The Animal Kingdom
Gays do not exist only in human form. In fact, some researchers put the number of species that demonstrate homosexuality or bisexuality somewhere in the 1,500 range. And these animals don't seem to be engaging in same-sex sexual behavior for any other reason than pleasure. Not bound by the constrictions of human society or the condemnations of certain subsets therein, the animal kingdom is far more wont to let their natural desires and gratifications run free.
Anti-gay personalities like to cite homosexuality as going "against nature." However nature shows us, quite undeniably and unapologetically, that homosexuality and bisexuality are quite natural indeed. Now, those same anti-gay personalities try to explain this all away with carefully worded polemics that say human beings should not cull their behavior from the animal kingdom. They like to jump to things like cannibalism and say that since some species display this behavior, it is some sort of proof that we humans are not to let the animal kingdom be our moral guide. However, this is a major red herring. Yes, some animals engage in behavior that humans, in our socialized form, find unsavory -- but I would argue that this is more of a product of our societal cultivation and privileges (including but not limited to our adopted moral codes) than it is a product of our vast mammalian difference. And I would also argue that sexuality and desire are among the purest areas where we can see our connections to the larger animal kingdom.
Why shouldn't we draw comparisons in this area of sexuality? We are animals. We don't bat an eye when people compare our procreative sex with that of other animals -- why is it different for non-procreative sexual behavior?
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
We are Homo Sapiens, yes, but what animal (besides humans) has the ability to make a decision outside of of its base nature? We like animals are subject to gravity, to the law of entropy, the main difference is our ability to think and reason in abstract dimensions (i.e. mathematics, facts, history, space, mass, and....morality). We as humans have a will that animals do not in essence have, which the ability to choose between one decision or another in the context of will it hurt my fellow animal. We would even scoff at that idea. In the article it was mentioned that self-gratification was a factor. Isn't selfishness a harmful attribute if an animal eats the young of a grizzly bear and the mother tear the attacker apart would that not be a consequence. Animals do not have a sense of right or wrong only of a selfish bad for me or good for me. I don't fault a dog for biting my hand if it thinks I am going to attack it, therefore I as the human make a rational decision to not be in close proximity to that animal. Now knowing that we are different from animals then we look at consequences. If I want money and do not have a job then I have an option to rob a bank or to seek help for my unemployment. Which is the moral decision? Obviously we are all going to say the latter if we are sane. What are consequences in the decision for someone to be gay? No ability to procreate, also there is a HIGH risk for contracting AIDS /HIV. Is it love or self gratification. We have the choice....
There are 3 types of sexuality which we must define when talking about homosexuality .
(1) Sexuality as it pertains to reproduction
(2) Sexuality as it pertains to gender
(3) Sexuality as it pertains to attraction
This argument relies on equivocating through the various meanings.
Fact: 100% of all humans are heterosexual(1). This is undeniable. Therefore this definition is irrelevant to our debate.
“Homosexual” in the arena we are debating does not make any sense in the context of #(2).
Homosexual(3) is all that is relevant to our debate. I will now show how we cannot speak about animals in the third sense.
Fact: You have no idea whether I am attracted to men or women irrespective of what I tell you or how I act. You cannot know to whom I am attracted, since this is undeniable, how could you know that animals are homosexual(3)? The key word in your argument is: "Seem" in your third sentence. This word deracinates any possibility that your argument means anything at all. In order for us to take any meaning from the fact that animals perform some act and apply it to this discussion, we would need to know why they do this action. Since we cannot know this, the point is moot.
Animals may perform some actions that, prima facie, are similar to actions which we deem as homosexual(3), these actions are irrelevant in this debate.
"Fact: 100% of all humans are heterosexual(1). "
Reproduction is not necessary for sexuality
"“Homosexual” in the arena we are debating does not make any sense in the context of #(2). "
How does homosexual not relate to gender? The term is very specifically referring to a gender based attraction (just like heterosexual).
"You have no idea whether I am attracted to men or women irrespective of what I tell you or how I act. You cannot know to whom I am attracted, since this is undeniable, how could you know that animals are homosexual(3)?"
No we cannot know what is going on in your mind... but if you go are a guy and go to a gay club, and date other guys, then an accurate description of your behavior would be homosexual (wouldn't you agree). Which is what we are doing with these animals... we are observing their behavior and how they specifically relate to members of the same gender in the same manner as the rest of their speces relates to members of the opposite behavior.
Please reread what I said, you are terribly misunderstanding it.
