Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Michaelangelica]

Back to HB's and my question 'What is "natural" and unnatural"

How come we even ask the question "Is homosexuality unnatural?"?

The question seems to me to imply a moral stance,(God said it was wrong) assumption (natural is 'good'; unnatural is 'bad') or value judgement. Hence the reason religion has been dragged in to the argument.

Scientifically you can point to many, many animals where homosexuality is the norm (e.g. American Bison).
Does the very frequent occurrence of the behaviour in animals (including mankind) make it "natural"?

[pamela]

originally posted by Michaelangelica
The question seems to me to imply a moral stance,(God said it was wrong) assumption (natural is 'good'; unnatural is 'bad') or value judgement. Hence the reason religion has been dragged in to the argument.

from dictionary.com
natural
1. existing in or formed by nature
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science

I do not think that we should place an immoral/moral view on this subject. There are reasons why homosexuality occurs in nature.
In Infinitnows last post he refers to this

Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words

I find this interesting. Does the female choose to stay with the other female to insure that the offspring have maternal double duty to ensure their survival? And being so close, share a form of intimacy to bond the family unit together? Just speculation, but these are the types of questions that further help us to understand that this is naturally occurringThe only judgement placed on homosexuality is derived from religion, which does not dictate the processes of nature, only the thoughts of it's believers.

[Michaelangelica]

Gay ducks derail repopulation plan
Gay ducks derail repopulation plan: Scientific American Blog

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by pamela

I do not think that we should place an immoral/moral view on this subject.

I agree, however we have and do.

[Galapagos]

Has anyone ever heard of the tribe called "Sambia" studied by anthropologist Gilbert Herdt?
Apparently the group of New Guineans have a masculinization ritual that involves homosexual acts between younger and senior male tribesman.

The Sambia Tribe
"A crowd of men hem the boys in beside a pool in the brook. A war leader picks out a sharp stick of cane and sticks it deep inside the boys nostrils until he bleeds profusely into the stream of a pool, an act greeted by loud war cries." (Herdt, p. 85) The men repeat the war chant for each boy. Here if the initiate tries to escape he will be treated worst then the others - this brutality is certainly overwhelming and astonishing. Older men now tell the boys that the bachelors are going to copulate with them orally in order to make them grow. The whole purpose of this is because several elders testify that boys are unable to mature into men unless they ingest semen and that all men have, “eaten the penis”. After formal ceremonies end, the bachelors make erotic advances to the boys and homosexual activity takes place outside on the darkened dance ground. "Not all initiates will participate in this ceremonial homosexual activity, but in about five days later several will have perform fellatio several times." (Herdt, pp. 87-91) It is quite astonishing to see the men who are known to be so prudish to participate in homosexual activity so openly and welcoming. Boys would even seek out their favorite bachelors by openly stimulating their genitalia. There is no doubt that the first and second stage initiates have developed an erotic attraction toward their inseminators.

Here is another link with some detailed accounts of the rituals:
Intro to Cultural Anthropology: The Sambia

I was pointed to this tribe by a friend on another forum, and am still interested in reading more about them or other tribes like them. There are a lot of interesting questions raised by this tribe, but the one in the title(Is homosexuality unnatural?) seems to me answered unequivocally with a big "No". Homo sapiens in their natural habitat will engage in homosexual acts, and it can even play a pivotal role in their ritual and culture.

[sman]

Natural/unnatural has very little meaning for me. Best definition I read further up in thread (I forget who...sorry) "if it happens in nature, I'll call it natural"
But a lot of behavior does not happen in nature that COULD be biologically growable. Because nature hasn't grown it yet, doesn't mean it's unnatural. Furthermore, that homosexuality happens in humans is enough for me to call it a product of nature without referencing the behavior of bonobos or exotic birds. WE are a product of nature.

Maybe what's really being talked about in this thread is weather homosexuality is BENEFICIAL TO THE GENOTYPE. This is a much more concrete concept. It could be argued that ANY behavior that's co-opted to strengthen group cohesion (over competing groupes) in social animals may benefit the genotype and thereby be selected for. I don't think this is the case for homosexuality in humans. (I think it IS the case for homosexuality in bonobos, and maybe other animals.)

Sexual deviation, in ANY direction away from straightup hetero procreation, is much more tolerated by biology in males than in females. A lot can go wrong in the wireing for sexual behavior in males and not need be trimmed back by selection. If 5% or so work out...that'll do. It's very different for females. Every one is preciouse. This is magnified in our species by the prolonged gestation and childrearing.

I have more thoughts here, but if this thread is to continue I think we should disentangle the biological discussion from the ethical one. Both are meaningful but the terms cross up.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by sman

Maybe what's really being talked about in this thread is weather homosexuality is BENEFICIAL TO THE GENOTYPE. This is a much more concrete concept. It could be argued that ANY behavior that's co-opted to strengthen group cohesion (over competing groupes) in social animals may benefit the genotype and thereby be selected for..

