally--in a very big way, entwining their long bodies until both partners become sexually aroused. Heterosexual and homosexual dolphin pairs engage in face-to-face sexual encounters that look altogether human. Animals as diverse as elephants and rodents practice same-sex mounting, and macaques raise that affection ante further, often kissing while assuming a coital position. Same-gender sexual activity, says Bagemihl, "encompasses a wide range of forms."

What struck Bagemihl most is those forms that go beyond mere sexual gratification. Humboldt penguins may have homosexual unions that last six years; male greylag geese may stay paired for 15 years--a lifetime commitment when you've got the lifespan of a goose. Bears and some other mammals may bring their young into homosexual unions, raising them with their same-sex partner just as they would with a member of the opposite sex.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990813,00.html

[Caravaggio]

Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it. Humans beings--a lot of them anyway--like to do it too, but of all the planet's species, they're the only ones who are oppressed when they try.


So what...my dog likes to lick his genitals..sniff butts..and eats vomit and feces?...???????

[BoogyMan]

Zo, animals and humans are not the same. Consider the fact that a dog may try to mount your leg or anything else it can find when in a state of arousal. This kind of commentary doesn't justify homosexuality or give it any kind of credence as a natural activity.

[Alonzo]

Zo, animals and humans are not the same.

In what sense?

This kind of commentary doesn't justify homosexuality or give it any kind of credence as a natural activity.

Again, that depends on the relationship between the human animal and other animals. It would be rather odd for a behavior that is natural to a large portion of the natural world, and relatively common among humans, to be truly unnatural for humans, especially when the behavior is particularly prominent in some species closely related to humans.

[Buck Laser]

Zo, animals and humans are not the same. Consider the fact that a dog may try to mount your leg or anything else it can find when in a state of arousal. This kind of commentary doesn't justify homosexuality or give it any kind of credence as a natural activity.

And yet humans and chimpanzees share something like 99% of their DNA. I'd say the fact that homosexuality is universally seen in the animal kingdom pretty clearly suggests that it's a natural variant in animal behavior. You may not be aware of this, Boogy, but it's now fairly common practice to use organs and tissue from other animals to repair damage. Tendons and veins from pigs have helped a couple of my friends.

Of course, I guess you could refuse to accept a tendon from a gay pig. Maybe you could get him to sign an affadavit certifying that he only dates porkers of the opposite sex before he gives up his life for you.

[BoogyMan]

Zo, animals and humans are not the same.

In what sense?

Reason, intelligence, knowledge of right and wrong, etc. Rather simple distinctions really.

This kind of commentary doesn't justify homosexuality or give it any kind of credence as a natural activity.

Again, that depends on the relationship between the human animal and other animals. It would be rather odd for a behavior that is natural to a large portion of the natural world, and relatively common among humans, to be truly unnatural for humans, especially when the behavior is particularly prominent in some species closely related to humans.


No Zo, it really doesn't. There is a great deal of difference between for example the average wolf and a human even thought they share the same broad taxonomic categories of kingdom, phylum, and class. They still differ by order, family, genus, and species.

What you have described is NOT a large portion of the natural world and is not the norm as this article would have us to believe. Were it the norm, there would be no propagation of those species or at least a severe cutback in propagation.

[Caravaggio]

RE: The Gay Side of Nature

Quote:
Zo, animals and humans are not the same.


In what sense?



Hmmm....they are animals...DUH!!!!!

[BoogyMan]

And yet humans and chimpanzees share something like 99% of their DNA. I'd say the fact that homosexuality is universally seen in the animal kingdom pretty clearly suggests that it's a natural variant in animal behavior. You may not be aware of this, Boogy, but it's now fairly common practice to use organs and tissue from other animals to repair damage. Tendons and veins from pigs have helped a couple of my friends.

Buck, DNA is the hereditary material in all living things just as in all living things the process by which DNA synthesizes proteins is the same. Does that create, in your view, an equivocation of all living things to humanity?

The amount of shared comparable DNA sequences means little when you consider the vast differentiation of capabilities and function of the human as compared to the chimpanzee.

I read some interesting articles about using animal veins and tissues in humans Buck and am glad we can now do so to help those who so badly need them, but don't see the reason to include such commentary in this discussion of homosexuality.

