Live data from Hacker News

Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

queerty.com

61–70 of 163 posts

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#61
post #57

What I never understood is why these animals are actually considered "attracted to the same sex" when they really just "have sex with the same sex". Perhaps this distinction does not seem like it matters but I predict in the future this distinction will be extremely common (in humans at least).

I don't typically have sex with things I'm not attracted to... And even if psychologically my sexual impulse seems different from that of an animal's, it's biologically the same.

What purpose does this distinction serve?

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#62
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Your friend's argument would not work at all against people who are against homosexuality, because their answer to all of those questions would simply be "no." The "it's no…

> The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow I understand what you mean, but it doesn't seem to be the case. In regards to sexual preferences, for example, there are some that are, arguably, not a choice either, and still are considered absolutely forbidden. > For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any p…

Having moved on from biblical interpretations, sexual preferences are usually considered absolutely forbidden if participants can't give informed adult consent. So - voyeurism, anything involving children and animals, and so on.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence that sexuality can be changed by conscious choice. So if your sexuality runs along those lines you're going to have a bad time, because you'll either have to repress your urges, or risk actions that damage others, possibly with criminal consequences.

The edge cases of this can become ridiculous - but still tragic. E.g. there are people who are primarily turned on by paving stones and/or drain covers.

It's not really obvious what "natural" means in this context. Is this imprinting? Genetics? Something else? There aren't any good answers. Criminal law does the best it can with them, but it's not clear that choice really applies, and criminal punishment is pointless and ineffective anyway - either as a deterrent or as rehabilitation.

The bigger moral question is maybe why some social groups seem obsessed with what they consider sexual deviance - including their beliefs about homosexuality - while apparently ignoring other moral and social questions.

What is the psychological process that turns homosexuality into a uniquely disturbing moral problem for them, while other hot-button issues - poverty, diet, government and corporate corruption, take your pick from a long list - are relatively uninteresting for them?

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#63

I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. It relies on the naturalistic fallacy which I don't like, but it also shuts down people who make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad, which I do like. Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they wa…

>we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together

When does "by default" become "actually, no, that's bad and even consenting adults shouldn't do that"? If you want to take a strong position that there should be no such thing as a victimless crime, then that's coherent and valid - but if you want to hedge with "by default", I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't. You still have to say something pragmatic like "homosexuality has no documented negative social effects".

(Although personally, I do think that the very idea of a victimless crime is suspect - while some behaviors between consenting adults do have unambiguously negative consequences, criminalizing actions for their invisible second-order effects seems to often cause other, nastier second-order effects. But it's certainly up for debate - applying this rigorously would mean e.g. legalizing all drugs, which is a difficult sell.)

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#64
post #61
post #57

What I never understood is why these animals are actually considered "attracted to the same sex" when they really just "have sex with the same sex". Perhaps this distinction does not seem like it matters but I predict in the future this distinction will be extremely common (in humans at least).

I don't typically have sex with things I'm not attracted to... And even if psychologically my sexual impulse seems different from that of an animal's, it's biologically the same. What purpose does this distinction serve?

Many people do have sex with people they're not attracted to, and many people do not have sex with people they are attracted to. The distinction is useful.

Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#65
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, people are talking about what's spiritually natural. Talking about what's biologically natural is just missing the point. Also, why do you feel the Christian sacred texts doesn't really condemn homosexuality? I feel you have to do a lot of extra-textual analysis and theory-crafting to reach that perspective, so it's no surprise that Christians in general don't buy that idea.

It's been a while, but IIRC, the Bible only condemns homosexual sex specifically. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are modern inventions. Many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks) saw no conflict between their ideals of what we would consider "straight" sexuality and homosexual relationships. And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women insid…

It’s perhaps a digression, but where does the Bible condemn masturbation? The verses that are commonly-cited (at least in my experience, which is mostly among Protestants) are pretty clearly grasping at straws.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#66
post #51
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way in which it could be an adaption that actually helps its bearer's genes would be as an overpopulation safety valve. Instead of the whole group starving (all of them closely related genes), pause breeding for a while? I would expect that most species that have some form of throttling reaction like that would apply the brakes to female fertility because that is also relevant for individual survival, but it shou…

There are a bunch of plausible theories that ethologists have come up with for evolution of homosexuality. This is one of them - and it does show up in other experiments, e.g. with rats: if you make their population denser, a higher proportion exhibits same-sex behavior. But it's not the only one. Another is that species that employ K strategy (low reproduction rates, high investment into offspring to ensure its surv…

The K strategy theory looks reasonable, but I don't see how evolution could develop a population-control mechanism like the parent comment postulated. If you start with an overly-dense population that's half straight and half gay, the straight ones are still at an evolutionary advantage relative to the gay ones. It doesn't matter that they'll all die when they reach the reproduction rates of a 100% straight population, that's still where the evolutionary forces will take them.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#67

Does it have to do anything with nature? For example, having sex is completely natural, but doing so in public is frowned upon. On the other hand, walking on arms upside down is completely unnatural, but perfectly acceptable in the middle of town center.

It doesn't. Many people just dislike other people having sex (and this probably is natural). They can't say anything against people doing it in accordance with the standard but as soon as something doesn't fit in the puritan template they find an excuse.

Disliking other people having Sex? — You should tell the porn industry so they adapt their business model.

Maybe people don't like to be watched, but I think there is a string driver to also reproduce and for men to put one's semen, ideally replacing the other man's.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#68
post #16

My go-to link for countering " is unnatural" was [1], this article seems like a great one to add to the arsenal :). That's not to say I believe human behaviour should somehow be judged by finding equivalents in the animal kingdom (what a silly concept!), it's just fun to point out to someone that even their ridiculous point is technically incorrect. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20140723175514/http://www.blaghag...

> it's just fun to point out to someone that even their ridiculous point is technically incorrect. What's ridiculous is looking to the animal kingdom to judicate what's normal for human homosexuality in either direction. Lots of mammals eat their young, I wouldn't use this as evidence to normalize infant cannibalism.

Who said anything about "normal", such a useless term. The argument is that it is unnatural, when clearly that's not the case.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#69

I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. It relies on the naturalistic fallacy which I don't like, but it also shuts down people who make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad, which I do like. Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they wa…

I agree, but as a gay ex-Mormon, I have seen that educating people about the (mostly) biological origin of homosexuality is the most effective way to break through people’s dogmatic shields and make them start empathizing with gay people.

The danger of assigning a biological cause is that now with CRISPR there is the argument that we should find the site(s) responsible and edit them out in future embryos. Just accepting the result without assigning a cause doesn't have this problem.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#70
post #29

I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. It relies on the naturalistic fallacy which I don't like, but it also shuts down people who make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad, which I do like. Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they wa…

> I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. I always thought that the argument was just for the sake of proving that this natural/unnatural thing is worthless. Homosexuality is natural and nonetheless someone opposes it on the grounds that it's not. Illnesses are natural but nobody is opposed to curing people. Anyway, it's the old observation that conservative…

It's a great observation. I think the conservative tendency feeds the liberal tendency.

Take racial differences. If any politically problematic difference between races were to be found, then a liberal will be very inclined to suppress this. Why? Because if the conservatives ever got ahold of it, they'd go "aha! racism is justified!" and there wouldn't ever be an end to it - arguing that racism is immoral is a lot harder, pragmatically, than arguing that it's simply mistaken.

I wonder if there's feedback the other way, as well. I can't immediately see the mechanism but I suspect there is one. Perhaps seeing liberalism associated with a deranged sense of reality causes people to reject it wholesale...

Post reply on HN