The whole Brokeback Mountain thing has re-awakened a pet peeve of mine (which I know I share with a few others here. That is, what is natural and what is unnatural.
quote: NATURAL 1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl. 2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment. 3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death. 4. 1. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people. 2. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader. 3. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex. 5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive. 6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce. 7. Faithfully representing nature or life. 8. Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper). 9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights. 10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate. 11. 1. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child. 2. Born of unwed parents: a natural child. 12. Mathematics. Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero. 13. Music. 1. Not sharped or flatted. 2. Having no sharps or flats.
That's just the first entry on Dictionary.com, because I'm lazy.
You could maybe make a case for homosexuality being "unnatural" by definitions 8 or 9, but not really any of the others, I think.
I was involved in a genetics experiment involving fruit flies. We stored them in containers in the fride when we weren't breeding them. The experiment had to do with the color of the eyes of successive generations, so we had to observe who mated with whom and what color their eyes were. The more generations we had, the more crowded the ventillated tupperware got. The more crowded it got, the more male friut flies seemed to try to mate with other males (they are easy to tell apart because of size).
We all noticed it, because it reduced the population of successive generations, and, well, there were jokes okay? We weren't there to study gay fruitflies, so I have no hard data, but it seems reasonable to assume the behavior was natural, as no one was holding wee guns to their little heads.
I came to think that population pressures might have some effect on behavior, but I've never tried to follow through with a controlled study. Not my major.
Anyway, homosexuality is natural, in that it occurs in nature across a broad spectrum of species.
To argue whether something is good/bad or right/wrong based on whether it is natural is kinda dumb. As rivka pointed out recently, arsenic is natural, so are any number of things that are harful to humans.
"All-Natural and Sugar-Free" can be truthfully written on a bag of used cat litter, after all.
Whether or not something is harmful(to a person or to society, to wingnuts or carrots) is a completely different issue from whether-or-not it is natural.
Can we agree on that?
*bats eyelashes*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Whether or not something is harmful(to a person or to society, to wingnuts or carrots) is a completely different issue from whether-or-not it is natural.
Can we agree on that?
I don't think so.
They are definitely different issues, but they are not completely different. In certain instances there can be some connection between the two.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think the usage of "unnatural" that you object to comes from the expression "what nature intended," which anthropomorphises nature and attributes intent to it. In my experience, people making this argument are always theists.
Added: I should clarify. What I mean is that since theists attribute the creation of the universe to a deity, who clearly had intentions of some sort when deciding to make the universe, it is, er, natural for them to state it in that manner.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
One of my friends' and my favorite stock expressions in high school was, "But that--that ain't natrul."
It's a handy and mildly amusing phrase to have in your arsenal. But you've gotta do the accent right (cf. "Ol' Jo' Smith an' his Goldun Bible!").
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I know a lot of atheists who make the "what nature intended" argument. It seems to be a way of trying to make "ew" sound more mature and valid. FWIW.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:In my experience, people making this argument are always theists.
And in my experience, theists more often make arguments based on what God intended.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
MPH, I think she's arguing that morality does not derive from naturalness or unnaturalness. Can you give an example of where it does?
Or more specifically, can you clarify your contention with examples?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The more crowded it got, the more male friut flies seemed to try to mate with other males (they are easy to tell apart because of size).
That's very interesting. The connotations (expanded into the human world) are unsettling.
This is being filed in my brain as "Something to write a short story about."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Belle, I edited to clarify. My point is that "it's unnatural" is a shorthand for "I don't think god intended it."
Lissande, you should smack those atheists upside the head. Attributing intent to nature when you don't believe in the supernatural is absurd.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I don't personally have a problem with the existence of "gay cowboys eating pudding" movies, I just don't think they're something I would watch. Of course, you could say the same thing for "Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants" and about anything they show at an indie film festival. I don't get the hubbub. I'm a theist, I don't particularly like the practice, but ya know what? It ain't my business. And I'm fair certain it's not being used as a recruiting tool, although I could be naive.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Scott, Carl Sagan mentioned a similar phenomenon in an experiment involving overcrowding among lab rats.
I'd be careful about extrapolating this to humans, though. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Or more specifically, can you clarify your contention with examples?
No, I can't come up with one right now. Sorry.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
It is pretty ridiculous, twink - they have no genuine moral ground to stand on, and can't back up their statement with anything more than, "But it's...weird! I don't like it!" And unfortunately, making you uncomortable isn't a valid reason to believe homosexuality is wrong.
If it were, pantyhose, scary movies, and Pat Robertson would all be immoral.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Lissande, that's an unfair characterization. There are who have objections based on much more than "Ewww...I don't like it!" Some of us base our objections to things on our religious beliefs that are sacred to us and that we honor. You may not agree, and that's fine, but it's unfair to characterize everyone who has an objection to homosexuality the way you have.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Honestly, I figured the atheist's objection was based more on procreation than "eww".