Yes, you can observe my behavior and speak about my behavior... you cannot, however, speak about the object of my attraction. Nor can we even remotely begin talking about animals with the word attraction. Animals put their penis' in holes... If this hole belongs to a male... so be it. Animals masturbate you know, does that mean they are thinking about another male while they masturbate? Do they think? Can they be attracted to anything?
Heterosexual reproduction or Asexual reproduction are two types of reproduction... What are you talking about?
No one is of a homosexual gender... thus it is not relevant... I was attempting to narrow the discussion down and weed out the errors in speech that often occur about sexuality. What is relevant to our discussion is that homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex, this is the discussion that we need to stick to, too often do people drift around aimlessly while talking about this topic.
The whole reason that I object to "People are born gay" is that no one is attracted to anyone from birth, thus they cannot be homosexual. Since heterosexual is the default state, being the state for procreation, one can only say that people are born heterosexual and then at some later time something (be it a choice or hormone or whatever it actually is) changes.
"The whole reason that I object to "People are born gay" is that no one is attracted to anyone from birth, thus they cannot be homosexual. Since heterosexual is the default state, being the state for procreation, one can only say that people are born heterosexual and then at some later time something (be it a choice or hormone or whatever it actually is) changes."
If nobody is attracted to anyone 'from birth' then how can the be heterosexual at first, then switch over to homosexual?
Homosexuals are fairly consistent with their statements that it is something that they always have been... that from the moment they considered sexual attraction it was to those of the same gender. This would indicate that the parts of the brain that make that attraction were already 'set', and that it is only emerging just as heterosexuality does in most.
As to animals . Yes they can, and are attracted to each other... that is the definition of sexual attraction. They do not prefer 'any warm hole' because otherwise sexual activity would be a 50/50 split based on whoever was present at the time. Homosexuality is observed among social animals as a means of cementing group bonds (such as within a tribe of monkeys).
To reduce your argument to a level of 'well, dogs do it too!' seems so base as to hardly be worthy of
response.
Dogs eat their own feces at times too, but that doesn't seem to be a good rationale for suggesting that Humans should, or a good defense if one would.
Homosexuality is a 'deviant' behavior.
Now, I use that strong word precisely because I know it will generate a strong reaction to many.
None the less, that is what homosexuality is. It is 'deviant'.
Not so much in the sense that it is 'wicked', 'evil' or 'vile', but in the sense that it 'deviates' from the norm.
Approximately 3% of the population are homosexual. That means 97% aren't.
Therefore, homosexuality 'Deviates' greatly from the norm.
Society (The People) at large also have Rights and the Constitutional ability to voice their Rights .
And, in State after State where the question has been put to The People, homosexual marriage has failed dismally.
Personally, I hope the question becomes one of a Constitutional Amendment whereby The People are given the chance to voice their desires on what type of Society we shall live in.
Take the matter out of the Courts and let The People decide.
Naturally, homosexuals don't wish for that, because they know they could never win.
The point of saying that homosexuality is prevalent in nature is to remind people that humans are animals . We share the same fundamental genetic system with all organisms on earth. The only thing which separates humans from animals is the development of our conscious thought. Other than that, we are built and developed in the same fundamental ways as other organisms on earth.
As an example, humanity is separated from the animal kingdom when it comes to our consciousness because we have defined the ability to "love" another human. This love is different than an animal protecting its young from harm, because the animal is acting to protect the species, and thus the propagation of its genes.
Animals may exhibit deviant behaviors just as humans may exhibit deviant behaviors. Clearly an animal does not choose to behave the way it does. It acts on instincts which are somehow coded into the brain of the animal, even though it was not taught a particular behavior. In the same way, human infants have instinctual behavior that is coded into their brain which they clearly were not taught.
Animals which are apparently homosexual obviously do not choose to be homosexual. Humans in general do not choose to be homosexual. Their brains are interpreting for them that the same sex offers a sexual stimulation, whereas the opposite sex does not. Of course this goes against what human society considers as "normal", but the simple fact is that this behavior is normal and occurs in nature!
Humans frown upon homosexuality not because it poses any harm to them, but because it is a stigma in society to dislike homosexuals based upon age-old religious attitudes and general fear of things which are different.
This animal kingdom reference is shallow and jumping the gun. Lets look at other primates and dogs as examples.....we have all seen the male and male copulation simulation on TV and the local dog park. We cannot conclude these acts as homosexuality as we humans understand it. It is understood as either an act of dominance or part of a calming/making up activity. These actions are not exclusive from heterosexual activities if given the chance to mate. Please be more specific about your case studies (natural history).
