The Love that Dare Not Squeak its Name

[Kitsune]

Silo and Roy: A pair of happy, penguin parents raising their young-- wait a minute...

All debates aside on this issue, this is an interesting article as it is a rarely reported subject in studies. Strange.

[Beestie]

Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected.

Regardless of one's attitude about homosexuality, wtf kind of logic is that?

[Happy Monkey]

It's a counter to the meaningless but frequent claim that homosexuality is "unnatural".

[Elspode]

I can't even remember how many times I've heard the homophobic argument that "homosexuality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom"...

Strange how that argument is usually used by the same sort of people who are the first to point out (incorrectly, of course) that humans aren't animals and that we are above all that by divine intent.

[juju]

Some people argue that the documented cases of animal homosexuality don't count because they all occur in captivity. The idea is that while the animals are in captivity, they are "corrupted" by humans (and isolation). However, this argument fails as there have also been many documented cases of animal homosexuality in the wild. There's just not as many cases, because, well, when animals are in prison you can watch them 24/7.

[wolf]

If the "homosexuality in nature" argument is valid, then so is all the other predator/prey stuff ...

I can exploit those less able than me with impunity! Cull the human herd!! Where can I start?

[wolf]

Originally posted by juju
Some people argue that the documented cases of animal homosexuality don't count because they all occur in captivity.

Is that equivalent to the "I'm not actually gay if I have sex with men in prison" justification?

[Beestie]

Ultimately, even if the argument the author is advancing is "tit for tat" (maybe there are homosexual animals; who knows what their feeling despite our (possibly) self-serving interpretation of their behavior) I think he does a disservice to his own point by using an argument designed to convince only those people who don't realize that their own counterargument is equally flawed.

And since that appears to be the sole purpose of the article, I think it would have been better not to have written it.

Just my $02.

[Happy Monkey]

That's because there is no meaningful argument against homosexuality. All of the arguments against it are as silly as the "no gay animals" argument. Because of this, all refutations of those arguments suffer from the silliness of the claim they have to address.

Many people instinctively dislike the concept of homosexuality, and are therefore inclined to accept homophobic claims without much scrutiny. That's why they can't just be ignored as kooks.

[Kitsune]

That's because there is no meaningful argument against homosexuality.

Ah! But, in the tradition of not making any sense, the devil's advocate asks: is there any argument in favor of homosexuality?

And what would the signs of the anti-gay movement at a protest say against these homosexual animals?

[Happy Monkey]

There doesn't have to be. It just exists. Things shouldn't be discouraged by default. The law should only discriminate against things that are demonstrably harmful.

[Elspode]

Homosexuality results in fewer marriage licenses being issued, and disrupts the civic revenue flow which depends on such legal unions?

Of course, that would be easily solved by legalizing same-sex marriages, huh?

[OnyxCougar]

I don't consider myself an animal, because I don't believe evolution happened. That is to say, I don't think my ancestor is a "primordial soup".

I'm not against homosexuality, I don't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom. Simply saying, "well, LOOK!! Animals do it too!" doesen't fly with me. This was my favorite part of the article:

Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."

But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."

[Happy Monkey]

Actually, what animals do is a yardstick of what is or isn't natural. But everything that is natural isn't necessarily moral or ethical. Humans have a higher capability for empathy, so we modify our behavior based on how it will effect others.

And that's the crux. The natural behaviors that human societies discourage should be the ones that produce some objective harm. If there is no real argument against a behavior, then it shouldn't be prohibited. The "gay animals" issue isn't an argument for gay people, it is a refutation of an argument against gay people. Gay people shouldn't have to make an argument defending their behavior at all.

[wolf]

You reinstalled the Psychic AI on the Cookie Generator, didn't you, UT?

"A-C-L-U We defend your right to screw!
-- American Civil Liberties Union slogan chanted at Chicago's 25th Annual Gay and Lesbian Pride parade"