Giraffes, bonobos, and manatees oh my!

June 21, 2006 11:15 AM

450 Species of homosexual animals and counting ...Fascinating Seed article concerning the existence of homosexual animals and Darwin's conception of heterosexuality.
posted by AllesKlar (236 comments total)

Evolution is gay.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 11:37 AM on June 21, 2006

If anyone has an evolutionary explanation of homosexuality I would be interested to hear it.
posted by 517 at 11:39 AM on June 21, 2006

Population control?
posted by jonmc at 11:44 AM on June 21, 2006

from the link

According to Roughgarden, gayness is a necessary side effect of getting along. Homosexuality evolved in tandem with vertebrate societies, in which a motley group of individuals has to either live together or die alone. In fact, Roughgarden even argues that homosexuality is a defining feature of advanced animal communities, which require communal bonds in order to function. "The more complex and sophisticated a social system is," she writes, "the more likely it is to have homosexuality intermixed with heterosexuality."
posted by Samuel Farrow at 11:44 AM on June 21, 2006

See? It's just like I keep telling you: homosexuality is a mark of sophistication. All the cool species are doing it.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 11:47 AM on June 21, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

517 writes "If anyone has an evolutionary explanation of homosexuality I would be interested to hear it."

That's like what the whole article is about. Did you even bother to read it?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:48 AM on June 21, 2006

Yeah, I caught that one. I thought it was pretty weak that there is no direct demonstration of its benefits or what happened when it wasn't present. I was hoping there was something better.
posted by 517 at 11:49 AM on June 21, 2006

Roughgarden?
posted by bardic at 11:50 AM on June 21, 2006

mr_roboto: No, I don't like Seed.
posted by 517 at 11:50 AM on June 21, 2006

517, start by imagining that human beings are more than fucking machines. We're social animals, endowed with language and social orders and affinities, as will as insatiable, simplistic cravings for teh tits and teh cock. If you can stretch your mind a little imagine that primarily homosexual animals contribute to the social order by increasing affinity-links between adults, nurturing the young of other families, and -- not to insist that animals who are teh gey are more artistic or anything -- increasing the viability and vitality of the tribe in general. After all, while T-Rex had big teeth, owls have big eyes, and bats have big ears, humans have big.... culture. Our affinities with other human beings are what protect us from the other beasts in the jungle.

That's for starters.
Then check into books like Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Lots to chew on there.
posted by digaman at 11:55 AM on June 21, 2006

I thought it was pretty weak that there is no direct demonstration of its benefits or what happened when it wasn't present.

517: You're just dismissing her 'cause she's gay.

Seriously though, her description of the lesbian macaques' social calming through group sex sounds like a reasonable suggestion for why homosexuality can evolutionary sense. If your troop is fighting and everyone's breaking off to be eaten by jungle cats, you won't have as many children? That's enough of an argument to open the door to scientific curiosity...
posted by anthill at 11:56 AM on June 21, 2006

No, I don't like Seed.
fnar fnar.
posted by kaemaril at 11:56 AM on June 21, 2006

I like Seed very much specifically for regularly publishing the writings of Jonah Lehrer, the author of this link, and the best young science writer out there.
posted by digaman at 11:59 AM on June 21, 2006

"fnar fnar."

It's weak, I know. It's just one of those things I can't get over.
posted by 517 at 12:01 PM on June 21, 2006

It's just one of those things I can't get over.

That's fine. Plenty of non-Seed topics to choose from on MeFi this morning. Get 'em while they're hot.
posted by digaman at 12:03 PM on June 21, 2006

It's just one of those things I can't get over.

If you can't be arsed to read the article, maybe you shouldn't participate in the discussion.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:06 PM on June 21, 2006

(pedantic_grammer_mode on)
"450 species in which a significant fraction of individuals engage in homosexual activity at some time".

Not as catchy a title, but it is a pretty broad brush to categorize a group by the behavior of 1-10% of its population.
posted by Araucaria at 12:07 PM on June 21, 2006

Previously on Roughgarden.
posted by youarenothere at 12:13 PM on June 21, 2006

monju_ it's not like I already posted that I skimmed after my initial posting.

But as usual, the metafilter's ability to focus on the tangent of the conversation rather than the topic dulls my interest.
posted by 517 at 12:16 PM on June 21, 2006

Not as catchy a title, but it is a pretty broad brush to categorize a group by the behavior of 1-10% of its population.

Oh sure. But given that all of the arguments against homosexuality in humans -- recently reiterated to aid the addition of an amendment to the US Constitution -- hinge on the notion that homosexuality is "against nature," a sin, contra naturam, a deviation from the natural order inspired by, say, Satan -- the existence of homosexual behavior in hundreds of animal species suggests that those arguments are, say, a crock of unscientific shit.

I don't know what the percentage of black folks in the human population is, but you'd have a hard time arguing that racial differences are contra naturam, though some idiot probably did at some point. Idiots of that scale are currently running the country. So it's a valid point.
posted by digaman at 12:18 PM on June 21, 2006

Salon article on teh ghey animals.

Guardian article about Roughgarden.

Audio interview with Roughgarden.

Review of Evolution's Ranbow, and the text of Chapter 7
posted by youarenothere at 12:19 PM on June 21, 2006

But as usual, the metafilter's ability to focus on the tangent of the conversation rather than the topic dulls my interest.

Then vamoose, little hombre, and the one-man tangent will disappear. So simple!
posted by digaman at 12:19 PM on June 21, 2006

all of the arguments against homosexuality in humans

All of them? Please.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:20 PM on June 21, 2006

Sorry, when I read the Seed article a few weeks ago, I was prompted to find more info - thought about doing a FPP, but was discouraged by the existence of the other post discussing Roughgarden and the handful of other "homosexuality in animals" threads.
posted by youarenothere at 12:21 PM on June 21, 2006

Homosexuality is way for low ranking males to get some hot sweaty sexual release during a vag-famine. Well that's how the biology master at Belford explained it.
posted by econous at 12:21 PM on June 21, 2006

That is the root of the arguments, Jek. Note -- I didn't say "all of the arguments against gay marriage," of which I know there's a whole precooked bargeload of GOP talking-points about "activist judges" and other imaginary boogeymen.

But yes, the root of (OK) most arguments against homosexuality are that it's a perversion, against nature, a sin.
posted by digaman at 12:23 PM on June 21, 2006

Maybe if they just accepted Jesus?
posted by NationalKato at 12:23 PM on June 21, 2006

youarenothere: great work!
posted by AllesKlar at 12:27 PM on June 21, 2006

But as usual, the metafilter's ability to focus on the tangent of the conversation rather than the topic dulls my interest.

Seeing as you have your head up your own ass, maybe you do have something to add to this discussion.
posted by joe lisboa at 12:28 PM on June 21, 2006

Ignore, ignore. So simple.
posted by digaman at 12:30 PM on June 21, 2006

It must've been Noah's fault! I've heard about men and long journeys at sea...
posted by NationalKato at 12:32 PM on June 21, 2006

That is the root of the arguments, Jek.

Not all of them. Your use of the word "all" is what I have a problem with. Of course, I'm assuming that when you say "arguments against homosexuality in humans," you mean "arguments that homosexuality in humans is immoral/bad/evil/etc" and not "arguments that homosexuality in humans exists."
posted by JekPorkins at 12:33 PM on June 21, 2006

...it is a pretty broad brush to categorize a group by the behavior of 1-10% of its population.

Where does "1-10% of its population" come from?

As the article points out, bisexuality is actually the norm in some species.

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called "homosexual societies." They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males "effeminate."

posted by Western Infidels at 12:34 PM on June 21, 2006

Homosexuality is way for low ranking males to get some hot sweaty sexual release during a vag-famine

That must be why such low-ranking males as Alexander the Great, Shakespeare, Lou Reed, and Gore Vidal swung that way.

Your use of the word "all" is what I have a problem with.

You're quite right, which is why I amended it in my later post to "most." Thanks.
posted by digaman at 12:35 PM on June 21, 2006

"If you can't be arsed to read the article, maybe you shouldn't participate in the discussion."

Ha ha! Not RTFA hasn't stopped anyone before.
posted by graventy at 12:38 PM on June 21, 2006

(Spartan) Hoplites are more badass than homophobes (no pun intended).
posted by vertriebskonzept at 12:39 PM on June 21, 2006

a whole precooked bargeload of GOP talking-points about "activist judges"

I always liked the fact that if you read the Bible literally you're a good solid American, but if you read the Constitution literally - "all men are created equal," etc. - that makes you an activist judge.
posted by kgasmart at 12:39 PM on June 21, 2006

kgasmart writes "I always liked the fact that if you read the Bible literally you're a good solid American, but if you read the Constitution literally - 'all men are created equal,' etc. - that makes you an activist judge."

That crazy Constitution! My favorite part is where they kill Dracula.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:43 PM on June 21, 2006

*reminds kgasmart of Roe v. Wade*

Activist judges are not imaginary. All judges are activist. It's a dumb political argument not because it's not valid, but because it's a label that applies to every judge, everywhere, all the time.

I also think it's hilarious that someone thinks that textualism is what people are complaining about when they talk about "activist judges."

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

But the whole "see! animals do it, too!" thing is pretty silly, imo. Animals do all kinds of things that are unacceptable among humans. The fact that animals do something or don't do something should have no bearing on whether human society deems a given behavior "good" or "bad."
posted by JekPorkins at 12:43 PM on June 21, 2006

digaman: at the time I post this, a full 22% (well, 21.6%) of the comments in this thread are yours. Slow down, please. I would assume you have some sort of vested interest in this, but there's absolutely no need. Also, reign in the hostility. 517 asks a reasonable if not-entirely-informed opinion, and your very first response comes close to readlining my dickometer.

First, imagine people are not fucking machines. Then address them in that manner.
posted by absalom at 12:47 PM on June 21, 2006

Right, Jek, but the problem is, the homophobes don't stop at saying that teh gay is bad. As I say, the primary argument leveled against homosexuality -- for hundreds of years, particularly by the Church, and even within my lifetime, by the psychiatric establishment -- is that homosexuality is outside of the natural order, a dangerous deviation, rather than an expression of natural diversity. That's a different level of statement than saying that something is "bad."
posted by digaman at 12:47 PM on June 21, 2006

But the whole "see! animals do it, too!" thing is pretty silly, imo. Animals do all kinds of things that are unacceptable among humans. The fact that animals do something or don't do something should have no bearing on whether human society deems a given behavior "good" or "bad."

Yeah, just because animals do it doesn't make it good, but it does kinda make it "natural". Given how some condemn gays for their "perverted unnatural acts", this doesn't seem so silly to me.
posted by adzuki at 12:48 PM on June 21, 2006

Point taken, absalom. I'll disappear too.
posted by digaman at 12:49 PM on June 21, 2006

Nitpick: "All men are created equal" is from the Declaration.

But you make a good point.
posted by bardic at 12:53 PM on June 21, 2006

Sorry, digaman. Took the bait. And I agree with Jek and adzuki: the "natural -vs- unnatural" argument is largely beside the point. I think the entire debate should be framed in terms of harm, but good luck getting those with an "ooh, that's icky" mindset to set aside personal distaste when this topic comes up.
posted by joe lisboa at 12:54 PM on June 21, 2006

517: If anyone has an evolutionary explanation of homosexuality I would be interested to hear it.

517: No, [I didn't read the article because] I don't like Seed.

Whether you intended it or not, this sounds hostile, combative, and willfully ignorant.

