The Gay Marriage Controversy

[bossel]

Non-reproductive sex is much more than homosexual relationships. Masturbation, oral sex or what have you.

How many species have oral sex? How many species masturbate?

So is playing around with a bone. And still, dogs do it all the time. Call it training - why wouldn't sexuality need training? Or you could just say that it's evolutionary beneficial to have some strong urges - to run around, to play with things, to have sex - even though these urges will often be a waste of energy.

Dogs are a bad example since they have been messed with for ages.
BTW, playing actually serves a purpose in nature, but again even here you have to differentiate.

I see very little evolutionary reason to go from a tendency to heterosexuality to strict heterosexuality.

To quote your original message yet again:
"there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality"
& again I say it's not as easy as you put it. You can keep hammering on your "strict" heterosexuality point as much as you want, it doesn't get easy. You need to differentiate.

 

[Japanimaniac]

I didn't intend to say "Animals aren't heterosexual, therefore all marriages should be allowed." Animals do all sorts of stuff, some that definitely should be considered criminal for humans. Killing each other for example.

I do believe the sexual variations among animals means the arguments of heterosexuality as something "natural" are wrong though.

No, not at all. I didn't mean to imply that that you meant that. I was just making an argument that I know someone who opposes homosexuality would eventually make. Putting the theory that your sexual orientation is programmed at birth aside for a second, humans consciously know that they are with the same sex, whereas animals are simply looking for release of their sexual tension. They don't wake up planning to go find a mate of the same sex.

 

[Sr Pasta]

How many species have oral sex? How many species masturbate?

Well, according to Bruce Bagemihl, a lot of them. AFAIK animal sexuality hasn't been studied enough so far, but his compilation of studies is quite large. I'd guess most species that have the possivbility to masturbate do it.

There is in either case no reason to assume strict heterosexuality is the norm for animals. Strict heterosexuality in a species has to be proved (which of course is a difficult thing).

To quote your original message yet again:
"there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality"
& again I say it's not as easy as you put it.

Saying "it's not that easy" is not much of an argument in itself. You need to explain why it isn't.

The only argument you've raised so far is the "waste of energy", but you seem to recognize my counter argument that non-reproductive sex is no more a waste of energy than many other common activities.

...humans consciously know that they are with the same sex, whereas animals are simply looking for release of their sexual tension. They don't wake up planning to go find a mate of the same sex.

Hehe, yep, you're right. But the question is, do they ever plan to go find a mate of the opposite sex?

 

[bossel]

Well, according to Bruce Bagemihl, a lot of them. AFAIK animal sexuality hasn't been studied enough so far, but his compilation of studies is quite large. I'd guess most species that have the possivbility to masturbate do it.

Ah, Bagemihl. Sadly, his book is not available in any of the local libraries (not too surprising, from the reviews I read). He, too, makes a too simple case of it. Eg. just because 2 male swans together bring up their kids, doesn't mean that they are homosexual. Sorry, again, it's not that easy.

If I'm correctly informed, he quotes some 40 species as having something like what you'd probably call strict homosexuality. 40, hmm... There are 1.5m known animal species, perhaps millions of unknown. 40 of 1.5m is not what I would call the norm. Even if you take the 450 of the website you quoted before, it's still far from that.

Since I haven't found any references, could you provide me with some examples of masturbating animal species & with the number of species that allegedly do it? Same goes for oral sex.

There is in either case no reason to assume strict heterosexuality is the norm for animals. Strict heterosexuality in a species has to be proved (which of course is a difficult thing).

Strict heterosexuality has to be proved? Since it is assumed the norm & there are only few counter examples, I can't see why that should be so. You want to show that it's not the norm, then you have to prove that a majority of animal species differs.

Saying "it's not that easy" is not much of an argument in itself. You need to explain why it isn't.

It's not so easy because you have to look at the circumstances under which allegedly homosexual behaviour occurs.

The only argument you've raised so far is the "waste of energy", but you seem to recognize my counter argument that non-reproductive sex is no more a waste of energy than many other common activities.

