CogentPhilosopher
Philosophy Student
Look at this.
Because I debated you on a thread, I obviously must want to hurt all women despite being a pacifist.
Really get over yourself.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientific Evidence and Gender, Sex, and Transsexuality
- Thread starter CogentPhilosopher
- Start date
Look at this.
Because I debated you on a thread, I obviously must want to hurt all women despite being a pacifist.
Really get over yourself.
godnotgod
Thou art That
The point of departure in any approach to knowledge, whether Eastern or Western, is everything.
"Thienthe" is not the only valid form of knowledge. In fact, it fails in the larger context of Reality.
Einstein was successful in large part due to an intuitive approach.
Regardless, does there exist some form of science which understands the inner relationship of male to female energies?
The West considered acupuncture as 'junk' for many years; it is now recognized as valid medicine.
Biological sex? That's the trouble with science: it thinks it can surgically isolate factors of reality from the larger context and come to valid conclusions. Zoologists 'studied' animals in zoos for many years, thinking their conclusions were valid. They weren't.
siti
Well-Known Member
"Have homosexuality"? - Did I say that? They all engage in homosexual behaviour - or do you suppose that two female macaques mounting each other and rubbing their genitals together or two male monkeys giving each other hand jobs is incorrectly classified as "homosexual behavoiur"? Of course animals don't generally choose a homosexual "life style" - its not part of their culture. Only humans and sheep are known to limit their sexual activities in that way. Most other animals, it seems, are quite happy to get what they can either way with what would seem at face value to be an obvious naturally selective advantage for those who swing more towards heterosexuality. But given that we each have a bit of both male and female genetics in us, it could be that a genetic trait that promotes female fecundity might also prompt males to be more attracted to other males if the genetic balance is weighted in that direction. That's just pure Darwinism - Darwin wondered why animals produce far more offspring than seems necessary - which is just another way of asking why females are so fertile. The answer, of course, is that this 'over-productiveness' ultimately allows nature to weed out the weaker genes and ensure the survival of the species. But it seems like the price of this enhanced female fruitfulness is a significant increase in male fruitiness in a significant proportion of the populations. The first (obviously advantageous) effect outweighs the the second (seemingly disadvantageous) effect.
Point being - the topic asked what science says about homosexuality. My answer is, it is almost certainly genetic and it is widespread in nature. And BTW - I never said that hetero- sex was just about reproduction - sex, in any form, for any species, is about much more than just reproduction - its about bonding, its about social status, its about fun, pleasure, aggression, submission, control, domination, giving, forgiving, passion, compassion, empathy, selfishness...its hormonally very complicated. Its probably the most complicated and least understood part of being alive in many ways. Which is why I find the idea of a 20-year old male and a 28-year old female presuming to teach each other about it in a discussion forum quite amusing. I've got nearly double their years on my clock (not to mention 3 kids and 3 grandchildren) and I still don't understand it - but I reckon understanding it is not the point.
And you call my argument odd? How is consensual homosexual sex even remotely like the third-party suffering inflicted by eating live animals or destroying the environment?
It's "natural"
Tom
siti
Well-Known Member
And? You see - my argument - if you'd read it carefully - was nothing to do with morality. My argument was that being ubiquitous among the animals, homosexuality is probably genetic - so we can't actually avoid it any more than we can avoid being born with blue eyes or frizzy hair.
Some genetic traits are profoundly disadvantageous - such as those cause disabilities and congenital diseases. We search for cures for these. Others - I am suggesting - are not, in themselves, disadvantageous - either to the individual or to the species. There is no need to search for a cure for these - either medically or psychologically. But there are some individuals whose sexuality is opposed to their gender psychology. We can help them physically - we are much less adept at changing people's psychology safely. So I see no issue with the idea of a sex change - or with people who want to identify with a gender that is not the same as their physical sexual characteristics. Its the best we can do at present - and it may always be safer than attempting to force the gender identification based on sex. We have tried that and it doesn't work very well in most cases and is disastrous in others.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Yes, actually, I do think it's incorrectly labelled. I think that it's heavily weighted with our modern ideologies and political correctness, and the obsessive need to justify what we do with the world around us, history, myth, and whatever else makes us sleep better at night.
Are those animal's behavior truly homosexual, or are they seemingly sexual acts between specimens of the same sex? In much the same way, was my dog a bestiality-prone lesbian because she would hump my sister's leg? The false implication in calling those acts "homosexual" is that those animals are then homosexuals themselves, and are "gay". Yet I don't think for one second that it could be shown that there was any manner of sexual attraction between those animals.
To address the age thing, this matters not in the slightest. If they're only 28, yet have spent ten of those years becoming deeply intimate with knowledge of human sexuality, and you've (for sake of argument) spent only five years of a 50 year lifespan learning of the same, then they have double the understanding that you do. A lifetime spent in a single room doesn't make for a wise person on age alone.
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes. Homosexual behaviour is sexual activity between two (or more) animals of the same sex.
No, they are sexual acts - unless you are suggesting that the only truly sexual acts are (at least potentially) reproductive ones???