Is there any reason to suppose that a plausible evolutionary explanation for bisexuality in big horn sheep would also be applicable to (say) bonobos, humans, or Japanese macaques? That would be very tidy, but it may not be necessary. It's possible that different species derive different advantages from bi/homo-sexuality. It's also possible that it is advantageous for some species and either nonadaptive or maladaptive in others.

It's possible that the spectrum of mammalian sexuality has an evolutionary basis but not a "grand unified theory" that homophobes and other skeptics will ever accept as applicable to humans.

Maybe human homosexuals serve as a rallying point, a way to galvanize human societies to action by focusing societal enmity at The Other. An other which is conveniently 1) always readily available for persecution and 2) not actually dangerous.
posted by Western Infidels at 12:58 PM on June 21, 2006

If you can't be arsed to read the article, maybe you shouldn't participate in the discussion. - monju_bosatsu

If he can't be arsed to read the article maybe we shouldn't be arsed to engage him. Or especially to allow him to frame the discussion.
posted by raedyn at 12:59 PM on June 21, 2006

First, imagine people are not fucking machines. Then address them in that manner.

See, I just had a long conversation with a co-worker/bud this past weekend about teh gay issue in which he basically admitted to me that he can't get past the physical aspect.

And this is a college-educated guy who has traveled extensively (works for a relief agency in fact), a pacifist, the type of guy you'd think could get past the physical aspect.

But getting past such things is exactly what separates us from the animals, innit?
posted by kgasmart at 12:59 PM on June 21, 2006

But the whole "see! animals do it, too!" thing is pretty silly, imo. Animals do all kinds of things that are unacceptable among humans. The fact that animals do something or don't do something should have no bearing on whether human society deems a given behavior "good" or "bad."
posted by JekPorkins at 3:43 PM EST on June 21 [+fave] [!]

But you don't get to have it both ways. Bigots base a lot of their hatred for gays around the "natural" argument--it just ain't natural, human society only advances when the "natural" order of man and wife is maintained, kids growing up in "unnatural" two-daddy, two-mommy environments grow up "unnaturally."

Personally, I'm all for getting away from State of Nature thinking. But if that's the rhetorical club bigots will continue to use, it can be countered with studies like this.

Politics aside, it's interesting nonetheless.

/preview: others beat me to it.
posted by bardic at 1:01 PM on June 21, 2006

I've linked to his work(s) on sexual ethics before, but John Corvino has much to say (and a refreshingly direct way to say it) on this topic.

The natural -vs - unnatural tack is a canard on par with the PIB (i.e., polygamy, incest, bigamy) canard.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:01 PM on June 21, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

he can't get past the physical aspect.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but without the physical aspect, there's no such thing as homosexual or heterosexual conduct. With humans, there's the whole status v. conduct debate, but with animals, that doesn't exist (since we can't really ask an animal about its status -- we observe conduct). But even where status is concerned, the status is defined in relation to conduct.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:05 PM on June 21, 2006

Since these godless animals are not getting married, we must at least ridicule their lifestyle choices! Ewww, icky!!

It ain't nature 'cause then God would have made them that way! It's a lifestyle choice and a weakness dammit, so just shut up!

Fred Phelps must get busy and pursue these animals until extinct or failing that at least eating godless shrimp.
posted by nofundy at 1:07 PM on June 21, 2006

I know some straight couples about whom I feel very icky whenever I think of them coupling. Which is to say, it's my own damn fault for wondering and none of my business to start with.

In all sincerity, why are some straight people so obsessed with gay sex?
posted by bardic at 1:11 PM on June 21, 2006

(sorry, absalom)

without the physical aspect, there's no such thing as homosexual or heterosexual conduct

Cf. love. See Shakespeare's sonnets for more on the subject.
posted by digaman at 1:13 PM on June 21, 2006

I'm always a little annoyed when gay activists set out to show that homosexuality is natural (IE from biological causes, or also exists in the animal kingdom, etc). Even when it's proven, it won't get anyone towards tolerance or acceptance. Then the homophobes will just be trying to genetically screen out the 'defect' or saying "we don't have to act like animals" or some other equally offensive hogwash. Personally, I think it's more on-point to be talking about staying out of each others lives: privacy, personal choice and liberty, that sort of thing.

(or, joe lisboa said, essentially)
posted by raedyn at 1:15 PM on June 21, 2006

Cf. love. See Shakespeare's sonnets for more on the subject.

Right. And w/o a physical aspect or a desire for it, it's not sexual one way or the other.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:16 PM on June 21, 2006

Roughgarden's theories have the potential to usher in a scientific sexual revolution.

*rolls eyes*

This stuff might be intresting, but it's so politicized. To me this dosn't seem any more scientifically facinating then knowing that animals masturbate.
posted by delmoi at 1:21 PM on June 21, 2006

All I know is I got to get in on some of them homosexual dophin orgies. Rrrowr!
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:22 PM on June 21, 2006

The other problem is the idea that every single thing animals do is related to evolution, that human beings alone are the sole animal in the world that does anything for 'fun'. It seems like things like homosexuality, masturbation, etc may just be for, you know, fun and not have any evolutionary advantage.
posted by delmoi at 1:23 PM on June 21, 2006

My intention of this post was for awareness, not the inevitable push pull of what validates / invalidates homosexuality. Either way you lean, the bonobos appear to have a great timekiller.
posted by AllesKlar at 1:26 PM on June 21, 2006

I maintain that mumblety-peg serves an eveolutionary function.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:28 PM on June 21, 2006

I'm curious, what things do animals do that are considered unacceptable when humans do them?

Apart from infanticide, occasional same-species killing, "public" sex and eliminating waste wherever and whenever, I'm hard-pressed to come up with any.

Also, if homosexuality is biologically natural, innate and apparently helpful to hundreds of species in some evolutionary way, how did it come to be a "choice" among humans?
posted by zoogleplex at 1:30 PM on June 21, 2006

My dog drinks out of the toilet.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:31 PM on June 21, 2006

Animals walk around naked all the time. It's indecent.
posted by jonmc at 1:33 PM on June 21, 2006

if homosexuality is biologically natural, innate and apparently helpful to hundreds of species in some evolutionary way, how did it come to be a "choice" among humans?

Has to be, dude, otherwise winger heads explode.
posted by kgasmart at 1:35 PM on June 21, 2006

Everyone in my office pees on the walls of their cubicles so that everyone will know they work there. The animals do it, so it's natural and, therefore, ok.

If you're hard pressed to come up with things animals do that are unacceptable when humans do them, there's a good chance you're in prison.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:36 PM on June 21, 2006

But the whole "see! animals do it, too!" thing is pretty silly, imo. Animals do all kinds of things that are unacceptable among humans. The fact that animals do something or don't do something should have no bearing on whether human society deems a given behavior "good" or "bad."

But you don't get to have it both ways. Bigots base a lot of their hatred...

The point being missed is: the study is irrelevant, neither supporting nor detracting from side of this argument.

The observation of a given behavior in animals can hardly be taken as authoritative in terms of determining acceptable human behavior. We would otherwise have to accept the benefits of infanticide, cannibalism, suicide, concern for our own direct offspring only, yada yada yada. So it means, for humans, precisely nothing.
posted by scheptech at 1:36 PM on June 21, 2006

*humps JekPorkins' leg furiously*
posted by jonmc at 1:36 PM on June 21, 2006

That's nice. A bit higher, please.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:38 PM on June 21, 2006

Metafilter: the bonobos appear to have a great timekiller.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:38 PM on June 21, 2006

*finishes off, then hunts down pigeon, bings JekPorkins carcass in mouth*
posted by jonmc at 1:39 PM on June 21, 2006

The observation of a given behavior in animals can hardly be taken as authoritative in terms of determining acceptable human behavior. We would otherwise have to accept the benefits of infanticide, cannibalism, suicide, concern for our own direct offspring only, yada yada yada. So it means, for humans, precisely nothing

I'd type in my posts about homosexuality being unnatural all over again, but I'd make absalom even madder. As I said at some length earlier, homophobes do not stop at saying that homosexuality is "unacceptible." They say that it is a deviation from the order of Creation. That's a different thing entirely.
posted by digaman at 1:42 PM on June 21, 2006

*sniffs everybody's butt*
posted by jonmc at 1:43 PM on June 21, 2006

AstroZombie: My dog drinks out of the toilet.

Maybe your dog is smarter than you think. Maybe he recognizes that the toilet is the most appropriate place for discarding feces, and is merely cleaning his tongue after a hearty round of butt-licking.

If you fashion some sort of ramp and dog seat for your toilet, you may be pleasently suprised when the plaintive look indicating the need to use the lawn is replaced by the sound of your toilet flushing!
posted by beegull at 1:43 PM on June 21, 2006

The question of whether animals engage in homosexual behaviour is not related to whether humans should or not. There's lots of animal behaviour that it's socially acceptable to engage in, and lots that isn't. So it's besides the point. All these sorts of studies prove is that no one can legitimately say "animals don't engage in homosexual behaviour", because many of them do.
posted by raedyn at 1:47 PM on June 21, 2006

Digaman says, basically, that this adds to the evidence that homosexuality is not "against nature," as certain people like to claim.

Someone retorts that just because animals do it, it doesn't mean people SHOULD do it.

Digaman explains that he never said that, only that homosexuality, in itself, isn't "against nature," as shown by these gay-animal studies, despite what certain people say.

Someone else retorts that just because animals do it, it doesn't follow that people SHOULD do it.

Digaman tries again to explain that, well, he didn't say that. Just that it isn't "against nature," which is very definitely and explicitly a claim that some people make (maybe not here, but out in the real world).

So someone else points out that it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter, because the fact that animals do it doesn't mean that human beings OUGHT to do it...
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 1:54 PM on June 21, 2006

JekPorkins: But the whole "see! animals do it, too!" thing is pretty silly, imo. Animals do all kinds of things that are unacceptable among humans. The fact that animals do something or don't do something should have no bearing on whether human society deems a given behavior "good" or "bad."

scheptech: The observation of a given behavior in animals can hardly be taken as authoritative in terms of determining acceptable human behavior. We would otherwise have to accept the benefits of infanticide, cannibalism, suicide, concern for our own direct offspring only, yada yada yada. So it means, for humans, precisely nothing.

Human society would do a lot better if we found ways to accept as much of our nature as possible, and only institute rules when the practical benefits are proven to be substantial. One benefit of this is, we don't need to know what our nature is, nature will take care of that part, we just have to be very careful about the societal rules we implement.

zoogleplex: if homosexuality is biologically natural, innate and apparently helpful to hundreds of species in some evolutionary way, how did it come to be a "choice" among humans?

Lots of things are choices for humans, but necessities for most other species.
posted by Chuckles at 1:56 PM on June 21, 2006

yes, fugitivefromchaingang, digaman is trying to get us to all recognize the strawman he's flogging. We get it. The strawman is down for the count.

What would have been interesting is if the FPP had included not only a link to the article, but also a link to an article actually claiming that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore "bad."

Human society would do a lot better if we found ways to accept as much of our nature as possible, and only institute rules when the practical benefits are proven to be substantial.

But we like our vices, and we're unwilling to recognize the proven benefits of eliminating them.

how did it come to be a "choice" among humans?

I think it has something to do with us having free will, and not being automatons.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:00 PM on June 21, 2006

So someone else points out that it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter,

Which unfortunately, completely fails to get us out of the bigot loop anyway...
posted by scheptech at 2:08 PM on June 21, 2006

What would have been interesting is if the FPP had included not only a link to the article, but also a link to an article actually claiming that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore "bad."

