Homosexuality: Some natural and some unnatural?

[Katzndogz]

Homosexual behavior has been documented in several thousand species of animals. I think it's safe to say it's a natural phenomenon.

It has also been documented that animals also engage in incest and sex with their young.

And your point is?

Not nearly as dramatic as animals who eat their young.

Which is very natural by the way. It just isn't normal.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It has also been documented that animals also engage in incest and sex with their young.

And your point is?

Not nearly as dramatic as animals who eat their young.

Which is very natural by the way. It just isn't normal.

Explain how something that is natural to an animal isn't also normal.

The argument I heard was that homosexuality happens among animals therefore it's perfectly natural for man. I of course disagree. Filicide, cannibalism and incest are also found among animals, does that mean it's natural for man to act on these instincts?

There are a lot of things that animals do that is instinctively natural and I'd argue for them it's normal behavior.

 

[Mordent]

It occurs in nature, therefore it must be natural. However, it is a deviant behavior which is naturally limited by the inability to reproduce.

I'm not sure I'd call it deviant.

How could you not? It deviates from nature's reproductive biological imperative.
I'm straight, but have no children. My behavior is deviant as well.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not nearly as dramatic as animals who eat their young.

Which is very natural by the way. It just isn't normal.

Explain how something that is natural to an animal isn't also normal.

The argument I heard was that homosexuality happens among animals therefore it's perfectly natural for man. I of course disagree. Filicide, cannibalism and incest are also found among animals, does that mean it's natural for man to act on these instincts?

There are a lot of things that animals do that is instinctively natural and I'd argue for them it's normal behavior.

You might argue that it was normal behavior because it was natural behavior but that would not be correct. The two terms are not synonymous.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Not nearly as dramatic as animals who eat their young.

Which is very natural by the way. It just isn't normal.

Explain how something that is natural to an animal isn't also normal.

The argument I heard was that homosexuality happens among animals therefore it's perfectly natural for man. I of course disagree. Filicide, cannibalism and incest are also found among animals, does that mean it's natural for man to act on these instincts?

There are a lot of things that animals do that is instinctively natural and I'd argue for them it's normal behavior.

While I believe that human behavior is influenced by a number of genetic and environmental factors, you're right, that argument is essentially meaningless. The argument that behavior existent in the rest of the animal kingdom is a premise for human behavior is essentially no argument at all.

 

[Montrovant]

Which is very natural by the way. It just isn't normal.

Explain how something that is natural to an animal isn't also normal.

The argument I heard was that homosexuality happens among animals therefore it's perfectly natural for man. I of course disagree. Filicide, cannibalism and incest are also found among animals, does that mean it's natural for man to act on these instincts?

There are a lot of things that animals do that is instinctively natural and I'd argue for them it's normal behavior.

While I believe that human behavior is influenced by a number of genetic and environmental factors, you're right, that argument is essentially meaningless. The argument that behavior existent in the rest of the animal kingdom is a premise for human behavior is essentially no argument at all.

Generally I think that is used as an argument against calling homosexual behavior unnatural. Saying that it is seen in nature seems to be an understandable response.

As a moral argument, I agree, it's pretty worthless. But to counter the idea that it's unnatural I think it works.

On the bigger issue of whether sexuality is a choice, I tend to agree with Jimmy_Jam's post a few posts back. Various things can probably play a part, from genetics to environmental factors. I don't know how often it is a conscious choice, I don't know if many people say to themselves, "I'm going to be gay now" or "I'm going to be straight now". However, I see no reason people cannot develop different tastes, including sexual tastes.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Which is very natural by the way. It just isn't normal.

Explain how something that is natural to an animal isn't also normal.

The argument I heard was that homosexuality happens among animals therefore it's perfectly natural for man. I of course disagree. Filicide, cannibalism and incest are also found among animals, does that mean it's natural for man to act on these instincts?

There are a lot of things that animals do that is instinctively natural and I'd argue for them it's normal behavior.

You might argue that it was normal behavior because it was natural behavior but that would not be correct. The two terms are not synonymous.

How can you say that an animals instinctive nature isn't normal.

If a male dog tries to mount another male dog you'd think it wasn't normal. But to the dog who is acting purely on instinct it's perfectly normal.

Animal behavior is determined by instinct which is in fact normal animal behavior.

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.

Jacque Lynn Schultz, "Getting Over the Hump," ASPCA Animal Watch, Summer 2002

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Explain how something that is natural to an animal isn't also normal.