No, certainly not - lesbian is definitely a human cultural term and I am pretty sure dogs are not inclined to exclusively female sexual activity.
Again "gay" is a human cultural term. But both sheep and humans do seem to have a proportion of exclusively homosexual males. Giraffes also enjoy a fair amount of homosexual activity but are not observed to be exclusively homosexual.
Don't you? Why not? What is sexual attraction?
The age thing was not meant as an insult - I dare say there are twenty somethings who have more experience than I do and I dare say there are fifty somethings who have less. That really wasn't the point - but the idea that one can debate one's another's individual sexual expertise on a religion discussion forum was funny to me for some reason.
Anyway, homosexual is about sex - gay and lesbian are about human lifestyles. Obviously they are connected - but they are not the same thing. Homosexual behaviour is common in the natural world because a large part of "what turns us on" is genetic. "Gayness" is very rare in nature - there is no "gay" culture in other animals - there doesn't need to be because there is neither acceptance nor disapproval - its just what it is.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
At what age? Birth?
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Is it really, though? No doubt they are sexual acts, but there's a difference between sex and sexuality; when you say that these animals display homosexual behavior, that indicates attraction. Can you prove that the monkey giving the other monkey a handy-j was sexually attracted to it? Or were they just bored?
Exactly, as is homosexuality. Because while a dog can most certainly love, our human sense of love, sexual attraction, and sexual preference are human experiences. Animals don't have a gauge of what they find "hot" or "beautiful." In these cases of "animal homosexuality" there's no sense of companionship or romantic attachment. It should also be noted that these observances are admitted to be "an account of human interpretations of these phenomena". Trying to (needlessly) justify homosexuality by paralleling sex acts in nature to human sexuality is an uneven comparison, and does more harm than good, especially since the reason behind these "homosexual acts" is unknown and scientifically contested.
There is no difference between homosexual, gay, and lesbian. They all mean the same thing, and describe a sexual orientation in an individual. It refers not only to the sexual acts between those couples (which are not exclusive to homosexuals, by the way,) but the romantic and sexual attraction as well. Which is why instances of prison rape - even should it be between two males - is not professionally referred to as a homosexual act or relationship.
No, it's really not. Even in species that exhibit "homosexual acts", it remains a vast minority. Which is another issue; this forced normalization. While there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, it is not a statistically normal orientation or behavior in any species.
siti
Well-Known Member
Well I was referring to homosexual acts (which is the phrase I used consistently). They are commonplace in the natural world. There is tons of evidence for this. As for sexual orientation - I have no idea how one would observe that in other animals except through sexual activity - I have no idea whether a sheep that engages preferentially in homosexual acts (as apparently, according to research, about 8% of male sheep do) is an ovine equivalent of a gay man (although there is evidence of a similar difference in the size of a particular part of the hypothalamus which is involved in estrogen synthesis as is observed in 'gay' men).
I'm guessing rams don't have a 'gay' culture - they just do what they do without any judgmental (positive or negative) cultural assignation. And that is the difference in humans IMO. And your response to my factual statements is evidence of that. You have assumed that my intent is to establish homosexuality as 'normal'. I have nowhere claimed that. I have simply pointed out the facts that homosexual behaviour has been observed in many, many species of animals. It is a natural fact of the living world that some animals of a great range of species will, at some time, or occasionally - or in some cases frequently, and in at least two species preferentially, engage in homosexual activities.
It is very odd to me that we imagine that 'sexuality' is a purely cultural human invention and not a product of our natural evolution. Especially so when it is becoming clearer all the time that both sex and sexuality involve brain anatomy and hormonal stimulus and response patterns that we have clearly inherited from our evolutionary ancestors and that are mirrored to some extent in our evolutionary cousins today.
Homosexuality is not 'normal' - it is statistically rarer than heterosexuality - but it is natural - the result of natural evolutionary and biological processes. And of course culture plays a role too - especially, but probably not exclusively, in humans. But it doesn't have to be the norm to be commonplace and that was the point I was making.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
No, you are referring to same-sex acts. "Homosexual" infers attraction, and is a term coined for human relationships. Using it for animals is silly.
No, they are not, and you need to look up, I think, what "commonplace" means. You cite 8% of sheep? That is a miniscule percentage, and does not mean common in the slightest.
siti
Well-Known Member
Well - OK - same sex then. Homo = same, sexual = relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals. And how is "attraction" not involved.
The word was coined a hundred years before anybody bothered to look for it in animals. And when they did - what a shock - they're all at it. They wouldn't even have admitted looking if they'd seen it in 1890s.
And commonplace = not unusual or ordinary. 8% is not miniscule - it means that 1 in 12 male sheep show a preference for same sex activity. That means there are about 40 million same-sex preferring male sheep in the world. I wouldn't call that miniscule - I'd call it "not unusual" or "ordinary" or "commonplace".
Last edited:
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Because it can't be shown that these animals are attracted to one another, and I don't think it ever will be.
Of which 8% is not. It is not ordinary for animals to exhibit same-sex sexual acts.
