Thursday, June 4, 2009
Homo More Gay Penguins
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Z and Vielpunkt aren't the first gay penguins to adopt a chick—Roy and Silo beat them to parenting and a book deal—but they're making headlines nonetheless:
Two "gay" male penguins have hatched a chick and are now rearing it as its adoptive parents, says a German zoo. The zoo, in Bremerhaven, northern Germany, says the adult males—Z and Vielpunkt—were given an egg which was rejected by its biological parents.
I don't know why the BBC is putting gay in scare quotes. The zookeepers tried to convert Z and Vielpunkt to the natural use of lady penguins—much to the consternation of German gay rights advocates with way too much time on their hands—and it wasn't any use: the boys preferred each other's company. And now, with the gift of a fertilized egg, they're model penguin parents:
"Z and Vielpunkt, both males, gladly accepted their 'Easter gift' and got straight down to raising it," said a zoo statement. "Since the chick arrived, they have been behaving just as you would expect a heterosexual couple to do. The two happy fathers spend their days attentively protecting, caring for and feeding their adopted offspring."
Some religious bigots insist that homosexuality can't be "natural," that it can't have a genetic basis or component, because homosexuals don't pass on their genes and natural selection—here they're happy to lean on Darwin—would work against and eventually eliminate the gene or genes responsible for homosexual orientation. Therefore homosexuality must be a conscious sin, a willful flouting of the God's divine plan, an a-blah-blah-blah-mination. But homosexual orientation has been observed in countless species that don't have to answer to God—penguins, dolphins, sheep, and on and on. And these converts-of-convenience to Darwinism refuse to acknowledge the obvious evolutionary advantage that the presence of homosexual individuals confer on, say, a clan, a tribe, or an extended family. We evolved at a time when life was nasty, brutal, and short—or nastier, more brutal, and shorter—and childbirth was a deadly business. The presence of childless adults—females who were unlikely to die in childbirth themselves, healthy males without children of their own—upped the odds for the survival of a tribe/clan/family's young.
Gays and lesbians are the original adoptive parents.
Share via
1
Maybe "gay" is in quotes because it's unclear the penguins have a sexual interest in one another. Do these animals have sex or just, y'know, hang out a lot?
4
There's also the selection-blind persistence of traits which are present in a population at low frequency and are completely dominant.
In other words, for traits where two common copies gives the same outcome/phenotype as one common copy and one rare copy, the rare copy will not be exposed to selection often enough to be selected out of existence.
of course, homosexuality is almost certainly more complex than one or even a bare handful of genes, but selection still has a hard time working against things that only crop up in, say, 3% of the population. which is nice because it allows for the possibility that those rare traits will later be advantageous and will have been kept.
In other words, for traits where two common copies gives the same outcome/phenotype as one common copy and one rare copy, the rare copy will not be exposed to selection often enough to be selected out of existence.
of course, homosexuality is almost certainly more complex than one or even a bare handful of genes, but selection still has a hard time working against things that only crop up in, say, 3% of the population. which is nice because it allows for the possibility that those rare traits will later be advantageous and will have been kept.
7
Dan,
Not that I ever bought the 'it's a sin' bullshit anyway, but that is the first time I've heard a convincing evolutionary arguement for homosexuality. It makes perfect sense. It's much like menopause:
Grandmothers are good for society, and old women die in childbirth a lot. Hence, menopause.
Not that I ever bought the 'it's a sin' bullshit anyway, but that is the first time I've heard a convincing evolutionary arguement for homosexuality. It makes perfect sense. It's much like menopause:
Grandmothers are good for society, and old women die in childbirth a lot. Hence, menopause.
9
so their is no definitive statements bout these pengin's sexual activities together, they seem to be a model parenting team. Going to show that homosexual couples are equally good parents. Also as an adopted kid I feel that couples who adopt (whether gay or straight) make the best parents cause they actually want the kid. How many unplanned and unwanted children are in the world? Would you deny a baby in china a good loving family (many times the other option for these kids is dying or begging on the streets) because of the sexual orientation of the parents? If so you are a heartless crazy person. Sexual orientation doesnt affect whether a person is morally sound, capable of great love or unfit parents...
10
Incest, canabilism, eating your own vomit, feces and offspring, murder and rape are also behaviors found in the animal kingdom, Dan.
Are they OK for humans?
Are they OK for humans?
12
As far as the biological explanation for homosexuality goes, it probably doesn't have much to do with "group selection."
However, there's a correlation between rates of male homosexuality and families where women have more than average children. The hypothesis that follows is that there's some kind of "I love dick" gene that can affect women or men. When women have the gene, they get a selective bonus (more kids). When men get the gene (from their very fertile mothers), they lose out on the natural selection field (although overall they dress better, have a better sense of humor, blah blah).
Such a pattern where women win evolutionarily at the expense of some of their male kids could keep the gay in the genepool.
However, there's a correlation between rates of male homosexuality and families where women have more than average children. The hypothesis that follows is that there's some kind of "I love dick" gene that can affect women or men. When women have the gene, they get a selective bonus (more kids). When men get the gene (from their very fertile mothers), they lose out on the natural selection field (although overall they dress better, have a better sense of humor, blah blah).