Why? Are homosexually active animals not good enough for you/us? I mean, I admit it wasn't news to me either. But is that the problem for you? That it's been done?
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 2:08 PM on June 21, 2006

I don't see what us having Free Willie has anything to do with anything. On repeated viwings, its not even that good a movie, and that whale has always seemed a litle too gay for my tastes.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:09 PM on June 21, 2006

What would have been interesting is if the FPP had included not only a link to the article, but also a link to an article actually claiming that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore "bad."

Why?

Because then digaman's strawman might not have been a strawman.

Are homosexually active animals not good enough for you/us?

Good enough for what? To eat? Oh, they're good enough to eat.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:11 PM on June 21, 2006

You're right, Jek, we do have the free will to not needlessly persecute other people for things in their lives that are none of our damn business! I completely agree!
posted by raedyn at 2:12 PM on June 21, 2006

yes, fugitivefromchaingang, digaman is trying to get us to all recognize the strawman he's flogging.

I'm not sure you know what a strawman is. In any case, he's not the one arguing a logical fallacy; you are. He made a claim, defended it, and you attempted to refute his claim with an irrelevancy.

Whether or not humans should or should not exhbit a behaviour is irrelevant to whether or not it is a natural behaviour.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:14 PM on June 21, 2006

What strawman did digaman introduce, exactly?
on preview: what everybody else said.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:16 PM on June 21, 2006

You're right, Jek, we do have the free will to not needlessly persecute other people for things in their lives that are none of our damn business! I completely agree!

I'm glad you and I agree. Of course, if the article teaches us anything, it's that the sexual conduct of society is our business, since it can be highly beneficial or detrimental to society as a whole, and may even serve an evolutionary purpose. Persecution, of course, is, IMHO, bad.

I haven't made any attempt to refute digaman's strawman that most people who oppose homosexuality do so based on the grounds that they consider it unnatural. I've heard of people making that argument, or something like it. I don't make that argument, though, and digaman hasn't offered any support or cite for his strawman. He's conjured an imaginary rhetorical adversary and torn it down quite well.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:17 PM on June 21, 2006

Human society would do a lot better if we found ways to accept as much of our nature as possible,

Not really Chuckles. Murder, rape, etc. are all very much part of human nature, but remain things a "civilised" society absolutely does not accept.

In the same vein, saying that homosexuality is acceptable because it is natural, for me, is an argument that falls a little short. In my view, it is acceptable because it is the choice of some free men and women. My respect for liberty demands that I respect this choice and it is rrelevant what my own personal "ick" factor is or is not.
posted by three blind mice at 2:18 PM on June 21, 2006

You're so right, Jek. I just make this shit up!

Er -- sorry, I'm plagiarizing. From Ann Coulter's new book, Godless, for instance. In which she write:

"If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out those who can't reproduce?"
posted by digaman at 2:19 PM on June 21, 2006

He's conjured an imaginary rhetorical adversary and torn it down quite well.

Do you come from some alternate universe where politically active fundamentalists don't exist?
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 2:20 PM on June 21, 2006

Protagonists of homosexuality try to elevate this aberration, unknown even in animal relationships, beyond divine scrutiny, while church leaders, who are called to proclaim the undiluted word of God like the prophets of old, are unashamedly looking the other way.

But I will stop now, because there's no need to belabor the point.
posted by digaman at 2:22 PM on June 21, 2006

"If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out those who can't reproduce?"

Huh? That's assinine, but I can't say I'm surprised considering the source.
posted by agregoli at 2:23 PM on June 21, 2006

From my own experience dealing with fundamentalists, this will do nothing to their argument. By 'natural,' they seem to mean 'as the Bible says it is' more than 'as it is in nature.' If anything, it'll just give them an excuse to say that we're acting like animals (as raedyn pointed out).
posted by obvious at 2:23 PM on June 21, 2006

I mean, it seemed to me at first like you were using strawman to mean "stupid, easily disproved argument that it's beneath MetaFilter to even discuss." Which is fine and valid and I agree with. But the idea that there are no people making this argument in the world.... !
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 2:24 PM on June 21, 2006

digaman, the article doesn't say anything about animals being "born gay." Your strawman was much more easily taken down than that stupid quote from that stupid woman (though her quote can, too, be refuted)

fugitivefromchaingang, I think you may have misunderstood the term "strawman." And yes, I live in an alternate universe where I've never met anyone who is a "politically active fundamentalist" as often described on MeFi.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:24 PM on June 21, 2006

See, digaman, now it's not a strawman anymore. Congrats!
posted by JekPorkins at 2:25 PM on June 21, 2006

It was the argument used against homosexuality by Paul.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:29 PM on June 21, 2006

You're so right, Jek: Those dolphins clearly had dominant mothers and absent fathers -- the prevailing theory in the psychiatric establishment for decades, back when (i.e., when I was in junior highschool), homosexuality was a crime punishable by forced lobotomy or electroshock.

Of course, in some countries, like Nigeria, it's a capital crime; where Archbishop Akinola recently told The Economist: “I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don’t hear of such things.”
posted by digaman at 2:31 PM on June 21, 2006

Thanks, Jek. No worries. Onward.
posted by digaman at 2:32 PM on June 21, 2006

You're so right, Jek: Those dolphins clearly had dominant mothers and absent fathers -- the prevailing theory in the psychiatric establishment for decades, back when (i.e., when I was in junior highschool), homosexuality was a crime punishable by forced lobotomy or electroshock.

Wow. When did I say that?

It was the argument used against homosexuality by Paul.

When did Paul say anything about animals not doing it?
posted by JekPorkins at 2:32 PM on June 21, 2006

Has anyone begged the question yet? I love it when that happens. People simply always get it wrong, because they don't know what is means.
posted by econous at 2:33 PM on June 21, 2006

And yes, I live in an alternate universe where I've never met anyone who is a "politically active fundamentalist" as often described on MeFi.

I'm not "MeFi." What do you mean by this?
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 2:33 PM on June 21, 2006

JekPorkins: Animals do all kinds of things that are unacceptable among humans.

So? Last I checked, humans do all kinds of things that are unacceptable among humans.

Humans are not the only animals with social structures, social norms, and penalties for norm-violators.
posted by Western Infidels at 2:34 PM on June 21, 2006

JekPorkins: so does having homosexuals in it weaken a society?
posted by vertriebskonzept at 2:35 PM on June 21, 2006

Nah, Jek, sorry, I'm too tired to play Moving Goalposts today. But onward.
posted by digaman at 2:35 PM on June 21, 2006

JekPorkins writes "When did Paul say anything about animals not doing it?"

He claimed it was unnatural. The fact that it occurs in nature refutes this claim.

You should have been able to see this argument yourself. Which begs the question: Are you being deliberately obtuse? Please stop.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:35 PM on June 21, 2006

Jek, your being willfully obtuse does not render the observation that many popular indictments of homosexuality rest on it being ostensibly unnatural a "straw man." I teach college-level courses on ethics all the time and you may want to let my students know that their most common critique of homosexual conduct is the figament of digaman's imagination. Cut it out.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:36 PM on June 21, 2006

Hey, roboto: jinx!
posted by joe lisboa at 2:37 PM on June 21, 2006

JekPorkins: so does having homosexuals in it weaken a society?

Not at all. But the article didn't address that.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:44 PM on June 21, 2006

"If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out those who can't reproduce?" - digaman

that stupid quote from that stupid woman (though her quote can, too, be refuted) - JekPorkins

Yup.

I, for instance, have a lesbian mother. In my elementary school of 300 kids, I personally knew of 7 other kids with lesbian mothers. Off the top of my head right now I can think of over a dozen gay men and lesbian women that are parents. Only one of those became a parent by medical means. Clearly gay and lesbian people CAN reproduce.
posted by raedyn at 2:55 PM on June 21, 2006

Oh, no, Digaman, don't take me the wrong way. My only real point was that the thread isn't going anywhere, so, you know. I tend to be kind of .... succinct. (To put it charitabily.) Besides, I'm on your side in this. I'm of the point of view of those upthread - what is and is not true of animal behavior means squat in terms of human behavior.

To venture into the murky world of generalizations: the real problem is that the people who are passionate against homosexuals are not going to give a whit, and are really beyond the point of reason. They just happen to be loud.
posted by absalom at 2:56 PM on June 21, 2006

The study is irrelevant to determining acceptable human behavior because it's a study about animals which do all kinds of icky stuff we pretty much universally reject. It neither supports nor detracts from anyones arg.

The strawman here is a person who doesn't exist in this thread but rather in the memories of some of the arguers, a person who says that gay is wrong because it's un-natural. Not a strawman technically, but an imagined (in the sense of the here and now) opponent.

The arguing about arguing comes from the apparent zero-sum game, black or white, them or us attitude which, one might suspect, is suggesting (?) that anyone reading the article who does not immediately set aside any reasoned thought about the actual material at hand in favor of actively, stridently taking the opportunity to denouce those who denounce human sexuality might have to be classified along with them as a bigot.
posted by scheptech at 2:58 PM on June 21, 2006

I hear ya, absalom. Besides, since you put a tiny bee in my bonnet, I went to go look at your blog, which I really enjoyed. And I do go on a bit.
posted by digaman at 2:59 PM on June 21, 2006

(yes, he's being deliberately obtuse. go back and read his contributions to any other thread on a similar topic)

That said, I respect that he engages in the conversation without being hateful, even though his viewpoint appears to diverge from the majority opinion on MeFi.
posted by raedyn at 3:01 PM on June 21, 2006

This is totally disgusting....some of those animals aren’t even wearing pants.

“Animals do all kinds of things that are unacceptable among humans.”

Yeah, I don’t know why all these animals keep licking my nuts, just ‘cause I smear peanut butter all over them.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:03 PM on June 21, 2006

I didn't realize my Morrissey quote was obtuse. What a wake-up call!
posted by JekPorkins at 3:05 PM on June 21, 2006

It neither supports nor detracts from anyones arg.

This makes me think of pirates.


The arguing about arguing comes from the apparent zero-sum game, black or white, them or us attitude which, one might suspect, is suggesting (?) that anyone reading the article who does not immediately set aside any reasoned thought about the actual material at hand in favor of actively, stridently taking the opportunity to denouce those who denounce human sexuality might have to be classified along with them as a bigot.

I had to read this twice before I got it, but, yes.
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 3:06 PM on June 21, 2006

sheptech writes: The strawman here is a person who doesn't exist in this thread but rather in the memories of some of the arguers, a person who says that gay is wrong because it's un-natural.

In my memory, and in the various neighborhoods I've lived in all my life. The connection between bigotry and the argument from nature seems pretty clear to me--blacks were happier as slaves because they were "naturally" inclined to be subservient, women shouldn't vote because they're "naturally" more suited to staying at home and popping out babies and not worrying their pretty little heads about politics, while in an interesting converse, gays are abhorrent because their social and sexual practices go against nature. To claim that nature and notions of the natural aren't used, incredibly often, as rhetorical clubs with which to castigate and further marginalize gays (and others) is the height of disingenuity.

Please direct me to whatever planet it is where prejudiced notions aren't often drawn from feeble, unscientific ideas regarding normative standards based around the trope of the natural. I think it'd be a pretty good place to live and raise children.
posted by bardic at 3:11 PM on June 21, 2006

From Romans:

"1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

And since the Bible is innerant, well, you know the rest.
posted by ryoshu at 3:16 PM on June 21, 2006

Collects his rope from digaman's corpse.

