Finally! Little Beau Sheep, for Peep!


Posted by Amaranth Rose on Mar 31, 2004 at 11:04
(65.172.150.7)

Sorry, I couldn't resist the joke. I'm sorry this took so long. You try editing a qurter of a million words in 50 hours or less and see if you con't get a bit behind. When you're immersed in Alligator mississipiensis up to your gluteus maximus it's not difficult to fail to apprehend that your initial objective was to redirect the watershed away from the marshlands. :-)

Preface: You asked for my “opinion” and that is what this is. Since I’m very opinionated, you’re getting a lot of it. If you wanted it by a certain deadline, you should have told me that at the outset. I work to very few deadlines and those I set myself.

1. “Do you think that a biologically based "gayness" among a two-gendered species can be said to confer a particular benefit on the species, or do you think that such might instead be indicative of existing physiological abnormalities, chemical imbalances, etc.? “

At first reading, this sounds relatively innocuous; it is only on reflection and slight squeezing that it seems to squirt bigotry like a ripe grapefruit squirts juice. In fact this whole posting seems very correct on the outside and dripping with sarcasm and bigotry on the inside. I’ll try to ignore that aspect and address what I feel to be the real issues here.

Bear in mind that what is presented hereinafter is solely the opinion of the author. In this discussion I am considering individuals of apparently normal physiology; hermaphrodites, and individuals with specific genetic disorders or conditions are not under consideration for my purposes. I make no claim to social or moral “correctness”; I have merely examined the available information and am offering an opinion accordingly. I have no agenda, social, political, moral, or any-other-al. I seek only to further the cause of truth and promote thinking. I’m not going to change anyone’s opinion; the only one who can change your opinion on some matter is yourself, after thoughtful and hopefully unbiased regard of the facts.

The facts as I have been able to determine them in this matter are as follows. Be aware that some of what you will read hereinafter may challenge or offend your presently-held beliefs or generate strong emotional reactions. You are welcome to disagree with anything I write; you may not threaten me and mine or cause or attempt to cause bodily harm to anyone over what I write. I’d like to keep this discussion polite, at least. Do your swearing and flaming offline. You can find me at the corner of Amaranth’s Corner. Now to the meat.

Sexuality in a bipartite (two gendered) species such as are generally found on Earth has four readily discernible possibilities: heterosexuality, pairing with the opposite gender; homosexuality, pairing within the same gender; bisexuality, pairing with both genders, either serially or simultaneously; and asexuality, complete absence of pairing. IMHO, sexuality is the result of a summation of a number of genetically determined factors, hence the variation and gradation of behaviors. I base this on the observations of all four types of behaviors in animal and human populations at stable, repeatable levels of occurrence. None of the four is inherently more or less valuable than another, IMHO. Some may be more successful at reproducing the genes of the individual; however, all can conceivably contribute to the survival of the species, contributing in various ways. See John Wright’s “The Moral Animal” for a nice discussion of this. Individuals of any of the four types can successfully raise healthy, well-balanced, “normal” offspring, their own or someone else’s, who then follow their own genetic program that determines their own innate sexuality type. If heterosexuality were strictly environmentally induced, Mendelian genetics and common sense tells us that heterosexual individuals would never produce homosexual or bisexual or asexual offspring; the fact that they do, at a very predictable rate (see the “Anita Bryant Syndrome”), says that the trait is a result of many genes assorting throughout the entire population. This is true for many species, not just humans.

Pair bonding, the choice of a permanent life-mate, is accomplished in most species in a period of early adulthood when the organism is physically and hormonally at a peak, as it were. Many species of birds and other types of animals select permanent life-mates; many, including most primates, do not. In many species, if pair bonding does not take place by a certain age, or if one member of a bonded pair is removed or dies, the other will never again bond with another and remains alone the rest of its life.