[Red Dragon]

RE: The Gay Side of Nature

Quote:
Zo, animals and humans are not the same.


In what sense?



Hmmm....they are animals...DUH!!!!!


Actually humans are animal’s sentient animals but still animals. And seeing as other animal’s concisenesses are not as advanced as ours they are acting on basic instinct. Now why one species may not be entirely homosexual it does not mean that the behavior is not natural as for normal well that word is really determined by a person’s perspective.

[Alonzo]

Reason, intelligence, knowledge of right and wrong, etc.Â*Â*Rather simple distinctions really.

Alicia Melis, at the Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Uganda, found that chimps recognised when collaboration was necessary and chose the best partner to work with.

The chimps had to cooperate in reaching a food tray by pulling two ends of a rope at the same time.

"We've never seen this level of understanding during cooperation in any other animals except humans," she said.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stm

Chimpanzees in Senegal have been observed making and using wooden spears to hunt other primates, according to a study in the journal Current Biology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6387611.stm

But Me1 had no elder sibling and it seemed unlikely that he could survive. Then, to our amazement, a 12-year-old adolescent male, Spindle, adopted him. Spindle carried Me1 on his back and let him cling to his belly if Me1 was frightened or cold. He shared his food with Me1 when the infant begged, and gathered him into his nest at night. When the adult males challenge one another for social dominance, performing wild displays, hurling rocks and branches, mothers quickly take their infants out of the way. Males have been known tothrow or drag infants who get in the way. If Me1 got too close to the adult males on such occasions, Spindle would run to rescue Mel, though he risked being buffeted himself, and sometimes was. Yet usually adolescent males are extremely cautious when in the vicinity of the big males when they are socially aroused, and keep well out of the way. It is without question that Spindle saved Mel's life.

In some zoos chimpanzees are kept on islands or exhibits surrounded by water-filled moats, since they do not swim. There are examples of chimpanzees risking their lives to try to save companions from drowning when they accidentally fall into the water. One adult male died when trying to rescue a drowning infant.

http://www.valuesineducation.org.au/goodall.pdf

A major study, involving seven chimpanzee sites across equatorial Africa and an international team of researchers, pooled a total of 151 years of chimpanzee observations.

It revealed remarkable differences in the behaviour of the chimpanzees in different groups.

Personal grooming

For example, each had their own distinct ways of grooming, gathering ants, probing bee hives for honey, cracking nuts and making threats. These are passed down from one generation to the next.

Chimps: A rich spectrum of behaviour
A biological definition of culture is the ability to pass on behaviour through social learning, as well as through the genes, so in that sense chimps now join humans as the only cultured beings on Earth.

"Chimp communities differ from each other not in just one behaviour, but in a whole suite of patterns," says the team leader, Professor Andrew Whiten at St Andrew's University in Scotland

"This seems much more like what we see in human cultures, where different societies vary in many ways, like their technologies, cuisines and manners," he says.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/370807.stm

Feelings are just as central in the nonhuman great apes. In chimpanzee society, for instance, relative peace is maintained by a complex dominance hierarchy. Occasionally, subordinate males recruit allies and attempt coups. In captive chimp populations, females will take sides in these coups, but they will also attempt to orchestrate reconciliations between the combatants. All this social maneuvering requires each chimp to be able to read the feelings of others, to act to alter those feelings, and to respond emotionally in ways that can be understood. To pull this off, a chimp needs, at the very least, a complete package of chimpanzee motivational equipment--chimpanzee feelings. Nothing less will do. An orangutan, a mainly solitary ape, could never arrange a reconciliation between chimps. Neither could an emotionally deficient chimp. ....

Most large, furry animals trigger sympathy in us, but none more than the great apes. They look like us and they often act like us. They play. They grieve. They feel. Free-living chimpanzees have been known to go out of their way to sit and watch the sunset. One famous chimpanzee, Washoe, supposedly leapt over an electric fence to rescue a drowning young chimp she'd never met. The apes' intellectual accomplishments--such as self-recognition, tool use, and language acquisition--are impressive, but the displays of feeling affect us far more profoundly.

http://discovermagazine.com/1994/feb/ontherightsofana336


No Zo, it really doesn't.Â*Â*There is a great deal of difference between for example the average wolf and a human even thought they share the same broad taxonomic categories of kingdom, phylum, and class.Â*Â*They still differ by order, family, genus, and species.