Feel free to use it whenever you want.
posted by 517 at 3:30 PM on June 21, 2006

As linked earlier in the thread, John Corvino provides a thoughtful analysis of Biblical condemnations of homosexuality in his article "The Bible Condemned Usurers, Too". He speaks directly to the exact verses ryoshu quotes:

It seems fairly clear that Paul viewed such acts as a sign and consequence of the Fall. (Some, like John Boswell and William Countryman, have argued that Paul's use of “unnatural” — para physin — carries no moral force. My argument does not require this conclusion, but if it is true, so much the better.) Granting (for the sake of argument) that Paul morally condemned such relationships, must contemporary Christians condemn homosexual relationships as well? Not necessarily. Suppose that in Paul's time homosexual relationships were typically exploitative, paganistic, or pederastic — as virtually all scholars would agree. If Paul condemned homosexuality because it had such features, but such features are no longer typical, then Paul's condemnation no longer applies. Substantial changes in cultural context have altered the meaning and consequences — and thus the moral value — of homosexual relationships. Put another way, using the Bible's condemnations of homosexuality against contemporary homosexuality is like using its condemnations of usury against contemporary banking.

posted by raedyn at 3:33 PM on June 21, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

So Jek, could you tell us what your objections to homosexuality actually are, since you deprecate the "unnatural" angle? You haven't spelled this out. I'd like to hear why you have a problem with it.

Also, since you're against persecution, I'd like to hear how your views about homosexuality don't contribute to it?

"Substantial changes in cultural context have altered the meaning and consequences — and thus the moral value — of homosexual relationships."

Oh wow, I hope p_T isn't reading this...

"Put another way, using the Bible's condemnations of homosexuality against contemporary homosexuality is like using its condemnations of usury against contemporary banking."

That's a very interesting line of thought!
posted by zoogleplex at 3:45 PM on June 21, 2006

Is it just me (probably) or is there the following argument-between-the-lines that the article's critics are rather vaguely advancing? (Mind you, I'm not advancing such an argument, just trying get a handle on it!) If so, it's a new one to me -- but hardly surprising given that the "not even animals do it" argument is rapidly losing credibility.

I think it goes something like this:

1. Humans are a different order of being than animals. Hence what's "natural" for animals may not be "natural" for humans.

2. Thus, even if it is "natural" for animals to engage in homosexual behavior, it may not be "natural" for humans to do so.

3. What's unnatural for humans (vs. for animals) can be identified by the fact that it a) produces an inner sense of profound revulsion or b) violates the teachings/laws/mores of an external authority, such as religious scripture or cultural tradition.

4. Homosexual behavior among humans meets a, b, or both a and b.

5. Thus, homosexual behavior among humans is unnatural.

6. What's unnatural for humans is also wrong for humans.

7. Thus. homosexual behavior is wrong for humans.

I have a feeling we're going to start hearing the "natural for humans does not equal natural for animals" premise a lot more frequently.
posted by treepour at 3:46 PM on June 21, 2006

So Jek, could you tell us what your objections to homosexuality actually are, since you deprecate the "unnatural" angle?

I have no objections to homosexuality.

Also, since you're against persecution, I'd like to hear how your views about homosexuality don't contribute to it?

Which views?
posted by JekPorkins at 3:51 PM on June 21, 2006

*blinks*

Oh. Okay... well it sure seemed as if you had objections. Just taking a devil's advocate position then?
posted by zoogleplex at 4:01 PM on June 21, 2006

well it sure seemed as if you had objections.

Where and when? A quote would be helpful. I have objections to the characterization of conduct as good or bad based on whether or not animals engage in that conduct.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:04 PM on June 21, 2006

No, Jek, you were very careful. It's just a smell that emanates from statements like this: "We like our vices, and we're unwilling to recognize the proven benefits of eliminating them." Implying that homosexuality is a "vice" and all, rather than, say, an alternate biological drive co-emergent with heterosexuality. You were very careful, but you can imagine how people reading quickly can get confused.
posted by digaman at 4:13 PM on June 21, 2006

Implying that homosexuality is a "vice" and all, rather than, say, an alternate biological drive co-emergent with heterosexuality.

That seems like a false dichotomy. And if you had read the sentence I was responding to, you might not have misinterpreted my statement that way.

But I object to the idea that any status can be considered a vice.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:17 PM on June 21, 2006

Not really Chuckles. Murder, rape, etc. are all very much part of human nature, but remain things a "civilised" society absolutely does not accept.

In the same vein, saying that homosexuality is acceptable because it is natural, for me, is an argument that falls a little short. In my view, it is acceptable because it is the choice of some free men and women. My respect for liberty demands that I respect this choice and it is rrelevant what my own personal "ick" factor is or is not.
Civilized societies certainly accept murder--even mass murder and genocide--as long as it's called "war" or justified some other way. We're all accepting daily murder right now in Iraq and Afghanistan--all done in our name.
posted by amberglow at 4:18 PM on June 21, 2006

The strawman here is a person who doesn't exist in this thread but rather in the memories of some of the arguers, a person who says that gay is wrong because it's un-natural.

Google finds 22 thousand such people. Are they all imaginary too?
posted by scottreynen at 4:20 PM on June 21, 2006

In my memory, and in the various neighborhoods I've lived in all my life. The connection between bigotry and...

Yes - which no one here is arguing, hasn't, and is extremely unlikely to.


Google finds 22 thousand such people. Are they all imaginary too?

To sort this one out you might want to google the definitions of 'memory' and 'imagination'. The former being a reflection of something known, the latter of something not.


1. Humans are a different order of being than animals. Hence what's "natural" for animals may not be "natural" for humans.

Can't speak for anyone but myself but this misses the point: what's natural in either animals or humans is irrelevant. The best and worst in humans both derive from our natures. Being simply natural, or something animals do, is a reliable measure of nothing in terms of morality or ethics either way no matter which side of this argument you find yourself on.

But let's not let any of this stand in the way of a good tangential argument.
posted by scheptech at 4:35 PM on June 21, 2006

To sort this one out you might want to google the definitions of 'memory' and 'imagination'. The former being a reflection of something known, the latter of something not.

Wikipedia defines straw man:

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

No one here created the position that homosexuality is unnatural and then attributed it to an opponent. It's a real and common position, and it's only easy to refute because of articles like the FPP.

Being simply natural, or something animals do, is a reliable measure of nothing in terms of morality or ethics either way no matter which side of this argument you find yourself on.

False. Those who find themselves on the side of the argument that says homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural find being natural a reliable measurement of morality. Those people are wrong to base their morality on what's natural, but that doesn't mean they don't do it anyway.
posted by scottreynen at 5:07 PM on June 21, 2006

The themes that seem to have developed are:

1) is homosexuality unnatural in a variety of animals?
2) if homosexuality is natural in a variety of animals, does that mean it's moral for humans?

Research, as provided by the OP, shows that amongst other species homosexuality is quite natural. From the evidence presented it wouldn't be unusual for homosexuality to be natural among homo sapiens too. That answers #1.

But the lines are drawn, so let the rhetoric fight it out on #2. After all, homosexuality is equivalent to rape and murder in some circles -- base impulses after all.
posted by ryoshu at 5:08 PM on June 21, 2006

what's natural in either animals or humans is irrelevant

I most strongly disagree.

Much of Western and Eastern philosophies — and ultimately the codes of ethics and morality derived therefrom — are rooted in an understanding and reflection of our nature (we have an innate fear of violent and painful death and therefore don't want to die by, say, being murdered: therefore we decide as a society that killing others for no reason is a Bad Idea; etc.).

Since most moral codes that violate human instinct are either ignored or create immense psychological pressures that are released — usually through violence against others — it makes sense to root our sexual moral code with an appreciation for our instincts and those of our closely related biological kin (primates).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:20 PM on June 21, 2006

One thing that confuses me whenever anyone brings up this whole "animals have gay sex" thing is that it seems like animals have all sorts of sex in general. By which I mean that they don't seem to be having 100% gay sex all the time, or 100% non-gay sex all the time. So it's not so much that there are "gay animals" as it is that animals have both kinds of sex.
So how come people claim humans have to be 100% straight or 100% gay? Both sides claim bisexuality is an aberration, or people just too afraid to come out. Judging by the animal kingdom alone, I'd say it seems bisexuality is the norm and fixed sexual orientation is the aberration.
posted by nightchrome at 5:21 PM on June 21, 2006

The themes that seem to have developed are:

1) is homosexuality unnatural in a variety of animals?
2) if homosexuality is natural in a variety of animals, does that mean it's moral for humans?

I'd add:

3) Does what's natural (for humans and/or for animals) have any bearing on what's moral?

(I suppose I'm taking an uncharitable view of this question in the context of this thread, by seeing it as a veiled variation on the argument from nature. I don't know yet whether my lack of charity is justified, though I do admit that the question is interesting in its own right).

But the lines are drawn, so let the rhetoric fight it out on #2. After all, homosexuality is equivalent to rape and murder in some circles -- base impulses after all.

Here I'd argue that you're conflating "base" and "natural" -- which seems to me to be another (though not unrelated) theme.
posted by treepour at 5:23 PM on June 21, 2006

nightchrome writes: So how come people claim humans have to be 100% straight or 100% gay?

It's been a while since I've read it, but this is a pretty important point made by Foucault in his History of Sexuality. He sets out to overthrow the idea that society has necessarily "progressed" after the Enlightenment towards a freer, more open place with regards to sexuality when in fact, all the new discourses regarding it that came about in the 19th and early 20th centuries (Freud being the major player) were just further ways in which sex was pathologized and anyone outside the norm was further marginalized, albeit now through the lens of scientific "objectivity." To wit, it wasn't until the psychological discipline developed that two guys or two girls fooling around (an act) became indicative of a behavior (and from the late Christian perspective, inherent sinfulness as well).

For all of our so-called freedom regarding sexuality, there's a paper waiting to be written or a drug waiting to be manufactured that can "correct" whatever your problems are these days. Which is a long way of saying that I couldn't agree more. To extrapolate a person's entire sexuality based on discrete actions doesn't make a lot of sense. People are more complicated than that and what's more, they change over time.
posted by bardic at 5:35 PM on June 21, 2006

me: 1. Humans are a different order of being than animals. Hence what's "natural" for animals may not be "natural" for humans.

scheptech: Can't speak for anyone but myself but this misses the point: what's natural in either animals or humans is irrelevant. The best and worst in humans both derive from our natures. Being simply natural, or something animals do, is a reliable measure of nothing in terms of morality or ethics either way no matter which side of this argument you find yourself on.

That's more or less what I intended to cover when I said "different order of being" and put the word "nature" in scare quotes. "Nature" for humans doesn't necessarily mean "simply natural" -- it could argued, for instance, that our essential nature is "spiritual", "divine", "rational", etc., in direct opposition to the "simple natural" of the animal.
posted by treepour at 5:35 PM on June 21, 2006

To extrapolate a person's entire sexuality based on discrete actions doesn't make a lot of sense. People are more complicated than that and what's more, they change over time.

Hear hear. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the idea that a person has a "sexuality" is fallacious.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:44 PM on June 21, 2006

Oh, good. I'm into fallacio.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:48 PM on June 21, 2006

Glad to see I'm not the only one who finds the whole thing kind of ridiculous.
posted by nightchrome at 5:51 PM on June 21, 2006

To wit, it wasn't until the psychological discipline developed that two guys or two girls fooling around (an act) became indicative of a behavior (and from the late Christian perspective, inherent sinfulness as well).