The argument I heard was that homosexuality happens among animals therefore it's perfectly natural for man. I of course disagree. Filicide, cannibalism and incest are also found among animals, does that mean it's natural for man to act on these instincts?

There are a lot of things that animals do that is instinctively natural and I'd argue for them it's normal behavior.

While I believe that human behavior is influenced by a number of genetic and environmental factors, you're right, that argument is essentially meaningless. The argument that behavior existent in the rest of the animal kingdom is a premise for human behavior is essentially no argument at all.

Generally I think that is used as an argument against calling homosexual behavior unnatural. Saying that it is seen in nature seems to be an understandable response.

As a moral argument, I agree, it's pretty worthless. But to counter the idea that it's unnatural I think it works.

On the bigger issue of whether sexuality is a choice, I tend to agree with Jimmy_Jam's post a few posts back. Various things can probably play a part, from genetics to environmental factors. I don't know how often it is a conscious choice, I don't know if many people say to themselves, "I'm going to be gay now" or "I'm going to be straight now". However, I see no reason people cannot develop different tastes, including sexual tastes.

What I meant by environmental factors is mainly upbringing. Human behavior, including sexual behavior, can be and is affected by childhood experiences. This is difficult for the left to accept or acknowledge because it hurts them politically to do so. If any group is struggling for any kind of legal protection or recognition, it doesn't do much good if the group is identified predominantly or entirely by lifestyle choice. The group must be distinct as being part of an inescapable condition of being, like race, gender, age, etc. It doesn't do them much good politically if they acknowledge that choice has anything to do it.

Conversely, it doesn't do the right any good politically if they acknowledge that genetic predisposition has anything to do with it. Yet, how else does one explain the cases of homosexuality where an individual was brought up in all the conditions that would completely discourage such an identity, yet are distinctly homosexual from an early age? My step-father had three brothers, one of which is gay. They had a textbook German-American Protestant rural Pennsylvania upbringing, and he talked about how they all knew from a very early age that he was gay and that was that. Everything about his environment was geared to raising men as men and women as women, but none of that seemed to prevent his being gay. It happens, and the simple explanation of "it's a choice" just doesn't explain everything. If it were a choice, then I would be able to have a sexual relationship with a man just to prove the point. But I can't. It's just not possible for me to do it, and I had a pretty laissez-faire childhood free of most of the social demands typical of stricter upbringings.

But when you have an all-consuming two-party system like we have in our United States, this is what you get. Real life, however, seldom conforms to party platforms.

 

[Expat]

I voted other. I don't now if homosexuality is natural or not. I don't give a rats ass and can't see a problem with it. So homosexuals aren't perpetuating the species. Neither are infertile couples.

 

[Mordent]

I voted other. I don't now if homosexuality is natural or not. I don't give a rats ass and can't see a problem with it. So homosexuals aren't perpetuating the species. Neither are infertile couples.

I don't disagree, but wouldn't you say nature's norm is reproduction? Without it, life would cease to exist. Any behavior that deviates from said norm is, by definition, deviant. I'm making no moral judgement, just being intellectually honest.

 

[Katzndogz]

Explain how something that is natural to an animal isn't also normal.

The argument I heard was that homosexuality happens among animals therefore it's perfectly natural for man. I of course disagree. Filicide, cannibalism and incest are also found among animals, does that mean it's natural for man to act on these instincts?

There are a lot of things that animals do that is instinctively natural and I'd argue for them it's normal behavior.

You might argue that it was normal behavior because it was natural behavior but that would not be correct. The two terms are not synonymous.

How can you say that an animals instinctive nature isn't normal.

If a male dog tries to mount another male dog you'd think it wasn't normal. But to the dog who is acting purely on instinct it's perfectly normal.

Animal behavior is determined by instinct which is in fact normal animal behavior.

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.

Jacque Lynn Schultz, "Getting Over the Hump," ASPCA Animal Watch, Summer 2002

You are quite right. Canine mounting behavior is strictly an exhibition of dominance. My female dog mounts her toys all the time. She is playing at beating them into submission. When a male dog runs up and mounts your leg, that dog actually isn't sexually excited, there's no erection. He just wants you to lay on your back and show him your belly in submission.

 

[Expat]

I voted other. I don't now if homosexuality is natural or not. I don't give a rats ass and can't see a problem with it. So homosexuals aren't perpetuating the species. Neither are infertile couples.

I don't disagree, but wouldn't you say nature's norm is reproduction? Without it, life would cease to exist. Any behavior that deviates from said norm is, by definition, deviant. I'm making no moral judgement, just being intellectually honest.

