Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[Alan]

Ahh, OK. I'm coming from the understanding that homosexuality implies exclusivity.

I typically do too, except when discussing engaging in acts. Sorry about that.

 

[Roboramma]

Doesn't the fact that all animals engage in sex negate this? I see where you are trying to go with this, but it falls flat when you consider sex itself is common among all animals.

I don't see how that negates the point, but I'm happy to work with another analogy:

Communication between individuals (whether chemical, audiotory, visual, etc) is common in the animal kingdom. Yet language is extremely uncommon. Are people who engage in speaking deviant because they are engaging in an activity which is uncommon in the animal kingdom? Or should we perhaps judge humans based on what is common in humans and not in the animal kingdom in general?

I mean are you really endorsing the idea that what is or is not common in the animal kingdom has some baring on what is or is not deviant behavior in humans?
I know you certainly never said it did have any bearing, so I'm surprised if you are endorsing that idea.

 

[Roboramma]

I think so. At that point it becomes a recessive trait.

And if you start yelling at me that the term "recessive trait" is pejorative I'm getting on a plane and coming over there to smack you!

 

[Furcifer]

I don't see how that negates the point, but I'm happy to work with another analogy:

Communication between individuals (whether chemical, audiotory, visual, etc) is common in the animal kingdom. Yet language is extremely uncommon. Are people who engage in speaking deviant because they are engaging in an activity which is uncommon in the animal kingdom? Or should we perhaps judge humans based on what is common in humans and not in the animal kingdom in general?

I mean are you really endorsing the idea that what is or is not common in the animal kingdom has some baring on what is or is not deviant behavior in humans?
I know you certainly never said it did have any bearing, so I'm surprised if you are endorsing that idea.

I'm going to back off on this because I'm a little confused, and I think you're right.

 

[MikeSun5]

Please quote what is said in the article that shows I'm wrong.

Uh... the part that says, "Animals don't do sexual identity, they just do sex." Humans have sexual identities because we are capable of preference. We have not yet been able to prove that animals "prefer" one sex over another.

I simply asked you why you think the later has anything to do with 3bodyproblem being right about sex.

No you did not. Now you're not even reading your own posts. You repeatedly asked why I though my statement about homosexuality being a minority was important. I said because homosexuality being prevalent in "huge majority" was false.

You obviously do your research, but until you start reading the posts, I really don't want to converse with you... I know there's a lot of them, but come on.

The claim was that homosexuality existed in a huge majority of animal species. It wasn't about individual animals. If all species of animals had only 1 in a 1000 individuals engaging in any form of homosexual behaviour, the claim would still be true.

I will happily eat my words if you or ponderingturtle can prove that. You all know the deal: the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim...

First, one of you has to define "huge majority" -- which nobody is willing to do. What is it? 60%? 75%? 90%? What's considered a "huge" majority?

Then you must prove that homosexuality is practiced regularly among that group -- which nobody is able to do. If only 1500 species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, then that's all you've got. Nevermind the assumption that it might be widespread. You know what they say about assuming.

 

[Roboramma]

Uh... the part that says, "Animals don't do sexual identity, they just do sex." Humans have sexual identities because we are capable of preference. We have not yet been able to prove that animals "prefer" one sex over another.

Right, so we don't know that they don't prefer one or the other either. Not proving A does not prove not-A. Which is all I was saying.

I'll quote myself again so that you can see that:

There's no reason to assume that some animals don't prefer homosexual or hetrosexual sex. The fact that some humans are exclusive in this regard may have more to do with culture than biology.

 

[Roboramma]

No you did not. Now you're not even reading your own posts. You repeatedly asked why I though my statement about homosexuality being a minority was important. I said because homosexuality being prevalent in "huge majority" was false.

Yes, I did. Perhaps I didn't phrase it like that you interpretted my question of you wrong. That's okay, I accept responsiblity for not making myself clear, and maybe that's why I was getting so frustrated when you didn't seem to be answering me, because you thought you had answered me.

But given what I quoted you saying, and my last post explaining what I wanted to know, can you now answer the question?
I have pretty clearly so far never made any assertion about homosexuality being either in the minority or the majority in the animal kingdom, because I honestly don't know.

Then you must prove that homosexuality is practiced regularly among that group -- which nobody is able to do. If only 1500 species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, then that's all you've got. Nevermind the assumption that it might be widespread. You know what they say about assuming.

Well, if 1500 species were studied for homosexuality, and all turned out to exhibit homosexuality, that would be strong evidence that homosexuality is widespread. Of course it's not proof, but as is cliche to point out around here, science is not about proof.

