Biblical Pronouncements on Homosexuality and Related Topics

[Cerin]

I have never heard it proposed before that homosexuality is the predominant form of sexual activity in any species.

[Ethel]

I have heard it said that homosexuals are the only minority that, if you killed every last one of them, a generation later there would be about the same number. There have always been gay people, and evidently there always will be. Did you God create these people to be outcasts?

[Cerin]

If I understood Jn correctly, she was saying they are not the minority.

[Jnyusa]

Cerin, males of the large mammalian species are overwhelmingly homosexual. A fraction actually mate and sire offspring. Whether this is by choice or the result of competition is not clear-cut, but numerous studies have shown that males will not even enter into competition with one another for a female if the winner can be guessed in advance, e.g. on the basis of size or experience. The great majority of males spend their lives in homosexual relationships, resigned not to reproduce.

With females the comparison breaks down because we are the only mammal species where the females are in continuous estrous. It might be that the higher incidence of male heterosexuality among humans is because of this fact - the receptivity of larger numbers of women at all times. But there is nothing 'unnatural' about homosexuality from nature's point of view.

The selective advantage to homosexuality depends, I believe, on the population being polygynous. If unique pairs mated for life, then having a large number of non-reproducing females would not be efficient. But it is not clear that humans are 'naturally' monogamous any more than they are 'naturally' heterosexual. We could maintain our current population levels with ~20% of the men we have now (no offense guys) and if the rest were homosexual it would not matter to the survival of the species as long as we did not insist on monogamy.

The origins for monogamy are more interesting to me for this reason than are the origins for sexual/property laws, as it seems to me that the latter were necessitated in a direct way by the former.

Just btw, we were talking in another thread about pagan morality and I was going to make a long post about infanticide but I ran out of time and thread topic shifted or something. Anyway, the issue of infanticide is related to this topic also, in that when infanticide is practiced it is almost always female infanticide and tied to quite complex and long-run ways to maintenance of specific land/people ratios because it is only the number of female births that affects popuulation growth.

Jn

[vison]

Interesting reading.

Having lived on a farm all my life, I have certainly seen "homosexual" behaviors in farm animals. Whether I would categorize these behaviors as "homosexual" in the same way as human behaviors, I don't know. I don't think it's PREFERENCE, as it seems to be in humans.

I have seldom seen an animal homosexual relationship result in any kind of overt sex "act", to be honest. Dogs will seemingly "attempt" intercourse with a variety of creatures and objects, including the human leg, but I don't really know what it means since the dog I saw doing it the other day was, in fact, a pretty active sire in a breeding operation. Compared, for instance, to my dogs at home, this guy "gets plenty".

Sex play among animals is frequent, for sure. What does it mean? I don't know.

However, in the upper primates, of which I know nothing beyond my own human experience, things might well be different.

Someone somewhere mentioned lesbian behaviors in cows. I've seen cows jumping other cows many times, the "jumper" is in heat and this is a signal. But why? Jeez, I don't know. Do wild cows do this? Domestic cows can't possibly figure out that the farmer is watching and will act appropriately!!!!

Edited to add: I have always thought that when men figured out that they had something to do with a woman getting pregnant, women were a goner.

And when the Sky God killed the Earth Mother, as they say, the deal was finalized.

[axordil]

We could maintain our current population levels with ~20% of the men we have now (no offense guys) and if the rest were homosexual it would not matter to the survival of the species as long as we did not insist on monogamy.
Jn

Well, yes and no. The genetic diversity of the species would go way down, which is generally a Bad Thing. But that's nitpicking.

I also think that comparing human social structures to anything other than the great apes is less instructive than it could be. Goodness knows there's enough diversity there alone to occupy anthropologists for a few centuries. Including homosexual behavior aplenty.

None of this obviates Jn's main point.

[MithLuin]

Yes, I've seen male cows, dogs and ducks go at it with each other. In the case of the cows, it was steers, who are castrated (I think...unless that was the year we had heifers...). But...it always seemed to me to be a bit of desperation in not having any females around. After all, the ducks were happy to pair off when we had about the same number of males as females. But then our female ducks started dying off (foxes and dogs), so the males started fighting over them like crazy....and then we were down to just males, so they fought over the smaller males (this was in the spring, only). Same with the dogs...we had two dogs, both male, one neutered. The one who was not fixed would hump the one who was, sometimes.