You're dealing with an article that points out chimpanzees, animals which some scientists even argue should be classified as a species of hominid. Pointing out the differences between wolves would be a better comparison if it was a common behavior in wolves and an obscure behavior (say 1 in 100,000) in humans. But this is a behavior that is common in many species, including humans and other primates. It is odd that, while it occurs in many species and humans very frequently, it's natural in every species but humans. It doesn't make much sense, particularly when it occurs at extremely high frequences in some of our closest relatives.

A new report argues that chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should be included in our branch of the tree of life. Chimpanzees and other apes have historically been separated from humans in classification schemes, with humans deemed the only living members of the hominid family of species.

Now, biologists at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, provide new genetic evidence that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently that chimps should be reclassed as Homo troglodytes. The move would make chimps full members of our genus Homo, along with Neandertals, and all other human-like fossil species. "We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," says the study.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

What you have described is NOT a large portion of the natural world and isÂ*Â*not the norm as this article would have us to believe.Â*Â*Were it the norm, there would be no propagation of those species or at least a severe cutback in propagation.


So a behavior that constitutes 50% of all sexual activities, as homosexual sex does in Bonobo's (a type of chimpanzee), is not normal in that species?

[Caravaggio]

So a behavior that constitutes 50% of all sexual activities, as homosexual sex does in Bonobo's (a type of chimpanzee), is not normal in that species?


Wow...I`m convinced...chimps are perverts...who would have thunk that?

[BoogyMan]

So a behavior that constitutes 50% of all sexual activities, as homosexual sex does in Bonobo's (a type of chimpanzee), is not normal in that species?

Zo, it shows nothing more than a dog trying to mount your leg shows, which is little more than ignorance. Even if it WERE normative for the species, how many species are there and what is causal in this regard over time?

[Buck Laser]

I read some interesting articles about using animal veins and tissues in humans Buck and am glad we can now do so to help those who so badly need them, but don't see the reason to include such commentary in this discussion of homosexuality.

I do think the transfer of organs between species is germane to this discussion, Boog. You're trying to establish some kind of absolute, qualitative difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, but the available evidence just doesn't support the idea that such a wide gap exists.

Over the last thirty years or so, I've done quite a bit of reading in the field of ethology, because I've become more and more convinced that there simply is no hard and fast line that divides humans from animals. I realize that a great many scientists are reluctant to give up the idea of this vast gap, because it eliminates so many ethical decisions with regard to how our fellow animals may be treated.

In the case at hand, I think you're reluctant to equate animal and human behavior because you believe that the Bible says homosexual behavior is immoral. I don't share that belief, however: the OT injunctions carry about as much weight with me as the injunctions to kill witches or to stone your disobedient children. An in the NT, given Paul's clear misogyny, I have to believe that he's not a fair representative of God's will.

The evidence that homosexuality occurs among most animal species as a minority behavior strikes me as consistent with what we know about biology at this juncture. There is one great chain of life, and no link is more important than the others. If we could understand the theology of the great whales, I do think they'd state their faith that THEY are the highest form of life on God's blue earth.

[Alonzo]

So a behavior that constitutes 50% of all sexual activities, as homosexual sex does in Bonobo's (a type of chimpanzee), is not normal in that species?

Zo, it shows nothing more than a dog trying to mount your leg shows, which is little more than ignorance.Â*Â*Even if it WERE normative for the species, how many species are there and what is causal in this regard over time?


In bonobo's sex, of all kinds, is to strengthen social bonds and reduce conflict. They're closesly related to the chimps you typically see. The main differences being bonobo's are matriarchal, and violence is uncommon, and conflict tends to be resolved through sex instead of force.

But you have non human animals that have culture, create and use tools, risk their lives to rescue even members of their species they don't know. Primates (though chimps are not nearly as good as apes or orangutans in this) can use sign language. One was evevn recorded, on multiple occasions, telling how his mother was killed by poachers when he was a baby.

