The Animal Homosexuality Myth
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature.
Actually they are.
Quote:
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
Incorrect. It only means that those instincts are one, not excusive, and two play an interlaced role with other instincts.
Quote:
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
He claims that others attribute human characteristics on animals, and then speaks of confusion in the animals because they do not have 'human clarity' and don't understand their senses.
Quote:
In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]
One, he assumes that homosexuals have not followed this logic as well and gone with their homosexual instincts. And two, the assumption of clash of instincts and favoring of one over the other in animals does not disprove the basic premise he uses himself: That animals will have homosexual instincts.
Quote:
At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."
All part of the natural kingdom.
And many animals take part in rape and killing of young they didn't father.
I saw this on a show featuring Camels and Hippos. There was a family camel with a calf. And about 5 male camels ran up on her and forced her down and had intercourse and tried to kill the calf while she fought back to protect it.
A male hippo took over a herd and young calf that a female tried to introduce to her herd was chased and killed by the new bull.
If anyone does believe humans do the exact same thing, we are deluded. Woman as well as Men. Only thing among humans it's a crime.
Quote:
-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"
The assumption of supposed confusion in tomcats, does not address filicide and cannibalism in Chimpanzees, Baboons, Bears, etc.
Quote:
Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:
There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
:
I don't understand where you got this from. I made no such insinuation.
In your response to TRIGUY
DChapman wrote: Yes not all cultures have formalized marriages, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they woulf frown upon same sex unions.
Quote:
Sorry, but I don't think religious extremism will ever be the solution for improving U.S. society.
Who ever mentioned anything about religion let alone religious extremism??
Because that is what is the driving force behind it.
Quote:
We don't see animals smoking. But we do see animals performing anal sex. Animals also bite each other during sex and can get infected through those wounds. Doesn't mean they are unnatural.
Of course we do not see animals smoking. Only humans "smoke". Along the same lines you cannot attribute the sexuality of humans to the "animal world". Studies have acknowleded that animals have anal sex. This just doesn't mean that they are homosexual as in humans.
Quote:
The heterosexual only extremeist try to create a propaganda that homosexual and bisexual activities do not occur in the animal world. They always conveniently ignore that there are many mammals that use sex for social structure and bonding and that this is not only done for procreation.
Again . Please cite the propaganda that so called heterosexual "extremists" state that homosexual and bisexual activities do not occur in the animal world. The article I posted acknowledged this but stated very clearly that you cannot associate human sexuality with that of the animal world. But the homosexualists want to make this association so as to hope it makes what they do more legitmate to the mainstream.
Sure. Marriage is just a fashion, eh? Do you think so?
Actually, what do you mean for "marriage" in the first place?
If you mean, male-female couples that live together most of their life, that is pretty standard worldwide. Yes, there have also exist polygamy and polyandry (the opposite), however, in most cultures, relative standard couples are a very common behavoir.
What is artificial is the formal contract that exist between couples. The papers, the rituals, the traditions. Those things are artificial. What is not is marriage itself. Even in animals is possible to observe there are some that keep their couples for life. Nothing strange.
LOL put that straw down Omar! I did not say that pair-bonding, whether for one night or 50 years, is unnatural. Many species mate for life in male-female pair bonds, so this behavior is natural.
Marriage is a cultural ritual/ceremony that takes on many forms in human societies, and is not necessary for the continuation of the human species. Any two fertile heterosexuals can "do their biological duty" and procreate without marriage. Furthermore, should a gay man and a lesbian have sex the old-fashioned way or artificially inseminate and produce a baby, they have also fulfilled their "obligation" - leaving no good reason from nature's standpoint to sanction their sexual proclivities. This is a fact, and value judgements about marriage and homosexuality cannot change it.
Arguments presenting procreation as the natural limitation of marriage to one man and one woman are absurd because of this basic premise of human biology.
Arguments presenting marriage as cultural institution for monogamous heterosexuality of course have the norms and values of many human societies to back them up, but there still has never been a universal denigration of non-heterosexuality among humans.
Does an evolutionary parental instinct to kill offspring on a whim make any sense?
It makes perfect sense if you look at it from the gene's viewpoint. When a male lion becomes the leader of a pride, his first act is to kill and devour all of the cubs that were sired by the previous pack leader. This focuses all of the pride's efforts and resources on propagating his genes, not on those of his predecessor. This is not a guy thing. The same thing happens in hyena troops, which are led by the most powerful female (who is the only reproducer), when a new female takes control. Similar genetic-advantage tactics are found in many non-monogamous organisms, from corals on up.
Don't a number of spiders eat their young also? Disgusting but true, nature does have some twisted elements like praying mantises killing their "mates" after sex.