I guess I am saying that homosexual behavior in farm animals (or in wild animals who have to yield to the dominant male) is not unlike homosexual behavior in the Spartan army. It is more expediency, and finding some sex better than no sex, than evidence of actual homosexual preference.

There may very well be male animals with homosexual preferences, who would avoid mating with females, given the opportunity. But in a lot of cases, we are seeing frustrated males who don't have that opportunity. <shrug> I know a lot of behavioral research has gone into studying animals, so I'm sure all of this has been considered and documented. I know there is evidence of homosexual preference in mammals (such as giraffes). I am merely suggesting that not all incidences of homosexual sexual practices in animals indicate sexual preference.

Did your God create these people to be outcasts?

I dunno - ask Him. I don't speak for him

But no, seriously, God created a lot of people, and a lot of them end up outcasts - why? Surely, it's mostly because human society can be cruel, and casts out people they don't want to deal with - the poor, the handicapped, widows and orphans, the diseased, the uneducated, the "useless" or "dangerous." I think that is a problem we can address. Why people are born blind is probably not something we can do much about, so, while it's worth considering, it isn't a practical question. Some questions of origins are practical, of course - like how do we prevent crime from happening?

There may well be developmental factors that go into homosexuality. I know it is always dangerous to rely on anecdotal evidence, but a fair number of the homosexuals I've talked to about this have explained that they were sexually abused as children or young teens. Whereas, the number of heterosexuals who have told me about similar experiences is rather small. (Obviously, I don't walk up to people and ask those sorts of questions! So, this isn't that large of a sample group). Would these people have become homosexual if that abuse weren't part of their lives? Quite possibly, sure. But, that was a factor, part of their history that shaped who they are. Everybody is different...some people know they are gay from a very young age, others struggle with their identity when they are much older. There is a lot that goes into it, and I highly doubt they are going to find a single gene that determines homo/hetero. That just doesn't match. That's not to say that there isn't a genetic basis...but I expect it to be more complicated than that. More like the predisposition to alcoholism. It's there, it's in the genes...but it won't manifest the same way in two different people.

But, as I mentioned earlier, the question of origin is interesting, but not very... practical. On one level, it doesn't matter how it happened; some people are homosexual and others are not. The question for society is how to deal with this reality. And no, I don't think they are "intended" to be outcasts. Just because I think a behavior is wrong, doesn't mean I think it should be outlawed. I don't think people who divorce and remarry should be "outcast" - and I don't percieve what homosexual couples do to be any different, really.

[yovargas]

On one level, it doesn't matter how it happened; some people are homosexual and others are not.

Indeed. I'd rather not get into the nature vs nurture thing here as I think it's irrelevant to the discussion. The signifanct point is, however we got here, here we are.

[nerdanel]

I'd rather not go into the nature vs. nurture route, because it always goes one way. No one ever looks into the bad experiences that heterosexuals have had during childhood to analyze whether they might have been "shaped into" or "made" heterosexual, despite being naturally homosexual, by virtue of their childhood experiences. This inquiry ordinarily proceeds one way - what bad thing might have happened to a homosexual in childhood to make him or her not straight? And, I'm sorry, but that's complete and utter nonsense - especially since the "abuse" inquiry is very one-dimensional.

It's interesting to me that if a boy is molested by a man at an early age and later identifies as gay, people figure that his abuse made him a homosexual - he was introduced to same-sex activity at a young age, and therefore that's what "caused" his liking of it. Can we please sit down and chat about all the girls who are molested by men at an early age and later grow up to identify as straight? Maybe those men interfered with the perfectly healthy lesbian identities they would have had - maybe they would never have desired M/F intercourse had they not been introduced to it so early - but no one ever worries about that.

So, as long as the inquiry is "What makes people gay?" rather than "What causes ANY child's sexual orientation to manifest in a given way?" I'd rather steer very clear of that. Of course, these discussions almost always ignore bisexuals - another complicating data point, as the bisexual community has clearly not had some horrendous experience to turn them off desiring opposite-sex intimacy/relationships. And yet they still desire members of their own sex.

And, for the record, I was never sexually abused as a child, by either a man or a woman. So there's another data point for you, Mith.

[yovargas]

And, for the record, I was never sexually abused as a child, by either a man or a woman.

Ditto. (Not that it matters.)

