Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals • Hacker News Board

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#31

Post by nemo1618 » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

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…

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.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#32

Post by krapp » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

veryworried wrote: post #28

ebg13 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is so important and so regularly gets ignored by people on all sides. Once, a long time ago, I was talking to a much-smarter-than-me gay friend about the gay marriage debate in the US, and I said that being gay wasn't a choice and that _therefore_ yada yada.…

It must never be seen as a choice. The answer to all those questions can easily be yes. Society regularly denies people the ability to do things that they feel should be their choice, and it is considered acceptable in some cases that the only recourse for those people should just be to make another choice. The power of choice invites judgement. The homosexual community has a strong distaste for bisexuals because the…

>The homosexual community has a strong distaste for bisexuals because their existence undermines the argument that no one chooses to be homosexual.

No they don't, and no it doesn't. Bisexuals aren't people who "choose" to be gay one minute and "choose" to be straight the next. Rather, they are attracted to both genders, just as homosexuals are attracted to the same gender, and heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite gender.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#33

Post by Udik » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #15

ebg13 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is so important and so regularly gets ignored by people on all sides. Once, a long time ago, I was talking to a much-smarter-than-me gay friend about the gay marriage debate in the US, and I said that being gay wasn't a choice and that _therefore_ yada yada.…

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 progress by telling people to stop having it.

Nope, that would be ridiculous. But at the same time having Down's syndrome is not devoid of legal consequences. You'll probably be denied a driving license or the possibility to own guns, and you can argue as much as you want that your condition is perfectly natural and you didn't have a choice, it won't make any difference.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#34

Post by krapp » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #15

ebg13 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is so important and so regularly gets ignored by people on all sides. Once, a long time ago, I was talking to a much-smarter-than-me gay friend about the gay marriage debate in the US, and I said that being gay wasn't a choice and that _therefore_ yada yada.…

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.

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 Bible says it is (even though it doesn't really,) therefore it must be a choice.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#35

Post by traderjane » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 7:16 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #34

whatshisface wrote: post #15

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. 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…

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.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#36

Post by 75dvtwin » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 7:22 PM UTC

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…

I think, however, general understanding that homosexuality is something a person is 'born with' -- had huge impact on policies and public debate around legalizing homosexual marriages.

Being born with it, rather than a choice -- meant that unfair treatment of homosexuals was morally equivalent to race/ethnic origin based prosecutions.

Therefore, civil rights accomplishments, and modern legal framework resulting from those -- would apply to homosexuals.

If 'being born with' would not have been recognized as scientific truth, then homosexual marriages would likely be treated the same as consenting adult polygamists.

I think this is one of reasons why non-binary people having hard time being recognized in same policy/morality structures as homosexual people.

> 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.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#37

Post by traderjane » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

presscast wrote: post #10

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…

I think people are talking past each other when discussing "unnaturalness". Opponents of homosexuality often use the word "unnatural" in the sense of "not in humankind's nature". This is distinct from "unnatural" as "not occurring in nature". The argument is more like "eating dirt is okay for earthworms, but it's unnatural for humans", so appeal to the behavior of other animals completely misses the point. This is a…

I think they're talking about spiritual aberration, and not merely what's biologically common for humans. By natural people mean a perspective rightness, as opposed to merely some notion of statistical frequency.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#38

Post by gus_massa » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #23

dqpb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> *naturalistic fallacy" Well, showing that something exists in nature is much more factual and objective than debates will ever be over what people should and shouldn't do

Overcoming our nature, in which life is famously solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, is sort of the defining feature of humanity. The sum of everything that is not nature is referred to as "culture". It includes democracy, Shakespeare, The Simpsons, and SpaceX. The "naturalistic fallacy" is therefore a fallacy because it proofs too much: "nature" doesn't want us to go to the moon; it doesn't want us to vaccina…

> life is famously solitary

Wild humans were probably social. For comparison, Chimpanzee and Bonobos are social, they live in small groups. The next human relative is Gorilla, that are social too. Orangutans too. I don't know how far we must go to find a solitary relative of humans.

(Note that all of them have very different sexual behavior.)

> [nature] doesn't want us to vaccinate

I don't know a natural example in other animal, but I'd not be surprised if there are any. There were some trick to get a natural vaccination before there were good vaccines. Just wait until there is a year with a mild version, and try to get your kids infected, so the year with a strong version they will be already immunized. (Like a "chickenpox party" that is a very stupid idea now that there are good vaccines.) For example see the early methods to get smallpox immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#39

Post by usrusr » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

rectangletangle wrote: post #12

4FNET7 wrote: post #3

Technically speaking, the animals he is talking about are bisexual. But this was a truly great article. Please post more like this, queerty.

Exclusive homosexuality is found in nearly 10% of male sheep, as well as a bunch of other species of mammals and birds. What’s interesting with the giraffes is the really high prevalence (94%), which suggests it’s an adaptation to some form of natural selection. Even the rate of 10% would suggest an adaptive response, but the really high rate emphasizes this.

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 should not be impossible for throttling to appear in males as well. If the giraffe evolution happened to stumble upon a particularly sensitive shortage-sensing circuit breaker in the form of a gender preference flip, then we would see it firing non stop in a time of dramatically shrinking giraffe habitat. It's been a while since giraffes could be observed outside of crisis.

(or they just like it, it does not have to be an evolutionary trick)

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#40

Post by krapp » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC

traderjane wrote: post #35

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…

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 inside the city limits and mixing fabrics.

Someone living in Biblical times probably wouldn't have any concept of someone being "straight" or "gay," just of someone following cultural norms or violating cultural taboos. So to say the Bible condemns homosexuality is a misappropriation of the intent of the text outside of the cultural and temporal context to which it was intended to apply.