Such a pattern where women win evolutionarily at the expense of some of their male kids could keep the gay in the genepool.
14
If nature meant for homosexuals not to have children it would have rendered them biologically incapable of doing so.
"Homosexuals" can and often do reproduce.
In fact, biologically there is no such thing as a "homosexual".
"Homosexuals" can and often do reproduce.
In fact, biologically there is no such thing as a "homosexual".
15
@12 What's up with the assertion that there is no selective advantage to having kin who like to raise children but have no biological children themselves?
17
Biologists have noted something like 1,500 different species where individual members have been observed exhibiting homosexual traits in their natural habitats, ala Z & Vielpunkt, including several species of primates IIRC, so anti-gay/religious bigots are flat-out wrong when they insist such behavior is "not natural".
But then, they're wrong about so many other things, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
But then, they're wrong about so many other things, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
18
Also, genes for altruistic behavior will greatly help the survival of the species, even though the individuals exhibiting altruistic phenotypes are less likely to have offspring of their own. Through their behavior, their relatives (who may each have one copy of the allele) are able to have more offspring than populations where the gene is absolutely nowhere to be found. Hence, the altruistic behavior is advantageous and remains in the population for generations.
People who think that Darwinism is as simple as "gays have no kids = homosexuality can't be genetic" need to read up on "selfish gene theory." It's a simple enough concept: a gene will stay around as long as the gene is getting passed on. It doesn't matter if those exhibiting that gene's phenotype are having offspring. The theory just points out that there's a difference between survival of a gene and survival of those who exhibit its phenotype.
Also, like the Dear Science guy said once, homosexuality can be a sort of "side-effect" of some other trait (side-effect sounds so wrong, but for lack of a better term). His example was that there could be a gene for stronger sex drives in heterosexual women (I think we all know how that may result in more offspring), and that one effect of that may be that the gene, when passed into her male offspring, could inspire similar strong attraction to males. Or vice versa for men and lesbian daughters. I'm not sure if this is as sound as the theory that the gay gene came around through a similar mechanism as "altruism" genes, but it seems interesting enough. Genetic evolution really can be unpredictable.
People who think that Darwinism is as simple as "gays have no kids = homosexuality can't be genetic" need to read up on "selfish gene theory." It's a simple enough concept: a gene will stay around as long as the gene is getting passed on. It doesn't matter if those exhibiting that gene's phenotype are having offspring. The theory just points out that there's a difference between survival of a gene and survival of those who exhibit its phenotype.
Also, like the Dear Science guy said once, homosexuality can be a sort of "side-effect" of some other trait (side-effect sounds so wrong, but for lack of a better term). His example was that there could be a gene for stronger sex drives in heterosexual women (I think we all know how that may result in more offspring), and that one effect of that may be that the gene, when passed into her male offspring, could inspire similar strong attraction to males. Or vice versa for men and lesbian daughters. I'm not sure if this is as sound as the theory that the gay gene came around through a similar mechanism as "altruism" genes, but it seems interesting enough. Genetic evolution really can be unpredictable.
19
Statistically, it was shown that the first born son of a family is LESS likely to be gay. I like the primogeniture argument better because of this. The first born son gets all the spoils of the family.
The gay adoption thing reflects Dan's bias towards allowing gay couples to raise children.
I'm not against gay adoption (in fact I'm almost ready to believe that gay couples are better than straight ones). I do believe love is what make a family. But I think Dan is stretching his agenda too far into this.
The gay adoption thing reflects Dan's bias towards allowing gay couples to raise children.
I'm not against gay adoption (in fact I'm almost ready to believe that gay couples are better than straight ones). I do believe love is what make a family. But I think Dan is stretching his agenda too far into this.
20
@10: Back before gay sex and homosexual orientation was documented in other species -- or acknowledged -- bigots used to say that homosexual acts were so disgusting that not even animals engaged in them. Now that we know/have acknowledged that animals do, homosexuality is added to the list of things animals do that are so disgusting that we wouldn't dream of doing them.
I hope your goalposts must be on castors, 10, seeing how often you move 'em.
I hope your goalposts must be on castors, 10, seeing how often you move 'em.
21
Thank you Dan for putting that so clearly.
It is something that those of us who work with and study animals, particularly from an ethological perspective, not only agree with but have noted.
Diversity within a community (be it human or non-human) can increase the survivability of that community as well as individuals.
Adoption, like homosexuality, is seen in various species, and would indeed give a group an advantage over one where orphaned or abandoned young had no availability to caregivers.
The egg that the male couple hatched would have never made it without their incubation efforts. The fact that there have been other pairs of same sex penguins who have tried to 'hatch' stones, may show that there is some instinct to nurture abandoned 'eggs' - which would indeed give greater support to the theory that same-sex/non-breeding pairs add to the stability and sustainability of the group as a whole.
It is something that those of us who work with and study animals, particularly from an ethological perspective, not only agree with but have noted.
Diversity within a community (be it human or non-human) can increase the survivability of that community as well as individuals.
Adoption, like homosexuality, is seen in various species, and would indeed give a group an advantage over one where orphaned or abandoned young had no availability to caregivers.