[MithLuin]

I am very glad to hear that, both of you .

I was more thinking of one of my Mom's best friends growing up, who was molested by her stepfather and grew up to be a lesbian, actually. Are those two facts related? Quite possibly not. I know better than to draw conclusions like that without a much bigger pool, and I certainly hope my post didn't sound as if I thought what I was presenting was "evidence." Really, my whole point was that it's complex, and different people react differently for different reasons.

I was just struck by the idea in Ethel's post that God would create anyone to intentionally be an outcast. That seems....odd, to me, to say the least. I would think society does that, more than anything. And then I wondered if my distinction was fair, and so I started thinking about what I have heard about factors attributed to people being homosexual...and cycled back to the society thing.

But you are right, it's the outcast idea that I was really thinking about, and the origin question doesn't really matter, there. Though, sometimes, to alter people's perceptions (ie, to get rid of the 'outcast' status), you have to delve into origins. Lepers were outcast, because no one wanted to catch the disease. Now we can treat it, and know that it is not highly contagious. So...there is not a strong push in society to ostracize lepers.

But anyway, I think it is our responsibility to look at everyone as a human being, and not push anyone away. Sometimes that takes heroic love...I know I would be seriously repulsed by someone with maggots. Heck, I'll be honest, I'm repulsed by people who smell bad . But...I have to look past that, if I can. Even when no one understood leprosy, there were those who would care for the lepers, embrace them, and treat them like people. For some reason, I think that those people understood what it meant to be human a lot more than the ones who hurried past and pretended they didn't see .

Not that being homosexual is anything like being a leper...it's just, they are the group that was classically forced out of society throughout history.

[Lidless]

I have never heard it proposed before that homosexuality is the predominant form of sexual activity in any species.

The Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard - an all-female species. It needs two females of the species to court and rub against eachother to enhance ovulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnemidophorus_uniparens


I still find it strange in this day and age that some people still believe in the Bible in toto and not that there may be a truth in there somewhere but it's been twisted, corrupted and added to by men and what the men of the day thought should be the societal rules of the day. Once you add God's name to your rule, especially in that day and age, it would pretty much be followed.

[Jnyusa]

The genetic diversity of the species would go way down, which is generally a Bad Thing. But that's nitpicking.

That's actually not nitpicking, Ax. It is one of the most important factors to consider. If a few males mate with all the females, genetic diversity is reduced, but those males accepted for reproduction will be the übermenschen of their population. A niche that favors highly aggressive behavior will bring these guys to the fore more quickly.

Because humans are among the most succcessful species ever to grace the earth ... (insert two qualifiers: (1) successful in terms of population and geographic dispersal; (2) we haven't been around very long and don't know what our comparative longevity might be, as a species) ... we can conclude that monogamy + 50/50 sex ratios and dominant heterosexuality is a successful strategy, too. But we can't say that the other strategy is unsuccessful because plenty of species use it to their advantage. Where they are becoming extinct it is for other reasons, not this one.

I also think that comparing human social structures to anything other than the great apes is less instructive than it could be.

The only point in looking beyond one's own order is to see how far back in the evolutionary chain the behavior might go.

There may very well be male animals with homosexual preferences, who would avoid mating with females, given the opportunity. But in a lot of cases, we are seeing frustrated males who don't have that opportunity.

(eta: and vision made a similar observation earlier)

Yes, it's very difficult to tease the causal factors apart. One can gain some insight, though, by positing the alternate: that mammalian males strongly prefer heterosexuality, whereas homosexuality is a frustration default. I think this would lead to a hypothesis of more frequent conflict over harems than we actually see in the animal world. It seems (per biologist Robert May) that such conflict is infrequent compared to the size of the male population. The most we can conclude from that, though, is that heterosexuality is not to die for. It does not tell us whether, given a choice between a male and a female, a particular animal would usually choose one or the other, which is, I think, the kind of test that would be necessary for determining "sexual preference."

No one ever looks into the bad experiences that heterosexuals have had during childhood to analyze whether they might have been "shaped into" or "made" heterosexual, despite being naturally homosexual, by virtue of their childhood experiences.

nel, this is an extremely important point and I'm glad that you raised it.

The Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard - an all-female species. It needs two females of the species to court and rub against eachother to enhance ovulation.

Most species do not have 50/50 male/female ratios.

