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

101–110 of 163 posts

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#101

Post by qwerty456127 »

nintendo95 wrote: post #79
qwerty456127 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, ha…

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

I accept this element of culture unconditionally and don't feel any interest in violating it so I am not going to expose children (mine or other) to sexual scenes ever.

However, although there may happen to be some (so why risk), I really fail to see reason behind it. Why is it considered bad for children to see people having sex? Especially when it's about non-violent "classic" sex between "normal" people loving each other and treating each other tenderly and not any kind of hardcore BDSM porn. I understand some particular kinds of sexual practices can seem weird and even shock some people yet what makes "vanilla" sex obscene and potentially harmful for a person (a kid or whoever) psyche is beyond my comprehension.

> 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.

I support this point, yet...

... I was going to copy-paste-quote the next part but the message got flagged. The next was the question why seek others to be aware of your sexual preferences and accept them. I believe the answer is so they won't get "shocked" once they find out accidentally and nobody will be able to blackmail you. The the current state of culture makes it matter. Once everybody accepts everything is normal exposing your sexual preferences proactively will become irrelevant.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#102

Post by qball »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #67
qwerty456127 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>You should tell the porn industry so they adapt their business model.

Where have you been the last 50+ years? Porn has been and continues to be under constant attack by society. In the United States, even the First Amendment hasn't been as solid a defense as its wording would make it seem for pornographic works, and some states still have laws on the books banning "obscene devices" (though admittedly sex toys aren't speech)

People don't like others having sex, don't like knowing about it (unless they themselves are horny and want to see it, but heaven forbid anyone else be allowed the same privilege, which is the main reason you see so many anti-gay male politicians being caught in compromising positions with other men), and want to control everything about it.

There are two evolutionary reasons for this.

The first is pregnancy; and the difference between societies that have evolved without access to effective natural birth control and ones that have is as stark as you'd expect it to be.

The second is scarcity, which is related to the first thing (i.e. people weigh sex against major negative consequences if having sex can have major consequences), but can be slightly abated by a massive distribution network of pictures and videos of sex (while not the same thing, unlike physical hunger sexual appetite can be satisfied by the equivalent of simply looking at a picture of a tasty meal for a few minutes).

Modern society has only had 50 years with technology that does those two things reliably. Society at large just hasn't had enough time with these factors in play to loosen up, but the cracks are beginning to show.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#103

Post by TimTheTinker »

chess93 wrote: post #58
krapp wrote: post #34

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. The motivation is mostly religious. Homosexuality must be a choice, otherwise God created homosexuals as they are, and homosexuality is just another part of Nature. But if that's true, homosexuality can't be a sin, because sin is always a choice. But homosexuality is a sin because the Bibl…

I always thought it went P: Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Q: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore [P and Q] implies that homosexual activity is wrong but the mere act of being attracted to the same sex is not inherently sinful.

This is more or less correct, though the relevant scriptural passages put more shape and nuance on it.

As for why that should influence our votes for public policy, the reasoning goes that sin always brings trouble, death, and non-well-being to society, therefore influencing public policy away from sinful societal patterns and acts is one important way to love one’s neighbors, since it will result in greater well-being for them.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#104

Post by aaron695 »

So homosexuals like having sex with females?

Is it ok to assume this about a homosexual person? I think not.

So this article does nothing but prove bi-sexuality might exist in the animal kingdom. You'd have to prove the giraffes know the difference between male giraffes and female giraffes.

When animals have sex with dead animals are the necrophilic or confused?

This article isn't based in science.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#105

Post by thaumasiotes »

zwkrt wrote: post #52
ng12 wrote: 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.

I think concordance of homosexuality in identical twins is something like 30%, which is... incredibly low. The argument that it's innate isn't on strong ground at all.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#106

Post by jessaustin »

int_19h wrote: post #50
CptFribble wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't normally do this, but I believe it's very relevant: This comment you're reading has a dead sibling that pointed out the commonly-held Christian doctrine that some of the Bible's laws don't apply to modern Christians. The commenter is absolutely correct, and here is a link from a famous and well-regarded theologian on the subject (R.C Sproul). https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/which-laws-apply/ In summar…

There's a NT-only argument against homosexuality that derives the prohibition from the general ban on adultery, combined with the definition of marriage as man + woman. In general, NT has plenty of stuff that can be appropriated for fire-and-brimstone preaching. Most of it is Paul's, which is why some consider Pauline Christianity to be a mutilation of what was preached before.

Paul was a moralizing moron, and he only gets such top billing in NT (and TBH, even considered some sort of apostle at all [0]) because NT was compiled by fellow moralizing morons. Anyone who has done any critical reading in any other context has seen Paul in the proper light and already tuned him right out. Readings from any of Paul's 47 letters are naptime for me.

[0] never met Christ, so he had to pretend he had some sort of vision to get in the club... Jesus treated the money changers better than He would have treated Paul.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#107

Post by acangiano »

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...

There are even transgender cases in nature (e.g., Clownfish). But yeah, the Appeal to Nature fallacy is pretty silly.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#108

Post by sigmaprimus »

jasondclinton wrote: post #99
sigmaprimus wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for the tip, I don't have FF installed on my tablet but will look into it!

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#109

Post by int_19h »

meruru wrote: post #66
int_19h wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 populatio…

In case of population density, it might be epigenetic.

But also, don't forget that evolution does not "care" about organisms, only about genes; and a gene can be carried across generations without manifesting itself. Suppose it is beneficial to carry the "gay gene", because it means that more of your descendants don't die, even if some of them won't procreate - producing a net gain in the propagation of your genes on the whole, ironically. That would trigger selection, once such a gene appears.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#110

Post by jessaustin »

nemo1618 wrote: post #31
blfr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The modern emphasis on individualism is understandable as a reaction to the collectivism of the past. But as usual, we over-corrected. So now we're entering a period of reaction against individualism. We'll almost certainly over-correct again, but it won't be as severe. "Progress" is not a straight line, it's an attenuated wave.

It's depressing to contemplate, but this prediction might be correct...
Post reply on HN