These are behaviors that exist only to a lesser degree, or not at all, in many other species. It makes absolutely no sense that, with so many documented conscious behaviors, that the only reason they're having sex with their own gender is because a tree is too far away.

Your arguments are not consistent with research. The suggestion that these animals lack conscious drives and just act totally based on instinct, lacking actual thought or intelligence, is totally at odds with available research. You'd have a difficult time arguing that with a mouse, given the research generated many experiments, but there's simply no way you can reconcile that view with the data available on chimps and other higher primates.

I've posted, on multiple occasions, that many animals, particularly high primates, display intelligence, altruism etc. These are documented. You just keep insisting that they're mindless animals without presenting anything to back it up. But, frankly, the more recent the date you look at, the hard it becomes to show that.

[Buck Laser]

I've posted, on multiple occasions, that many animals, particularly high primates, display intelligence, altruism etc. These are documented. You just keep insisting that they're mindless animals without presenting anything to back it up. But, frankly, the more recent the date you look at, the hard it becomes to show that.


Zo, I know I can't speak for Boog, but I think that he's forced by his theology into regarding humans as somehow fundamentally different from the rest of his relatives in the animal kingdom. Neither reason nor evidence is going to change his mind, because he believes that he has a kind of knowledge that simply trumps empirical science.

[Caravaggio]

So a behavior that constitutes 50% of all sexual activities, as homosexual sex does in Bonobo's (a type of chimpanzee), is not normal in that species?

Zo, it shows nothing more than a dog trying to mount your leg shows, which is little more than ignorance. Even if it WERE normative for the species, how many species are there and what is causal in this regard over time?


In bonobo's sex, of all kinds, is to strengthen social bonds and reduce conflict. They're closesly related to the chimps you typically see. The main differences being bonobo's are matriarchal, and violence is uncommon, and conflict tends to be resolved through sex instead of force.

But you have non human animals that have culture, create and use tools, risk their lives to rescue even members of their species they don't know. Primates (though chimps are not nearly as good as apes or orangutans in this) can use sign language. One was evevn recorded, on multiple occasions, telling how his mother was killed by poachers when he was a baby.

These are behaviors that exist only to a lesser degree, or not at all, in many other species. It makes absolutely no sense that, with so many documented conscious behaviors, that the only reason they're having sex with their own gender is because a tree is too far away.

Your arguments are not consistent with research. The suggestion that these animals lack conscious drives and just act totally based on instinct, lacking actual thought or intelligence, is totally at odds with available research. You'd have a difficult time arguing that with a mouse, given the research generated many experiments, but there's simply no way you can reconcile that view with the data available on chimps and other higher primates.

I've posted, on multiple occasions, that many animals, particularly high primates, display intelligence, altruism etc. These are documented. You just keep insisting that they're mindless animals without presenting anything to back it up. But, frankly, the more recent the date you look at, the hard it becomes to show that.



In bonobo's sex, of all kinds, is to strengthen social bonds and reduce conflict. They're closesly related to the chimps you typically see. The main differences being bonobo's are matriarchal, and violence is uncommon, and conflict tends to be resolved through sex instead of force.


Hmmmm..are they good at home decoration and have a fashion sense?




Your arguments are not consistent with research. The suggestion that these animals lack conscious drives and just act totally based on instinct, lacking actual thought or intelligence, is totally at odds with available research. You'd have a difficult time arguing that with a mouse, given the research generated many experiments, but there's simply no way you can reconcile that view with the data available on chimps and other higher primates.


Maybe they just like to masturbate!






I've posted, on multiple occasions, that many animals, particularly high primates, display intelligence, altruism etc. These are documented. You just keep insisting that they're mindless animals without presenting anything to back it up. But, frankly, the more recent the date you look at, the hard it becomes to show that.


Yeah...that`s the reason why they are more advanced than we are!

[underdawg]

What this shows is that homosexuality is "normal" animal behavoir. It makes one of Christian's arguments against homosexuality , it not being normal, a myth or falsehood.

[BoogyMan]

I do think the transfer of organs between species is germane to this discussion, Boog. You're trying to establish some kind of absolute, qualitative difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, but the available evidence just doesn't support the idea that such a wide gap exists.