Well, the act has also become indicative of cultural identity. From my fairly superficial perspective, that aspect seems to complicate the basic questions of rights and morality a lot (ala deaf culture).

Personally, I think of deafness as a disorder, I assume homosexual sex is if you're into it, and while I'm nervous about the types of negative influences cultural identity can have, I think it is nice that people can find community support in their respective cultural groups. It is all very complicated :P
posted by Chuckles at 5:57 PM on June 21, 2006

That was supposed to be "I assume homosexual sex is if you're into it fun, if you're into it". Doh!
posted by Chuckles at 6:01 PM on June 21, 2006

This thread made me gay.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 6:28 PM on June 21, 2006

The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature so often, makes it by definition a natural behaviour. Doesn't make it right, or wrong, those are human judgements. And human beings, like animals, kill each other all the time, we just need the government's approval to make it right. Like a penis fencing tournament.
posted by disgruntled at 6:39 PM on June 21, 2006

Count me in as a mostly-gay dude who doesn't buy into the "100%" binary model. I've enjoyed sex with women, and slept with many mostly-straight men who seemed to enjoy themselves. I get annoyed by the gay arguments for binary models -- genetic or otherwise -- too.
posted by digaman at 7:01 PM on June 21, 2006

Of all the behaviors I've engaged in I've always thought sex to be the most non-anthropocentric, or most animal-like. I would then conclude that if a behavior such as same sex coupling were found frequently in nature, perhaps then even in humans, it was, well, completely natural. Unless we are beyond animal qualities, which the bulk of my experience seems to argue against. I'm not sure 450 or more observations counts as overwhelming evidence, but the frequency of the observations in more developed social species is pretty damn noteworthy.
posted by Toekneesan at 7:33 PM on June 21, 2006

Yikes.. Well, I'm not going to try to correct it again..
posted by Chuckles at 7:58 PM on June 21, 2006

Okay, Jek, here is a real straw man. I'm going to go on at length about what I believe your unstated argument really is. Because you are being willfully obtuse about your real opinion in this discussion, and thus you are kind of being a jerk. Sorry for making this straw man, but I think it is necessary.

Jek is not being forthright in his arguments. He says he has nothing against homosexuality. A bit later he reveals that he doesn't believe in such a thing as a static sexuality at all.

I may be wrong, but I think he is always just short of saying this:

His religion believes homosexual acts are sins and an inclination towards them is a vice not a sexual orientation.

He doesn't believe that his stance could be persecution of a class of individuals, because he doesn't believe that those individuals truly have a permanent status as a class of persons.

The closest he may come to not being a total bigot on this matter is some form of toleration, like religious toleration - a refusal to advocate that the government make laws against behavior he believes either causes the individual to defile him or herself and lose their sense of moral purity/purpose, or to be negatively judged in the eyes of God.

(I don't know if Jek believes that individuals need to be saved from hell, or whether religion and ethics serve primarily to guide life on earth. I also don't know if he believes that individuals are saved by grace alone, and that humility and upright behavior are signs of accepting that grace, or whether he believes that people are saved through a combination of grace and upright behavior. I am, however, assuming that he is a fairly "faithful" adherent of some monotheistic Abrahamic religion.)

To someone like Jek, wedded to explicit theological statements, toleration is probably the closest he can come to respecting queers. In religious toleration, he can privately believe that all polytheists and many monotheists are either destined for hell, or defiling themselves and their societies, but publicly permit the free exercise of religion. Furthermore, he may believe that the free exercise of religion is the only thing that will allow people to choose his religion in a meaningful sense.

How would this apply to sexuality? If he can continue to believe that homosexual acts are merely acts, nothing more, then he can privately condemn them, while publicly arguing that the government should not police the bedroom, that whatever acts occur in such privacy are matters of individual choices, and that as long as meaningful adult consent is present, the issues are not legal but matters of private conscience.

The gay marriage debate explodes this careful structure of toleration, for most people who harbor it. They cannot see that marriage could be or should be granted on the basis of "acts", and their whole mental picture insists that they are merely acts.

But, it's more complicated than that. Why can't they see gay marriage like they see other religious structures? Obviously other religions are more than occasional thoughts and actions - they have ceremonies and rituals and life long affiliations.

Yet, right now they don't believe they can learn to tolerate gay marriage like they've learned to tolerate other religions because of two important things: a) they define marriage as a religious sacrament, and b) they define homosexual acts as sinful acts resulting from the inclination of a vice.

So they don't know how they can reconcile their theological beliefs with the toleration of gay marriage. They can't yet see a way to publicly tolerate it and privately condemn it, because they are afraid that if they do they will either have to give up the idea of marriage as holy and blessed by god, or the idea of homosexuality as not being sexuality but merely sinful acts. And they don't want to give up on either of those.

How does this relate to the naturalness argument? Well, as the debate in this thread shows, the naturalness argument was one of the longstanding reinforcements of religious sanctions against queer behavior. Without the naturalness argument, the entire debate centers even more intensely around questions of morality and their public and private expressions in law and religion. Without the naturalness argument, it is much easier to make religious opponents of gay marriage or any other public sanctioning of homosexuality face the argument that their moral objections are matters of private religion and personal conscience, and essentially their own goddamn problem.

I can tolerate them believing I am sinner, as long as they don't interfere with my "sin." The question is whether they can wrap their heads around being tolerated rather than "tolerating" me.

Again, sorry Jek, for making a straw man out of you. It wasn't very noble of me, but this damn discussion is to frustrating to have when people don't articulate what is really at stake. And sorry to everyone else for that the unconscionable length of this essay.
posted by jann at 8:47 PM on June 21, 2006

No need to apologize, jann. If Jek feels half as strongly as his ellipitical comments imply, then you're not making a straw man out of anything. This is just another instance of his long-standing "I'll-be-so-coy-they-won't-see-my-true-colors" act on the blue, and frankly it's wearing thin. Props to you for calling it out in a diplomatic and eloquent manner.
posted by joe lisboa at 9:31 PM on June 21, 2006

OK, how has this thread gone on so long without a reference to gay furry porn? Bears do it, bonobos do it...

(contributing little to the discussion)
posted by anthill at 10:17 PM on June 21, 2006

My dog drinks out of the toilet.

so clearly, i ought to as well. and feel good about it. and point to my dog proudly to justify it.
posted by quonsar at 4:28 AM on June 22, 2006

Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation
posted by zouhair at 4:49 AM on June 22, 2006

More to the point, how come the thread has gone on this long without any question about the possible implications for Darwinism? I think Roughgarden herself set up a straw man (agh!), which is that sex selection can't be associated with non-reproductive activities. It's interesting research, but it sounds much more sexy (apologies) if it's "a challenge to the orthodoxy".
If bonobos or other animals survive better through same-sex-inspired bonding, then more of them reproduce successfully. All she's doing, to my mind, is adding to the existing "social selection" arguments, which is fine. Claiming you've demolished Darwin because non-reproductive activities have benefits is daft. Proto-giraffes born with longer necks engaged in more successful non-reproductive acts, i.e. have better chances of feeding. Same-sex animals who screw do to. Current Darwinism is happy with that. What's the problem?
Oh, and if it so happened that no animals had "gay" or "lesbian" sex would that make it wrong for humans to do it? Not in my world!
posted by imperium at 4:53 AM on June 22, 2006

imperium, here are some suggestions I've come across for the survival of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality:

• Heterozygote advantage. Homosexuality is caused by a gene, having one copy is favourable (better father?), two genes make you homosexual. Like sickle-cell anaemia.
• Creation of childless uncles/aunts able to support nieces/nephews, who are more likely to survive and also carry the genes for homosexuality.
• Selection for plasticity in behaviour in complex human societies producing a selection for homosexuality.
• Byproduct of different male/female mating drives. Male homosexuals are very promiscuous: having lots of sex is selected for as a good strategy, but it can create individuals so driven that they same-sex mate. Female homosexuals seek the more nurturing environment of other women.

I'm not aware of any evidence for any of these, and there are many objections, but it's been ten years since I looked at it as an undergraduate.
posted by alasdair at 5:33 AM on June 22, 2006

so clearly, i ought to as well. and feel good about it. and point to my dog proudly to justify it.

This is specious reasoning, even as I'm sure you knew that diving in.

Dogs drink out of the toilet because it has water in it and they are thirsty, not because it is inherently "natural" to drink water specifically out of a toilet bowl. Dogs are just as happy to drink water from a dish.

So if the point that comparisons with animal behavior are silly because we "shouldn't be drinking from toilet bowls" — well, perhaps we shouldn't be drinking any water at all, right? If we're taking this argument to its logical conclusion...
posted by Mr. Six at 5:36 AM on June 22, 2006

Both sides claim bisexuality is an aberration - nightchrome

Bullshit. There are individuals that claim bisexuality is an aberration, but in my experience they're in the minority. There's a reason so many queer groups identify themselves as GLBT. The B is for Bisexual.

I'd say it seems bisexuality is the norm and fixed sexual orientation is the aberration. - nightchrome

And more and more this is the attitude I'm hearing from many in the queer community. Of course it depends how you define sexuality: by actions? by attraction? by emotional attachment? But in actions at least, sexuality seems to be somewhat fluid, especially over time.
posted by raedyn at 7:59 AM on June 22, 2006

How does evolution describe any abnormality in the animal kingdom like 2-headed animals, 8-legged critters, etc? Why is any of this a controversy?
posted by JJ86 at 8:21 AM on June 22, 2006

Evolution talks about random mutations some of which get reinforced and some of which don't. So I think the 2-headed animals are a random mutation, yes?
posted by raedyn at 8:42 AM on June 22, 2006

(IANAEvolutionExpert)
posted by raedyn at 8:43 AM on June 22, 2006

Hmm. I come back after a good night's sleep, and I see a strawman version of myself (yes, indeed, that lenghty guess was incorrect). I'm not coy, and I'm not hiding anything. I mean what I say and I say what I mean (except when I type too hastily or choose my words poorly, I guess). And to pretend that every MeFi member is required in every thread to completely state every one of his or her theological beliefs is just plain stupid, joe lisboa.

I'm still blown away by how badly my "vice" comment has been taken out of context, not to mention the incorrect assumptions about what I believe above. It's just very frustrating that unless one conforms precisely to the predefined talking points of the standard discussion about homosexuality, the assumption is that he's hiding something, being coy, or fits neatly into some strawman that can cast his comments in the least favorable light.

I'm not going to address all of what was said above, because that would be a waste of time. I will, however, address this:

His religion believes homosexual acts are sins

Correct. It also believes that lots of other things are sins. Why single that one out?

and an inclination towards them is a vice not a sexual orientation.

Incorrect.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:04 AM on June 22, 2006

raedyn said: Evolution talks about random mutations some of which get reinforced and some of which don't. So I think the 2-headed animals are a random mutation, yes?

Ummm, I can make my comment a little more clearer if you didn't understand.
posted by JJ86 at 9:06 AM on June 22, 2006

JekPorkins, the "singling out" isn't done by people who happen to be gay and want to live their lives in peace and without intrusion. It's done, often, by people who justify their bigotry throught the use of appeals to mythological/religious standards or, as discussed upthread, appeals to the trope of the natural (and these two appeals aren't mutually exclusive).

But it sounds like you're not a fan of usury either. Good. I look forward to seeing you help organize protests outside of banks with the same vehement level of hate and intolerance one could find at a Fred Phelps gathering.
posted by bardic at 9:30 AM on June 22, 2006

bardic, I'm not a bigot.

But it sounds like you're not a fan of usury either.