Another point. What is natural? Yes, it is natural for an outside male lion to challenge the male lion of the pride. After the new lion wins...he kills all the young of the previous leader of the pride.
Many do misunderstand this as you did with the animal kingdom homosexuality issue and call it murder. No it is not murder.
Both of these issues that I brought up (homosexuality and murder) allows us to compare and contrast human from non human animals . The only factor that makes sense of these comparison is human morality. We do not call a bald eagle taking fish from an osprey as stealing in the sense that a thief can steal your money . Human morals do not apply to other animals. You are creating a fallacy called anthropomorphism.
Excluding morality, your misunderstanding of the animal kingdom is the problem. Given the chance these males that supposedly were acting in "homosexual" activity would breed with a female or the alpha female.
While there are "homosexual" animals these animals only participate in sexual activities for procreation. In other words they HAVE to in order to further their species. Humans and dolphins are the only 2 mammals that have sex for pleasure. Humans do not have the ability to procreate thru homosexual activities, thus one can conclude we are not born homosexual.
That is not a proper conclusion. It is very clear that genetic mutations can and do happen in every organism on earth. If indeed homosexuality is a direct or indirect result of some genetic event, then you cannot conclude no one is born homosexual. Since there is no solid evidence to say that homosexuality is not genetic in any way, you cannot make that conclusion. You cannot make such a blanket statement without full evidence.
Since you are attacking certitude you undermine any hope of veracity for your contrarian claim.
What is the thinking there?
I agree with the idea that our animal nature, in most cases, does not dictate that we be either "gay" or straight." And there are many reasons (e.g., overpopulation) why "gayness" might be favored in nature. Studies of primates and other animals show this. But our Judeo-Christian morality does offer solid guidance. When a young person begins to mature sexually, they are as malleable as clay. It is at this point that, without the constraints of culture or morality, they can grow into whatever (often bizarre) adult they choose (usually unconsciously) to shape themselves into. Just like an animal.
-Whose- Judeo-Christian morality, now? Certainly not mine!
the morality taught in the Bible. Simple. The versus are clear and non-contradicting. Pick and choose? Cafeteria huh? Please explain.
God bless
"the morality taught in the Bible. Simple. The versus are clear and non-contradicting. Pick and choose? Cafeteria huh? Please explain."
-falco
Stoning people, not eating shellfish, owning concubines / slaves? All these things are quite clearly permitted in the Bible... is that the morality that you follow? Or do you pick and chose?
What you just listed are known as the Laws of Moses. After Jesus was crucified, these laws, such as not eating shellfish were no longer applicable to Christians. However, homosexuality , unlike the other laws, is mentioned again in the New Testament. Please actually read up on these things before accusing the Bible of condoning slavery and stoning people.
at one time such things were legal according to the OT... God did not find slavery or stoning immoral until after Jesus.
But then what passages in the NT explicitly prohibit slavery? The term translated in the KJV as servant is much more accurately translated slave after all.
Indeed there are passages that seem to explicitly endorse slavery (Colossians 4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1-3, Ephesians 6:5-9, Luke 12:45-48)
The passages in the Bible you listed don't condone slavery, in my opinion. But they do acknowledge it exists and is very common, and basically talks about slaveowners and slaves treating each other properly. For example, saying that slaveowners should not beat their slaves is nothing controversial to me, or saying that good deeds a slave does for their master are counted equally by God.
So slavery is not against Gods law ? It is valid as long as the master treats his slaves with respect?
It's not my Judeo-Christian morality. I'm Shinto, so I have no Judeo-Christian morality.
Point: First Amendment, freedom of religion , Judeo-Christian morality excludes all other religious and non-religious morality.
freedom of religion . Which country has the most diverse religion? The majority (90%) of the US founding fathers were christians. I think that at least has some weight. What does Shinto say about marriage, sex, gender, homo, hetero etc.. Not your opinion or shinto/japanese cultural attitude....what does Shinto have to say. I am curious.
Thanks,
Sorry, falco, but the _vast_ majority of the Founding Fathers of the United States were in fact Deists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence.
Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[38] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe).
If you're going to dispute the slavery point, know that that kind of reasoning was the basis of the ruling for Dred Scott v. Sandford.
And maybe discuss the difference between "Judeo-Christian", "Judaic", and "Christian."
