Homosexuality in animals

[Phoenix]

First of all I'm a Christian, I believe homosexuality in humans is from nurture. I believe many factors can lead to homosexuality, such as sexual abuse.

Some of you who have debated the question of homosexuality, whether people are born gay or it's how they were raised. At some point in the debate those that think homosexuality is natural will point to animals having gay sex.

My question is if homosexuality is from nurture instead of nature, then how does one explain animals participating in homosexual acts. I realize these animals are no where near our intelligence. So the idea of what's right and wrong is beyond them. Yet what they are doing is in a way "natural". Take a look at the article below. It's about two "gay" penguins.

Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate
Dinitia Smith, New York Times

Saturday, February 7, 2004

New York -- Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.

When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born.

For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said.

Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."

But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean it is natural for humans? And that raises a familiar question: If homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?

The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new.

"There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality.

Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Females have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.

Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, 'The females are very affectionate.' "

Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species.

Last summer, the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law.

In his book, Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild.

Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate.

Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peekaboo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex.

Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UC Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.

Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, says their homosexuality "is about bond formation, not about being sexual for life."

She said studies show that adult male dolphins form long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male.

"Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added.

Scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."

But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."

What the animal studies do show, Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think."

"You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate."

In bonobos, she noted: "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly, you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction."

[jerickson314]

This is nothing new. For one, animals aren't people and how they behave should not affect human behavior.

If homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?

Equivocation. There are two distinct definitions of homosexuality at work here:

1.) Attraction to other members of the same sex.
2.) Sexual activity with other members of the same sex.

Their logic, in summary, is:

1.) Homosexuality (definition 1) is not a choice.
2.) Therefore homosexuality (definition 2) is morally acceptable.

It doesn't follow at all, since we are talking about two completely different kinds of "homosexuality". I've seen this error commited over and over and over and over by gay rights activists.

Any system of thought that considers homosexuality (definition 2) to be inevitable and the result of factors beyond control would logically also have to make the same conclusion about theft and homicide.

[Kurieuo]

I remember hearing somewhere (either here, or on a documentary) that there were two gorillas in a zoo who they were wanting to have babies. Yet, they never had sexual intercourse. Then someone thought, maybe they don't know what to do? So they got a television and video and played it to them, then sure enough they were soon at it.

Now there may be inclinations within us that make decisions harder, but I don't believe we aren't responsibile for giving into our inclinations. Genetic studies between identical twins have shown that an inconsistency exists that when one was homosexual, the other was very often not. Therefore homosexuality, while I believe these studies do show homosexual inclinations may exist biologically, they do not show they override our choices and take away our responsibility. Biblically we're called not to live in our sinful desires, even if we're even declared sinful and totally by nature through Adam, but unlike animals we're called to live above and transcend our nature, to be holy as God is holy.

Kurieuo.

[Forge]

I remember hearing somewhere (either here, or on a documentary) that there were two gorillas in a zoo who they were wanting to have babies. Yet, they never had sexual intercourse. Then someone thought, maybe they don't know what to do? So they got a television and video and played it to them, then sure enough they were soon at it.

If I understand you correctly, someone showed homosexual activity to them, and the gorillas started "doing it"?

Good Gord, make sure a TV set showing the Simpsons never gets left in a zoo.

[Kurieuo]

You can understand it however you like, but it made me think that if "sex" isn't necessarily a natural knowledge but has to be learnt, then how could homosexual acts be understood to be any more "natural"? If anything, this supports that our actions are not apart of who we physcially are.

Kurieuo.

[jerickson314]

You can understand it however you like, but it made me think that if "sex" isn't necessarily a natural knowledge but has to be learnt, then how could homosexual acts be understood to be any more "natural"?

Be careful with this argument, because it can go either way. "If 'sex' isn't necessarily a natural knowledge but has to be learned, then how could heterosexual acts be understood to be any more 'natural'?"

Of course, from here we can point out the reproductive aspects of heterosexual acts which do indeed make it more natural. However, this does show a weakness in your argument.

Another weakness in the original argument posted here was assuming that animal homosexuality would have to be inborn. This is basically like begging the question.

Now there may be inclinations within us that make decisions harder, but I don't believe we aren't responsibile for giving into our inclinations. Genetic studies between identical twins have shown that an inconsistency exists that when one was homosexual, the other was very often not. Therefore homosexuality, while I believe these studies do show homosexual inclinations may exist biologically, they do not show they override our choices and take away our responsibility. Biblically we're called not to live in our sinful desires, even if we're even declared sinful and totally by nature through Adam, but unlike animals we're called to live above and transcend our nature, to be holy as God is holy.

This is why there's no way around the fact that the argument I refuted earlier uses equivocation. I personally think simply calling it "equivocation" is an effective, direct way to attack the argument. I've actually found several common homosexual arguments that commit the fallacy of equivocation. ("Love" and "natural" being the words with swapped definitions)

To be honest, some Christians have used equivocation as well. Back to my original list of definitions for "homosexuality":

1.) Attraction to other members of the same sex.
2.) Sexual activity with other members of the same sex.

The fallacious argument used/implied by some Christians (an argument which in fact reaches a false conclusion) is as follows:

1.) In Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy, the Bible condemns homosexuality (definition 2).
2.) Therefore, homosexuality (definition 1) is wrong.

Don't use this argument. Not only is it fallacious, but it could alienate those who are homosexual under definition 1 only.