Edit: just to avoid being misunderstood: I don't know that only 1500 species have been studied for homosexuality, I'm only suggesting that if that were the case, it would be evidence.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

They may be a minority, but that doesn't really mean anything does it? Are female bonobos who engage in oral sex with each other deviant? I mean, what point are you trying to make here? That humans are strange because we get pleasure out of sex?
Even if true (ie. even if it's true that other animals don't get pleasure from sex, a claim I doubt) what of it. It doesn't change the fact that for humans sex is as much about pleasure as anything else.

This was the first post I made asking you what point you were making. I thought it was clear that I wanted to know why you thought that homosexuality being in the minority in the animal kingdom had any bearing on 3bodyproblem being right, but I suppose I could have made that more clear.

You responded thus:

That you guys misunderstood 3bodyproblem's point of view. I think if he had kept scientific facts and his opinions on gays separate, this thread would have been on topic (and probably way shorter )

I meant what point were you trying to make with the quoted text:



In what way does that suggest that 3bodyproblem has been misunderstood? I just don't see the relevance.

Yes, because others seem to think they're 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?



So what point are you trying to make when you say that homosexuality is extremely uncommon in animals?

etc. etc.

 

[Earthborn]

First, one of you has to define "huge majority" -- which nobody is willing to do. What is it? 60%? 75%? 90%? What's considered a "huge" majority?

I think something close to 100% (of species) should count as a "huge majority" (of species).

We have not yet been able to prove that animals "prefer" one sex over another.

Now you're not even reading your own posts. If animals have no preference, than homosexual behaviour among all animals should be very widespread. Each individual animal would copulate with its own sex just as often as with the opposite sex. But that appears not to be true; many animals prefer the opposite sex if they get the chance. Likely a majority of individual animals are primarily heterosexual, just like humans.

Then you must prove that homosexuality is practiced regularly among that group -- which nobody is able to do.

Nobody has to prove that, because that's not the claim.

 

[MikeSun5]

I have pretty clearly so far never made any assertion about homosexuality being either in the minority or the majority in the animal kingdom, because I honestly don't know.

Gotcha. ...and upon further review, I do have to retract the statement that they're an overwhelming minority because I too have no idea. I'm still not convinced they're a huge majority though.

I think something close to 100% (of species) should count as a "huge majority" (of species).

Yes, that would qualify as huge. ...soooooo, got any evidence that close to 100% of species engage in homosexual behavior?

Now you're not even reading your own posts. If animals have no preference, than homosexual behaviour among all animals should be very widespread.

Cute. Guess that makes a bunch of us that don't read, then. Where in my posts did I ever say "animals have no preference?" You're putting words into my mouth. I said we haven't been able to prove one way or another. Go take a peek. As far as we know, any given ecosystem could be like Big Gay Al's Animal Sanctuary.

---------
...a little clarification...

If someone wants to use the word that way, I don't care, but you can't consistently say that homosexuality is deviant because its uncommon and being left-handed is not.
If being left-handed is not deviant then there is some other criteria beyond the one given for determining whether or not homosexuality is deviant. I simply want to know what it is.

In the way I had attempted to define "deviance" for the purpose of this conversation, left-handedness could most definitley be called deviant, as it's a behavior not engaged in by the majority of the population. Odd word choice sure, but by that definition here in America eating healthy is deviant. Down here in Florida, safe driving is deviant.

That's really the reason I piped up in the first place. We later learned that the term deviant was being used to say "disliked" or "gross," which I too disagree with.

 

[Furcifer]

In the way I had attempted to define "deviance" for the purpose of this conversation, left-handedness could most definitley be called deviant, as it's a behavior not engaged in by the majority of the population. Odd word choice sure, but by that definition here in America eating healthy is deviant. Down here in Florida, safe driving is deviant.

The reason I used the term originally was because I've heard it used in a pejorative way and it shouldn't be. As if being deviant is a reason to dismiss someone or something as "wrong" or immoral. Someone favoring their left hand doesn't give you the right to smack them upside the head.

I think perhaps I may be a little too progressive in my way of thinking. We're just not at that stage yet. It's still necessary to try and be as politically correct as we can because we are still dealing with some very prejudiced people.

 

[Earthborn]

Yes, that would qualify as huge. ...soooooo, got any evidence that close to 100% of species engage in homosexual behavior?

Only the evidence that it would be very strange if it wasn't. Even if in the majority of animal species homosexual behaviours provide no evolutionary advantage, there would still be "misdirected" sexual encounters -- perhaps only a few percent. There is no such thing as perfection and therefore no such thing as heterosexuality that never fails.