Firstly, Judeo-Christian was a word that was invented by Christians and confuses and worries most Jews. Jews and Christians have very different ideas around morality, the nature of willpower and mankind, what role the laws play in every day life, etc. So let's create that disconnect, please.
Judaic morality says that, at best, men lying with men is a sort of odd, inexplicable thing and at worst is an abominable act. On the subject of lesbianism, there's no rule against it, but since it was practiced by the Egyptians, we're supposed to not do it.
Very few of the mitzvhot are moral in nature. Few can debate the MORALITY of keeping kosher. We can discuss the USEFULNESS of it, but the morality is somewhat seperate.
Also, Quincey, in response to your statement: "Judeo-Christian morality excludes all other religious and non-religious morality." should really read "Christian morality". Jewish morality has very specific people to whom it applies, namely Jews. If you're not one of us, we do not and should not care what you do. Jews will probably not like same-sex marriages being performed in their temples, but throughout the US at least, most Jews support it, filing it under "things that don't really affect us but make some people happy".
Anyways. JudeoChristian=not a thing. Thanks.
It has to say: Absolutely nothing. From what I've read, the backbone of Shinto belief is to pursue your own happiness, obviously within certain bounds.
Also, relying on originalist arguments is stupid at best. The majority of US founding fathers believed that slavery was morally ok, but does that make slavery ok? Ever? Are you seriously going to tell me that there existed in a single point in time an instance in which slavery was morally justified?
Furthermore, if you're going to follow Judeo-Christian morality, why don't you go all the way? Don't cut your hair, stone adulterers, refuse to wear clothing with mixed fabrics, don't sit in a chair in which a menstruating woman has already sat, follow the Bible literally. Do it. Don't pick and choose, go all the way. Kill the children who don't follow what their parents tell them to do.
To base one's being accepted on the basis that "animals do it too" is flawed. Homosexuality may be based on genetic differences, but in the end homosexuality does not stand up to logic. What purpose does it serve in the perpetuation of the organism? The only thing that can be said, is that it may be a normal behavior, possibly genetic, and therefore possibly beyond the control of the individual.
Actually, there is a scientifically high probability that homosexuality contributes positively to the well-being of the species.
Typically, genetic traits which lead to reproductive success are the most strongly and consistently represented traits in a population. After all, if you have a gene which makes you reproductively successful, you are likely to reproduce more and therefore your trait will continue strongly into the next and subsequent generations.
And yet, there is good evidence that a small but fairly consistent percentage of the population has been homosexual throughout recorded history. Since a "gay gene" would tend to detract from reproductive success (yes, you can snicker now :) ), why would such a gene be selected for?
The fact that we are beginning to discover that there is not one singular "gay gene," but rather most likely a complex interaction of genes (and probably some factors from the intrauterine environment, as well) which cause an individual to be same-gender-oriented, suggests that some of those genes may also be beneficial to the species in other ways, perhaps providing protection from disease or other reproductively-desirable traits.
Think of the gene which causes Sickle-cell Anemia. This gene is recessive, and will not cause disease if it is inherited from only one parent. If inherited from both parents, the offspring manifests the disease, which can be deadly. This gene is nearly non-existent in much of the world's population, because its tendency to reduce life-expectancy means that it does not give a reproductive advantage under normal circumstances, and therefore self-extinguishes after a number of generations.
However, in areas of the world where Malaria is common, like Africa, this gene provides a distinct reproductive advantage, in that someone who is a carrier of the gene (has the recessive from one parent but not from the other) is given some degree of immunity to Malaria, and therefore has a reproductive advantage over someone with no Sickle-cell gene at all. Therefore, in African populations, there is a high occurrence of Sickle-cell Anemia, because more carriers are at a reproductive advantage over non-carriers.
The same is likely true with some or all of the genes which influence sexual orientation. While Uncle Bill may get the full set and find that he is attracted to other men, Aunt Jane may only receive a partial set of the genes and actually be more fertile than other women, or produce offspring which are smarter, more attractive or otherwise have a survival and/or reproductive advantage. Those offspring will also be carriers of some or all of the set of genes which increase the probability of becoming same-gender-oriented. Some of them may marry spouses who carry some of the complement of genes, and may, themselves, produce one or more gay offspring.
It really does make sense from an evolutionary perspective.
You know that is all conjecture. I don't even think it is a reasonable hypothesis to compare it to a protective gene that causes sickle cell anemia. All subjective opinion.