[Forge]

You can understand it however you like, but it made me think that if "sex" isn't necessarily a natural knowledge but has to be learnt, then how could homosexual acts be understood to be any more "natural"? If anything, this supports that our actions are not apart of who we physcially are.

Kurieuo.

Dude, it was a joke.

I think homosexuality is a "learned" behavior as well. Scientists haven't found the so-called "gay-gene", have they? Things like trauma can do that to a kid, jusy like some kids have this tendency to self-destruct.


By the way, Jerick, I agree with you concerning "Type 1 and 2" Homosexual definitions. I'm loving towards all people, but that doesn't mean I have to love and approve all actions.

[jerickson314]

BTW, I have a few words regarding the terminology. In a more general context, you can use "Same-sex attraction", "Same-sex attracted", etc. (or SSA for short) to refer to those who are homosexual under my definition 1. (Some replace "sex" with "gender" and use SGA, but it doesn't make much difference.) You can use "Active homosexual", "Actively homosexual", etc. to refer to those who are homosexual under definition 2. With this terminology, it is clear what you actually mean. It is also nearly impossible to commit equivocation when you clearly indicate what you mean.

This article discusses the issue in much more detail.

[Kurieuo]

You can understand it however you like, but it made me think that if "sex" isn't necessarily a natural knowledge but has to be learnt, then how could homosexual acts be understood to be any more "natural"?

Be careful with this argument, because it can go either way. "If 'sex' isn't necessarily a natural knowledge but has to be learned, then how could heterosexual acts be understood to be any more 'natural'?"

I understand, but it is important to realise "natural" is being used in two different ways. As you tend to go into, one should be aware of ambiguously equivocating on one meaning of "natural" to argue for an entirely different meaning.

Now "natural" in the reasoning originally posted is assumed as something innate to who we are. On this understanding, sex even between people of different sexes isn't natural, for as I reasoned in my previous post our sexual orientation isn't apart of who we are. And although I believe this to be an inadequate or even faulty definition of "natural," it was the one I was working with since it was one used.

Of course, from here we can point out the reproductive aspects of heterosexual acts which do indeed make it more natural. However, this does show a weakness in your argument.

Correct. And here you expose the other definition of "natural" which is viewed as fulfillment of an intended design. This is were heterosexual sex is indeed natural, for it fulfills an intended design regardless of whether one thinks "Nature" or God designed us. On this definition, it is hard to conceive how sexual acts between humans of the same sex could be viewed as natural. So the only weakness in my argument is that I was working with an ambiguous and I believe inadequate definition of natural to begin with.

I also think you make some good and important points with regards to definitions of homosexuality.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

You can understand it however you like, but it made me think that if "sex" isn't necessarily a natural knowledge but has to be learnt, then how could homosexual acts be understood to be any more "natural"? If anything, this supports that our actions are not apart of who we physcially are.

Kurieuo.

Dude, it was a joke.

I think homosexuality is a "learned" behavior as well. Scientists haven't found the so-called "gay-gene", have they? Things like trauma can do that to a kid, jusy like some kids have this tendency to self-destruct.

No, you made a valid point. One I was expecting, but just didn't want to tackle in my first post.

Kurieuo.

[Forge]

No, you made a valid point. One I was expecting, but just didn't want to tackle in my first post.

Kurieuo.

Eh?
Someone seems to know more about my own head that I do! What point did you think I make?

[Kurieuo]

The point I believed you made was that if I'm implying normal sex had to be observed by some gorillas, then by the same reasoning homosexual sex also needs to be observed. Yet I'm not really fussed about someone drawing this conclusion from what I wrote, rather I am interested in making the point that our actions are not made into us to begin with.

Kurieuo.

[jerickson314]

I understand, but it is important to realise "natural" is being used in two different ways. As you tend to go into, one should be aware of ambiguously equivocating on one meaning of "natural" to argue for an entirely different meaning.

I alluded to this, when I said

I've actually found several common homosexual arguments that commit the fallacy of equivocation. ("Love" and "natural" being the words with swapped definitions)

Though I don't see where the equivocation comes into my argument. I just swapped a word, and then proved that heterosexuality was indeed more a part of nature. I guess it would still be learned behavior, so simply proving that it has a function could imply equivocation.

[Forge]

The point I believed you made was that if I'm implying normal sex had to be observed by some gorillas, then by the same reasoning homosexual sex also needs to be observed. Yet I'm not really fussed about someone drawing this conclusion from what I wrote, rather I am interested in making the point that our actions are not made into us to begin with.

I don't know. The act of “doing it” may have to be taught, to some extent. However, the sexual attraction isn't learned, more like rooted by some permanent event.
Instincts are born into us, morals and values and personal acts are not. We need to learn them.

[ochotseat]

I think homosexuality is a "learned" behavior as well. Scientists haven't found the so-called "gay-gene", have they? Things like trauma can do that to a kid, jusy like some kids have this tendency to self-destruct.


By the way, Jerick, I agree with you concerning "Type 1 and 2" Homosexual definitions. I'm loving towards all people, but that doesn't mean I have to love and approve all actions.

It's probably not genetic, because their parents were heterosexuals.

There was a recent news story in which researchers stated that the cause of homosexuality is chemical imbalances in synchronization with environmental factors. But many criminals also have these conditions. Regardless of the means, as existentialists have purported, we have a choice, so homosexuals have a choice of being homosexual or not.