The egg that the male couple hatched would have never made it without their incubation efforts. The fact that there have been other pairs of same sex penguins who have tried to 'hatch' stones, may show that there is some instinct to nurture abandoned 'eggs' - which would indeed give greater support to the theory that same-sex/non-breeding pairs add to the stability and sustainability of the group as a whole.
22
Bonefish? Can you really pedantically tell people to "bone up on selfish gene theory" immediately after using the phrase "altruistic behavior will help survival of the SPECIES?"
23
You don't need a Darwinian advantage to justify a feature in biology. It can just have turned out that way. Evolution isn't about perfection. If humans have a feature, that doesn't mean the feature aids in our reproduction or survival.
For instance the most documented cause for homosexuality is increased amounts of estrogen exposure to a male baby. The estrogen may have other benefits both to the baby (maybe make them a more caring father?) and the mother, that its worth the possible fertility risk of having a gay baby 1 in 10 times.
And actually gay people have had biological kids all the time throughout history. So its not even that much of a fertility risk.
For instance the most documented cause for homosexuality is increased amounts of estrogen exposure to a male baby. The estrogen may have other benefits both to the baby (maybe make them a more caring father?) and the mother, that its worth the possible fertility risk of having a gay baby 1 in 10 times.
And actually gay people have had biological kids all the time throughout history. So its not even that much of a fertility risk.
25
@15 because the kin itself doesn't have an advantage. (There is a legit ongoing scientific debate about this sort of thing though.)
But mostly you don't need to come up with such a complicated reason for homosexuality. (Like it argues that gay uncles are better at raising children then straight uncles, maybe, but hardly simple.) Everything doesn't have to have an immediate advantage.
But mostly you don't need to come up with such a complicated reason for homosexuality. (Like it argues that gay uncles are better at raising children then straight uncles, maybe, but hardly simple.) Everything doesn't have to have an immediate advantage.
27
@15 - I'm not arguing against a selective advantage for non-reproductive people onto their kin. This definitely happens, and is best documented with grandmothers (there's a hypothesis that menopause, which I believe is uniquely human, evolved so that grandmothers can confer this type of advantage onto their kin). I have never a study that shows this happens for gay humans, and if (as is the case for the penguins), the adoptive parents adopt beyond their kin, it may be time to defenestrate the whole hypothesis. I'd love to see more science in this area, though.
What I'm saying is just that the (still theoretical) "I love dick" gene is getting more cred from scientists, based on all kinds of correlations between female fertility and male homosexuality.
What I'm saying is just that the (still theoretical) "I love dick" gene is getting more cred from scientists, based on all kinds of correlations between female fertility and male homosexuality.
28
18
no one says:
"gays have no kids = homosexuality can't be genetic"
it is:
"if homosexuality were actually a biological trait it's defining characteristic would be the inability to reproduce and it would be a genetic defect"
no one says:
"gays have no kids = homosexuality can't be genetic"
it is:
"if homosexuality were actually a biological trait it's defining characteristic would be the inability to reproduce and it would be a genetic defect"
29
18
What "altruistic behavior"?
Homosexuality is "sex without the possibility of pro-creation".
You know, it's all about ME ME ME.
There are no sex acts unique to homosexuals, they just choose to do it with someone who cannot get/get them pregnant.
What "altruistic behavior"?
Homosexuality is "sex without the possibility of pro-creation".
You know, it's all about ME ME ME.
There are no sex acts unique to homosexuals, they just choose to do it with someone who cannot get/get them pregnant.
30
20
Thanks for the NON-ANSWER.
Are incest; canabilism; eating your own vomit, feces and offspring; murder and rape on your list of things you wouldn't dream of doing?
Do you get to pick and choose from the "gross things animals do" and decide which ones are suitable for humans?
If penguins (and 1,500 other species!) give homosexuals the green light then what about people who DO want to engage in incest; polygamy; canabilism; eating your own vomit, feces and offspring; murder and rape.
They can all find furry creatures doing their chosen behavior.
Humans are capable of choosing to be a little better than animals, Dan.
Thanks for the NON-ANSWER.
Are incest; canabilism; eating your own vomit, feces and offspring; murder and rape on your list of things you wouldn't dream of doing?
Do you get to pick and choose from the "gross things animals do" and decide which ones are suitable for humans?
If penguins (and 1,500 other species!) give homosexuals the green light then what about people who DO want to engage in incest; polygamy; canabilism; eating your own vomit, feces and offspring; murder and rape.
They can all find furry creatures doing their chosen behavior.
Humans are capable of choosing to be a little better than animals, Dan.
32
30 You're comparing behaviors that are not moral equivalents. It's a false argument you are making.
34
32
What moral high ground to homosexuals have compared to polygamist or adult siblings who wish to marry?
What moral high ground to homosexuals have compared to polygamist or adult siblings who wish to marry?
35
It is a mistake to focus on particular sex acts and declare they are or are not favored by natural selection. But to observe that bonding, regardless of orientation, could be favored by natural selection would make sense, insofar that bonded couples contribute more to the welfare of the species than rogue individuals.
36
@ 30
We're not looking at homosexual behaviors among animals to prove the morality of human homosexuality. We're only bringing proofs from the animal kingdom to refute the laughable claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" when it is, in fact, an eminently natural occurrence.