Pair bonding is not the same as mating. I define mating for the purpose of this writing as the coming together of two individuals to engage in the acts necessary to copulate so as to produce offspring. The behaviors surrounding mating are not the same as the ones attending pairing; many people are not clear on this distinction. The fact that lesbian bird pairs in some species have been observed to lay eggs and raise between them about twice as many chicks as heterosexual pairs in the same species leads one to question the assumption that this is a “dead-end” behavior. At some point these homosexually pair bonded females must be mating with males, as they are not hermaphrodites and rape has not been observed, at least to my knowledge.

I think there can be a case made for the hypothesis that homosexual pairing is not especially detrimental to the survival of the species, and may have certain benefits instead. The fact that homosexual birds will abduct offspring of other birds and raise them ably, and will filch eggs and set them successfully, opens the door to the possibility of a ready-made set of foster parents to eggs or chicks whose own parents meet with an untimely demise, thus rescuing a genetic contribution that would otherwise be lost. Most birds will lay more eggs if some are stolen; this is the basis for the successful reintroduction of whooping cranes in parts of North America.

I do not think that a biological basis for sexuality of any type can be laid exclusively at the door of such things as “existing physiological abnormalities” or “chemical imbalances” any more than red hair or blue eyes can be attributed to the same causes, even though red hair is a result of an enzyme defect and blue eyes can arguably be said to be the result of another defect. Neither red hair nor blue eyes are grounds for selective negative treatment; in fact they are frequently held in favor.

2. If not the latter, then how else could such "gayness", something which could be considered a fatal departure from the necessary heterosexual norm, be included "on a broad continuum of normal sheep behavior"?

Your statement “the necessary heterosexual norm” is first of all a blatant and outright assumption that heterosexuality is “the norm”. In some species, especially those in which only a few dominant males mate with the females, it may not be the norm. It’s pretty condescending, too. This is an assumption that is often repeated by people as if it were a great truth. The real truth is, we don’t know what “the norm” is, in our species or any other. There are lizards that reproduce many generations without producing males; for them, homosexuality is by far “the norm”. They engage in mating behavior to stimulate egg production.

The fact that homosexual behavior can be observed in such a wide variety of animal species, at consistent levels of incidence in each species, suggests that it is indeed quite inherent in nature and that it may be an intrinsic part of the scope of possible behaviors. There is a wide range of behaviors from acute heterosexuality to acute homosexuality to asexuality to bisexuality that can be observed in our own species. If you plot those two pairs of behaviors perpendicularly and assess an individual on those scales, you’ll come up with a point somewhere in a grid. It could make a neat personality test. Kind of like the ones where you find out who you’re most like, Ghandi or Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler.

I don’t consider it a “fatal departure”. I consider it part of a range of expression. It may not serve to pass on the specific genes of the individual, but it does not necessarily harm the survival of the species as a whole. By helping to secure territory from other herds who would encroach and drive away members of a herd from choice grazing ground, non-reproducing males and females may help preserve the grazing territory for the rest of their genetic cohort. By helping to defend and protect offspring from predation, non-reproducing males and females may help to ensure the survival of the genes of their closest relatives, their own genes in fact, one step removed.

Some see it as a fatal flaw. Others see it as genetically programmed altruism. There are many other interpretations possible. How you choose to view it depends on where you are standing when you take the look. A Darwinian Biologist sees it differently than a humanist or a fundamental religious believer; each is entitled to their opinion.

3. “Being that animals are governed far less by volition and more strictly by the baser laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest, do you think it could be that occurrences of homosexual behavior are actually a natural by-product (or "symptom") of herding and flocking behaviors, resulting perhaps from the effects of internal or environmental stressors, fatigued pheromone response due to saturation, etc.? “

“animals are governed far less by volition and more strictly by the baser laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest”

An assumption. I’m not sure I agree with it. Humans presume that they have a corner on the market when it comes to thinking. I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate. Dogs and cats can solve problems and puzzles and learn by observation. I think lots of animals are smarter than dogs and cats.

“natural by-product (or "symptom") of herding and flocking behaviors, resulting perhaps from the effects of internal or environmental stressors, fatigued pheromone response due to saturation, etc.”