For most species it would be a waste of energy because they couldn't earn any advantage through it.
Another argument is that homosexuality needs to spread the related genes. If you don't have offspring there is no such spread. & again this is a point which shows that it's not as easy as you picture it, since different species have different survival strategies & you have to look at the specific circumstances to see if a behaviour is homosexual & if so, how the behaviour survives into the next generation.


BTW, I can't really see the point in this argument, since it's completely unrelated to gay marriage. What's more, as I already said, it's a crappy argument for both sides of the "morality" discussion.

 

[No-name]

I'm not certain I understand the logic of bringing up animal behavior here. We are not mice or swans or fruit flies or monkeys. Animal behavior does not justify human behavior or should it relate to the rules we write for our societies. Animals do all kinds of strange things. Some animals consume their dead. Many abandoned their own young or kidnap the young of others. Most animals are not monagamous and don't have "marriage." Animals have been known to kill members of their own species (eg. cats kill the offspring of rivals, chimpanzees kill infants from other clans...) My dog likes to lick himself...

Morality, ethics, behavior, and nature are all separate things. Because something is natural does not make it moral. Because a behavior exists does not make it ethical. Because something is "normal" does not make it moral. Morality is more about the social, political, cultural, and religious constructs of a society. I don't think it is actually related to genetics, natural selection, animal behavior, or anything from the hard sciences.

I think we are all big people here. Each community should decide on their own what a marriage is and who it involves. This may mean prohibiting gay marriage. (We didn't let the Mormons have polygamy) I personally like the idea of civil unions. In large communities of gay people, like we have in West Hollywood and San Francisco, I think this provides a better sense of stability and fosters stronger community.

 

[bossel]

Right on, Sabro! But I can't withhold myself from commenting on 2 things.

I don't think it is actually related to genetics, natural selection, animal behavior, or anything from the hard sciences.

Morality actually is related to genetics. Frans de Waal has written some good stuff about morality in non-human animals (you should have a look at it).
But human morality is highly flexible, dependent on culture, character, mood aso. Non-human morality is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Hence we have to find solutions in regard to our circumstances. I would always take the stance "equal rights to everybody" & everything is allowed as long as nobody is hurt against their will. Long live the ZAP!

This may mean prohibiting gay marriage. (We didn't let the Mormons have polygamy) I personally like the idea of civil unions.

But wouldn't that go against one of our cultures' most important principles: equal rights?
Polygamy is another interesting example of denied rights.

 

[Sr Pasta]

Sorry, double post.

 

[Sr Pasta]

I'm sorry, but it's kind of pointless repeating the arguments once more. This is a sentence without any form of meaning (emphasis added): "For most species it would be a waste of energy because they couldn't earn any advantage through it."

Assuming strict heterosexuality as a norm for animal behaviour is an assumption just as silly as those underlying race theory once upon a time. The point of Bagemihl is that there is no scientifical evidence underlying that assumption.

Assuming that homosexuality needs to be determined genetically is not as silly, but still dubious. It's an idea for people who firmly believe that the concepts of their current cultural environment (and not say, ancient Greece) forms the basis of how evolution works. But evolution didn't invent homophobia - humans did.

Sabro: If you try reading the posts, you'll see we agree that animal behaviour is not a reason to form laws. Though many people believe so. Misconceptions of what is natural often forms a part of peoples moral beliefs.

 

[No-name]

Agreed and agreed again. RE: morality and human behavior.
I read the posts, and they seem to miss a basic foundational argument. Fruitfly morality, swan morality and bird migratory patterns shouldn't have anything to do with marriage laws.

We do have laws prohibiting sex and marriage between close relatives, minors, and pets. (They're on the books in many states.) As well as prohibitions against homosexuality and polygamy. There does seem to be a movement to trace the behavioral evolution of taboo's back to some kind of natural selection process. i don't have sources in front of me, but I read somewhere that people have taken Claude Levi-Strauss' work and extrapolated all kinds of moral theory from it. These theories are beyond me, but These taboos would seem to be based upon some natural law especially since they make good genetic sense in some cases, but I think again that intelligent adults can get together and make good laws.

 

[bossel]

I'm sorry, but it's kind of pointless repeating the arguments once more.

Then why do you?