There are other arguments as to the morality of human homosexuality (two consenting adults, loving relationship, living without fear or lies or closets, etc.), but that's not what this is about. Your insistence on drawing parallels between homosexuality and incest, cannibalism, etc., just make you sound unhinged.
We're not looking at homosexual behaviors among animals to prove the morality of human homosexuality. We're only bringing proofs from the animal kingdom to refute the laughable claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" when it is, in fact, an eminently natural occurrence.
There are other arguments as to the morality of human homosexuality (two consenting adults, loving relationship, living without fear or lies or closets, etc.), but that's not what this is about. Your insistence on drawing parallels between homosexuality and incest, cannibalism, etc., just make you sound unhinged.
37
@28, 29, 30.
Your arguments are just plain stupid.
Why is it that people who are against homosexuality don't have the balls to admit that they just hate homosexuals? You don't need to justify your intolerance with fragile arguments such as yours that are so easily shattered by anyone with half a brain. You're perfectly allowed to hate whoever you want, freedom of speech and all that. I'd just like to see you have the courage to admit that you're a bigot, that you're happy to be a bigot, and that's it. Why even pretend to have a real argument against gay sex, gay love, or gay marriage. Your arguments make no sense, and the only people who accept them are other homophobes. No one else can even understand them. The reason that you're opposed to homosexuality is that you're a homophobe. Plain and simple. No reasoning needed.
Your arguments are just plain stupid.
Why is it that people who are against homosexuality don't have the balls to admit that they just hate homosexuals? You don't need to justify your intolerance with fragile arguments such as yours that are so easily shattered by anyone with half a brain. You're perfectly allowed to hate whoever you want, freedom of speech and all that. I'd just like to see you have the courage to admit that you're a bigot, that you're happy to be a bigot, and that's it. Why even pretend to have a real argument against gay sex, gay love, or gay marriage. Your arguments make no sense, and the only people who accept them are other homophobes. No one else can even understand them. The reason that you're opposed to homosexuality is that you're a homophobe. Plain and simple. No reasoning needed.
38
One wonders how much of all of this is based on a bias by those who observed these supposed animal homosexual behaviors. In their attempts at justifying human homosexuality at any cost some have overlooked that the study of animals both in the wild and in captivity has been going on well before this current century and no homosexual behavior was ever observed yet it is now that there are attitudes more tolerant of homosexuality that such cases are beginning to be noticed.
One could also find that just like in the case of captivity of humans in prisons, those animals within a group who are the most weak in captivity outside their natural environment finding themselves without a sense of their indented normalcy will be encouraged by their new environment to function in a distorted way and exhibit unnatural behaviors. Such cases have been observed in chimpanzees.
I also found this other story to be curious, and how it could complement to the whole picture of humans wanting to project their biases on other lifeforms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi…
food for thought.
One could also find that just like in the case of captivity of humans in prisons, those animals within a group who are the most weak in captivity outside their natural environment finding themselves without a sense of their indented normalcy will be encouraged by their new environment to function in a distorted way and exhibit unnatural behaviors. Such cases have been observed in chimpanzees.
I also found this other story to be curious, and how it could complement to the whole picture of humans wanting to project their biases on other lifeforms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi…
food for thought.
40
Adult siblings who marry limit the gene pool, and increase the risk of birth defects in future generations. Polygamy should be allowed all long as all involved are consenting adults. But, both are arguments that are meant to divert the discussion because they could be used by people who want to ban interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, etc. The topic is homosexual marriage, not other types.
41
36
The rectum is not a sexual organ.
Using it as such is "unnatural" and carries negative consequences.
Dr Golob could explain it to you.
The rectum is not a sexual organ.
Using it as such is "unnatural" and carries negative consequences.
Dr Golob could explain it to you.
43
40
Animals mate with siblings, parents and offspring.
Who gives you the right to say humans cannot also?
One man's Civil Rights
is another man's "diversion".
If you are unwilling to stand up for polygamy and incest don't expect anyone else to support homosexual marriage.
Animals mate with siblings, parents and offspring.
Who gives you the right to say humans cannot also?
One man's Civil Rights
is another man's "diversion".
If you are unwilling to stand up for polygamy and incest don't expect anyone else to support homosexual marriage.
44
@38
It's true that animals in captivity act strangely, and you can't always extrapolate their behavior in captivity to their behavior in the wild.
However - are you familiar with the Bonobo? It's a kind of great ape that seems to demonstrate a very high rate of sexual expression, without discrimination by gender, including oral sex and scissoring. Endlessly bisexual apes. When researchers first started documenting Bonobos, they would provide a picture of two female Bonobos having sex, along with a caption "These two females are very social."
Sometimes academic fields get censored. Sometimes, even scientists edit themselves due to prudery. That doesn't mean that the Bonobo hasn't always been getting it on with both same-sex and opposite-sex partners.
It's true that animals in captivity act strangely, and you can't always extrapolate their behavior in captivity to their behavior in the wild.
However - are you familiar with the Bonobo? It's a kind of great ape that seems to demonstrate a very high rate of sexual expression, without discrimination by gender, including oral sex and scissoring. Endlessly bisexual apes. When researchers first started documenting Bonobos, they would provide a picture of two female Bonobos having sex, along with a caption "These two females are very social."
