Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[Furcifer]

You are ignoring the pejorative part of calling someone a deviant.

All you've done it get worked up and name call. You haven't presented any evidence to support your claim.

You say it's pejorative, I say it isn't.

All you've been left with is trying to label me as a troll or a bigot, so that it will seem pejorative.

The only thing we've outed here is your prejudices. Yours and many others here, who feel it necessary to name call or make threats when they don't like what they hear.

 

[Furcifer]

Actually you can solidly define deviance. In this case, the definition you're using has to do with social norms. To find out if something is deviant then, first we have to look at what those social norms are. Of course, by this definition deviance caries no moral value one way or the other, as by it civil rights leaders might have been considered deviant, for instance.

I've been looking for definitions on deviance and I fouund thispaper.

I'm not sure what it is, it looks like lecture notes from someone at the University of Hawaii. Some interesting ideas, but I noticed atheism listed as deviant. I never thought about it, but in terms of behaviour even atheism could be considered deviant.

Sexual perversion or paraphilia has nothing to do with homosexual sex, or anal sex. In a clinical sense, the jump from deviant behaviour to sexual perversion doens't exist.

 

[Furcifer]

Sure he does. It is just a set of pronouncements about what is and is not acceptable behavior, and not dirrived from some basic moral principle.

This is rather like many moral codes. It is arbitrary and inconsistent, but not really uncommon.

This is an outright lie. I don't have any moral objections to homosexuality or anal sex. Stop the lies please. Thanks.

 

[Earthborn]

I mean, do fish have gay sex for pleasure? Giraffes? Geese?

Quite likely, yes.

I'm all for calling out bigots, but if you go by any biology book...

Any biology book? How about the books Joan Roughgarden wrote... You know, the person who is the topic of this thread?

Oral and anal sex are for PLEASURE, not procreation... and in the animal kingdom, sex is about procreation. Forget the buzzwords like "deviance" -- animals that have sex for pleasure are a huge minority.

If that were true, there wouldn't be much procreation in the animal kingdom. Most animals probably have no knowledge of the connection between sex and procreation, so if it was about procreation for them they wouldn't have a clue what to do. They have sex because they find it pleasurable. Not really any other reason.

(fruit bats engage in fellatio to help with procreation, btw. Not because they enjoy Cher.)

Which is the reason for Roughgarden to come up with the whole concept of "social selection" and her critique of "sexual selection": often homosexual or gender variant behaviour increases reproductive success rather than hinders it.

This says there are possibly 1.5 million to 50 million species of animals on our planet. This says there are 1500 species that practice homosexuality. 1500 out of 50 million = "huge majority?"

The article doesn't say "at most 1500". It says that in 1500 species it has been observed. Actually "described" would be a better word than "observed", because Roughgarden often likes to point out that when she talks to colleagues they tell her that while they may have observed such behaviour, they often don't describe it in their papers.

When biologists do go out and specifically look for homosexual or gender variant behaviours to describe, they usually find it. And there is no real reason to assume it isn't widespread.

 

[MikeSun5]

...you can't consistently say that homosexuality is deviant because its uncommon and being left-handed is not.

Actually, kids used to get smacked on the hands in Catholic school for writing with their left hand. Happened to two of my uncles. They were being punished for what their teacher perceived as deviance.

You are ignoring the pejorative part of calling someone a deviant.

For the sake of the definition argument, yes I was... although the way I thought 3bodyproblem had initially defined it (and the way I just tried to) wasn't disparaging. By that definition, we all engage in deviant behavior every day.

The problem is when homosexuality is lumped in with pedophilia, rape, necrophilia, or some other such nastiness... and I think that's why you got pissed at 3bodyproblem. I didn't exactly think that's where he was coming from, so I piped up.

And there is no real reason to assume it isn't widespread.

That's why I multiplied the 1500 by 100 and decreased the 50 million to 1.5 million. That's 0.0003% all the way up to 10% If that's not accounting for the assumption of it being widespread, I don't know what is. I was just proving that homosexuality is in no way a "huge majority."

Right, but whether they are a majority or minority (I don't know), what relevance does that have to the topic at hand?

....uh, you mean the OP topic of what Darwin said about homosexuality? Yea sure... lecture me about being off topic.

 

[Furcifer]

The problem is when homosexuality is lumped in with pedophilia, rape, necrophilia, or some other such nastiness... and I think that's why you got pissed at 3bodyproblem. I didn't exactly think that's where he was coming from, so I piped up.

I didn't mean to imply that at all. I thought I made myself very clear from the get go. But then people started drawing lines and putting words into my mouth trying to imply that I was being pejorative in my use of the term "deviant", and somehow I was a biased bigot.

The more I read on this, the more I see the term "anomaly" being used. If it makes people feel any better I'll use the term "anomalous sexual behaviour".

But I'm pretty sure that implies that it's not "normal" as well.

 

[Earthborn]

That's why I multiplied the 1500 by 100 and decreased the 50 million to 1.5 million. That's 0.0003% all the way up to 10% If that's not accounting for the assumption of it being widespread, I don't know what is. I was just proving that homosexuality is in no way a "huge majority."

Your argument is similar to someone in the 19th century saying: "Mr. Darwin, so you have proved that 1500 animal species have evolved from a common ancestor. Let's be generous and assume the actual number of evolved species is 100 larger... There are 1.5 million animal species, so that just proves that there is no way a 'huge majority' of species has evolved."

No, it is not accounting for the assumption of it being widespread. If you want to prove that homosexual behaviour exist in only minority, you have to explain what is stopping it from existing in all sexually reproducing animals.

