Live data from Hacker News

Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

queerty.com

71–80 of 163 posts

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#71
post #18

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…

because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together Why? This strikes me as a very shallow moral principle. As 'presscast notes it completely misses the point of the nature of a life well-lived. Ironically, in practice it goes against human nature. Atomized society of people passing each other indifferently is certainly freer in some sense but it's also lonely and depressing for many of it…

Because why not? They are not hurting anybody so let them have fun.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#72

Sigh, I clicked on this link and now Google Add Sense or whatever browser tracker is pushing gay dating site banners to my browser...who knew hot young Russian men wanted to meet me!?!

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#73

Sigh, I clicked on this link and now Google Add Sense or whatever browser tracker is pushing gay dating site banners to my browser...who knew hot young Russian men wanted to meet me!?!

Is not using an ad blocker a conscious decision on your part? I just have trouble coming up with any logical reason for an even remotely technically skilled person to be risking browsing the modern web without one.

The only people I know personally who aren't using them end up immediately installing one or asking to have one installed as soon as they find out it's an option. This group typically consists of grandparents and other people who know little to nothing about the internet.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#74
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?

Differentiating the facts from speculations and of the projections of our perceptions and experiences as a species onto other species?

Who am I to say why an animal who's mind I have no insight into is having sex? I wouldn't even dare to begin supposing pretending I have any idea of what's going on in an octopus' mind(s).

(Although I did once read a fascinating fiction on some blog about exactly that. Can't find it now)

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#75
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…

“Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

So ironically if homosexuality IS a sin; then these are the people Jesus came for, spent time with, and calls

Tax collectors in this context refers to Jews who consorted with Romans to effectively extort from their own countrymen

> When you say "homosexuality" do you mean homosexual proclivities, or homosexual acts? It's an important nuance. For example, Judiasm/Christianity/Islam teaches...

Jesus: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”

He says it is bad to desire something bad. This isn't playng with nuance. Slightly later he says: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” A tough call, but then the writer of half the NT was a hater and murderer of Chrstians -- Acts 9 describes how he met Jesus and was accepted/forgiven

> And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics.

* Masturbation: I'm not sure where this could be from * Fish: "Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat." (Leviticus 11)

Etc. But actually we are both being anti-biblical here. Sure, there are detailed and unusual laws, but God frequently and directly asks people to focus on other things:

“But give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.”

Or Jesus: “Woe to you [religious teachers]. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law--justice, mercy, and faithfulness.”

And many more... To be wrapped up in the law of what is right or wrong --even homosexuality-- is to 100% miss what the Bible teaches

“If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.” (Galatians 2)

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#77
post #52
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I get your point but this seems to also be an argument in bad faith. The point is to show that it is likely that homosexuality is more innate than "a choice" or something you can catch, for the purposes of informing our moral judgements.

Wait, how does its existence in the animal kingdom affect the likelihood that it is innate vs. environmentally acquired?

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#78
post #52
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I get your point but this seems to also be an argument in bad faith. The point is to show that it is likely that homosexuality is more innate than "a choice" or something you can catch, for the purposes of informing our moral judgements.

"innate" is another word for natural; they have the same root. That doesn't even matter for the question of whether homosexuality is beneficial or moral. Completely orthogonal questions.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#79

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.

People like sex. They don't accept public obscenity usually due to common sense objective realities, i.e. children being present.

So there is this.

And there is some more: as a dominant bdsm heterosexual person for some reason I don't feel an urge to present my sexual preference to the whole world all the time and demanding the public to accept it. Or even having it recognized as part of my "identity". Sex is sex, happens in bed with my wife and is between us. Why in the world I would have a need to demand my friends, family, co-workers to have them accept the reality that I like to see blood on my wife's butt before I slide between them --- this is silly. Isn't that this piece where homosexuals are just so oblivious that they simply don't recognize that the whole world doesn't neccessarily care about them putting the thing in another guys anus? Why do we need to have parades about that? Why do we need special laws for the condition? Am I going to get treated differently during employment process next time because I'm into bdsm? I mean that are idiots who say yes, bdsm is just another sexual preference. So I would be sexual minority. And would be need it so much more at places like Google or Apple to fullfil some idiotic quota. Good job America you guys are beyond hilarious! Anthropologist in the future will have bunch of a good time looking at you! And please don't downvote that would be pure nazism. I mean where are we going with this?

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#80

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…

>Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together.

I think most are on board with that - they just can't agree on when that default should be overridden (either by making certain activity legal or more commonly by simply subjecting it to social disapproval). Such areas of contention include way more than homosexuality, e.g. prostitution, quid pro quo sexual harassment, incest, large age / maturity gaps in relationships, mental disability, bdsm, threesomes, masturbation, and porn use.

Post reply on HN