I have also heard it supposed that some human reproduction is parthenogenetic, but this does not occur at rates sufficient to support the species if it were the only strategy.

I recall reading about this in high school when I was still a virgin and being absolutely terrified by the possibility.

(Both my daughters came into being the usual way ... as far as I know.)

Jn

[Lidless]

Were you there at the time?

[Jnyusa]

Yes. And I was even awake.

Jn

[axordil]

Jny--

I do think there is some information that can be gleaned from other mammalian social structures. But I think the farther one gets (both genitically and environmentally) from our own, the less useful the comparison, because we cannot say for sure if the behavior is an adaptation to current conditions or not. Sexuality doesn't leave fossils. Thus, while we can infer from the frequency with which it occurs in other large mammals that it is a common behavior NOW, that's not the same as demonstrating that common ancestors had it as well.

[Jnyusa]

Thus, while we can infer from the frequency with which it occurs in other large mammals that it is a common behavior NOW, that's not the same as demonstrating that common ancestors had it as well.

I think they can probably determine whether polygyny is ancestral behavior or not just by looking at current DNA diversity. I have no information about such studies, but I suspect they've been done. But you're right that a lot of the stuff we'd like to know is simply untestable.

The reason I raised this issue is that there seems to be a presumption that homosexual behavior is somehow 'unnatural.' ("Dr." Laura Schlesinger used to talk about it this way all the time.) And this is incorrect unless one imposes all sort of specialized rules for humans that don't apply to any other species. That, I believe, is what proponents of 'unnaturalism' would like to do, and I will generally resist that approach because I think it is idiosyncractic and indefensible.

Jn

[MithLuin]

Well, it does depend what is meant by "natural." If natural means "biological," then obviously it makes sense to delve into the biology of not only our own species, but also our relatives (near or distant).

But when people say "natural law," they are not speaking of biology at all, and thus common practices among water buffalo are irrelevant to the conversation.

Always good to define your terms .

To get back to the point yov raised, whether or not my cat allows multiple cats to father her kittens does not really impact my opinion on what human marriage is, or ought to be. It might help explain...something, but wouldn't "count," if that makes sense.

[Jnyusa]

But when people say "natural law," they are not speaking of biology at all ...

I would argue that this is one of the things the originators of natural law concepts were talking about, but their information about 'nature' was incomplete and often inaccurate.

One of the most fundamental concepts in economics - the law of diminishing returns - was proposed based on Parson Mathus' observations about human sexual behavior and its formalization in the early 1800s was the key that Darwin needed to arrive at his own theory of natural selection.

And natural law concepts have indeed been tilted in idiosyncratic directions for political purposes. John Locke's first statement defining 'natural property' (Second Treatise on Government) restricts it to the land that can be cultivated by one person in provision of their own subsistence. This is a very restrictive definition but quite defensible. In later passages he expands it to include property that could be cultivated by a person and his servants. (It should be obvious what political position of the day was being served by that expansion.) But in fact the whole defense of natural property breaks apart under this expansion. When economists set about to mathematize 'property ownership' for use in equilibrium equations the second definition requires a different equation whose general equilibrium is not determinate (though it can be solved for individual markets). It would be hard to overstate the difference made by this seemingly tiny definitional change to determinations of distributive justice in economics.

Personally, I think that there is something like 'natural law' that one can talk about, but I don't believe it can be formulated so as to contradict biology or physics and still remain relevant to ethics ... or to economics.

[axordil]

The reason I raised this issue is that there seems to be a presumption that homosexual behavior is somehow 'unnatural.' ("Dr." Laura Schlesinger used to talk about it this way all the time.) And this is incorrect unless one imposes all sort of specialized rules for humans that don't apply to any other species. That, I believe, is what proponents of 'unnaturalism' would like to do, and I will generally resist that approach because I think it is idiosyncractic and indefensible.

I agree that calling any behavior for which we have numerous and widespread examples in other mammals unnatural is a stretch, unless one takes the route of exceptionalism--which is fraught with logical peril.

On the other hand, there are perfectly "natural" animal behaviors that are similarly widespread that most societies reject too, like cannibalism. And there are behaviors unknown in animals that societies approve of, like risking your life to save a stranger.

No, I'm not comparing eating people to homosexuality! But the whole "natural" argument, both sides, is in my estimation missing the mark. It is neither an ethical defense nor a detriment for a behavior to be seen or unknown in other species.