just because animals do it doesn't mean it isn't a choice, meaning that the point Philomedy had (i.e. that homosexuality is not a choice because a few penguins are gay) is invalid?

Would never say that Philomedy's point is invalid (besides the fact that I think he would bite me!) but was more asking the question rather than making a direct statement... hence my use of question marks.

I posted some links concerning penguin prostitution

amusing links as well.

how can they be anything but a choice? A woman chooses to sell her body for money... a guy chooses to have multiple partners (sex not discriminatory here)...

It sounds like from this though that you're saying that just because an animal does something doesn't make it not a choice, so that would also apply to Philomedy's point, unless there's a double standard for homosexuality.

Yes most animals are, for the lack of a better term, promiscuious but surely they are acting on instinct rather than making an intelligble choice?

Wouldn't that make it not a choice for them (and then consequently, for us)?

But we choose to be promiscuious just as we have the choice to remain monogomous.

So perhaps we choose to be gay. After all, animals might be compelled to be homosexual, but they're also compelled to be promiscuous and to be prostitutes sometimes too.

I'll accept that with respects to prostitution there are unfortunately in our society those who have been forced in to the sex industry but the nature of their enslavement has taken away their freedom to do otherwise.

In those cases, it's a different kind of "not a choice." However, women who supposedly "choose" to be prostitutes can't be prostitutes if we accept that something's not a choice if penguins do it.

So, what you're saying is that just because animals do it doesn't mean it isn't a choice, meaning that the point Philomedy had (i.e. that homosexuality is not a choice because a few penguins are gay) is invalid?

Would never say that Philomedy's point is invalid (besides the fact that I think he would bite me!) but was more asking the question rather than making a direct statement... hence my use of question marks.

Philomedy acknoledged that his point was invalid halfway through the discussion here. Not to say that my opinions about homosexuality have changed, because I continue to feel rather strongly that homosexuals should not be treated as second class citizens or be discriminated against in any way. However, in light of some of Juxta's apt rebuttals to the "natural" argument, I will refrain from using it in the future.

Philomedy acknoledged that his point was invalid halfway through the discussion here.

hmmmm. if this was your point:

Obviously, then, genetic defect in this case does not have to mean that the trait is harmful, or puts the individual at a disadvantage, just in the minority.

i dont know why youd concede it. none of those 'if animals ______ then humans must ________ ' where the first ______ = 'some activity' and the second _______ = 'some convoluted conclusion' sophomorisms invalidates it.

It is a question of "who decides". Nature validates genetic differences by means of inherent benefit, and social judgement.

The arguement here seems to be that if homosexuality is a natural genetic diversity, it is okay. If that is the case, and wolves, for instance, are morally right for killing those who are weak and different. Cats eating their kittens is a reasonable practice.

No, in all these cases the society in question, decide overall to accept or reject genetic diversity, unless the characteristic itself makes the individual more viable.

In this case, humans have to decide whether to accept or reject homosexuality. There's no "play book" involved, no unwritten code of the wild.

hmmmm. if this was your point

I conceded my "natural state" argument, not my semantic argument as to what a genetic defect is.

The arguement here seems to be that if homosexuality is a natural genetic diversity, it is okay. If that is the case, and wolves, for instance, are morally right for killing those who are weak and different. Cats eating their kittens is a reasonable practice.

Cats and kittens are not genetically different, one group is simply older than the other. As for the wolves, I don't see how genetics justifies them killing a weaker individual. Usually, being "strong" or being "weak" is not a genetic difference (with the exception of certain diseases), because the "weak" individual has the opportunity to become stronger. This is not a genetic difference, it is a physical state that can be changed.

Nature validates genetic differences by means of inherent benefit, and social judgement.

In this case, humans have to decide whether to accept or reject homosexuality. There's no "play book" involved, no unwritten code of the wild.

In nature, it is not the species that decides inherent benefit, but the environment. Penguins are not forming mobs to rub out the gay penguins, and gay penguins continue to exist because homosexuality, be it genetic or not, does not affect the penguins' capacity to survive. They are not more susceptible to cold, they are not less likely to catch fish, they are not more likely to be eaten by whales. There is nothing about the existence of homosexual penguins that threatens the species as a whole. That being the case, then homosexuality, if it is genetically determined, is something of a useless or indifferent gene, since it neither decreases or increases the chance of survival for the individual penguin.

Similarly, it is not for humans to "decide" to accept or reject homosexuality, at least not on a natural level. Humans' problems with homosexuality arise from ideology, and not as a response to any threat that homosexuality poses.

"In nature, it is not the species that decides inherent benefit, but the environment. "

Philomedy: Oh, please... You know as well as I do that social groups in nature differentiate harshly between genetic characteristics. Any species that has strong social bonds mercilessly weed out those they choose to. Color, size, smell, behavior, numerous characteristics can turn a pack or social group against an individual.

So, no, penguins don't lynch gay penguins, but it is because they don't react to the characteristic. Apparently humans do. That's not to say we should, but one could easily say that intolerance is as natural a phenomenon as homosexuality, if not more.

Any species that has strong social bonds mercilessly weed out those they choose to. Color, size, smell, behavior, numerous characteristics can turn a pack or social group against an individual.

the ultimate result--if not the underlying instinctual motivation--would seem to be propogation of the most effective genetic traits. what appears to be intolerance (one colony of ants destroying another colony when it detects a scent marker unique to its own queen) involves no judgement or opinion. it's simply a matter of bio-economics as is intracolony weeding out of deformities. no species other than humans of which im aware turns on members of its own group (be that a pack, hive, colony, pod, etc.)over a difference of opinion.

no species other than humans of which im aware turns on members of its own group (be that a pack, hive, colony, pod, etc.)over a difference of opinion

Ah, but this isn't a differene of opinion given the penguin case, this is now a genetic trait, and a VERY overt behavior. We have no idea how many more markers go along with homosexuality. As ignorant as we are about "instict", and as much as we have rejected the idea as compared to animals, WE can still often tell when people are gay.

And nature isn't always logical, either. Runts could be vastly more intelligent than the rest of an animal group, and be able to pass that genetic characteristic on, but odds are they'll eventually shun or harrow it to death before it is big enough to defend itself. Not very diversity-friendly.

Runts could be vastly more intelligent than the rest of an animal group, and be able to pass that genetic characteristic on, but odds are they'll eventually shun or harrow it to death before it is big enough to defend itself. Not very diversity-friendly.

if you consider the mechanisms which foster natural selection from the relatively limited vantage of human time, they do seem to work against diversity. that may explain why there seems to be a point at which every species stops evolving?

"if you consider the mechanisms which foster natural selection from the relatively limited vantage of human time, they do seem to work against diversity. that may explain why there seems to be a point at which every species stops evolving? "

COuld be. It could also be said that if there were no natural benefit to the practice that it wouldn't be there to begin with. I'm not espousing such, any more than I am espousing homosexuality. I'm just saying that if you accept all things "natural" as good you are taking a lot of bad with the good...