I think many people today fail to realize that modern concepts of family and love of children didn't always exists. The treatment of children in Europe and America a hundred years to two hundred years ago was much different.
Even today, there has been a rejection of the progressive rehabilitation view of the criminal justice system. More children are being tried as adults even when scientific evidence has proved that the logical decision making areas of the brain aren't fully formed until a person reaches her early 20s.
Does an evolutionary parental instinct to kill offspring on a whim make any sense?
It makes perfect sense if you look at it from the gene's viewpoint. When a male lion becomes the leader of a pride, his first act is to kill and devour all of the cubs that were sired by the previous pack leader. This focuses all of the pride's efforts and resources on propagating his genes, not on those of his predecessor. This is not a guy thing. The same thing happens in hyena troops, which are led by the most powerful female (who is the only reproducer), when a new female takes control. Similar genetic-advantage tactics are found in many non-monogamous organisms, from corals on up.
I believe there are human examples of this phenomenon too, especially in monarchies. One that comes to mind happened in the Ottoman Empire, whereby the new sultan would execute his younger brothers and half brothers to secure his reign (or have them murdered before becoming sultan so that his ascendancy was assured). Of course he would recreate the problem for the next generation by siring many children with wives and concubines, but it's "mission accomplished" for his personal purposes: 1) rivals are dispatched forever 2) only a son with his genes will become the next sultan even if that son kills his brothers.
And lest anyone think this is gender-specific, imagine how influential and dedicated the wives and mothers of these sons must have been in playing this chess game. Their lives and genes were at stake too: Not only could they be killed along with their sons/husbands (by being sewn into silk sacks and thrown into the sea to drown), the ultimate power as a female was derived from being the mother of a sultan.
Does an evolutionary parental instinct to kill offspring on a whim make any sense?
It makes perfect sense if you look at it from the gene's viewpoint. When a male lion becomes the leader of a pride, his first act is to kill and devour all of the cubs that were sired by the previous pack leader. This focuses all of the pride's efforts and resources on propagating his genes, not on those of his predecessor. This is not a guy thing. The same thing happens in hyena troops, which are led by the most powerful female (who is the only reproducer), when a new female takes control. Similar genetic-advantage tactics are found in many non-monogamous organisms, from corals on up.
I believe there are human examples of this phenomenon too, especially in monarchies. One that comes to mind happened in the Ottoman Empire, whereby the new sultan would execute his younger brothers and half brothers to secure his reign (or have them murdered before becoming sultan so that his ascendancy was assured). Of course he would recreate the problem for the next generation by siring many children with wives and concubines, but it's "mission accomplished" for his personal purposes: 1) rivals are dispatched forever 2) only a son with his genes will become the next sultan even if that son kills his brothers.
And lest anyone think this is gender-specific, imagine how influential and dedicated the wives and mothers of these sons must have been in playing this chess game. Their lives and genes were at stake too: Not only could they be killed along with their sons/husbands (by being sewn into silk sacks and thrown into the sea to drown), the ultimate power as a female was derived from being the mother of a sultan.
This was also true of European Monarchies. Elizabeth I of Great Britain had her sister killed, for example. Monarchies are notorious for the plotting and scheming of family members to achieve the throne. I read somewhere that this was an example of Darwinian processes in action: a limited resource and competitors fight for it.
This was also true of European Monarchies. Elizabeth I of Great Britain had her sister killed, for example. Monarchies are notorious for the plotting and scheming of family members to achieve the throne. I read somewhere that this was an example of Darwinian processes in action: a limited resource and competitors fight for it.
Not her sister Mary, but her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots (I think she was her father's niece), whose son nevertheless was declared heir to the throne of England.
And many animals take part in rape and killing of young they didn't father.
I saw this on a show featuring Camels and Hippos. There was a female camel with a calf. And about 5 male camels ran up on her and forced her down and had intercourse and tried to kill the calf while she fought back to protect it.
A male hippo took over a herd and young calf that a female tried to introduce to her herd was chased and killed by the new bull.
If anyone does not believe humans do the exact same thing, we are deluded. Woman as well as Men. Only thing among humans it's a crime.
Yes, many things in nature are natural, but humans have deemed contrary to the civilizations we have formed. These are subjective callings, and not part of some biological unnaturality. We see what we deem is damaging to our culture. And on that tangent, mnay argue homosexuality does not harm others and has not been shown to be exponentially contagious as a personal lifestyle and therefore is not damaging to the culture.
But going back to topic. Still natural. Murder and rape are also a part of nature. They are parts of nature we seek to control because they are antisocial and harm our cohesiveness. The same can not be said about homosexuality. Forcing people to live hidden lives does not improve cohesiveness in the community anymore than just allowing them to live their lives. Polygamy the same thing. It is an arbitrary choice we make Based on our current mores and values.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
