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

131–140 of 163 posts

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#131

Post by ndnxhs »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #119
Razengan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An other reason might be that almost all animals seek to control their peers' access to mates. Humans have developed elaborate bullshit to achieve basically that. Monogamy, possession, shame.

I don't say monogamy is a natural rule everybody should follow but it also is not unnatural "bullshit" invented by humans. As far as I know many wild species are monogamous. Many bird species in particular. I don't mind anybody being polyamory (and even some sort of adore them for breaking a taboo) yet many people are happy in monogamy and they are not necessarily constraining themselves artificially. Also shame can…

Shame and peer pressure are also good things often. They help us collaborate and prevent us from acting selfishly. We shame those who do things like litter or steal which prevents this behaviour. If you steal from your friends you will be excluded from their social circle which is enough reason to not do it.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#132

Post by bencollier49 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #123
zamalek wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no scientific rigor for this, but the possibility for relationships that do not bear offspring makes a ton of evolutionary sense. By including homosexuality into a species, you have members who are able to gather and process energy without contributing to population growth. Population growth is a good thing, but too much is detrimental to the species (at least if you don't have access to agriculture). In addit…

Natural selection happens at the gene level. A behavior has to beneficial to the gene or genes that cause it for it to propagate via natural selection. It’s hard to model homosexuality as anything other than detrimental to the gene or genes that contribute to it. The only model that accounts for this would be if homosexuality is an occasional side effect of some other traits or behaviors that increase fertility.

Whither worker bees?

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#133

Post by bencollier49 »

fenwick67 wrote: post #41
krapp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. There is a very convenient Christian doctrine where there are "three types of law in the Bible", which explains that some rules are meant for Israelites and some are meant for everyone (and you [or the church] basically get to guess which apply to you).

The Old Testament is there for context. It's not a matter of guessing or choosing, and the decision was made early on not to force non-hebrews to follow Old Testament law (meant specifically for Israelites) if they joined up.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#134

Post by tomhoward »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #101
nintendo95 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 considere…

> I was going to copy-paste-quote the next part but the message got flagged

You can see flagged/killed comments by enabling "showdead" in your profile settings.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#135

Post by jhbadger »

jessaustin wrote: post #111
jhbadger wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you predicting that CRISPR will succeed at this odious task? Or that it won't? Because either way... that would seem to settle the question, wouldn't it?

I'm not predicting either way. Nobody really knows if human homosexuality is genetic, developmental, social, or a mixture of the three. I'm saying that if it is shown to be genetic, the idea that this will help acceptance is flawed.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#136

Post by Razengan »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #119
Razengan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An other reason might be that almost all animals seek to control their peers' access to mates. Humans have developed elaborate bullshit to achieve basically that. Monogamy, possession, shame.

I don't say monogamy is a natural rule everybody should follow but it also is not unnatural "bullshit" invented by humans. As far as I know many wild species are monogamous. Many bird species in particular. I don't mind anybody being polyamory (and even some sort of adore them for breaking a taboo) yet many people are happy in monogamy and they are not necessarily constraining themselves artificially. Also shame can…

I was speaking of repressive cultures, especially those with far less choices available to women.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#137

Post by kakarot »

peteretep wrote: post #92
kakarot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess I define sexuality in the proper literal sense as "Who you have sex with" vs "Who you find attractive. Because when framed that way, attractive becomes subjectively defined.

Sexually attractive? Well yes, if you're humping it you find it sexually attractive.

Psychologically attractive? Only if you have some kind of complex against being labeled 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' while still engaging in coutius with other people of the same sex.

Emotionally/Intellectually attractive? Well, personally I don't find myself sexually attracted to people (and in effect, things) whom I can't satisfactorily engage with on an intellectual and emotional level. I know some people are different and will fuck anything that moves. I've had people tell me so themselves. But I don't think the "Men Who Have Sex With Men" label discusses intellectual stimulation as a stipulation.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#138

Post by SubiculumCode »

toasterlovin wrote: post #123
zamalek wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no scientific rigor for this, but the possibility for relationships that do not bear offspring makes a ton of evolutionary sense. By including homosexuality into a species, you have members who are able to gather and process energy without contributing to population growth. Population growth is a good thing, but too much is detrimental to the species (at least if you don't have access to agriculture). In addit…

Natural selection happens at the gene level. A behavior has to beneficial to the gene or genes that cause it for it to propagate via natural selection. It’s hard to model homosexuality as anything other than detrimental to the gene or genes that contribute to it. The only model that accounts for this would be if homosexuality is an occasional side effect of some other traits or behaviors that increase fertility.

Not taking a side in this debate but sometimes population level selection occurs.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#139

Post by zwkrt »

andrewflnr wrote: post #78
zwkrt wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a gay person myself I agree conceptually, but it is hard to back the "even if it's a choice what do you care" argument when discussing something that from my perspective is so obviously and irrefutably not a choice.

I liken it to saying that someone shouldn't be judged by having a face tattoo, because it is a personal choice that affects no one negatively. In practice however people with face tattoos are judged pretty harshly, and in a way that people with alopecia or facial birth marks are not, specifically because choices carry moral weight.

Another issue is that the choice argument comes with a lot of baggage for people who take it to mean that I am somehow intentionally upending what would otherwise be a lovely, traditional family with 2.3 kids and a dog because I chose to fraternize with men instead, but that since it is a choice it is also one I could undo at any time (see gay conversion therapy).

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#140

Post by zwkrt »

ummonk wrote: post #77
zwkrt wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In a baysian mindset, I could have the hypothesis that homosexuality in humans is innate. At this point in time I have no proirs so I think the chances are 50/50.

After gathering additional evidence that other animals "natuarlly" have same sex relations, that should shift the needle for me some amount in one direction, seeing as how I do not believe humans to be "more" but just differently evolved, and having evolved on the same planet in a complex web of species divergence with these other animals.

Post reply on HN