This IS an absolute and qualitative difference between humans and animals Buck. Tissue is simply a single facet of the discussion and if you wish to build this house of cards argument on tissue you will handily miss the mark. Show me an animal with a demostrable knwledge of right and wrong, with the ability to reason and we can talk about your theories.

In the case at hand, I think you're reluctant to equate animal and human behavior because you believe that the Bible says homosexual behavior is immoral. I don't share that belief, however: the OT injunctions carry about as much weight with me as the injunctions to kill witches or to stone your disobedient children. An in the NT, given Paul's clear misogyny, I have to believe that he's not a fair representative of God's will.

You are right in that I do hold to biblical teaching that homosexuality is error. What you are saying is that you reject clear teaching as misogyny? Misogyny actually shows a hatred of females so I am not so sure that term applies but I get the gist of your commentary anyway.

The evidence that homosexuality occurs among most animal species as a minority behavior strikes me as consistent with what we know about biology at this juncture. There is one great chain of life, and no link is more important than the others. If we could understand the theology of the great whales, I do think they'd state their faith that THEY are the highest form of life on God's blue earth.


Show me that this is homosexuality Buck? It is a clear assumption and little more to say that these animals are gay. Animals have natural urges to copulate and a simple view of a dog who tries to do so with a human leg points to the fact that animals will act on that urge without regard to species or sex and it is not based on a sexual preference.

[piratemonkey]

Zo, animals and humans are not the same.Â*Â*Consider the fact that a dog may try to mount your leg or anything else it can find when in a state of arousal.Â*Â*This kind of commentary doesn't justify homosexuality or give it any kind of credence as a natural activity.


So animals in nature regularly have gay relationships.

But that doesn't prove that it's natural?

:rolleyes:

[piratemonkey]

I do think the transfer of organs between species is germane to this discussion, Boog.Â*Â*You're trying to establish some kind of absolute, qualitative difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, but the available evidence just doesn't support the idea that such a wide gap exists.

This IS an absolute and qualitative difference between humans and animals Buck.Â*Â*Tissue is simply a single facet of the discussion and if you wish to build this house of cards argument on tissue you will handily miss the mark.Â*Â*

You can't transplant tissues between different species of mice.
Does that mean some mice aren't animals?

Are you kidding me with tissue argument?Â*Â*
YOU'RE calling HIS argument a "house of cards?!?!?!?"

Wow.


Show me an animal with a demostrable knwledge of right and wrong, with the ability to reason and we can talk about your theories.
Animal Passions and Beastly Virtues: Cognitive Ethology as the Unifying Science for Understanding the Subjective, Emotional, Empathetic and Moral Lives of Animals
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2006.00727.x?cookieSet=1

Do you really think you are qualitatively different from other animals?

Are you actually claiming that animals can't reason in any way?!?!?

Wow.Â*Â*You're fighting an uphill battle on this one.Â*Â*There are thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles just on primate reasoning.... there's whole journals dedicated to the subject.

Here... read this and tell me rats don't have reasoning ability:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5763/1020

With tasks that did not require complex physical knowledge, the experiments have shown that rats grasp the relationship between seeing and doing. Rats made correct inferences for instrumental actions on the basis of purely observational learning, and they correctly differentiated between common-cause models, causal chains, and direct causal links.

[Alonzo]

Show me that this is homosexuality Buck? It is a clear assumption and little more to say that these animals are gay. Animals have natural urges to copulate and a simple view of a dog who tries to do so with a human leg points to the fact that animals will act on that urge without regard to species or sex and it is not based on a sexual preference.


So, for example, a penguin that is only interested in males, to the exclusion of females, is heterosexual? There have been multiple cases of penguins engaging in exclusively homosexual relationships and refusing female companionship. Bears even have done it. You're arguing a point that animals like to masturbate, that's demonstrable in many animals.

Your argument makes no sense.

Show me an animal with a demostrable knwledge of right and wrong, with the ability to reason and we can talk about your theories.


So examples of animals giving their own food to hungry or sick animals, protecting others that they like from harm despite placing themselves in the way of significant harm, or even death, is not a sign of morality? As far as I'm concerned, someone who knowingly puts themselves in harms way for the benefit of another is a moral action. And, considering some of the behavior exhibited have resulted in physical harm to the animal previously, but they undertake them anyway to protect someone else, it's safe to conclude that they know they could be harmed since knowledge of potential harm has been demonstrated repeatedly in mice, rats, chimps etc. in laboratories.