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Belle, if I read Lissande correctly, she's talking exclusively about atheists who use the "not what nature intended" argument -- a group I didn't even think existed. An atheist who thinks nature has intentions should perhaps reconsider his or her belief structure. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'd be careful about extrapolating this to humans, though.
On that point:
I wonder if there's a higher instance of homosexual behavior in human societies that have a higher population density. India? China?
Anyone know?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I would assume it would depend on the male/female percentages, as well as higher population densities.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:they have no genuine moral ground to stand on, and can't back up their statement with anything more than, "But it's...weird! I don't like it!" And unfortunately, making you uncomortable isn't a valid reason to believe homosexuality is wrong.
Straw. Man.
There are a lot of people that have much more moral ground for believing that homosexual relations are wrong than just "I don't like it."
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Belle, I'm not characterizing everyone who objects to homosexuality; I object to it myself. I'm talking about the specific people who have expressed that view to me - atheists (ruling out, I would say, "religious beliefs that are sacred to" them) whose only objection to homosexuality is that it is weird.
I have also met some atheists who objected to homosexuality on other grounds, some moral and some not. There are also, of course, theists who object to and others who do not object to homosexuality, on various grounds. All those things are fine: what is not fine to me is to say that something is wrong because I don't like it. That is unfair.
Maybe I've been gone so long that you've forgotten where I stand - that's certainly fair enough. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
To Scott R - Reliable data would be very hard to get, I think. People are often reluctant to admit to something when the admission could get them killed. Go figger. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OK then. Sorry.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: You could maybe make a case for homosexuality being "unnatural" by definitions 8 or 9, but not really any of the others, I think.
I would argue that Homosexuality might also be considered unnatural by definition 3
quote:3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature:
Although homosexual behavior is observed repeatedly in nature, it would be very difficult to maintain that it is the usual or ordinary course of nature. In nature, heterosexual behavior is the rule (at least among all species with gender) and homosexual behavior is the exception.
But that is really neither here nor there. I couldn't agree with Olivet more that whether something is moral/ethical and whether it is natural are completely different questions.
In fact, the Book of Mormon claims that
quote: the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man . . .
Which suggest, at least for LDS people, that natural and moral/ethical are more likely to be antithetical than synonymous.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
mph, everyone, please read twinky's post. And then mine again. I am talking about a very select group of atheists who are not able to justify their antipathy to homosexuality in any way other than, and I quote several specific people now, "It's just weird."
Other atheists and all theists were not addressed at any point in my initial post. I hope this is clear.
edit: mph, sorry, things are going too fast for me and I didn't see your last post before posting my last, oops! won't delete this entirely though so as not to create further confusion.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I got you now, Lissande. Sorry I misinterpreted.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I did. It's clear. My apology above was directed at you after you explained that the first time.
edit: I have now seen your edit.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
All good, Belle
*sends message of sweetness and light to entire thread*
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think "It ain't natural" is just a more powerful way of saying "It isn't normal" (see Rabbit's post about #3. In it he appears to argue that biologically normal is what is meant by natural.)
In other words, it doesn't conform to someone's view of the world.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dan, Hmm, I'm not sure how to say this but it just ain't natural to refer to me as "he".
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I can see that #3 might be seen as " it doesn't conform to someone's view of the world" but I don't think nature only expresses itself in a single way, just as no apple is exactly like other apples, even on the same tree (you have to have grafts to ensure conformity).
I believe uniformity in nature is something of an illusion, a helpful way our minds make sense of things for us.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Apologies Rabbit. I seemed to have lost my S.
Olivet, I guess we can agree that uniformity in nature is unnatural.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*big grin* Exactly!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
After some thought, I realized that you could also make a case for monotremes being 'unnatural' under definition #3, since things with fur don't usually lay eggs. I like that, actually.
I have another question, but perhaps it would best be asked elsewhere.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So, not to wade into a water over my head, but here goes..
Atheists claiming homosexuality is "unnatural"; isn't one of the premises of Darwinian evolution that everyone's trying to procreate? Isn't then the practice of not-procreating (exclusionary homosexuality) defeating of Darwinian evolution? And if evolution is the core of "nature" (biology) would that make exclusive homosexuality unnatural?
This isn't a view I hold, it's just one I've often wondered about. Particularly when people argue evolutionary "purposes" for homosexuality or that homosexuality is an adaptation to prevent overcrowding. It doesn't make sense to me; homosexuality seems at its root to violate an essential condition for evolution. But I'm certainly no macrobiologist, so what do I know.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Here's a couple posssible evolutionary purpose for homosexuality:
For the first one, let's assume that homosexuality is at least partially influenced by a sinlge gene. Perhaps in women this gene adds a survival benefit, increasing the chances of that gene being passed on through women. But in men, it makes them more likely that they will be homsexual, thus decreasing the chances that it will be passed on through men.