We only know that homosexuality exist in humans, we know that sexual drive is plastic, we know that people can abstain from sex (hetero or homo) or even change from one to the other. We do not have any conclusive genetic studies. We do have a lot of environmental/psychological studies, which shows some correlation. I am open to any rigorous data.
God bless
No, we do NOT know that "people can...change from one to the other." What we know is that there is some percentage of the population which is innately bisexual, and may fall in love with or be attracted to members of his or her own gender as well as the opposite. Such people could correctly be described as having a "choice." However, they do not make up the sum total of the population. There are significant percentages on either end who are either exclusively (or nearly so) attracted to members of the opposite gender, or exclusively (or nearly so) attracted to members of their own gender.
As to a gene, or more likely a SET of genes, which give evolutionary advantage to those who carry some or all of them, the hypothesis, however difficult it might be to prove, is a good one, as we have any number of examples of such genetic characteristics in the data already, including the sickle cell example I gave earlier. Can I prove the hypothesis? Of course not. Not yet, anyway. Geneticists are finding new information about the human genome every day. The probability that a genetic link will be found is strong. And considering the abilities, behaviors and talents which can be readily identified in a significant percentage of the gay population, it is highly likely that there is a significant evolutionary advantage conferred by that set of genes, whether it be in creative abilities, or in more prosaic areas such as enhanced abilities to form the family and group bonds which were the basis of individual safety and strong social networks in the early history of human civilization. For an example of this type of genetic advantage resulting from genetic ability to interact sexually with members of either gender, study Bonobo social bonding and conflict resolution strategies.
Call it bisexual or call it moving on from homosexuality . That is why I said sex is plastic.
I will check up on Bonobo social bonding etc... but if the core data is from other primate studies....I really doubt it then, but I should not be bias until I see it. Of course, not all physiological/morphological expressions can be attributed to one gene (1:1)--there are secondary, tertiary etc... levels of gene interactions and not to forget the myriad levels of hormones/steroids (endocrine/exocrine).
My concern is to come across, with science , that there is no more room for argument and discussion, because science has not provided the proof in the pudding either way on this issue. Not that you have done this yest, just my general concern. Science can and is shedding light but there is a large difference between normative and descriptive. Humans cannot live on science alone (normative) but must hold on to all the arts (which also reveal/has truth).
It is not proven by any means that sexual orientation is mutable. Just because some people are bisexual does not prove that any and every person could change his/her innate sexual orientation. Clearly, the physical capability exists for most people to interact sexually with a person of either gender, but that does not equate to a basic orientation of bisexuality.
Most people are FAR more attracted, physically and emotionally, to the opposite gender than to their own gender. They cannot wilfully change this orientation to force themselves to feel the same degree (or even close) of attraction towards persons of their own gender. In the same way, a smaller segment of the population is FAR more attracted, physically and emotionally, to people of the same gender, and cannot wilfully change this orientation to force themselves to feel the same degree (or even close) of attraction towards persons of the opposite gender.
As a side thought to this discussion: Due to the complexity, and despite that fact that we are determining what a lot of our genes do, aren't we still a little like someone groping in the dark as to modifying those genes? Especially in the light of the information you just discussed.
I didn't see any comments suggesting that human genes should be modified. Are you referring to people who think "gay" can be "fixed" through genetic manipulation? I certainly did not suggest that, nor do I think such a thing would be desirable. Maybe I'm just not following, so perhaps you can elaborate.
No, with all the twists and turns in deciphering the genetic code, and the material you discussed with how a gene might be dominant in one individual and might be recessive in another, I was suggesting that we as a species were not ready to manipulate our own genetic structure. I don't think we have progressed far enough to try to play evolution with our own genes. Perhaps we can try to aleviate the suffering of those who have genetic diseases, but beyond that.... I don't believe we are ready. What do you think?
Okay, yes, I'd agree with you. I have a problem with people who believe that if a gay gene were identified, it should be modified so that gays would cease to exist. It's not that I necessarily want there to be a continual population of gay people. I'm fairly neutral on that score because, in today's society, being gay is, while less difficult than it was 30 years ago when I came out, still very painful and difficult for most of us. But I believe that being gay is morally neutral, and do not wish to see a slice of genetic diversity eliminated from the "whole pie."
If the presumptive sequence of "gay genes" does provide some other adaptive qualities to humanity, then eliminating them could have untold disastrous consequences.
Consider "stereotypically gay" behaviors -- an interest in (and often, impressive talent for) the arts, painting, design, music, philosophy, literature. If it is true that these genes are linked to those characteristics, as might seem plausible, how many great works of music would never be composed, great works of art never painted, great treatises never written if the genetic make-up which could play a part in enabling these abilities were destroyed in the name of "curing gay"?