Sometimes academic fields get censored. Sometimes, even scientists edit themselves due to prudery. That doesn't mean that the Bonobo hasn't always been getting it on with both same-sex and opposite-sex partners.
46
I live in Bremerhaven, and everybody likes the penguins... they haven't discovered the potential they have for Pride celebrations, though...
47
43, Following your logic then if one is pro-death penalty, then he or she must be pro-murder in the street. Your making flawed comparisons. The topic is homosexuality, not incest or polygamy. You don't have any valid arguments against homosexuality, or gay marriage, so you desperately try to change the subject.
48
Homosexual Male Black Swans make up a large percentage of their population, and are known to steal eggs, and raise them together. Evidence shows that they are better parents than the hetrosexual parents.
Proof from nature that gays are natural, and good parents.
Also that gay black males are baby snatchers.
Proof from nature that gays are natural, and good parents.
Also that gay black males are baby snatchers.
49
47
It is you who are changing the subject, because you don't have any valid arguments against polygamy or incest.
It is you who are changing the subject, because you don't have any valid arguments against polygamy or incest.
50
49, They are separate topics that are not part of this debate. This was a post gay penguins raising young, not about penguins who are incestuous, or in a polygamous marriage. Do you really not get that? Really?
51
"Are incest; canabilism; eating your own vomit, feces and offspring; murder and rape on your list of things you wouldn't dream of doing?
Do you get to pick and choose from the "gross things animals do" and decide which ones are suitable for humans?"
Um...the argument is not "animals do it, so it's okay for humans to do it." The argument is, "animals do it, which indicates that homosexual orientation is a part of nature rather than a learned/chosen human behavior."
Where you take the argument from there is a different matter.
Do you get to pick and choose from the "gross things animals do" and decide which ones are suitable for humans?"
Um...the argument is not "animals do it, so it's okay for humans to do it." The argument is, "animals do it, which indicates that homosexual orientation is a part of nature rather than a learned/chosen human behavior."
Where you take the argument from there is a different matter.
52
As a fervent supporter of gay marriage, I agree that there isn't a logical reason to condemn polygamy or incest (so long as all is adult, consensual, etc.). It's something that bugs me a little because I don't have a great case for why the rights of those people are less important.
That said, it only bugs me a little, because incest gives me the automatic ick and polygamy would require a complete rethinking of the tax advantages/disadvantages and all the other privileges conveyed by a government-approved union.
I recognize a lack of rationality but it doesn't make me any less inclined to fight for the rights of gay couples.
That said, it only bugs me a little, because incest gives me the automatic ick and polygamy would require a complete rethinking of the tax advantages/disadvantages and all the other privileges conveyed by a government-approved union.
I recognize a lack of rationality but it doesn't make me any less inclined to fight for the rights of gay couples.
53
52, Those things are separate issues from gay marriage. interracial marriages didn't lead to incestuous, or polygamous marriage, and neither will gay marriage.
54
@49: As far as I know, first-cousin couplings are perfectly legal in Canada.
I do believe most people are against incest because so many of the cases are co-ercive. Sexual relations between a child and a parent are generally regarded with revulsion partly because of the reproductive implications, but also because there's so much potential for abuse of what is a powerfully lopsided relationship -- much like that between a student and a teacher, or a priest and his parishioner.
Still, if you can present a real-life example of an incestuous relationship between parent and child that isn't tainted by abuse or manipulation, we'd probably like to hear it.
I've never condemned polygamy, except in cases where there was abuse. Incest is a little icky, but honestly, I wouldn't stop it if it was evident all parties (adult) consented freely.
I do believe most people are against incest because so many of the cases are co-ercive. Sexual relations between a child and a parent are generally regarded with revulsion partly because of the reproductive implications, but also because there's so much potential for abuse of what is a powerfully lopsided relationship -- much like that between a student and a teacher, or a priest and his parishioner.
Still, if you can present a real-life example of an incestuous relationship between parent and child that isn't tainted by abuse or manipulation, we'd probably like to hear it.
I've never condemned polygamy, except in cases where there was abuse. Incest is a little icky, but honestly, I wouldn't stop it if it was evident all parties (adult) consented freely.
56
51
The argument is, "animals do lots of disgusting things and human nature is to do lots of anti-social things but we can choose to do better."
The argument is, "animals do lots of disgusting things and human nature is to do lots of anti-social things but we can choose to do better."
58
44 Bonobos are a very bad example to base your case on since bonobos copulate with anything that 1 moves 2 allows them to have sex with.
That has been observed since the species was discovered. Bonobos is order to greet each other perform sexual acts, when they want to settle a fight they do it through having sex and on and on it goes. They use sex as a way very differently than us humans and it has nothing to do with sexuality per se. So to project unto bonobos homosexual behavior when it has been clear that those animals do not function in their brain capacity with the sexual desires that other species do is intellectual dishonest.
That has been observed since the species was discovered. Bonobos is order to greet each other perform sexual acts, when they want to settle a fight they do it through having sex and on and on it goes. They use sex as a way very differently than us humans and it has nothing to do with sexuality per se. So to project unto bonobos homosexual behavior when it has been clear that those animals do not function in their brain capacity with the sexual desires that other species do is intellectual dishonest.