As for ability to reason, using sign language and explaining past events is not reasoning? An ability to create and use tools does not require reasoning? Even crows have displayed this. In japan they learned that traffic can help them crack nuts. So they go to the top of a traffic light and drop nuts on the road so the cars can crush them. Then they wait for the light to turn red and go down and retrieve the nuts. Instead your argument seems to consist of "I have no evidence to support my beliefs, but you're still wrong."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGPGknpq3e0

Anyway, I think I've given enough examples that I don't need to respond until you actually present evidence.

[BoogyMan]

So, for example, a penguin that is only interested in males, to the exclusion of females, is heterosexual? There have been multiple cases of penguins engaging in exclusively homosexual relationships and refusing female companionship. Bears even have done it. You're arguing a point that animals like to masturbate, that's demonstrable in many animals.

Your argument makes no sense.

No Zo, my friend, your argument belies a desire to justify something that makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Your line of argumentation completely ignores the fact that these situations you call normative are anomalies and NOT normative for the broadest view of nature.

[Elrathin]

No Zo, my friend, your argument belies a desire to justify something that makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Your line of argumentation completely ignores the fact that these situations you call normative are anomalies and NOT normative for the broadest view of nature.


And assuming you are correct Boogy and it isn't normal, since when did "Not normal" equate to bad?

That is where you are losing on this one. You want to equate something as being bad yet the only basis you have for it is biblical. Sorry, but in the grand scheme of things, your position is nothing more than subjective reasoning of someone that feels their religion trumps everything else and everyone elses opinion.

Not much of a valid argument beyond biblical reasoning and therefore since that religion has not been proven as factual, neither does the argument.

[Alonzo]

No Zo, my friend, your argument belies a desire to justify something thatmakes no sense in the grand scheme of things.

Saying something is a normal occurence in a particular group is not a moral judgement. And normal does not require a benefit, which there may or may not be regarding gay penguins.

Maybe gay penguins help penguin societies keep alive abandoned eggs? So the more gay penguins a society has the more likely the babies are to survive, and therefore the more likely that those who are genetically related to gay penguins are to survive, since an adopted egg or baby doesn't need to compete with the gay penguins own. The survival of those closely related is believed to have been a driving force in the development of altruism, even to the point of risking your own life. The same principle could theoretically occur here.

And, again, your argument ignores the fact that the behavior occurs throughout the animal world.

And anomalies and normative can refer to the same thing. For example, if something occurs in 2 percent of a population then the individual is an anomaly relative to the population as a whole. But, at the same time, the occurence of such behavior in the population is normal.

For example, geniuses are anomalies. The typical human is not a genius or close to it. At the same time, for an entire population to be without at least a few would be an anomaly. The behavior itself is normal to the population, normal to the species, just not typical to any randomly selected individual. Though, unlike being a genius, homosexual behavior is normative in some populations, such as bonobo's, where it constitues about 50% of all sexual behavior.

Since we know homosexual behavior occurs in are large percentage of the species that we are familiar with their sexual behavior, then it can be considered normal in nature.

Besides, if a behavior is widespread then understanding the reason for its occurence is an entirely separate issue from determining whether it's normal behavior for animals of a species.

[BoogyMan]

Saying something is a normal occurence in a particular group is not a moral judgement. And normal does not require a benefit, which there may or may not be regarding gay penguins.

One of the things I so enjoy about these discussions with you Zo is that you maintain a civil tone of rebuttal, thank you for that.

I, at this point, am not even rebutting your arguments based on the morality of the act Zo, I could, but at this point am not. IO am merely pointing to the preponderance of species and refrencing the miniscule numbers you seem to consider normative.

Maybe gay penguins help penguin societies keep alive abandoned eggs? So the more gay penguins a society has the more likely the babies are to survive, and therefore the more likely that those who are genetically related to gay penguins are to survive, since an adopted egg or baby doesn't need to compete with the gay penguins own. The survival of those closely related is believed to have been a driving force in the development of altruism, even to the point of risking your own life. The same principle could theoretically occur here.

