November 17, 2006
Gay animals out of the closet?
From MSNBC News:
A first-ever museum display, "Against Nature?," which opened last month at the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum in Norway, presents 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality. Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition. "I think to some extent people don't think it's important because we went through all this time period in sociobiology where everything had to be tied to reproduction and reproductive success," said Linda Wolfe, who heads the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University. "If it doesn't have [something to do] with reproduction it's not important."
However, species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction. "You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it's for dominance, it's for this, it's for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it's just for sexual pleasure," Wolfe told LiveScience. Conversely, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure pleasure: namely evolutionary benefits.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 06:08 AM | Permalink
Comments
The Catholic position, as I understand it (probably not too well), is that homosexual behavior in human beings (animals, being soulless, are irrelevant here) is a sin because it is a choice to defy the sexual nature god created humans with, the purpose of which, this position says, is primarily procreative (though lately the purpose of promoting faithful monogamy has also come to be admitted by theologians -- pure sexual pleasure is still frowned upon, apparently). Yes, they say, gay desire may be present, and gay sex may be fun, but abstention is what god wants.
The naturalistic position (which I basically agree with) is that sexual behavior evolved, in species including H. sapiens for reproduction *as well as* other reasons. Some naturalists seem to be rather nervous about acknowledging the hedonistic aspect of sex, as well, but why not celebrate it? Yes, food "primarily" serves nutrition, but it is also delicious and cooking can be fun. The voice is used to communicate very pragmatically -- "Watch out for that truck!" -- but there is nothing wrong with song and poetry, too.
(Somewhat OT: the theory that St. Paul was a closeted gay has recently been receiving some attention. Is there any good evidence for this, apart from his rather panicky denunciation of gays?)
Posted by: JonJ | Nov 17, 2006 1:12:53 PM
Reproduction as a goal is meaningless if the product is not able to thrive and reproduce. Non-reproductive sexual behavior among animals seems to serve the need for enhanced cohesiveness which add-to the effectiveness of the social unit in which the genetic progeny will presumably live.
Posted by: doug | Nov 17, 2006 4:34:52 PM
Post a comment