59
@53. You can't possibly believe that gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriage or to incestuous marriage. Name one country or state where that has happened following the legalization of gay marriage.
@54. Depends on what you think is "disgusting." If you're disgusted by gay sex, then don't do it. How is being gay "anti-social?"
@54. Depends on what you think is "disgusting." If you're disgusted by gay sex, then don't do it. How is being gay "anti-social?"
60
@43:
Aside from being a purely red-herring argument, your assertions are simply flat-out wrong. Polygamy HAS been in fairly common practice in many societies (how many wives did wise King David have again?), as has incest (even as recently as 100 years ago it was not at all uncommon for first cousins to marry, and of course hemophilia, the "disease of kings" became known as such primarily due to the genetic trait having been passed down through successive generations of the same interbreeding royal families). Even cannibalism has been at least tacitly accepted under very specific sets of circumstances (e.g. those plane crash survivors in the Andes).
So, it's a complete and utter fallacy to assert there is some sort of absolute, universal moral precept at work, just because contemporary Western Culture has invoked strong social taboos against these particular behaviors.
Aside from being a purely red-herring argument, your assertions are simply flat-out wrong. Polygamy HAS been in fairly common practice in many societies (how many wives did wise King David have again?), as has incest (even as recently as 100 years ago it was not at all uncommon for first cousins to marry, and of course hemophilia, the "disease of kings" became known as such primarily due to the genetic trait having been passed down through successive generations of the same interbreeding royal families). Even cannibalism has been at least tacitly accepted under very specific sets of circumstances (e.g. those plane crash survivors in the Andes).
So, it's a complete and utter fallacy to assert there is some sort of absolute, universal moral precept at work, just because contemporary Western Culture has invoked strong social taboos against these particular behaviors.
61
My dear Lovechild, Bonobos are a very good example, because every instance you cited for their behavior is also an example of human behavior. Or haven't you ever heard of nymphomania, come on lines, make up sex and so on....
62
@58
My only argument with the Bonobos was that in earlier parts of this century, scientists were too prudish to document their same-sex sexual practices even though they were clearly occuring. I wasn't trying to argue a one-to-one correlation between Bonobo sexual interactions and human sexual interactions; you were the one that jumped defensively to that conclusion. However, it's now clear that you've done a lot of research into the Bonobo. I'm glad to see it's a matter of interest to you.
In that vein, a few errors: Bonobos do not have sex with anything and everything, just other Bonobos. Additionally, simply because sexual interactions among Bonobo communities take on additional significance (greeting, pacifying, etc.), it does not follow that their means of sexual expression have "nothing to do with sexuality per se."
My only argument with the Bonobos was that in earlier parts of this century, scientists were too prudish to document their same-sex sexual practices even though they were clearly occuring. I wasn't trying to argue a one-to-one correlation between Bonobo sexual interactions and human sexual interactions; you were the one that jumped defensively to that conclusion. However, it's now clear that you've done a lot of research into the Bonobo. I'm glad to see it's a matter of interest to you.
In that vein, a few errors: Bonobos do not have sex with anything and everything, just other Bonobos. Additionally, simply because sexual interactions among Bonobo communities take on additional significance (greeting, pacifying, etc.), it does not follow that their means of sexual expression have "nothing to do with sexuality per se."
63
LovesChild is now an expert on Bonobos as well as the arbiter of acceptable marriage practices and adjudicator of prejudice. Where does she find the time!
64
60
What is your point?
We know cannibalism, incest and polygamy have been practiced. Are you advocating making them legal?
What is your point?
We know cannibalism, incest and polygamy have been practiced. Are you advocating making them legal?
66
OK, time for the inevitable clarification.
Yes, even though it's called "selfish gene theory," it's still about genes for altruistic behavior that help the survival of the species. Again: actually read up on it; read more than just the title of the theory. It's called "selfish gene" not because it causes selfish behavior, but because the theory emphasizes the notion that the GENE's survival is placed before the individual's. As in, altruistic behavior has a cost to the individual, but an advantage to the relatives of that individual, helping the GENES for altruistic behavior (which those relatives will have an allele of) pass on. By increasing the fitness of those relatives, those genes for altruistic behavior become more common. Ultimately, this helps the survival of the species. Understand now?
Also, it's not pedantic to tell people who think that "passing on more offspring" is all there is to natural selection to read up on theories explaining how it gets more complicated. Not when such simplistic viewpoints are being used to justify harmful politics.
And 29: I'm not saying that gay sex is altruistic behavior. I'm using genes for altruistic behavior as an example for how a trait can reduce reproduction for an individual, yet still be advantageous to a population, and therefore continue existing as a trait. Like gay relatives increasing the survival of their nieces/nephews by being a helping hand in raising them. Etc.
Yes, even though it's called "selfish gene theory," it's still about genes for altruistic behavior that help the survival of the species. Again: actually read up on it; read more than just the title of the theory. It's called "selfish gene" not because it causes selfish behavior, but because the theory emphasizes the notion that the GENE's survival is placed before the individual's. As in, altruistic behavior has a cost to the individual, but an advantage to the relatives of that individual, helping the GENES for altruistic behavior (which those relatives will have an allele of) pass on. By increasing the fitness of those relatives, those genes for altruistic behavior become more common. Ultimately, this helps the survival of the species. Understand now?