I find the continued reference to altruism interesting and will consider such actions in more detail. I do find altruism to be doubtful as we cannot know whether or not such a thought based system exists in an animal as we cannot communicate with it in a meaningful fashion.

And, again, your argument ignores the fact that the behavior occurs throughout the animal world.

And anomalies and normative can refer to the same thing. For example, if something occurs in 2 percent of a population then the individual is an anomaly relative to the population as a whole. But, at the same time, the occurence of such behavior in the population is normal.

This would seem to be a subjective line of argumentation Zo.

For example, geniuses are anomalies. The typical human is not a genius or close to it. At the same time, for an entire population to be without at least a few would be an anomaly. The behavior itself is normal to the population, normal to the species, just not typical to any randomly selected individual. Though, unlike being a genius, homosexual behavior is normative in some populations, such as bonobo's, where it constitues about 50% of all sexual behavior.

More subjective argumentation. The bonobo is an interesting study of life in the Congo and appears to be reacting to its habitat being intruded upon and its tendancy to also be somewhat of a pack mammal. To say that its activity is homosexual requires us to determine desire rather than mere ignorant animal activity. I don't think you can prove that desire.

Since we know homosexual behavior occurs in are large percentage of the species that we are familiar with their sexual behavior, then it can be considered normal in nature.

Besides, if a behavior is widespread then understanding the reason for its occurence is an entirely separate issue from determining whether it's normal behavior for animals of a species.


You cannot consider such activities as normative without considering its percentage of the whole Zo, doing so would be preposterous.

[Alonzo]

Is it statistically normal for a significant percentage of a population, though usually a minority, to engage in homosexual behavior? Yes. Is it statistically normal for any one individual to do that, in most cases no. Bonobo's and some other are exceptions.

More subjective argumentation. The bonobo is an interesting study of life in the Congo and appears to be reacting to its habitat being intruded upon and its tendancy to also be somewhat of a pack mammal.

This doesn't make much sense. A species engages in widespread homosexuality despite the fact that there are plenty of opposite sex bonobos to mate with? Bonobos use sexuality for both pleasure and as a means to avoid conflict.

To say that its activity is homosexual requires us to determine desire rather than mere ignorant animal activity. I don't think you can prove that desire.


A species can use sign language, and therefore communicate with humans certain wants and desires, can use tools, shows altruistic behavior etc. You can't prove much in science, but proving animals have desires and wants regarding some areas is all but proveable due to the great lengths they go to achieve certain goals and through communication in higher primates.

The activity is clearly homosexual. In bonobo's true homosexuality, or true heterosexuality, is something I've seen little done on. It seems practically all of them are bisexual. But exclusive homosexuality is seen in other species, most famously penguins.

The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression. Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations--and not just between males and females. Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed). And sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Despite the frequency of sex, the bonobo's rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of the chimpanzee. A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years. So bonobos share at least one very important characteristic with our own species, namely, a partial separation between sex and reproduction.

But in the late 1970s, chimpanzees, which are much more closely related to humans, became the model of choice. Traits that are observed in chimpanzees--including cooperative hunting, food sharing, tool use, power politics and primitive warfare--were absent or not as developed in baboons. In the laboratory the apes have been able to learn sign language and to recognize themselves in a mirror, a sign of self-awareness not yet demonstrated in monkeys.

http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html (Originally published in the March 1995 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, pp. 82-88)

Honestly, and I said it before but this time I'm going to stick to it, I'm not going to continue unless you actually provide evidence or studies that show all non humans animals lack these supposedly human drives, as you claim.

[piratemonkey]

Honestly, and I said it before but this time I'm going to stick to it, I'm not going to continue unless you actually provide evidence or studies that show all non humans animals lack these supposedly human drives, as you claim.


There is TONS of evidence of altruistic and reasoning behavior in animals.

I provided two of thousands of possible links above.

[piratemonkey]

So, for example, a penguin that is only interested in males, to the exclusion of females, is heterosexual? There have been multiple cases of penguins engaging in exclusively homosexual relationships and refusing female companionship. Bears even have done it. You're arguing a point that animals like to masturbate, that's demonstrable in many animals.