*shrug* If we left things to nature, we wouldn't have modern medicine. Man hasn't been worried about following nature in a long time.

 

[laughinReaper]

I think 99%of the time it's the way the person was born. Occasionally when a person goes to extremes and starts having surgery for a sex change, I wonder if it's not more mental illness related. Kinda like those people who have plastic surgery after plastic surgery because they will never be happy with the way they look. There is a deeper underlying cause to unhappiness.

History tells us otherwise.

In ancient Greece and Sparta it was culturally accpeted and widely practiced......unless you think there to be a rampant "gay gene" amongst these races.

Gay no but bisexual,I think there's more of them then people realize.

 

[emilynghiem]

Explain how something that is natural to an animal isn't also normal.

The argument I heard was that homosexuality happens among animals therefore it's perfectly natural for man. I of course disagree. Filicide, cannibalism and incest are also found among animals, does that mean it's natural for man to act on these instincts?

There are a lot of things that animals do that is instinctively natural and I'd argue for them it's normal behavior.

You might argue that it was normal behavior because it was natural behavior but that would not be correct. The two terms are not synonymous.

How can you say that an animals instinctive nature isn't normal.

If a male dog tries to mount another male dog you'd think it wasn't normal. But to the dog who is acting purely on instinct it's perfectly normal.

Animal behavior is determined by instinct which is in fact normal animal behavior.

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.

Jacque Lynn Schultz, "Getting Over the Hump," ASPCA Animal Watch, Summer 2002

Hi LL and KND: What I get from your msgs is that some "homosexual" actions by animals may not be out of homosexual attraction of wanting to couple with a mate of the same sex, but are for some other reason not related.

Like "rape" is more commonly an act of dominance/violence to control or force
a helpless victim, a power issue, and there are distinctions made between THAT kind of
rape as an act of crime or war crime vs. "relationship abuse or date rape" where the
people DID have a social relationship or were pursuing the possibility, or one or both parties
WAS attracted to the other when the harassment, assault, coercion or abuse occurred.

I think in the Greek culture (?) there was distinction in definition made between homosexual practices for social reasons (facultative?),
vs. homosexual sex to express sexual attraction between mates in relationship. What people's objections morally seem most against is the unnatural sexual attraction and then promoting this as natural instead of correcting the cause of attraction to the wrong person (similar to not tolerating adultery, but discouraging people from acting on wrongful urges to covet someone else's mate; if this is someone's objection, I have no problem with treating heterosexual and homosexual adultery equally consistent as relationship abuse, not targeting or judging one more wrong than the other, but based on degree of abuse or suffering caused to people and relations.)

What makes me curious are cases where animal partners DO pair up as mates,
such as the famous cases of gay penguins in the zoo even teaming up to hatch an egg.

Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate - SFGate

Madrid Zoo?s ?Gay? Penguins Given Egg of Their Own - ABC News


This makes me wonder about spiritual beliefs that people's souls can be born into animals to work out karma that way as part of the spiritual life process, or if people/animals are always distinct and there is no crossover or connection, like if animals have souls or not, etc. ???

P.S. of course, the same debates came up, whether to leave the same sex penguins alone, or push them to pair with hetero mates, to accommodate, or not to encourage them, etc. makes me think we ARE meant to study these things, in order to reach an understanding.

 

[emilynghiem]

People do not choose their sexuality, and homosexuality cannot be cured, no matter what the people from NARTH claim.

Hi Noomi thanks for your honest viewpoint and joining in, I hope you continue to post here and share your thoughts!

I find for every person like you who says "no way" to cases reported of homosexuality being healed, there is someone out there on the other side of the spectrum saying "no way" is any homosexuality natural for someone born that way.

I know people on both sides of this, and in between, and I find it comes out pretty even.

The way you dismiss NARTH, or other groups opposed for false claims or political agenda, this probably does not represent ALL the people who truly have been healed of homosexual patterns of attraction, relations or behavior caused by abuse which was not natural for them.

Same way people denouncing NAMBLA as political agenda, does not represent ALL people who do have a natural love of partners for life of the same sex, and are NOT pushing some agenda like NAMBLA out of whatever motivation questioned as harmful, false and unnatural. Questionable groups out there with objectionable agenda, on either side, do NOT represent all groups by association.

If you look up the statement by Neil Warren of e-harmony, he was dismayed that his company was forced to set up a site for same sex couples, against his beliefs and the
consent of many members who retracted their business when he complied with requests.
He asked for help to "figure out" the issues of homosexuality.