Where in my posts did I ever say "animals have no preference?"

Nowhere, and I didn't say that you did. I just said that your claim of an unproven sexual preference in animals, and your claim that homosexuality exists in less than a majority of animal species aren't compatible. The claims are mutually exclusive; if homosexual behaviour exists only in a minority of animal species, that very fact would be sufficient proof that a heterosexual preference exists.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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...

I told you where I got the claim from.

For the sake of this argument, we should probably use the phrase "non-reproductive" sex, because I've seen how you fixate on one word and just run with it. "Pleasure" might be too much of a buzzword for you to handle.

I "fixate" on words that are used in a perjorative sense against people.

3BP has been clear, he is unconfortable around homosexuals and blames them for it. If he had said the same thing about blacks no one would have questioned the bigot label. If only more blacks would pull and MJ and make their race hard to determine and hideable like sexuality it think about the strides you could make against people putting their blackness all in your face?

1500 out of 50 million = "huge majority?" Either your calculator is broken or mine is.

I never calculated it. Of course how many of thow 49998500 have been conclusively shown to not have homosexual behavior?

Then of course there is the point that for many of those homo and heterosexual behavior is not relevant as you need males and females for it to matter.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That you guys misunderstood 3bodyproblem's point of view. I think if he had kept scientific facts and his opinions on gays separate, this thread would have been on topic (and probably way shorter )

Sure, but he couldn't keep quite about how unconfortable gays make him.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Did someone make death threats? That sucks. Have you reported it?

If someone made death threats he should report them and they will be banned. But I have a feeling he will never support that statement.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Only because you are being pathetic and prejudiced. If you took the time to read and understand what I am saying you wouldn't be as ignorant. Take the time to consider things in context, instead of being lazy and only reading what you want to read.

3BP since your first post about this people have been trying to figure out what your criteria are for labeling something as deviant. You have not provided definition of when something is deviant behavior and when called on this you throw insults and accusations(now that people here made death threats to you).

 

[ponderingturtle]

OK. I said I was tired of homosexual behaviour being thrust in my face as normal.

It is normal. And in what way is it being thrust in your face? Why shouldn't homosexuals be able to express their feelings in the same fashion as heterosexuals?

I was (but I'm seriously not any longer, that time has come and past) uncomfortable with anal sex. I just didn't get it. You want to love another dude, fine, but at the end of the day, how you express your love for one another seems a little convoluted. I get hetero sex, it makes sense. But if I was relegated to putting my penis in a womans rectum I'd be like "WTF?" This doesn't make sense. There's a perfectly good place to be doing this, it looks right, and hey it seems to be ready for me. Now if I was with a dude, and I wanted to share my love, I'd be pretty damned confused. Over here you got a straight dude, and he's got the Cadillac of places to put his thing, and then there's me, looking at not such a good place to put my penis. Are you following me here? Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not sure you are, because there have been a bunch of people posting here like the rectum is such a good place to insert your penis into. It isn't. It might be your thing and you might be totally into it, but trust me IT AIN'T THE REAL THING. I'm getting pretty tired of telling these people what the difference is, and why the vagina is the right place. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. The rest of us, WE GET IT.

Again you can't describe this with out insulting those who are different from you. You are making statements about who one is better than another, not that you simply perfer one to the other.

Why not go with a more classical defintions and have oral sex more taboo than homosexual sex? That was the good old roman view of morality. Cunnilingus was right out, a mans mouth getting penetrated by a vagina like that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I should? Take a look, the experts haven't given any consistent criteria. It's a little more complex than that. I already gave a textbook definition of deviant that sources 4 different meanings. Maybe you need to use some common sense and logic instead of relying on Webster's or me to help you.

As you refuse to clearify how you use it why shouldn't we use the accepted moral definitions that are the ones applied to sex then?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Then why don't you label blacks and redheads as deviants? In the mathmaticals sense they are.

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

No I have been pointing you that you are a bigot, you ahve been doing a very good job at providing evidence of it yourself.

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.

I am prejudiced at people who call all homosexuals perverts? I am ok with that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Except that from the very start he refused to label uncomon traits deviant if he was confortable with them.

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.

So what? He is disparraging of homosexuals just because he is not as disparraging of homosexuals as some it is OK? Just because others are more bigoted I do not excuse bigoted behavior.

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."

Good to know how many species have been proven to not have homosexual behavior.

If only 1500 species have been looked at for this and 1500 instances have been found it then is a rather high majority of them. Think of all those species in your numbers that we have a few dead examples of, we know nothing about their sexual behavior at all, and yet you assume that it must be strictly heterosexual. Rather biased of you really.