Your argument makes no sense.

No Zo, my friend, your argument belies a desire to justify something that makes no sense in the grand scheme of things.Â*Â*Your line of argumentation completely ignores the fact that these situations you call normative are anomalies and NOT normative for the broadest view of nature.


Boogy, consider this:

If a trait occurs in a minority of the population, but in roughly the same percentage for 100's of generations, is it "normal?"

Is being left-handed "abnormal" or "unnatural?"
How about blue eyes?
How about having a genius-level IQ?

All of those traits are rare, but natural.

Rare traits, if consistent over time in a population, are normal for that population.

[Labrocca]

When you can find 2 gay animals that mate for life ...then I might pay attention. The occassional sexual folly doesn't make the animal gay. One has to wonder if the gay animals are exclusively gay or do they also mate properly with the female of the species. Animals might have homosexual intercourse just for shits and giggles I suppose.

As pointed out...lots of animals eat their own feces too. So does that mean eating feces is ok?

[Alonzo]

Labrocca, from the original article:

What struck Bagemihl most is those forms that go beyond mere sexual gratification. Humboldt penguins may have homosexual unions that last six years; male greylag geese may stay paired for 15 years--a lifetime commitment when you've got the lifespan of a goose. Bears and some other mammals may bring their young into homosexual unions, raising them with their same-sex partner just as they would with a member of the opposite sex.

[piratemonkey]

When you can find 2 gay animals that mate for life ...then I might pay attention. The occassional sexual folly doesn't make the animal gay.Â*Â*One has to wonder if the gay animals are exclusively gay or do they also mate properly with the female of the species.Â*Â*Animals might have homosexual intercourse just for shits and giggles I suppose.Â*Â*

a) So you're saying that if a man just engages in homosexual sex and doesn't commit, that he's not gay?
b) here:

There is also homosexual pair-bonding. Found primarily in birds, such pair-bonding is as strong as that of heterosexual couples. Partners engage in courtship and sexual behaviours, sometimes even becoming parents. A pair of female Canada geese, for example, would raise their young together after having copulated with a male goose. The male is in effect the sperm donor.
http://media.www.thevarsity.ca/media/storage/paper285/news/2003/11/11/Feature/Is.It.Natural.To.Be.Gay-554088.shtml

even better, from the Journal of the American Medical Association:
In total, this abundantly illustrated book compiles more than two centuries of observations of homosexual behavior, pair bonding, and coparenting in more than 400 species. These include observations of species in which homosexual but not heterosexual pair bonding has been documented and others in which same-sex courtship and sexuality are so pervasive that "females are said to `mimic' males in order to mate with them." The sheer scope and thorough documentation of this book make it an extremely valuable resource for anyone interested in the diversity of animal behavior and sexuality.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/283/16/2170




As pointed out...lots of animals eat their own feces too.Â*Â*So does that mean eating feces is ok?


No, it means it's normal and natural, in some cases.

[piratemonkey]

Show me an animal with a demostrable knwledge of right and wrong, with the ability to reason and we can talk about your theories.


How coincidental is this?

It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success – chimpanzees are the more highly evolved species, according to new research.

Evolutionary geneticist Jianzhi Zhang and colleagues at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, US, compared DNA sequences for 13,888 genes shared by human, chimp and rhesus macaques.

For each DNA letter at which the human or chimp genes differ from our shared ancestral form – inferred from the corresponding gene in macaques – researchers noted whether the change led to an altered protein. Genes that have been transformed by natural selection show an unusually high proportion of mutations leading to altered proteins.

Zhang's team found that 233 chimp genes, compared with only 154 human ones, have been changed by selection since chimps and humans split from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

This contradicts what most evolutionary biologists had assumed. "We tend to see the differences between us and our common ancestor more easily than the differences between chimps and the common ancestor," observes Zhang.

The result makes sense, he says, because until relatively recently the human population has been smaller than that of chimps, leaving us more vulnerable to random fluctuations in gene frequencies. This prevents natural selection from having as strong an effect overall.

Now that the macaque genome has been sequenced, biologists will be able to learn more about the differences between the apes.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11611-chimps-more-evolved-than-humans.html