More animal kingdom evidence that same sex love is natural

Parent Cafe
1

<p>"What happens when there is a shortage of males and a female wants to have a family?</p>

<p>In the case of the Laysan albatross, females shack up with each other for years and take turns raising offspring, research now reveals.</p>

<p>Such behavior might prove common not just with albatrosses, but many other seabirds as well, scientists added.</p>

<p>Researchers have long known that same-sex couples are common in the wild kingdom…</p>

<p>These females “behave just like male-female pairs,” said researcher Lindsay Young, a doctoral student studying behavioral ecology at the University of Hawaii. “If a male comes up to one female in the pair, the second female gets really possessive.”</p>

<p>And partnered females groom each other, intimate behavior usually only seen between mated couples of males and females."
[FOXNews.com</a> - Female Albatrosses Set Up Same-Sex Partnerships - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News](<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361505,00.html]FOXNews.com”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361505,00.html)</p>

2

<p>A book called “Evolution’s Rainbow,” by Joan Roughgarden, a Stanford professor, has a lot of material on that subject. (I haven’t read it, but I’ve heard good things about it.)</p>

3

<p>It is only natural amongst animals.</p>

4

<p>Your sentence structure is confusing and imprecise. Do you literally mean that “it’s only natural amongst animals” (something that’s demonstrably true), or were you trying to say “it’s natural only amongst animals”? (Something that’s true only if you equate “natural” with the pronouncements of the Bible.)</p>

5

<p>

Dogs sniff each other’s rear ends. It is only natural for humans to do the same. Right?</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>And humans aren’t animals…?</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, no, that particular practice isn’t a “natural” behavior for humans.</p>

<p>It seems to me that people can’t keep switching arguments. One minute, same sex relations are “unnatural.” When it’s pointed out that that’s far from the case, then, all of a sudden, it’s wait a minute, “natural” doesn’t matter; we’re not animals! Pick one already, and stick with it.</p>

8

<p>To send this on another tangent, some fish, such as the California Sheephead change sex. All are born female, and the most dominant females will change to males as needed in the population.</p>

9

<p>razorsharp: …wow… that was of lower than usual quality. You’re leading the one man race to rock bottom, currently.</p>

<p>I’m with DonnaL on this one - can’t have it both ways in this argument, though most homophobes would like to in order to avoid having to justify their bias with the true answer, which is normally either “They scare me and so I dislike them” or “My religion told me they are sinning and so I dislike their acts.”</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>Agree. That particular behavior (rear end sniffing) among humans can acquired by climbing the corporate ladder; therefore it should be classified as a learned behavior. ;)</p>

11

<p>All right! Looks like this is spinning into a discussion of Ethology. I’ve been out of the field for awhile, but it’s always been fascinating to me…</p>

12

<p>NSM are you using this to argue <em>for</em> same sex human relationships? If so I don’t see the connection, as there is no shortage of human males to my knowledge.</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>Not according to a lot of single women I know!</p>

<p>Of course, the ones I know who feel that way are generally heterosexual.</p>

14

<p>NSM, I understand that “unnaturalism” is often an argument against accepting homosexuality. But I don’t usually respond to that argument, just as I don’t respond to the “it’s a choice” argument, because I think that’s jsut a distraction from the real issue, which is about staying out of other people’s business when they aren’t hurting you.</p>

<p>Humans do plenty of unnatural things that are marvelous. It is a complete perversion of nature’s plan for someone to get leukemia and live. Chemotherapy is an unnatural human innovation with no equivalent of any kind in the animal world. But that’s usually not used as an argument against medicine.</p>

15

<p>‘“What happens when there is a shortage of males and a female wants to have a family?”’ (stated by Northstarmom)</p>

<p>“NSM are you using this to argue <em>for</em> same sex human relationships? If so I don’t see the connection, as there is no shortage of human males to my knowledge.” (stated by HighlandMom)</p>

<p>Touche HighlandMom!!!</p>

<p>‘Your sentence structure is confusing and imprecise. Do you literally mean that “it’s only natural amongst animals” (something that’s demonstrably true), or were you trying to say “it’s natural only amongst animals”? (Something that’s true only if you equate “natural” with the pronouncements of the Bible.)"’ (stated by Donna L)</p>

<p>I meant that it is natural only amongst animals, DonnaL.</p>

<p>"And humans aren’t animals…? "(as stated by fumarole)</p>

<p>Uh, no…not the last time I looked.</p>

16

<p>Humans are indeed members of the animal kingdom. Despite the presence of widespread hubris among humankind, we are not gods.;)</p>

17

<p>Also natural in the animal kingdom:</p>

<p>Cannibalism
Infanticide
Non-consensual sex (this means the female does not say “yes”)
Aggressive, dominant behavior
Fratricide</p>

<p>Here’s another perspective:</p>

<p>by Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. - 5/8/2005</p>

<p>*In the same article (“Love that Dare not Squeak its Name”), Bruce Bagemihl, author of the groundbreaking “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity”, defines homosexuality as “any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.”</p>

<p>Still, that a certain behavior occurs in nature (is “natural”) does not render it moral. Infanticide, patricide, suicide, gender bias, and substance abuse - are all to be found in various animal species. It is futile to argue for homosexuality or against it based on zoological observations. Ethics is about surpassing nature - not about emulating it.</p>

<p>The more perplexing question remains: what are the evolutionary and biological advantages of recreational sex and homosexuality? Surely, both entail the waste of scarce resources.</p>

<p>Convoluted explanations, such as the one proffered by Marlene Zuk (homosexuals contribute to the gene pool by nurturing and raising young relatives) defy common sense, experience, and the calculus of evolution. There are no field studies that show conclusively or even indicate that homosexuals tend to raise and nurture their younger relatives more that straights do.*</p>

<p>See: [Global</a> Politician - Sexuality, Homosexuality and the Animal Kingdom](<a href=“Global Politician”>Global Politician)</p>

18

<p>More liberal nonsense.</p>

19

<p>

I am refusing the OP’s original argument, which it is not clear to me that you understand. I certainly am not arguing under the two arguments you have cited. </p>

<p>Here is the OP’s argument. (1) It is common in wild life for there to be same sex couples. (Actually, this is not true despite the BS written in the article, but I will assume it for the sake of argument). (2) “Common” means “normal”. The OP does not use the term normal but that is the inference. (3) Therefore, because it is normal in the animal kingdome for there to be same sex relationships, it is normal for there to be same sex relationships in humans. </p>

<p>The OP’s argument isn’t about wild animals, it is a justifiction for human behavior. </p>

<p>My argument, which I illustrated with an example, is that common/normal behavior among non-human animals does not show, justify or support what is common/normal among humans. Non-human animals do a lot of things that are common and normal to them that are not common or normal to humans (e.g sniffing rear ends).</p>

<p>In short, same sex couples among humans is neither “common” nor “normal” and the behavior of animals does not show that the behavior of forming same sex couples is either common or normal.</p>

20

<p>Parent2noles and Razorsharp: Great points and well stated.</p>

<p>“The OP’s argument isn’t about wild animals, it is a justifiction for human behavior.” (stated by Razorsharp)</p>

<p>I also viewed the OP’s statement as a justification for human behavior. Comparing animal behavior to the behavior of people just does not wash with me.</p>