So I hope to answer that request, and set up ways we can work together as here, and explore all the different angles that people are either pushing as true or protesting as false.

Thank you for your honest input, Noomi, and please continue posting.

We can't resolve issues unless people of all views are represented equally and
work together freely to dismiss the myths and misinformation
and put the right information and solutions together
that accommodate all views and all cases in fuller perspective.

I believe forums like this will make it possible to reach an agreed understanding through mutual respect, intellectual freedom and openness, and commitment to stick to principles of common ground, focus and values while resolving conflicting points that may challenge us.

Thanks!

 

[Katzndogz]

Among animals homosexual behavior is a reaction to a stressor. Remove the stressor and the behavior disappears. Bulls deprived of cows will exhibit homosexual behavior until the cows come back. Male chimpanzees will engage in homosexual acts if they cannot find a mate. Much was made of two male penguins that created a nest with rocks as pretend eggs. That lasted until one found a female mate then the other one did too.

Homosexual behavior in animals cannot be considered normal or natural. The behavior is a normal natural reaction to a stressor and has nothing to do with sexual preference. No animal prefers butt fucking to mating.

 

[Mordent]

I voted other. I don't now if homosexuality is natural or not. I don't give a rats ass and can't see a problem with it. So homosexuals aren't perpetuating the species. Neither are infertile couples.

I don't disagree, but wouldn't you say nature's norm is reproduction? Without it, life would cease to exist. Any behavior that deviates from said norm is, by definition, deviant. I'm making no moral judgement, just being intellectually honest.

*shrug* If we left things to nature, we wouldn't have modern medicine. Man hasn't been worried about following nature in a long time.

Modern medicine is a result of man's natural intellectual capabilities.

 

[emilynghiem]

Among animals homosexual behavior is a reaction to a stressor. Remove the stressor and the behavior disappears. Bulls deprived of cows will exhibit homosexual behavior until the cows come back. Male chimpanzees will engage in homosexual acts if they cannot find a mate. Much was made of two male penguins that created a nest with rocks as pretend eggs. That lasted until one found a female mate then the other one did too.

Homosexual behavior in animals cannot be considered normal or natural. The behavior is a normal natural reaction to a stressor and has nothing to do with sexual preference. No animal prefers butt fucking to mating.

So you're saying the penguins rejecting female mates was fabricated?
And if they had been given the choice under normal circumstances,
they would not have insisted on sticking together as the story implied they preferred?
Was this just agenda-driven, where the objections to that were valid? Thanks KND!

 

[emilynghiem]

Modern medicine is a result of man's natural intellectual capabilities.

Man cannot be credited for the NATURAL design and mechanisms of
the mind/body toward healing themselves.

We may manipulate the conditions that BLOCK healing from happening,
but we ourselves do not generate the life/healing energy that flows
through the mind/body when healing and recovery occurs.

We do not create the life energy itself that pushes toward health/healing.

(even spiritual healing methods that work are NOT the person doing the healing, but praying to identify BLOCKS preventing healing, so through opening the mind/spirit to forgiveness, the healing energy flows and overcomes diseased conditions building up in teh body. the healing energy and removal are not done by people but spiritual/life forces in a process already set up by design of how life/nature works. humans don't create or do this. we learn to follow the scientific method of trying to diagnose the problem/cause, apply a method to remedy it, and test if it works or not, and then repeat or proceed from there. we did not invent how laws of life or nature work, we just learn to follow and work with them.)

 

[Mordent]

Modern medicine is a result of man's natural intellectual capabilities.

Man cannot be credited for the NATURAL design and mechanisms of
the mind/body toward healing themselves.

We may manipulate the conditions that BLOCK healing from happening,
but we ourselves do not generate the life/healing energy that flows
through the mind/body when healing and recovery occurs.

We do not create the life energy itself that pushes toward health/healing.

(even spiritual healing methods that work are NOT the person doing the healing, but praying to identify BLOCKS preventing healing, so through opening the mind/spirit to forgiveness, the healing energy flows and overcomes diseased conditions building up in teh body. the healing energy and removal are not done by people but spiritual/life forces in a process already set up by design of how life/nature works. humans don't create or do this. we learn to follow the scientific method of trying to diagnose the problem/cause, apply a method to remedy it, and test if it works or not, and then repeat or proceed from there. we did not invent how laws of life or nature work, we just learn to follow and work with them.)

I don't disagree, but what does that have to do with my post? Modern medicine is man's natural intellect directed towards augmenting nature's healing process, often to the point of reversing what would naturally cause death.