Are you a fan of usury?

the same vehement level of hate and intolerance

The minute I say something hateful or intolerant, please let me know. I strive not to be hateful or intolerant. Indeed, my reliegion believes that both hate and intolerance are sins, which, of course, doesn't "justify" my "bigotry" against hateful and intolerant people.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:42 AM on June 22, 2006

Can it, Jek. Either state your position and defend it or butt out. Perhaps "coy" was too gentle a word. Nowhere did I demand anyone (least of all you) fully explicate their theological views "in every thread," I just wish you'd have the courage of your convictions. Or courage enough to state them.
posted by joe lisboa at 10:40 AM on June 22, 2006

State my position about what? I've clearly stated my position about everything relevant to this thread. What the hell more do you want? You state your position and defend it, if you think that's what this is about. What a load of crap.

My position: The fact that animals engage in various kinds of sex is irrelevant to what is or is not appropriate/desirable/moral/immoral/good/bad among humans.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:47 AM on June 22, 2006

So Jek, hypothetically, if homosexuality is eventually clearly discovered to be an inherent, built-in attribute of some human beings - i.e., ostensibly put there by God - what might that do to your concept of it being a sin?
posted by zoogleplex at 10:53 AM on June 22, 2006

Homosexuality among humans is wrong. It's contra-evolutionary and a grievious sin in God's eyes.

[Sorry for my lack of eloquence. I'm exhausted but I wanted to express to you all there is no grey area in regards to same-sex attraction. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and homosexuality is wrong.]

Flame away.
posted by rinkjustice at 11:06 AM on June 22, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

So Jek, hypothetically, if homosexuality is eventually clearly discovered to be an inherent, built-in attribute of some human beings - i.e., ostensibly put there by God - what might that do to your concept of it being a sin?

I have no concept of homosexuality being a sin, so I can't really answer that. See above.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:17 AM on June 22, 2006

You know precisely what I mean, Jek. You're afraid the Mefi lynch mob will take you to task for expressing the view that homosexuality is a sin so you studiously avoid explicitly saying so, choosing instead to hide behind the bushes and snipe away.

I mean, I think rinkjustice's (unless s/he's parodying you or someone else, above) position is moronic, but at least s/he came out and said so, and for that s/he gets my respect.
posted by joe lisboa at 11:20 AM on June 22, 2006

on (p)review: I apologize, Jek. You have stated twice now that you don't believe homosexuality is a sin, so I'll take you at your word and drop it.
posted by joe lisboa at 11:21 AM on June 22, 2006

"I have no concept of homosexuality being a sin, so I can't really answer that."

So wait a minute:

jann: "His religion believes homosexual acts are sins"

JekPorkins: "Correct. It also believes that lots of other things are sins. Why single that one out?"

Are you saying that you don't agree with your own religion about homosexuality being a sin?

Oh wait - homosexuality isn't a sin, just actually having sex with someone of the same gender is a sin, right? As long as the "status" is not acted upon, there's no sin?
posted by zoogleplex at 11:39 AM on June 22, 2006

homosexuality isn't a sin, just actually having sex with someone of the same gender is a sin, right?

More or less. Why is the status/conduct distinction so difficult for some people to understand?
posted by JekPorkins at 11:45 AM on June 22, 2006

*slaps forehead at falling for the old act/disposition shell game, wanders off to bang head against wall*
posted by joe lisboa at 12:04 PM on June 22, 2006

Jek, I am indeed sorry that I resorted to making a straw man out of your arguments.

But I am also genuinely curious and a bit confused, now.

If the acts are sins, what is the inclination to act if not vice?

My theology is probably different from yours. My theology doesn't discuss specific vices so much as "the evil inclination", so my understanding of the concept of vice maybe wrongheaded.

However, I thought that the general Abrahamic position on sin was that:
- God made human nature multiform, with inclinations to both vice and virtue.
- Humans have a measure of free will, which allows them to make conscious choices that are more than just the pursuit of instinct, inclination, or what Freud would call "Trieb".
- There are many natural and neutral human drives that can be considered vices if they are pursued without moderation,
such as hunger (gluttony), sex (lust), or self-protection (revenge).
- There are other human drives, whose satisfaction is more inherently considered immoral, such as: cruelty, envy, and indifference to suffering.

I've been taught to consider the final category as something like a "sinful vice" - the action here is not fully separate from the emotion or state of mind. The desire to be cruel exists in itself more fully than the desire to be gluttonous, and thus the desire itself is sinful.

So what is the religious status of homosexual desire to you? You say you don't hold it to be a vice. But I don't see how homosexual desire can fit a moderation model of instinct vs vice, because I don't see that religions that condemn homosexual acts as sins ever allow for a non-sinful moderate satisfaction of such needs.

I have therefore concluded that in these religions homosexual desire must itself be considered sinful, a more fundamental vice like cruelty or envy.

But again, this is mostly supposition. What do you believe?
posted by jann at 12:30 PM on June 22, 2006

Well, isn't homosexual desire included under "lust"? Seems like it would be, it's sexual desire.

Which makes it not just a sin, but a Deadly Sin.

So I'd agree with jann, the positions re status/conduct seem inconsistent considering that.

Also, it seems to me like not caring is someone is gay so long as they're not allowed to have gay sex at all ever is analogous to not caring if someone has brown skin, or is of some other religion, as long as they're not allowed to eat in the same restaurant or use the same bathrooms as you - the reservation of priveleges to an elite.
posted by zoogleplex at 1:18 PM on June 22, 2006

It also occurs to me that one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife."

"Coveting" is not conduct, it's a desire, a "status" if you will - the desire to possess (and ostensibly have sex with) the wife of another man. The commandment doesn't say "Thou shalt not lay with/know (Biblically)/have sex with your neighbor's wife."

So here we have straight from God Almighty that one of the greatest transgressions against His will is merely to lust after a woman who doesn't belong to you.

How is lusting after a man not akin to this? The prohibition in Leviticus carries somewhat less than Commandment Force, but it's plainly along the same lines.

Are you one o' them Bible-cherry-pickin' Protestant "literalist" types, Jek?
posted by zoogleplex at 1:25 PM on June 22, 2006

Being homosexual and lusting after someone are not the same thing -- just as being heterosexual and lusting after someone are not the same thing. If being heterosexual is not vice, neither is being homosexual.

(but see above re: my doubts of the true existence of "sexual orientation" as typically referred to).

Coveting is most certainly conduct -- it's a verb, after all. Just as conspiracy is conduct and intent can be an element of a crime. If it's a verb (and not a state of being), it's conduct - lusting? check. coveting? check.

Are you one o' them Bible-cherry-pickin' Protestant "literalist" types, Jek?

Aw hell no.

Well, isn't homosexual desire included under "lust"?

No, but homosexual lust is. Desire != lust.

If the acts are sins, what is the inclination to act if not vice?

I assume that you mean "vice" in the sense of frailty or moral weakness, in which case vice is an unavoidable state of being human. I'm thinking of vice as a descriptor of conduct, not a state of being. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

But what do you mean by "inclination?" I fear that we may be talking past each other here, which is not my intent.

*slaps forehead at falling for the old act/disposition shell game, wanders off to bang head against wall*

shell game? BS. From a legal perspective, when the Supreme Court says that a law may prohibit conduct but not status, it's not a shell game (see: prohibitions on public drunkenness versus prohibitions on being an alcoholic). From a moral perspective (setting aside theology for the moment), the same distinction is not only logical, but I'd argue it is morally imperative. If you think it's a shell game, is it because you believe that free will does not exist? Are we automatons? Have we no control over our conduct? Does a person's desire to engage in a given conduct inevitably cause him to engage in that conduct, whatever it may be and regardless of his beliefs regarding that conduct?
posted by JekPorkins at 1:56 PM on June 22, 2006

What control do you think is required, and why?
posted by agregoli at 2:07 PM on June 22, 2006

What control do you think is required, and why?

What control of what, by whom, and required by what or in order to accomplish what? I don't understand the question.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:08 PM on June 22, 2006

If you think it's a shell game, is it because you believe that free will does not exist? Are we automatons? Have we no control over our conduct? Does a person's desire to engage in a given conduct inevitably cause him to engage in that conduct, whatever it may be and regardless of his beliefs regarding that conduct?


Basically, this reads to me like you're saying that homosexuals might have the desire, but they should control their desire and not act on it. And I might be totally wrong in that assumption.
posted by agregoli at 2:16 PM on June 22, 2006

If a man desires a woman that he is married to then acts upon that desire and has sex with his wife, is that a sin?

If a man desires a man that he is married to then acts upon that desire and has sex with his husband, is that a sin?

Are the answers the same? Why or why not?
posted by raedyn at 2:18 PM on June 22, 2006

Of course we have control, and those who lack it suffer the penalties of the law (underage sex, child porn, beastiality, etc.).

But JekPorkins, why do you care about two men or two women sleeping together? There's no essential link between obvious areas where lust leads to problems, and hence laws exist to prevent the acts, and people who're gay. Straight people commit rape more often than gay people, statistically, and there's no statisical link between pedophilia and homesexuality (it happens, but less often than older straight men abusing younger girls), etc.

Why don't you and your mythological beliefs just butt the heck out of other peoples' private lives? I have no interest in yours (or any other mefite's for that matter). Why the double standard? And frankly, the outright obssesion with what gays do behind closed doors?

As far as I can tell, you've posted the most comments in this thread. You obviously have a point you want to make, so stop playing the "Oh, you guys don't understand me" card. People are trying to understand you, and you just kind of piddle on them for taking your (emerging?) thoughts seriously. Frankly, it's pretty tiresome as others have mentioned. If your ideas are so darn special, why not just come out and try to explicate them fully? Otherwise, you're just derailing IMO--nobody's even really discussing the article any longer thanks to you.
posted by bardic at 2:18 PM on June 22, 2006

I'll make an assumption here and say that control is required on the part of the homosexual person, to forgo having sex with people of the same gender as they, and to either remain celibate or only have sex with persons of the opposite gender within the bounds of religiously-defined marriage and with the expectation of producing children, out of the desire to avoid sin and live within the glory of God's Law.

This may or may not be Jek's exact take, but I've heard this one from lots of different Abrahamic types, fundie and otherwise.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:18 PM on June 22, 2006

"People are trying to understand you, and you just kind of piddle on them for taking your (emerging?) thoughts seriously. Frankly, it's pretty tiresome as others have mentioned. If your ideas are so darn special, why not just come out and try to explicate them fully?"

Hey bardic and agregoli, this remind you of another thread? :)
posted by zoogleplex at 2:20 PM on June 22, 2006

It does, I'm getting warm fuzzies. =)
posted by agregoli at 2:25 PM on June 22, 2006

but they should control their desire and not act on it.

The only reason they "should" do that is if they don't want to be doing something that I consider to be a sin. But I suspect they don't really care what I think is a sin, so they should do whatever they think is morally right. I think people should follow their own moral compass.

But JekPorkins, why do you care about two men or two women sleeping together?

I don't. I went out of my way to stick to the FPP's topic, but got called out for not derailing and not telling people what I think about gay sex in humans.

Why don't you and your mythological beliefs just butt the heck out of other peoples' private lives?

a) what mythological beliefs? b) I do butt out, but I've been called out here for butting out and criticized for not stating what all my religious beliefs are. Why don't you butt out?

As far as I can tell, you've posted the most comments in this thread.

People called me out, asked me questions, and I tried to respond to them. Sorry about that.

stop playing the "Oh, you guys don't understand me" card.

When did I play that? I'd like to now play the "you don't understand anything at all" card. Ok?