“Gayness in animals” has nothing to do with stress. Animals in their own natural environments exhibit homosexual behaviors.

“Even in a species of bird such as the black stilt, of which fewer than 100 pairs are left in the wild, there are still female homosexual couples.”

“Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.”

“Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 percent to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Females perform courtship rituals, like tossing their heads at each other or offering small gifts of food to each other, and they establish nests together. Occasionally they mate with males and produce fertile eggs but then return to their original same-sex partners. Their bonds, too, may persist for years.”

“male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Researchers have noted that in some cases same-sex behavior is more common for dolphins in captivity.”

“Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex."

I can’t see how they would be any differently stressed than those in captivity, which also exhibit those behaviors, to about the same degree. It has nothing to do with pheromones. It has everything to do with the fact that pairing and mating behaviors are under genetic control, probably of a large number of genes acting in concert, and it is the fact of assortment that results in a steady rate of individuals with those proclivities. Humans get a steady rate of certain types of birth defects such as Cri du Chat or Down Syndrome, and you don’t get people going up to the parents and saying, “You caused that birth defect because you exposed that fetus to internal or environmental stressors.” They say, “Oh, my, you have a child with an extra chromosome. How unfortunate.” They don’t try to take the child apart and rip the extra chromosome out of every cell in their body. They don’t tell them to sit in the back of the bus. They don’t tell them whom to love. They don't deny them civil and legal rights.

“Finally (and, watch out, here it comes), if "gayness" among animals actually turns out to be a by-product of habit and habitat, perhaps even conferring benefit to a species (in a negative sense) according to the processes of natural selection (e.g., a "weeding out" perhaps), then what do you think this might mean for humans, who, unless quite impaired in some way, without a doubt have the conscious wherewithal to override the strict biology of the matter and mentally determine and distinguish what anatomical part goes where and with which gender they should pair?”

“One thing is clear, however: whilst homosexuality is commonplace in nature, homophobia is not. Even in species where heterosexual matings are often aggressively interrupted (for example by rivals or by dominant individuals) homosexual ones are usually ignored.”

How can you talk about a benefit in a negative sense? Animals don’t shun gay animals. They treat them just like all the other animals in the herd or flock. It’s only humans who act like it’s a problem. It’s a natural consequence of the fact of being a bipartite species and having sexuality as an attribute in the first place. It’s a cost of doing business. You can’t throw it out like garbage when you don’t happen to like what you see. It “ain’t no thing”, unless you make it one.

Consciously override biology? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this. I can only hope you either are very naive or you did not stop to think this through before you pushed the send button. Would you like to try to make a person who is six-foot-four-inches tall wear clothes sized for a person four-foot-ten? Biology says the guy is six/four; you think he can choose to be four/ten? Maybe with a lot of psychotropic drugs and some pretty sadistic brainwashing you could get him to imagine he’s four-foot-ten. It’d be an interesting way to drive someone insane, I guess. But somewhere deep inside, he’s still going to know he’s six/four, and the lie is going to destroy him from the inside. Would you tell a black person to be white skinned or else? Would you tell a man to be a woman? Would you tell a goat to be a fish? You can’t change reality by wishing or legislating. Why waste your time trying?

The major impairment most common among humans is that of meddling in the lives of others when they can’t sort out their own.

You asked for my opinion. You got it. Have at it.

“Amaranth Rose”


References used (in no particular order)

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2004/02/09/2003098128

http://www.emperor-penguin.com/gay-penguins.html

http://www.galha.freeserve.co.uk/glh/191/bagemihl.html

http://www.bizarremag.com/ask/animals.php

http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/zoology.html

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

http://www.rnw.nl/lifestyle/html/gayanimals000808.html

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=3555

http://www.gaypasg.org/Press%20Clippings/May%202003/Gay%20animals%20come%20out%20of%20the%20closet.htm

http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Science3.html

http://www.q.co.za/news/1999/9908/990809-vulture.html

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040218213614data_trunc_sys.shtml




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:


[ Forum ] [ New Message ]