Perhaps the creativity in each of us is linked to our personal complement of one or more of these theoretical "gay genes." Maybe the combination of all of them produces a gay individual, but the individual expression of one or two simply produces a person with talent or creativity in some area. Should we muck around and destroy it? I don't think so.
Think about your sisters and brothers for a moment. Better yet, everyone's. They're probably very alike in at least some ways, physically, in personality, or in the traits they pass on to their kids, because they have the same genetic source: the parents.
Now imagine that a gay or lesbian person was in a primitive family many thousand years ago. They wouldn't have their own kids, but that would free the person up to help watch out for their sibling's kids. They'd also be useful on hunting or gathering trips, because they could do just as much work as anyone else, but they wouldn't take as big a share for their family.
We can actually see this in the black-backed jackal. Often, an adult pup will come back and help raise the next litter. Does that jackal spread its genes that year? No. Does it help spread its family's? Yep. Did black-backed jackals who did have the gene outspread those who didn't, making this a common trait among all jackals? Yep. The first jackals with that mutation found evolutionary success.
You don't have to win the evolutionary game by propagating your own genes. You can succeed just as well by making sure your family genes survive.
Interestingly enough, I don't really think your comment is ... that relevant to this discussion.
Whether or not homosexuality makes logical sense to you, or whether or not homosexuality produces viable offspring is ... irrelevant to a discussion where we are trying to determine whether homosexuality is natural or not.
To base one's being accepted on the basis that "animals do it too" -is- flawed. But to base homosexuality's being "natural" off of "animals do it too" is not quite as flawed.
I really don't see much difference in your last senctence than from my last sentence. I believe it can be normal behavior, and natural from animal observations. From a procreation standpoint it doesn't make logical sense. From the procreation standpoint I have to wonder how such behavior can be said to favor natural selection. How did it persist through the ages where natural selection is concerned? Especially in animals, you would have thought such behavior, if genetically manifested, would have eventually disappeared. If people are born gay, then I would have to insist that genetics are relevant.
Well, you don't see much difference because there really isn't much difference. Acceptance is one thing. Naturalness is another.
Simply because behavior is "natural" doesn't mean that it should be accepted. Certainly, one could argue that infanticide is natural because some animals do it, yet the alleged "naturalness" of the act doesn't make it acceptable in society.
Similarly, because behavior is accepted doesn't make it natural. Producing smokestack factories with robots that churn out shirts created from artificial fabrics is accepted, but I would hardly argue that that's natural.
It was mostly just nitpicking at words. Sorry if it seemed like a bigger deal than it should have been.
Societies frequently practiced infanticide, because they had no birth control and no measures to help single mothers or too many babies at once. "Natural" was "necessary."
The Greeks looked down on heterosexuality because it seemed "natural" to them; it was an animal thing, and thus homosexuality was "higher."
Heterosexuality isn't "right" because it's "natural," either. We deem it right when healthy adults identify as it and build good relationships with it, and deem it wrong when it's misused, as when it's done without consent or with a minor.
wow, infanticide necessary. Ancient Greek reasons were varied but it is no different than the reasons the Chinese and US has for aborting and abandoning their children . Oedepus Rex (play by Sophcles) is poetic justice. The reasons vary but society (me and others with a conscience) know it was wrong and evil. Just the same as some Germans knew it was wrong but part of their ruling society allowed the Jews to be gassed.
I'm assuming relevance when I refer to "society". As in, today's society as it exists in the USA. Infanticide, since last I checked, wasn't acceptable, even if it was arguably "natural" in some lines of thought.
What I'm arguing (and from what I'm reading of your comment, what you're arguing) is that something can't be deemed "acceptable" just because it is "natural". Similarly, something can't be deemed "unacceptable" just because it is "unnatural". Acceptability has to do more with ethical codes, as opposed to originalist ideals.
We -are- getting a bit off topic, but I don't think others would mind if we drew out this discussion a bit further if you wanted.
Infanticide has never been acceptable in the US... although it was practiced in the days before birth control and abortion , and widely. I don't believe there is a society that has never practiced it.
Yeah, we're in agreement. I think it's important to remember there are those two sides of the coin, and jumped in only to add a little weight to that point. It's true that homosexuality being a perfectly natural thing doesn't mean that it's inherently good. It also doesn't make it inherently evil. Just like, well, heterosexuality.