Interesting read. I knew homosexuality existed in the animal kingdom but I didn't know it was so commonplace in some species.
What matters for each goose isn’t evolution but attraction—all the emotions and experiences that feed a special bond are themselves rooted in biological systems shared by heterosexual and homosexual individuals alike. “Love,” says Wascher, “is love.”
B-but I thought only humans had emotions... ;)
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-02-25 07:00:19
I have my problems with this article. Picking out some "natural" behavior to justify a human cultural and social phenomenon is flawed IMHO,´cause this "method" can be applied to almost anything, pedophilia, infanticide, murder, torture, rape etc...
Don´t get me wrong: I´m not against gays and I do support any kind of love, conventional or nonconventional. But as soon as I get the notion that it´s really more about justification of selfish "living out" any kink, any "desire", my alarms will go off. What I find most remarkable: while this article has a strong pro-gay flavor to it, another detail goes unnoticed, the fact that geese are monogamous (!). I frankly admit that I have a problem with the gay scene, but it´s not the fact of same sex, it´s the promiscuity sombunall gays are indulging in. When even Sasha Korff, a German comedian and openly gay, jokes about a gay relationship of 4 months as "In Cologne, we call this golden anniversary", something is wrong.
So, why is this article used as a proof of the normality of homosexuality? Of course, some animals show homosexual behavior. But don´t overestimate that, don´t consider it to be the same as homosexuality in humans. Animals are different, they don´t have the cultural fixation humans have on their sexuality. Only humans use sex to define themselves. I bet the geese showing this behavior wouldn´t even know they´re "homosexual". I bet they´re just feeling good when being with their friend, regardless of gender. In relationships, oxytocin plays an important role and I think that this is what it´s all about. Another thought: What if all these "deviant" uncommon, nonprocreative sexualities play the role of a natural contraceptive to prevent overpopulation? Nature´s way to step on the brakes?
Please, don´t see this as misohomoia/"homophobia", I´m just asking questions...
zoozooz 1 point on 2016-02-25 10:34:54
So, why is this article used as a proof of the normality of homosexuality?
I didn't use it for anything. :)
My take away from it is that we still don't know and all we have is a couple of theories that may or may not apply.
It depends on where the burden of proof lies. Of course homosexuality is "natural," everyone with more than two functioning neurons knows this already. While it's interesting to study the behavior of non-humans, we certainly don't need some sort of reassurance that homosexual/homosocial tendencies are normal. But for people who argue that homosexuality is somewhat "unnatural" as in "not taking place in nature," articles like this are a clear proof to the contrary.
Of course, human morals are not based on nature. So obviously stuff like pedophilia, infanticide, murder, torture, rape, cannibalism, necrophilia (and inter-species sexual relationships wink wink) are seen as immoral and therefore outlawed by legal systems that are often rooted in moral precepts. There are many variables at play with those. But in the case that the only reason some human behavior is seen as immoral is because it is deemed to be outside of nature's norm, then it makes sense to study nature's actual norm and use it as a proof of the behavior's normality. Homosexuality certainly falls in that category. I'm sure that most here would agree that zoophilia does as well.
/r/zoophilia archive
Interesting read. I knew homosexuality existed in the animal kingdom but I didn't know it was so commonplace in some species.
B-but I thought only humans had emotions... ;)
I have my problems with this article. Picking out some "natural" behavior to justify a human cultural and social phenomenon is flawed IMHO,´cause this "method" can be applied to almost anything, pedophilia, infanticide, murder, torture, rape etc...
Don´t get me wrong: I´m not against gays and I do support any kind of love, conventional or nonconventional. But as soon as I get the notion that it´s really more about justification of selfish "living out" any kink, any "desire", my alarms will go off. What I find most remarkable: while this article has a strong pro-gay flavor to it, another detail goes unnoticed, the fact that geese are monogamous (!). I frankly admit that I have a problem with the gay scene, but it´s not the fact of same sex, it´s the promiscuity sombunall gays are indulging in. When even Sasha Korff, a German comedian and openly gay, jokes about a gay relationship of 4 months as "In Cologne, we call this golden anniversary", something is wrong.
So, why is this article used as a proof of the normality of homosexuality? Of course, some animals show homosexual behavior. But don´t overestimate that, don´t consider it to be the same as homosexuality in humans. Animals are different, they don´t have the cultural fixation humans have on their sexuality. Only humans use sex to define themselves. I bet the geese showing this behavior wouldn´t even know they´re "homosexual". I bet they´re just feeling good when being with their friend, regardless of gender. In relationships, oxytocin plays an important role and I think that this is what it´s all about. Another thought: What if all these "deviant" uncommon, nonprocreative sexualities play the role of a natural contraceptive to prevent overpopulation? Nature´s way to step on the brakes? Please, don´t see this as misohomoia/"homophobia", I´m just asking questions...
I didn't use it for anything. :)
My take away from it is that we still don't know and all we have is a couple of theories that may or may not apply.
On the other side I recently saw this fun facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/LeaveTheAnimalsAloneAnimalsArentGay/
Not sure if they are trolling...
It depends on where the burden of proof lies. Of course homosexuality is "natural," everyone with more than two functioning neurons knows this already. While it's interesting to study the behavior of non-humans, we certainly don't need some sort of reassurance that homosexual/homosocial tendencies are normal. But for people who argue that homosexuality is somewhat "unnatural" as in "not taking place in nature," articles like this are a clear proof to the contrary.
Of course, human morals are not based on nature. So obviously stuff like pedophilia, infanticide, murder, torture, rape, cannibalism, necrophilia (and inter-species sexual relationships wink wink) are seen as immoral and therefore outlawed by legal systems that are often rooted in moral precepts. There are many variables at play with those. But in the case that the only reason some human behavior is seen as immoral is because it is deemed to be outside of nature's norm, then it makes sense to study nature's actual norm and use it as a proof of the behavior's normality. Homosexuality certainly falls in that category. I'm sure that most here would agree that zoophilia does as well.