For the second possible purpose, let's suppose that homosexuality is determined by a complex combination of genes. Each one of these genes, individually, bestow a survival or procreative benefit on the host. But when taken together in a specific combination, they cause homosexuality.
I'm not saying that these are true or even likely. I'm just saying that just because something appears to work against darwinian evolution, it doesn't necessarily.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint (this is me talking out my ear, mind you) from a population control point of view. That is, survival atthe species level. If populations become too dense, then other population control factors come into play, such as disease, famine and armed conflict. (I read one study that suggested armed conflict is more likely in populations where young males outnumber available females, but who knows?)
I think it is possible. Rabbits can re-absorb their fetuses when food is scarce, which seems to be a biological strategy for survival rather than counter-evolutionary.
Again, no degrees here, just talking out loud about what seems to makle sense to me.
Also, KarlEd, Telp, Black Magic- I did not mean to insult your personhood by talking about homosexual bugs, it just seemed an interesting angle.
*wanders off, humming "Let's Do It" Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint (this is me talking out my ear, mind you) from a population control point of view. That is, survival atthe species level. If populations become too dense, then other population control factors come into play, such as disease, famine and armed conflict. (I read one study that suggested armed conflict is more likely in populations where young males outnumber available females, but who knows?)
From an evolutionary standpoint, how would not passing on genes because of homosexuality be better than not passing on your genes because of war or starvation?
quote: Rabbits can re-absorb their fetuses when food is scarce, which seems to be a biological strategy for survival rather than counter-evolutionary.
That's pretty different. Re-absorbing the fetus keeps the mother alive so that she can procreate later instead of dying now.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I hope this isn't stalkerish, but I recall a thread in which KarlEd posited that there is no God because of the particularly vicious way in which one creature (I think it was some ants) killed another (caterpillar?).
So I would say that something being natural doesn't make it in any way good.
And nature isn't actually nature, due to the fall (from what we have apparently come to call the theistic standpoint). I don't know if everyone who believes in God necessarily believes in the fall (apart from people who don't really understand the bible for whatever reason).
I read the movie spoiler on Brokeback Mountain. I think the keeping of painful secrets was probably as damaging as other more obvious situations. Then again... I don't know. Would someone who has seen it care to discuss it on email?
It is difficult to produce something about secrets without getting distracted by the subject matter that the secret is concerning.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
"From an evolutionary standpoint, how would not passing on genes because of homosexuality be better than not passing on your genes because of war or starvation?"
Because it helps to prevent overpopulation which can lead to massive depopulation due to disease, famine or whatever, creating an environment where others can successfully pass on their genes. (Not that we aren't probably headed for a massive, decimating plague anyway.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I mean, from a species standpoint, not and individual standpoint.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I hope this isn't stalkerish, but I recall a thread in which KarlEd posited that there is no God because of the particularly vicious way in which one creature (I think it was some ants) killed another (caterpillar?).
KarlEd and Robert Frost:
"What but design of darkness to appall?-- If design govern in a thing so small."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: [QB] After some thought, I realized that you could also make a case for monotremes being 'unnatural' under definition #3, since things with fur don't usually lay eggs. I like that, actually. /QB]
Under definition #3 one could also make the case that human triplets are "unnatural" or perhaps that giving birth in a Taxi cab is "unnatural". Or if we really want to twist semantics, we could argue that having a epidural during childbirth is as "natural" in our society as "natural child birth".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
mph-
I see a sickle-cell analogy behind your response. I can accept that.
Olivet-
This is exactly the sort of argument I find logically difficult. I don't see how the mechanism of evolution could accomplish homosexuality as an overpopulation safety valve. Relatedly, I'd be interested in seeing if the ratio of homosexual couplings increased in your (and, evidentally, Sagan's) experiment or if there were just more homosexual couplings observed because there were more fruitflies to observe.
Also, does anyone know if there are exclusive homosexual relationships manifested in animals besides humans? I often hear that homosexuality is evidenced in nature, but wonder if it's more what would be termed bisexuality in humans? Just for curiosity sake.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Homosexuality is natural. At least, it says so in the New Testament (see v. 24-32). The bible doesn't have any commandments against people flying because until this century it was considered improbable.
[ January 10, 2006, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I see a sickle-cell analogy behind your response. I can accept that.
Ooh! I hadn't drawn that parallel in my mind, but now that you mention it, it's obvious.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
There are dozens of gay penguin couples that are exclusive. This is odd because many of them have been mated for years and years. If they had been hetero couples, their mating would have naturally ended when the chick became self-suficient.
Those are in zoos, though.