Also, it's not pedantic to tell people who think that "passing on more offspring" is all there is to natural selection to read up on theories explaining how it gets more complicated. Not when such simplistic viewpoints are being used to justify harmful politics.
And 29: I'm not saying that gay sex is altruistic behavior. I'm using genes for altruistic behavior as an example for how a trait can reduce reproduction for an individual, yet still be advantageous to a population, and therefore continue existing as a trait. Like gay relatives increasing the survival of their nieces/nephews by being a helping hand in raising them. Etc.
67
Well, as someone above already pointed out, marriage between first cousins already IS legal in some countries (and it turns out in roughly half of U.S. states), as in fact is polygamy. So, there's really nothing to advocate about with regards to those specific practices. The countries where these practices are legal have not, as a general rule, degenerated into complete and utter chaos, which pretty much negates the main argument expressed against their legality, namely that allowing them would cause irrevocable harm to those societies.
Again, just because WE choose not to legalize specific practices, it does not follow by necessity that there is anything inherently immoral about the practices themselves, which seems to be one of the main arguments used by fundies and ant-gay marriage advocates. So, if there is no demonstrable harm done to society by allowing a certain practice, and there are guarantees in place that ensure individuals within those societies cannot be coerced into following through on actions with which they don't approve, then looking at it in purely objective terms, I don't find any good argument for why these practices shouldn't be allowed.
Again, just because WE choose not to legalize specific practices, it does not follow by necessity that there is anything inherently immoral about the practices themselves, which seems to be one of the main arguments used by fundies and ant-gay marriage advocates. So, if there is no demonstrable harm done to society by allowing a certain practice, and there are guarantees in place that ensure individuals within those societies cannot be coerced into following through on actions with which they don't approve, then looking at it in purely objective terms, I don't find any good argument for why these practices shouldn't be allowed.
68
If that's what they choose,than obviously that's there choice.Any other penguins that follow suit will have to answer to God for this.I only can take pity on their penguin souls.
69
67
No Sale.
First cousin marriage is the 'civil union' of incest.
Animals get to breed with their brothers, sisters, parents and children.
Humans should not have to settle for less.
And so what if polygamy is legal in some other countries?
So is gay marriage.
If that is not enough for gays don't expect polygamists to be satisfied either.
If Gays are not willing to fight for Polygamy and Incest then don't expect anyone to care about Gay Marriage.
Just like we don't have to listen to pro-life wackos because if they are personally not willing to raise, educate and care for every crack baby conceived in America then they have no right to oppose abortion.
No Sale.
First cousin marriage is the 'civil union' of incest.
Animals get to breed with their brothers, sisters, parents and children.
Humans should not have to settle for less.
And so what if polygamy is legal in some other countries?
So is gay marriage.
If that is not enough for gays don't expect polygamists to be satisfied either.
If Gays are not willing to fight for Polygamy and Incest then don't expect anyone to care about Gay Marriage.
Just like we don't have to listen to pro-life wackos because if they are personally not willing to raise, educate and care for every crack baby conceived in America then they have no right to oppose abortion.
70
At 29.
What about straight people who are having sex just to have sex? Did you know the word "Heterosexual" was a term coined in the early 1920's to describe non-homosexual people who had sex with the intent to not produce offspring.
Also:
http://blog.themonastery.org/2009/04/nat…
http://blog.themonastery.org/2009/04/nat…
What about straight people who are having sex just to have sex? Did you know the word "Heterosexual" was a term coined in the early 1920's to describe non-homosexual people who had sex with the intent to not produce offspring.
Also:
http://blog.themonastery.org/2009/04/nat…
http://blog.themonastery.org/2009/04/nat…
71
And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures each according to his kind…
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good…
Genesis 1:24-31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good…
Genesis 1:24-31
72
Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven
Genesis 19:24
Genesis 19:24
73
@ 72,
The lord didn't rain fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah, poor civic planning did. Both cities were built in a part of modern day Israel/Palestine that has 1. A huge underground reservoir of natural gas and 2. Naturally occurring nodules of sulphur (one of the main ingredients in gunpowder) in the local strata and 3. subterranean deposits of a petroleum-based substance called bitumen, an asphalt-like substance and 4.Everyone cooked on open fires.
There's plenty of rape and incest and murder in the bible and God seems to be all for it. He, if he actually existed, wouldn't level a city because of a little hide-the-salami. This was just bad luck.
Also the gay rape story probably is made up anyway. The folks of Sodom and Gommorah (who's cities weren't even called that until long after they were destroyed) were hetrosexual butt-fuckers. The peoples of those land worshiped fertility gods and each spring the King and the Head Priestess would re-enact the "Sacred Marriage Of Dumuzi And Ishtar". The only catch was that in this particular religion priestesses were required to have sex, but couldn't get pregnant. That meant the "marriage" was consumated with anal sex.