This is a sentence without any form of meaning (emphasis added): "For most species it would be a waste of energy because they couldn't earn any advantage through it."

Too bad that you don't understand it. Maybe your English is even worse than mine.

Assuming strict heterosexuality as a norm for animal behaviour is an assumption just as silly as those underlying race theory once upon a time. The point of Bagemihl is that there is no scientifical evidence underlying that assumption.

Wrong. Heterosexual behaviour has been observed over & over again. Homosexual behaviour only occasionally.

Assuming that homosexuality needs to be determined genetically is not as silly, but still dubious.

I don't, most scientists don't. It's still an open question, but if it's not directly linked to our genes, there is at least an indirect link. Evolution in either case has an influence.

But evolution didn't invent homophobia - humans did.

How do you know? Most behaviour is somehow influenced by our genes, hence evolution can't be ruled out at least as a partial cause. Our brain is simply an organ, our mind a bodily function. Evolution plays a role in our thinking, in our morals, in our behaviour, wherever.

 

[Japanimaniac]

I thought we were past the whole Freudian animal analysis angle...?

 

[forkagentsmith]

first off...some religions werent started by man
Christianity and Judaism are based on facts given to us by the one true God
i believe(take it for what it is worth) that this country was founded on Christian morals and that that is the only way it will stand
allowing gay marriages to be legal would start corruption of the government
i am not treading on anyones pursuit of happiness
i am just saying that although there are gay ppl out there like kuro_tsubasa who try to keep me from expressing my beliefs i will stand firm in my God-made religion

 

[BamaFan2989]

wow, if you don't know already I know forkagentsmith personally, because he lives right down the road from me, and we play poker and study Japanese together.

I used to think the same way as forkagentsmith, but I am starting to think/realize/believe that we shouldn't get in the way of their rights. They should have the same rights. I also now understand that just because I believe something that it doesn't make it "right" to EVERYONE. I have found that out the hard way too.

And in your post you show some selfishness with the statement:
"i am just saying that although there are gay ppl out there like kuro_tsubasa who try to keep me from expressing my beliefs i will stand firm in my God-made religion"
Well it can't always be about OUR beliefs and OUR religion. We don't have to make everyone believe what we believe, but as being a Christian it is about telling them about the Gospel, Jesus Christ, and what we believe, and let God take over from there...

Anyway there is much more but I am hungry lol.... so til the next post...

Ja

 

[Japanimaniac]

BamaFan, that has to be the smartest and most enlightened thing I have read about religion on this forum since I joined. Very, very well put.

 

[BamaFan2989]

Thanks. I take things too sarcastic... but I will believe you hehe. ^_^

 

[Japanimaniac]

Na, wasn't being sarcastic. It's the only post I've read from a religious person's point of view that actually said "our way may not be the right way for everyone else" (at least, as far as I can remember).

 

[BamaFan2989]

Yeah, that was a fast reply... Thanks. Yeah I was just about to edit my post. I don't know exactly yet what I believe. I started a thread about that somewhere, but maybe there should be ..... a comprimise, or is it only Christianity, or is the religion thing just a fantasy... I dunno yet, but I hope to find out.

In that case, what do you think "Truth" is? I have been trying to find that out for awhile now.... I am not sure if Christianity is right, if it's all fake, or there is no God... you know all the possibilities..... :clueless:


until then.... :ramen: lol

 

[Japanimaniac]

Lol, yeah, instant e-mail notification let's me reply quicker. ^.^"

And though it's not exactly the thread to get into this subject, I'll let you know that I believe in the possibility of anything. I don't put my faith into any one thing, but I don't discredit it as false. There could be one, all mighty God, or Zeus and Hera could be sitting on a mountain laughing at all of humanity. I'm pretty confident in science, though, so there'd have to be overwhelming evidence to push me towards an actual "religion". I guess you just never know.

 

[BamaFan2989]

I can see what you mean....

 

[bossel]

Science news

Genes influencing male homosexuality identified
Quote:
"They identified sequences of DNA related to sexual orientation in three separate chromosomes

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

The researchers analyzed the genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.
[...]
"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation.""

Still a long way to go, but at least science shows progress.