 

[MikeSun5]

...what is stopping it from existing in all sexually reproducing animals.

The desire/drive to reproduce?

 

[Earthborn]

The desire/drive to reproduce?

Does such a desire exist, or is it just a desire to have sex which may result in reproduction? How does it stop sexually reproducing animals from engaging in homosexual acts?

 

[Alan]

Fact or fiction on Skeptics Guide to the universe.

Here's the article they used as the source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

The following should also be added, to give a more comprehensive understanding of the topic:

Unlike most humans, however, individual animals generally cannot be classified as gay or straight: an animal that engages in a same-sex flirtation or partnership does not necessarily shun heterosexual encounters. Rather many species seem to have ingrained homosexual tendencies that are a regular part of their society. That is, there are probably no strictly gay critters, just bisexual ones. “Animals don’t do sexual identity. They just do sex,” says sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath in England.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species

 

[Furcifer]

The following should also be added, to give a more comprehensive understanding of the topic:


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species

I'm not understanding the reference to bisexual behaviours in a small percentage of animal pairings as having anything to do with homosexuality in humans?

 

[Alan]

My post regarded the topic that homosexual behaviour is present among "a huge majority" of species, not specifically humans (although humans are among the animals that bisexual and homosexual behaviour is present in).

The addition of the information that individual animals engaging in homosexual behaviour are not likely to exclusively engage in homosexual behaviour is related to that topic.

See below to see what I was responding to:

Really? Huge majority? Where did you get this information? You're going to have to redefine "sexual relations" and "huge majority" before you go spouting off some crazy statement like that. You're also going to have to provide a link of some sort...

Fact or fiction on Skeptics Guide to the universe.

 

[Furcifer]

My post regarded the topic that homosexual behaviour is present among "a huge majority" of species, not specifically humans (although humans are among the animals that bisexual and homosexual behaviour is present in).

The addition of the information that individual animals engaging in homosexual behaviour are not likely to exclusively engage in homosexual behaviour is related to that topic.

See below to see what I was responding to:

Poor formatting on my part Alan, it was a general question not directed at you.

 

[Roboramma]

Actually, kids used to get smacked on the hands in Catholic school for writing with their left hand. Happened to two of my uncles. They were being punished for what their teacher perceived as deviance.

Which has nothing to do with my point. 3bodyproblem views homosexuality as deviant, but left-handedness as not deviant, which, according to the definition you (and earlier he) offered, is inconsistent.

Saying that at some time in the past others have applied that definition consistently has nothing at all to do with this discussion.

That's why I multiplied the 1500 by 100 and decreased the 50 million to 1.5 million. That's 0.0003% all the way up to 10% If that's not accounting for the assumption of it being widespread, I don't know what is. I was just proving that homosexuality is in no way a "huge majority."

But that is a totally unjustified method. Why multiply by 100 and not 1,000,000?
You do realise that of those "50 million species", the vast majority have never been described right? They are guessed at existing based on doing things like going to the amazon, killing all the insects in a tree, seeing how many of them are new to science, and extrapolating from that to how many more new insects there must be.
Which means we know abosultely nothing about whether they homosexual or not.
If you took known, described species in which homosexuality has been looked for and compared that to those in which homosexual behavior was found, you might have a point.

 

[MikeSun5]

My post regarded the topic that homosexual behaviour is present among "a huge majority" of species, not specifically humans (although humans are among the animals that bisexual and homosexual behaviour is present in).

That's some good information you dug up, but I'm not sure if it completely applies... I'm thinking now that it was a mistake on my part to equate human homosexuality with homosexuality in the animal kingdom -- the devil's advocacy aside.

The reason I say that is because after reading that article, it's pretty clear that animals engage in homosexual behavior for WAY different reasons than we do. They either don't understand what they're doing, or they do it for reasons that actually help their pack/flock/pod/whatever. Humans on the other hand have the mental capacity to make a choice. We prefer one over the other, and some do prefer both. According to the article, animals that engage in homosexual behavior will engage in heterosexual behavior just as quickly... not exactly so with people.

IMO, bisexuality in humans is just being greedy.

 

[Alan]

IMO, bisexuality in humans is just being greedy.

Ugh. You think being attracted to men and women is greedy? Is being attracted to redheads and brunettes greedy?

If you're defining it by behaviour, is having sex with more than one person in a lifetime "greedy" if the others are both of the same sex as each other?

 

[Roboramma]

....uh, you mean the OP topic of what Darwin said about homosexuality? Yea sure... lecture me about being off topic.

I was just hoping that you'd come out and say what you think the importance of what you said was.

 

[Alan]

That's some good information you dug up, but I'm not sure if it completely applies... I'm thinking now that it was a mistake on my part to equate human homosexuality with homosexuality in the animal kingdom -- the devil's advocacy aside.

The reason I say that is because after reading that article, it's pretty clear that animals engage in homosexual behavior for WAY different reasons than we do. They either don't understand what they're doing, or they do it for reasons that actually help their pack/flock/pod/whatever. Humans on the other hand have the mental capacity to make a choice. We prefer one over the other, and some do prefer both.

There is a wide range of reasons for homosexual (and heterosexual) behaviours. Some of those reasons also apply to humans.

According to the article, animals that engage in homosexual behavior will engage in heterosexual behavior just as quickly... not exactly so with people.

It's the case for me and many millions of other people.

 

[MikeSun5]

You think being attracted to men and women is greedy?

Nope, but I think you're lacking a sense of humor. I guess if I don't put a there, then nobody gets a joke... *sigh*

Ugh.

...tell me about it...

 

[Alan]

You might want to evaluate your own sense of humour.