Yes, it is; it is well below 50% - it's even below 10%. It means that 2 out of 25 sheep would display these same-sex actions. That is very rare. Using your number of 40 million "gay" sheep, (of which I'm not sure at all if it's been shown to be a preference, but whatever) that would mean there are 500 million sheep worldwide.
siti
Well-Known Member
500 million male sheep. I counted them - I was having trouble getting to sleep
. But whatever the actual number is I reckon there are a hell of a lot of woolly woofters around. BTW - I think you may need to look up the meaning of the words "minuscule" and "rare" - e.g. in medicine, a "rare" disease is defined as one that affects fewer then 1 in x of the population where x is usually a rather large number between about 1,000 and several hundred thousand (there are different definitions but I have never seen one that reaches percentage levels of the population and is still considered rare). Similarly, in a statistical context "minuscule" would imply statistical insignificance - 8% of any population is definitely not in that category.
CogentPhilosopher
Philosophy Student
I would have to go back and see. But I think it was during the early development. I need to find that study.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
"Miniscule" means very small. As in 8%. "Rare", in a similar fashion means "not occurring very often" or "not occurring in large numbers" as in 2 out of 25 sheep.
In any case, I do not think that it can be conclusively shown that animals engaging in what we take to be "homosexual behavior" are truly homosexual, thus it is completely ridiculous to point to nature as a justification for the "naturalness" of homosexuality in humans. Especially when there are dozens upon hundreds of examples that nature sets that we reject as being "above" in morality and ideology.
siti
Well-Known Member
Not tremendously convincing argumentation method there my friend. I get what you are saying, but I also think you are not up to date with research on this subject. Did you look at the links in one of my earlier posts? The BBC one here has a few other links that might be of interest. I'm going to leave it there - I doubt either of us is going to change our POV - not that that is important - but I think we've both made our case on the point in question and there's no point belaboring it further.
Now that's a different point. I assume you mean that human morality/ideology ascends above that of the animals so even if it were true that some animals engage in same sex activity, that fact is irrelevant to a discussion of the morality of same sex activity/attraction in humans? But as I have pointed out several times, I was not making a moral argument. Rather, I was making the point that as a seemingly natural aspect of animal life (including the human animal), it probably behooves us to try to understand how it has evolved and how it works BEFORE we start forming an informed moral/ ideological opinion about what (if anything) should be done about it.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Yes, I did, and it was severely lacking in... well, anything. "Some populations" How many? Then words used like "handful" and "isolated occasions" further give indication that this is not a "natural norm," is in-fact an anomaly, and is hardly ammunition towards fair and just treatment of homosexuals. What's more, is that those studies posed the strong possibility that these species - namely the macaques - just wanted sexual gratification, without reproduction. If anything, that hurts the image of homosexuals, and puts equality back several steps; their actions are thus by no means a form of mating or bonding, but merely "I'm horny and you can't impregnate me." The guy quoted in that study is even very clear that these animals are not homosexual, thus interpretation of their actions is just that; society overlaying our ideals and viewpoints onto something that is not the same. You might as well call one tree covering another tree in it's pollen as homosexual.
Hell, that study even made mention that some animals engage in this "homosexual behavior" purely by accident.
All in all, I still stand by my assertion. It's ridiculous to say that homosexuality occurs in nature, as animals have no sense of sexuality, or what we call "gender identity" and attraction. Flies will literally have sex with anything until they finally score reproduction, yet those chance mistakes are dubbed "homosexual" and one more species that "displays homosexuality" is added to the list. It's preposterous, agenda-pushing, and unnecessary.
siti
Well-Known Member
Now who's being preposterous?
Only if we project our human moral view onto the data. I have repeatedly said I was not making a moral argument. But if we take the sex out sexuality the entire thing is meaningless. It is about sexual attraction and gratification - and understanding that is one key to understanding sexuality - but not the only key. Of course in humans (and in other animals though this is difficult to impossible to assess) we also have to understand cultural and social influences as well as biological and evolutionary ones.
And just to be clear again - I have never seriously - though I honestly couldn't resist the woolly woofter sheep thing - suggested that these animals ARE homosexual, as if they somehow self-identify as such - they don't as far anyone could possibly know and I have stated this clearly already. They are just doing what comes naturally to animals. And so are humans. Statistically, you are as likely to be gay as you are to have red hair. We don't suggest that red hair is unnatural because only 1-2% of humans have it. That is my point. It is human culture and morality that has an agenda - that forces us to self-identify as 'gay', 'straight'...etc. instead of just being humans doing what we do and preferring what we prefer. If we project that agenda onto our studies of animals we will very likely misinterpret animal behaviour (which I think is what you are saying), but I am saying if we project it onto our human psyches (as we do) without due regard for the natural origins of our sexuality, we run the risk of setting up dangerous psycho-social barriers (as we have) that some are unable to negotiate safely.
That isn't actually what the scientific evidence points to. For instance, female human homosexuality has more to do with environmental and social factors than genetics (male homosexuality is the other way with more genetic push and less environment).