You are quite right. There is another idea to supplement what you describe whereby homosexuals may be useful in raising the children of their kin... That having a gay brother or cousin or something brings more resources and care to a young kin member... an idea which closely parallels the grandmother hypothesis.

Grandmother hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The grandmother hypothesis is meant to explain why menopause, rare in mammal species, arose in human evolution, and how late life infertility could actually confer an evolutionary advantage. The hypothesis suggests that this is because of risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth and the relative importance of parental investment to the human species. Grandmotherly investment may also be important in the few other animals which experience menopause, such as whales. Kristen Hawkes [1]originated the hypothesis, and G.C. Williams was the first to posit that menopause may be protective.

Both pregnancy and childbirth are extremely detrimental to the health and longevity of women. Pregnancy increases a woman’s caloric intake requirements and childbirth exposes women, especially older women, to deadly infections. For these reasons physical anthropologists think that older women in primitive times were less productive child bearers than younger women.

It is conceivable that older mothers that lost their fertility were able to spend more of their time helping, protecting and teaching their children and grandchildren. Such an investment of time is referred to by behaviorists as parental investment. Experiments and observation have shown that those animals that have had time invested in them by family members, in the form of protection and education, are much more likely to live to the age at which they are able to reproduce.

Anyway, I think part of this thread... and why it asks about homosexuality being natural... has to do with the silly arguments we get from indoctrinated minds who simply come to assert "homosexuality is unnatural," and then present arguments laden with logical fallacies and false premises, arguments that twist the way the actual world works to justify their belief in iron age fairy tales and the teachings of tribal peoples who didn't even understand germ theory... that is, of course, if they bother to present an argument for their position at all.

The simple fact is... It happens in nature, so is natural.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

The simple fact is... It happens in nature, so is natural.

Questions that require a “no” answer:

Is pedophilia unnatural?

Is polygamy unnatural?

Is bestiality unnatural?

Is prostitution unnatural?

Is plutonium unnatural?

Is homosexuality unnatural?

Is necrophilia unnatural?

Is war unnatural?

Is racism unnatural?

Is murder unnatural?

Is love unnatural?

Is hate unnatural”?

Is the Internet unnatural?

Is marijuana unnatural?

Is my F-150 unnatural?

Is nature unnatural?

And questions that require a “yes” answer:

Is God unnatural?

Is Tinker Bell unnatural?

Is the Easter Bunny unnatural?

Is a child from a same-sex marriage unnatural?

What’s the point? Only things that require unquestioned belief are unnatural.

[sman]

Ok, we definately need to assume the ethical stance here.

Larv has a valid point. Maybe I can express it with more economy.
Parasitism, psycopathy, rape.... are natural, it's just that the category /natural/ is uninformitive. It certainly is not a guide for whether we should accept or tolerate.

The question is, does said behavior threaten me or my family? Should I not tolerate it? In the cases of parasitism, psycopathy, rape and many others the answer is yes.

Allow me to compare this briefly with the biological stance: Is said behavior DELETERIOUS to the genotype? For parasitism, psycopathy, rape...no. In fact these behaviors could confer a benefit. It's a matter of changing the point of view between the GENES and ME and my FAMILY. From an ethical point of view, our lives are OURS. We owe our genes nothing.

So does homosexuality threaten me or my family? No. It's that simple.

But wait...it can't be that simple. Humans are extremely, wierdly intelligent things. Why do so many of them see homosexuality as immoral? Why have creationists (vast majority of intelligent humans) locked onto this seemingly harmless issue with such passion? Even when all their arguments ar non-sequitor. What's going on here? I don't think it's that they lack the programming to crunch the simple logic. I'm more inclined to think there must be some hidden layer of programming also operating.

As with every other thread in this forum, I'm way out of my league here, but I'll give my insights anyway, if only in the hope that more knowlegeable people will have an opportunity to correct my errors.

I think the hidden-level programming behind homophobia is the psycology of disgust. Disgust is, like the other emotions, a blunt behavior motivator in the brain, I think of it as a button or a knob. It goes off when we are about to ingest or imbibe poisons. You can set it off right now by thinking about a mouthful of maggots or some such thing.
Has disgust been co-opted (in men) to streamline male sexual behavior for procreation the way it streamlines our omnivorous diet to avoid poisons? Male reaction to homosexuality is often similar to reactions to maggots. I really think these passions are the result of the genes programming our brains to benefit the genes - by SOME avenue.
Again, we owe our genes NOTHING. Our lives are OURS. Homosexuality is NOT a threat, and maggots, I understand, are actually quite nutritious.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by sman

Male reaction to homosexuality is often similar to reactions to maggots.

This may be the case when males consider homosexuality amongst other males. But there seems to be a more tolerant attitude toward female homosexuality by members of both sexes.

I don't have any data to confirm that, but it is my impression.

Does anyone else see it that way?