Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

queerty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 163 posts

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#91

Post by refurb »

MatekCopatek wrote: post #5

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...

Animals also intentionally kill their own species for no other reason than they want to to prevent competition and secure mates.

So using that same argument, murder is “natural”, too.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#92

Post by peteretep »

kakarot wrote: post #61
chess93 wrote: 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?

Plenty of people have sex with their hand, or an object. Dogs hump legs. Sexual attraction and the desire to orgasm are distinct.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#93

Post by refurb »

fenwick67 wrote: post #4

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…

“Let two consenting adults do what they want to do” has it’s limits too?”

Like the guy who agreed to be murdered and eaten in Germany?

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#94

Post by peteretep »

blfr wrote: post #18
fenwick67 wrote: post #4

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…

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights in at least one well-known country. Being able to bang who you want (assuming they feel the same way) presumably falls under the third?

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#95

Post by balfirevic »

dTal wrote: post #63
fenwick67 wrote: post #4

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…

> I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't.

I don't think this is abstract ethical argument, but practical argument about policy. So we don't have to provide any stronger framework. Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant.

Starting from "allowed by default" would already be a big improvement.

> applying this rigorously would mean e.g. legalizing all drugs, which is a difficult sell

Homosexuality was also a difficult sell. That doesn't mean anything.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#96

Post by everdev »

refurb wrote: post #91
MatekCopatek wrote: post #5

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...

Animals also intentionally kill their own species for no other reason than they want to to prevent competition and secure mates. So using that same argument, murder is “natural”, too.

Right, if we only measure what's "natural" by what exists in the broader animal kingdom than anything uniquely human (commerce, religion, science, a written language, morality, philosophy, etc.) would appear to be "unnatural".

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#97

Post by EGreg »

nintendo95 wrote: post #76

Serious question: does anyone know how are homosexual monkeys treated by their peers? Basically, I was wondering if there is a proof of them being discriminated/treated badly by their peers.

I don’t know who badgerigar is, but his comment was flagged and killed, even though it is scientifially correct.

Although animals have been observed to have same-sex coupling, they mix it up with males and females. In the animal kingdom the only species that have been observed to have exclusively homosexual sex are humans and domesticated sheep. One would think that a sexual organism never having heterosexual sex would be a huge evolutionary fitness disadvantage, and such a trait would be extremely uncommon. There are some caveats, for example: Sharks are able to reproduce asexually, and frogs can “switch” genders AFTER reproduction, during adverse conditions. But lifelong homosexuality has not been observed in species other than humans and domesticated sheep, which suggests that relaxed evolutionary pressures may be a necessary component.

From Wikipedia

Simon LeVay introduced caveat that "[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[8] One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[9][10] "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[10]

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#98

Post by saalweachter »

ng12 wrote: post #16
MatekCopatek wrote: post #5

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.

Just as importantly, science is always open to revision. You have to be careful how you use science in informing your morals for that reason.

If in ten years, this research into animal sexuality was show to be falsified, misinterpreted, or just not representative of a wide range of nature, would you then decide human homosexuality is morally wrong?

That's the real risk of taking something which should be more of a moral axiom and claiming it derives from science and nature; you risk having it overturned in the future.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#99

Post by jasondclinton »

sigmaprimus wrote: post #86
908087 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 grandpare…

Ever browsed the Web on an Android tablet? I'm a little concerned with installing apps that require full access to my location, files and everything else that should not be shared. Maybe there is a trustworthy chrome add on that would not require all of these escalated privlages that you could suggest?

Firefox for Android allows extensions including uBlock. That's the reason that I use it on mobile: blocking all of those trackers actually improves performance.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#100

Post by cain »

ng12 wrote: post #16
MatekCopatek wrote: post #5

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.

I agree. This is precisely why it is nonsensical to make a natural vs unnatural comparison for human activity.
Post reply on HN