IMO--nobody's even really discussing the article any longer thanks to you.

Thanks to me saying that the fact that animals have gay sex (the topic of the FPP) has no bearing on human morality? IMO, your O is F'd up.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:27 PM on June 22, 2006

I'll make an assumption here and say that control is required on the part of the homosexual person, to forgo having sex with people of the same gender as they, and to either remain celibate or only have sex with persons of the opposite gender within the bounds of religiously-defined marriage and with the expectation of producing children, out of the desire to avoid sin and live within the glory of God's Law.


That is what I suspect as well. Which if true, is so assinine. Because guess what? The world doesn't have to follow one religious moral view.

And I think I will never understand anyone who thinks that it should. What's good for one doesn't have to be good for all.
posted by agregoli at 2:28 PM on June 22, 2006

"But I suspect they don't really care what I think is a sin,"

Probably correct.

" ...so they should do whatever they think is morally right. I think people should follow their own moral compass."

OK then. That's pretty much what I wanted to know.

There are a lot of people who feel the way you do about what you think is a sin, who want to force people to follow a moral compass that's not their own.

The evidence talked about in the FPP and this thread is aimed at fighting those people from making their idea of morality into a law, which you aren't trying to do - although your opinion and arguments re how animal behavior is irrelevant to human behavior are probably shared by those other people, so you're giving us some valuable insight there.

You do understand that if you act politically according to your belief system, you may in fact be part of the effort to force others to obey your moral compass?
posted by zoogleplex at 2:43 PM on June 22, 2006

Jek, raedyn and agrecoli covered what I was trying to say.

If homosexual desire is like other sexual desire, and not inherently "wrong", I don't understand why satisfying it in moderation is considered sinful, when satisfying heterosexual desire in moderation is not.

What I call inclinations are a specific individual's long-standing desires. Some of these are general to all humans, some are morally positive, some are morally negative, and some are morally neutral when the actions they lead to are not exercised in moderation.

For me, the question is, is there any non-religious reason to consider homosexual desires to be inherently morally negative? If so, this would presumably make them a different class of desires from heterosexual desires. If not, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that humans should not suffer any social, legal, or moral discrimination for satifying these desires in moderation.

I don't believe such a non-religious reason for condemning homosexual desire exists. Furthermore I think it is unjust to structure social policy around specifically religious beliefs that don't appear to have any more universal and non-religious justification.
posted by jann at 2:53 PM on June 22, 2006

Oy. I meant:

some are morally neutral when the actions they lead to are not exercised in moderation.
posted by jann at 2:56 PM on June 22, 2006

For me, the question is, is there any non-religious reason to consider homosexual desires to be inherently morally negative?

I would modify the question: Is there any non-religious reason to consider homosexual conduct to be inherently morally negative?

I have no doubt that a thorough sociological, psychological, and otherwise empirical analysis could come up with reasons, though many if not most or all of those reasons could likely be dismissed as the result of societal mores, etc, and not arising necessarily from some inherent aspect of the conduct itself. In my opinion, the question of whether something is moral or immoral is extraordinarily complex, and not really capable of being answered without resorting at least in part to conscience, religion, or some other less-than-quantitative resource.

I also don't think that the moderation/excess analysis is all that helpful, but that may just be because I can think of too many counterexamples.

But the whole "is it moral or not" question is something that sharply differentiates humans from animals, whether you believe in a religious basis for morality or not. One does not rationally ask whether an animal's actions are "moral" or "immoral."
posted by JekPorkins at 3:23 PM on June 22, 2006

In my opinion, the question of whether something is moral or immoral is extraordinarily complex, and not really capable of being answered without resorting at least in part to conscience, religion, or some other less-than-quantitative resource.


Then morality shouldn't be used as a basis for legislation, no?
posted by amberglow at 3:34 PM on June 22, 2006

We are animals, Jek. Animals capable of writing sonatas, Moby Dick, Mein Kampf, the Divine Comedy and the US Constitution when we're feeling particularly inspired. But we're mammals, primates, furry little pink things running around on a particularly lovely bluish spot in space for a wink of eternity. My respect for humankind does not go so far as to think that we are not simply one of Nature's (or God's, if you will) more ambitious ideas.

But this focus on "conduct" versus -- well versus what, exactly? If I said to you that I had no problem with your inborn ability to fall in love, but I consider you actually doing it, actually caring deeply for another human being to be evidence of immorality, you'd have every right to tell me to cosmically fuck off. That bright line around conduct, in this case, is a hype. Love the sinner, hate the sin, blah blah. To put it another way: Love Jews. But if they put on a prayer shawl, intone the sh'ma, or light a yarhzeit candle, ship 'em to the camps. Well, fuck that. And spare me the obligatory Godwin reference, because gay people die every day for their "conduct" and their very being, while good religious folks busy themselves with parsing the fine points of how to love the sinner while hating the sin.

Homosexuality is as beautiful as anything in the human spectrum, because it calls the highest and most selfless virtues out of people -- just as heterosexuality does. And homosexuality is as vulgar and immoral as anything in the human spectrum -- just like heterosexuality. The significance of animal studies like this FPP is to suggest that both homo- and heterosexuality are colors on the same spectrum of natural sexual behavior.

Ponder the morality of homosexuality all you want, but unless you're also giving heterosexuality the same scrutiny (which, Jek, in your case, because I think you're basically a good and smart guy, I suspect you are), I call bullshit.
posted by digaman at 3:40 PM on June 22, 2006

What amberglow says. When a society has to deal with complicated issues, throwing up our hands and making appeals to nebulous deities or subjective opinion is the worst answer. Indeed, it runs counter to the whole point of liberal democracy (at its best)--we have competing interests as human beings. If you can prove that a certain behavior "hurts" society as a whole, you can outlaw it (drunk driving, murder, etc). Personally, I see no reason why homosexuality impinges on other peoples' rights (Canada, Spain, Holland, and eventually the rest of the civilized world will agree with me). Further, the reason why a study like this interests me is that, in the face of evidence, the argument of "against nature" is starting to hold smaller and smaller amounts of water. It's still prevalent though, in my experience, and needs to be fought (rhetorically) as often as possible.

The function of a democracy is to limit the amount of superstition and mythology and subjective "taste" that goes into legislation, not increase it. Gays are ruining your marriage? You home life? Your kids' morals? Go ahead and prove it--the burden is on the prejudiced to show how their self-interest is hurt by Adam and Steve buying a home together and trying to adopt a kid who wouldn't have loving parents otherwise.
posted by bardic at 3:46 PM on June 22, 2006

Then morality shouldn't be used as a basis for legislation, no?

I disagree. Just because something is unquantifiable doesn't make it invalid. If you, personally, don't trust your ability to make correct decisions based on morality, then it's probably a good idea for you to avoid making political decisions based on it. But there are some pretty key legislative issues (civil rights, etc) that rely pretty heavily on morality as a basis for legislation, and I'd hate to see people's inalienable rights disappear because morality was replaced by economics in deciding whether or not certain previously recognized rights should be honored. The very idea of Justice is inseparably tied to morality, I think.

Ponder the morality of homosexuality all you want, but unless you're also giving heterosexuality the same scrutiny (which, Jek, in your case, because I think you're basically a good and smart guy, I suspect you are), I call bullshit.

Thank you. (Seriously, your parenthetical gives me the benefit of the doubt, and I hope that I live up to it)
posted by JekPorkins at 3:46 PM on June 22, 2006

Jek,
You seem to have missed my earlier questions in this flurry of conversation. So I'll ask them again:

If a man desires a woman that he is married to then acts upon that desire and has sex with his wife, is that a sin?

If a man desires a man that he is married to then acts upon that desire and has sex with his husband, is that a sin?

Are the answers the same? Why or why not?

posted by raedyn at 3:58 PM on June 22, 2006

BTW, I'm not asking a hypothetical. Remember there is legal gay marriage coast to coast in Canada. I know a married couple that are both men. Later in the summer I've been asked to sing at the wedding of two friends of mine, both of whom are women.
posted by raedyn at 4:00 PM on June 22, 2006

One thing that hasn't been brought up in this thread is the scatological side. In human societies without universal sanitation, social customs and taboos crop up with the intent of maintaining a healthy society. I don't know if this could be considered Darwinian, perhaps so if we're counting the lesbian macaques behavior. Societies without these customs presumably suffered more communicable iseases and could be presumed to be at an evolutionary disadvantage.

Examples are the Kosher and Halal food laws (pigs wallow in shit and carry diseases), the habit of not shaking hands with your unclean left-hand-used-to-wipe-your-ass still observed in India and elsewhere today, and a general human distaste for shit. (not shared by all animals)

This brings another side into man-on-man sex, the penis-in-anus side that is pretty gross to lots of folks. Today in the age of condoms, hot showers, and easy laundry, it's not a big deal, but it does lend itself to the "unnatural acts" folks' rhetoric.

Thoughts?
posted by anthill at 4:09 PM on June 22, 2006

Raedyn, what does the term "married" mean? Is it a legal term of art, a religious term, or something else? Does it have an actual definition? If so, what is it?

Also, realize that when you ask if something is "a sin" and "why or why not," the answer you get must, by definition, rely on an ipse dixit. So don't bitch if that's the response you get.

I'll be happy to give you my non-authoritative and admittedly capricious opinion about your questions if you first define the central term in them. Even though it's a derail, and I'll likely be the one berated for engaging in it. Because derailing is "immoral." Or something.

Oh, and I'll preliminarily state that I don't think the government has the authority to declare something moral or immoral. Nor do I think that I am in any way an authority on what's sin and what's not.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:10 PM on June 22, 2006

Straight people don't have anal sex? News to me.
posted by bardic at 4:11 PM on June 22, 2006

JekPorkins, regarding the ineffability of marriage, have you ever filled out an IRS tax form? Ponder the mystery all you want, but the existing definition in America are quite clear.
posted by bardic at 4:13 PM on June 22, 2006

JekPorkins -
Does the definition of 'married' cahnge your answer to the question? Where I live, the marriages of my friends are recognized both by the state and by their Christian church.
posted by raedyn at 4:14 PM on June 22, 2006

For me, if two married people engage in loving behaviours (including sex) it's equally okay no matter the genders of the people involved. I wonder if you agree, or if they are different somehow to you?
posted by raedyn at 4:16 PM on June 22, 2006

I guess I'm less interested in the 'sin' aspect, since obviously that's must come from a religious explanation. I'm more interested in a moral aspect (which may or may not derive from a religious explanation).
posted by raedyn at 4:22 PM on June 22, 2006

Why does the human animal think it is morally superior than the other animals? Human beings have a wide range of paraphilias and perversions that are uniquely human traits. Animals don't molest their young or commit incest. Animals aren't into bondage and sadomasochism, or get off by ejaculating or urinating on each other.

So homosexuality and bisexuality are natural human conditions. I always suspected it; why would a good looking heterosexual man sleep with other men if he could have any woman he wants? Christianity always fails. Fails to ask the right questions, and fails to come up with the right answer. Sin? What a bunch nonsense.
posted by disgruntled at 4:25 PM on June 22, 2006

Animals don't molest their young or commit incest. - disgruntled

My buddy's cat and his brother/father disagree with you.
posted by raedyn at 4:28 PM on June 22, 2006

Animals don't molest their young or commit incest.

disgruntled, get out much?

Cats having kittens fathered by one of their own grown-up kittens happens all the time. Maybe you're kidding?
posted by digaman at 4:29 PM on June 22, 2006

JekPorkins, regarding the ineffability of marriage, have you ever filled out an IRS tax form? Ponder the mystery all you want, but the existing definition in America are quite clear.