Perhaps evolution is the wrong term. Maybe it is a response to environmental factors. I don't know. If it happens in nature, though (and keeps happening) then it isn't much of a stretch to think there may be some value in it to the various species.
Also, I am willing to concede that sexuality in humans is best described as points along a continuum with fully hetero and fully homo being extremes (though most of the population falls closer to one extreme than the other, as it is the most advantageous to passing along one's genes).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is the sickle cell analogy referring to knowing how to pick clothes and being sensitive and enjoying being touched and having rhythm, or are you talking about not breeding and overcrowding?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: If it happens in nature, though (and keeps happening) then it isn't much of a stretch to think there may be some value in it to the various species.
Are there any examples of this occuring in nature?
I ask because I don't know, not to try to score points.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pooka -- those who are carriers of one sickle-cell gene, but not two (and thus being just carriers of the gene but not afflicted with anemia), are more resistent to malaria, giving it a survival benfit.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah. I forget the type of monkey that has orgy trees, where young males gather to do each other. I've seen it in cats, dogs. I mentioned penguins.Rats, mice, fruitflies. I'll see what I can dig up, but homosexual behavior has been observed across many species.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I meant exclusive homosexuality, not bisexuality.
Like what you said about the penguins, but in nature instead of in a zoo.
Likewise, domestic dogs and cats don't exist in nature and more than caged penguins do.
Naturally, word nature here means the opposite of man-made.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Bonobos are the gay monkeys. Maybe that's why there aren't that many. Or maybe they just don't get much face time in zoos and documentaries.
But along with what Porter is saying, I don't think they are exclusively gay.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The only way to determine exclusive homosexuality would be long term observation, I think.
This article refers to male flamingoes who build nests together and even raise foster chicks (like the Penguins, who were only discovered to male/male partners after blood tests, but refused to mate with available females):
First article googled. It also says naturalists have been avoiding direct studies of homosexual behavior to avoid their work becoming political. It is probably worth noting that folks might get really upset if public funds were used to study this aspect of animal behavior, especially if it the results were not to their liking.
I would guess that the actual percentages of exclusively homosexual animals would be quite small, with more being bi and most being hetero.
quote: Many domestic and wild animals engage in sexual activity with members of both the same and the opposite sex; a smaller number have eyes only for their own sex. Some of these homosexual activities appear to boost reproduction. Female cows often mount each other, thereby signaling any bulls in sight that they are ready to reproduce. In other cases, same-sex affairs may help reproduction indirectly, by promoting the general fitness of a group or individual. For example, in some species, animals are more willing to share food with a member of their own sex after sexual activity with him or her.
Indeed, researchers interested in animal behavior and sexual selection have long held that the main function of homosexual endeavors is to ensure, in a roundabout way, that one's genes get passed along.
The sheep farmer who paid big bucks for a ram's mating abilities and finds the animal ignoring his ewes would certainly question this theory. Besides failing at their jobs, high-libido homosexual rams cause havoc in the sheep pens by disrupting other males mating with females.
For sheer ho-ho funny quote, I nominate:
quote:Sexual selection theory holds that animals pick partners that will increase their chances of passing on their genes, but this doesn't apply to homosexual macaques.
"I'm not saying Darwin was wrong, but there's room for working on the theory so it can accommodate observations of homosexual behavior," he asserts.
It's interesting, if intrinsically difficult to study.
quote: The discovery of estradiol differences in homosexual and heterosexual rams "complements recent reports regarding the genetic and anatomical correlates of homosexual orientation described in humans," Perkins and her colleagues proposed in the 1995 Hormones and Behavior.
However, Perkins and Fitzgerald "leave it up to each reader to determine whether mechanisms mediating sexual orientation in sheep could help explain similar mechanisms involved in humans." Perkins does note that humans and sheep have more similar reproductive systems than do humans and other laboratory animals, such as rats.
There is absolutely no need to think that homosexuality has some kind of evolutionary function. Animals need some kind of mechanism for identifying possible mates; these mechanisms are clearly quite complicated at the cellular and chemical level, so there is every opportunity for the wires to get crossed. All that's required for this not to get bred out of the species is that the wire-crossing not be tied to any particular gene. Such subtle behavioral traits are generally emergent effects of many different parts of the genome. Finding a genome that did as well with heterosexual attraction without being susceptible to wire-crossing would probably require a large amount of mutations, with bad or even deadly effects in-between the two; in other words, we are currently at a local maximum of fitness, and the occasional homosexual who doesn't pass his genes on - too bad. (For that matter, many homosexuals do pass their genes on; it only takes one amting, after all.) Alternatively, homosexuality could be tied to a gene that does an important job, but is susceptible to causing same-sex attraction once in a while, perhaps under some particular set of pre-natal influences. Again, a local maximum.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)