- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Apart from "gay genes" in humans, the main evidence that homosexuality is naturally selected is the fact that gay animals are so common. Pairs of male penguins court each other, build a nest, and huddle over a round stone in lieu of an egg (1). One captive pair of chinstrap penguins, Roy and Silo of New York's Central Park Zoo went farther. Read More
if we were to approve certain
if we were to approve certain things because animals do them then later on we could tear each other apart and say cmon "loins do so, its so natural"
No, that's not what he's saying
He's saying that homosexuality is in fact natural and common in animals. Therefore, it cannot be considered an unnatural thing for humans, who are also animals. You may have your own reasons for believing homosexuality to be wrong, but for many people the reason is because "it's unnatural."
Quote from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A7715315
"Instead, medieval writers used the term 'sodomy' to cover a multitude of what were considered to be 'sins'. The word generally had a much broader definition than the one we use today. For example, it could include heterosexual anal intercourse and oral sex as well as various homosexual acts. Other terms used included euphemisms such as 'sins against nature' or 'contrary to nature'.
These euphemisms were used because sodomy (whether homosexual or heterosexual) prevented conception from occurring and was therefore seen as unnatural and against God. This is one of the main reasons why homosexuality and sodomy were so vilified by the Church - sodomy of all kinds (including homosexuality) was considered to be a sin." [emphasis mine]
What's more, is that this article doesn't even make any judgment about homosexuality; it simply illustrates that it is naturally selected and makes a few guesses as to why that is.
Why do you even perceive this to be an argument for homosexuality? Your comment is a good example. If he wrote an article about how lions tear each other apart*, would you assume it to be an argument for violence? The fact that you perceived the post to support gays probably means that the "against nature" argument was a reason for you, also.
*I know nothing about this, just gleaning from your comment.
Save the gay whales
There is nothing in Barber's collection of anecdotal animal stories to suggest 1) there is such a thing as 'homosexual genes' or 2) that these mythical gay genes are somehow naturally selected.
The common and much more respected view about such behaviors is attributed to many other biological and sociological explanations. In all cases, animals never lock themselves down to same sex partners for life. All of the behaviors you cited in your story are just that...behaviors.
A pregnant Bonobo for example, might rub genitals with another female and then mate with a male less than a minute later. For Bonobos, casual sex fills a need in their social order.
How might Nigel Barber explain how this apparently naturally genetically selected bi-sexual, pregnant female with lesbian tendencies become pregnant in the first place?
I suppose, if he(?) searched long enough, Barber could select by inclusion and exclusion, enough anecdotal evidence to support just about any quack-science theory.
Well-meant but Flawed
Barber's overall point--that same-sex activity is widespread in the animal kingdom--is well-taken. To my mind, he successfully debunks the reactionary, moralistic argument that humans (who also are animals) are behaving "against nature" when they have sex with and fall in love with the same gender.
But sadly there's lots of hidden moralism and less-than-subtle judgmentalism in Barber's rhetoric, too:
"Homosexuality is influenced by genes but it can also occur *when normal gender development goes awry* . . ."
And
"Homosexuality can emerge due to perturbations in the hormonal environment of the womb for other species also, humans included."
What do you mean, When "normal gender development goes awry"? If your post is meant to show that animals engage in same-sex activity all the time, where's the logic in suggesting that homosexuality in humans is the result of "gender development go[ing] awry"? This is just the kind of backdoor moralism that your post was meant to undermine, no? So follow through on the implications of your own argument, which is: *There's no preordained or predetermined gender development from which homosexuality departs.* It's but one of several forms of sexual expression that humans enjoy.
As for the "perturbations" in the womb argument, please, give it a rest. Makes your post sound like it's drawing on research from the 1920s and 30s.
It's 2009! Can we *finally* put such b.s. myths to rest?
Paternal provisioning becomes
Paternal provisioning becomes necessary in the arctic; reduced masculinity is the price paid by penguins (and maybe humans, see link in my comment at previous post ). As I understand it adult bonobos have penetrative sex with infants; are we to abandon the idea that the human equivalent is unnatural and wrong?
Strong instincts to care for their young mean it is feasible for male penguins to hatch and raise an chick (in a zoo at least).
But even if 10% are doing so in the wild how could their genes ever benefit enough, that's like 10% of the geese flying north for the winter as Gregory Cochran put it. The 10% figure is astounding - if true. Penguins that haven't cut enough of a dash to get a female may indulge in same sex 'mating' as a substitute. I'm inclined to think that when a receptive female becomes available they go for her - every time. As to the penguins mating for life try Googling "Gay Penguins Split Up (and one turns straight)".
Same sex sexual contact is common; that's still a very different thing to homosexuality, (ie sexual attraction and interest are exclusively in the same sex.) Same sex 'mating' behavior is no more a evolutionary anomaly than the solo sexual antics of the frustrated. Male human homosexuality is quite different to every other (heterogamic) animal apart from sheep - which are not wild. And bisexuality is far less common then homosexuality in humans, shouldn't that be the other way about according to the genetic theories.
Gay humans, explained
As with all naturally communal animals with broadly shared parenting, human homosexuality was a great way to embellish the family with non-reproducing adults to help out. More kids then survive, passing on their parents' genes and, since genes are so similar between siblings, the genes of their gay aunts and uncles too.
Post new comment