If it's so clear to you, why can't you just enunciate it? I have the (perhaps mistaken) belief that marriage exists independent of whether or not the state recognizes it -- that if the IRS no longer cared if I were married, I wouldn't cease to be married. The term has legal connotations, yes. But tell me the definition, if you please.

Does the definition of 'married' cahnge your answer to the question? Where I live, the marriages of my friends are recognized both by the state and by their Christian church.

Yes, it does. If both hypothetical "married" couples are "married" in the eyes of God, then, ipse dixit, no sin. Do you believe that your friends' marriages are approved by God? If so, then you, too, believe that it's not a sin, I imagine.

If "married" does not mean that God has approved the sexual relationship, then, ipse dixit, sin.

For me, if two married people engage in loving behaviours (including sex) it's equally okay no matter the genders of the people involved. I wonder if you agree

I disagree. I think that what the "loving behaviour" is makes a difference, morally. I probably draw the line somewhere different than you do, but I suspect that you, too, draw a line where "loving behavior" between people is concerned.

Christianity always fails. lol.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:34 PM on June 22, 2006

I know that God approves of my marriage to my husband, even if the Republican Party, the Family Research Council, and the IRS don't. How do I know this? I asked God in my heart. (I skipped the middleman, who often seems confused, corrupt, or working in the service of Caesar these days.)

And, ipse dixit, we had a beautiful wedding and have had a wonderful relationship that gets deeper, sweeter, and more meaningful every day, after nearly 12 years together. You can imagine how weird it is for me to read about people accusing couples like my husband and I of "mocking" or "attacking" marriage. You'd almost think they were joking, but they come on so seriously.
posted by digaman at 4:54 PM on June 22, 2006

disgruntled, get out much?

Cats having kittens fathered by one of their own grown-up kittens happens all the time. Maybe you're kidding?

I get out all the time. I think it's your cats that should get out more. Granted, animals in confined spaces are going to diddle their young, but men who molest their children aren't in confined spaces.

Most marriages are a sham too. The adulty rate is something like 70%.

Human beings are animals with a crazy set of beliefs that are in constant conflict with their own nature.
posted by disgruntled at 5:03 PM on June 22, 2006

The adultery rate is something like 70%, that is.
posted by disgruntled at 5:06 PM on June 22, 2006

So why do the genders of the people in a married (recognized both by the state and their church) relationship matter? Is it because of something the bible says, or is there additional reasons?
posted by raedyn at 7:54 AM on June 23, 2006

raedyn, that sort of depends on what you mean by "married." I'm not trying to be pendantic -- the term "married" is considered by many to mean "the union of a man and a woman yada yada yada," and for those people, if it's not a man and a woman, it's simply not marriage at all -- and to remove that element essentially makes marriage a run-of-the-mill contract. That's why (IMO) they refer to it as a "mockery" of marriage -- because it mimics what they think of as marriage while removing what they see as the central element.

It really drives me nuts that nobody can ever seem to enunciate a definition of exactly what "marriage" actually is. Loving v. Virginia recognized a fundamental right to marriage, but didn't give any hint as to what marriage is -- it simply relied on people's implicit understanding.

People opposed to christians (for lack of a better descriptor) seem to really get hung up on the idea that christians and other judeo-christian religious people must be bound to the text of the bible and no other source of belief. It is simply not so, and no amount of out-of-context bible quotation will ever matter. "Because the bible says so" isn't really anyone's reason -- people who say that probably don't know what the bible says, and definitely haven't really studied the bible enough to have a reasonable belief as to what it means.
posted by JekPorkins at 8:39 AM on June 23, 2006

the term "married" is considered by many to mean "the union of a man and a woman yada yada yada," and for those people, if it's not a man and a woman, it's simply not marriage at all -- and to remove that element essentially makes marriage a run-of-the-mill contract.

Yet, if it's so run-of-the-mill, why not allow it?

I'm of the camp of saying, fine. Don't call it "marriage" if that's what's got you in a tizzy (I am left scratching my head as WHY that matters to ANYONE). But what's the harm in allowing this "contract" to be the same as any other marriage contract?
posted by agregoli at 8:56 AM on June 23, 2006

Yet, if it's so run-of-the-mill, why not allow it?

Run-of-the-mill contracts are allowed. But marriage apparently has some distinguishing factors that make it not just a plain old contract, legal partnership, LLP, LLC, or other non-marriage entity. There are both legal and non-legal elements. Removing the legal recognition would not cause marriage to cease to exist. So what is marriage, if the legal trappings aren't allowed to be part of the definition? Can it be defined in a way that maintains the distinction from other contracts? If so, what's the distinction?

I'm of the camp of saying, fine. Don't call it "marriage" if that's what's got you in a tizzy

I, too, am of that camp. But I've heard that same-sex-marriage advocates don't like the idea of calling same-sex unions anything other than marriage. I've heard various legal arguments, none of which have fully convinced me, but I believe that at the core of the debate is the idea that people want to have same-sex unions called the same thing as opposite-sex unions because they don't like the implication that they're not on the same moral footing.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:27 AM on June 23, 2006

One can make a fair argument that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Finding a term for the legal contract, and leaving the term marriage for individuals and religions to deal with. Perhaps, early on, moral conservatives could have accomplished this kind of outcome, if they were willing to accede to cooperation instead of an all or nothing confrontation.

Getting government out of the the marriage business was never advocated with any conviction, as far as I can tell. So, I'm forced to conclude that the anti- camp avoided it because they knew the outcome would be unacceptable. There are, after all, many churches perfectly willing to marry gay and lesbian couples.

JekPorkins, what do you think? What if government completely eliminated the word marriage from its vocabulary? No restrictions on who can use the word, no status in law (the old married status would have some new designation, I don't mean to say you would eliminate spousal privilege), etc..

Personally, I'm inclined to say that it is too late for me to take that position seriously. Anyway, since no one is advocating it, it hardly matters.
posted by Chuckles at 10:15 AM on June 23, 2006

because they don't like the implication that they're not on the same moral footing.


Moral? See, I think it's not that at all. Who cares about being considered "moral" in the eyes of bigots?

It's so they are on the same page regarding rights. You know, equal rights and all. And I'm with them on that. But I think that if the word "marriage" is all that most people are balking on, then they should have all the rights of marriage but call it something else. Language can change later. I think that many gay people would accept this if the "union" or whatever they called it was exactly equal to marriage.
posted by agregoli at 11:10 AM on June 23, 2006

JekPorkins, what do you think? What if government completely eliminated the word marriage from its vocabulary?

I think that would be great.

Who cares about being considered "moral" in the eyes of bigots?

If you didn't care, you wouldn't call them bigots. Besides, they're in power, so you should care what they think until they're out.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:16 PM on June 23, 2006

It would have to have all the same rights AND be as transportable as marriage is--right now, there's no way to do that--all state laws are worded like federal laws--they mention spouse, married couple, husband, wife, etc. There's no spouse in a civil union. There's no husband or wife....

Every local, county, state, and federal law and regulation that mentions any of that would have to change. Civil unions by their very definition do not cover the same things as marriage does--it's unequal and second class to start with. And civil unions are not at all transportable.
posted by amberglow at 12:52 PM on June 23, 2006

And even if it were somehow possible to make it exactly equal to marriage all over the country (and it's not), those fighting against samesex marriage now would fight against it and stop it from happening. And many of the new state amendments forbid anything even resembling marriage from being allowed.
posted by amberglow at 12:56 PM on June 23, 2006

Who cares about being considered "moral" in the eyes of bigots?

If you didn't care, you wouldn't call them bigots. Besides, they're in power, so you should care what they think until they're out.


Now that doesn't make a lick of sense. They ARE bigots.
posted by agregoli at 1:23 PM on June 23, 2006

The point is, why should I, or anyone care if they think homosexuality or two men or two women marrying is MORAL, which is the word you used?

I don't care if they think it's moral. What I care about is making sure that everyone has equal rights. If marriage is available for all, I could give a flying fuck whether they agree with it or not.

I fervently hope that all of this will be a non-issue in a few years because gay marriage will be legal and commonplace across the U.S.
posted by agregoli at 1:43 PM on June 23, 2006

Every local, county, state, and federal law and regulation that mentions any of that would have to change.

That's just not true at all.

If marriage is available for all, I could give a flying fuck whether they agree with it or not.

Without a workable definition of the term "marriage," that sentence has no meaning.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:58 PM on June 23, 2006

And my workable definition is the one we have right now - heterosexual marriage. Done.
posted by agregoli at 2:20 PM on June 23, 2006

That's just not true at all.

It is true. Go look at your local, county, state and federal laws sometimes. Then go and look at all the Agency and Department regulations and statements (the whole alphabet soup). ...
posted by amberglow at 4:19 PM on June 23, 2006

amberglow, it's true that laws contain those provisions. It's not true that they'd all have to be amended. A simple statute (or even a Supreme Court opinion) stating something like "all provisions referring to marriage, spouse, husband, wife shall apply equally to any and all parties to [clever name for same-sex union] as defined herein" would work just fine. Statutes have that sort of thing all the time.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:24 PM on June 23, 2006

This is just Federal, for a start, from the GAO: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of "marriage" and "spouse" that are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor.[Footnote 1] In 1997, we issued a report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor.[Footnote 2] In preparing the 1997 report, we limited our search to laws enacted prior to September 21, 1996, the date DOMA was signed into law. Recently, you asked us to update our 1997 compilation.

We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges. ...
posted by amberglow at 4:29 PM on June 23, 2006

wouldn't DOMA have to be overturned first?
posted by amberglow at 4:30 PM on June 23, 2006

wouldn't DOMA have to be overturned first?

I don't see why, since it wouldn't rely on the definitions of those terms, instead adding new terms to which the same rights/obligations/etc would apply. In fact, it would probably be easier than overturning DOMA. But then, I'm not a DOMA expert.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:41 PM on June 23, 2006

and it would override every single local, state, and federal law and agency regulation all over the country? (and state amendments?)
posted by amberglow at 5:42 PM on June 23, 2006

I'm sorry, are you asking me to singlehandedly draft a statute that would accomplish that? It wouldn't be all that difficult, but I'd rather get paid to do that kind of work, frankly.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:49 PM on June 23, 2006

I'm trying to understand why you think it's even possible, given all the considerations.
posted by amberglow at 6:23 PM on June 23, 2006

I'm trying to understand why you think it's even possible, given all the considerations.

Which considerations? Political considerations? Legal considerations (those are fairly easy to deal with)? I think it's possible because I'm a fairly intelligent person who has thought it through pretty well. Why do you think it wouldn't be possible?

Maybe you'd need to create this new type of union on a state-by-state basis. Fine. Maybe you wouldn't -- I can think of several ways to do it, none of which would require amending every statute that refers to marriage or married-related things.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:45 PM on June 23, 2006

Why do you think it wouldn't be possible?

Because of the way states manipulate the subtleties of Roe v Wade to effectively ban abortion?
posted by Chuckles at 10:57 PM on June 23, 2006

that's why it's not likely to happen -- it's certainly possible, just not probable.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:08 PM on June 23, 2006

The internet among humans is wrong. It's contra-evolutionary and a grievious sin in God's eyes.

[Sorry for my lack of eloquence. I'm exhausted but I wanted to express to you all there is no grey area in regards to electronic information exchange. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and the internet is wrong.]

Flame away.
posted by Azhruwi at 10:44 PM on July 2, 2006