This was pointed out previously by Uriel-238: "The mob at Lot's door asked to have the strangers (the angels) sent out so that they might know the angels. This verb to know, the Hebrew yada is the social version of the verb as in 'Yeah, I know Jim. We went to school together at state'. In contrast to shakab as in 'Oh, yeah, Jim a hottie. I hope to know him at the next party'. In a conspicuous error, the NIV translates yada in this case as if it were shakab."
Leviticus is all about sanitary laws. Pork, shellfish, unprotected sex could kill you. That's why they insisted on the purification of hand washing before meals. Separate dishes for dairy and meat. It wasn't about sin, it was about germs.
More...
The lord didn't rain fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah, poor civic planning did. Both cities were built in a part of modern day Israel/Palestine that has 1. A huge underground reservoir of natural gas and 2. Naturally occurring nodules of sulphur (one of the main ingredients in gunpowder) in the local strata and 3. subterranean deposits of a petroleum-based substance called bitumen, an asphalt-like substance and 4.Everyone cooked on open fires.
There's plenty of rape and incest and murder in the bible and God seems to be all for it. He, if he actually existed, wouldn't level a city because of a little hide-the-salami. This was just bad luck.
Also the gay rape story probably is made up anyway. The folks of Sodom and Gommorah (who's cities weren't even called that until long after they were destroyed) were hetrosexual butt-fuckers. The peoples of those land worshiped fertility gods and each spring the King and the Head Priestess would re-enact the "Sacred Marriage Of Dumuzi And Ishtar". The only catch was that in this particular religion priestesses were required to have sex, but couldn't get pregnant. That meant the "marriage" was consumated with anal sex.
This was pointed out previously by Uriel-238: "The mob at Lot's door asked to have the strangers (the angels) sent out so that they might know the angels. This verb to know, the Hebrew yada is the social version of the verb as in 'Yeah, I know Jim. We went to school together at state'. In contrast to shakab as in 'Oh, yeah, Jim a hottie. I hope to know him at the next party'. In a conspicuous error, the NIV translates yada in this case as if it were shakab."
Leviticus is all about sanitary laws. Pork, shellfish, unprotected sex could kill you. That's why they insisted on the purification of hand washing before meals. Separate dishes for dairy and meat. It wasn't about sin, it was about germs.
75
What was the culture that views homosexuals as the spiritual guides (shamans? mystics?) of their population? This also makes some sense to me. And the percentage seems about right for that job description.
76
@73
"Leviticus is all about sanitary laws. Pork, shellfish, unprotected sex could kill you. That's why they insisted on the purification of hand washing before meals. Separate dishes for dairy and meat. It wasn't about sin, it was about germs."
Actually... no. Where did you get that? It may surprise you, but the biblical Hebrews weren't quite up to date on germ theory. The laws you mention are about 1. standards of Temple purity (ritual hand washing, which, by the way, is done with only water - hardly a sanitation measure) and 2. kashrut (pork, shellfish), which was simply the way of the community, the way things were done. If the ancient Hebrews followed the laws of Leviticus - and there's not a lot of evidence that they did, at least not consistently - they did so because they believed it was God's will. Bringing modern sanitation into the picture is a huge anachronism, and just a variation of reading into the bible what you want to see there.
Also, "unprotected sex"? This is biblical times we're talking about. ALL sex was unprotected, unless you want to count coitus interuptus as contraception - and that is (debatably) condemned in the bible, so it's hard to sell the notion that Leviticus is warning against unprotected sex. WTF?
"Leviticus is all about sanitary laws. Pork, shellfish, unprotected sex could kill you. That's why they insisted on the purification of hand washing before meals. Separate dishes for dairy and meat. It wasn't about sin, it was about germs."
Actually... no. Where did you get that? It may surprise you, but the biblical Hebrews weren't quite up to date on germ theory. The laws you mention are about 1. standards of Temple purity (ritual hand washing, which, by the way, is done with only water - hardly a sanitation measure) and 2. kashrut (pork, shellfish), which was simply the way of the community, the way things were done. If the ancient Hebrews followed the laws of Leviticus - and there's not a lot of evidence that they did, at least not consistently - they did so because they believed it was God's will. Bringing modern sanitation into the picture is a huge anachronism, and just a variation of reading into the bible what you want to see there.
Also, "unprotected sex"? This is biblical times we're talking about. ALL sex was unprotected, unless you want to count coitus interuptus as contraception - and that is (debatably) condemned in the bible, so it's hard to sell the notion that Leviticus is warning against unprotected sex. WTF?
77
I'm going to agree with, lymerae @ 76,
Leviticus contains the "Holiness Code" which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. There are instructions on how to make themselves presentable to worship God at the temple, and how to separate their idenity from Egypt and the pagan nations in promised land.
It is important that even among scholars there are differences of opinions, especially in regard to Lev. 18:22.
Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."
Arthur Waskow, a writer and rabbi, points out that: "The whole structure of sexuality in Torah assumes a dominant, male and a subordinate woman." 6 In a male homosexual act of anal intercourse, one partner may be viewed as taking a passive role - the role normally played by a woman. Thus anal intercourse between two gay men would be as improper in Biblical times as a workplace situation in those days during which a woman supervised a man. Also, because woman were considered to play such an inferior role in society, sex between two lesbians are not condemned in the Old Testament. All women were of low status and thus neither would be seen as adopting a dominant or a subservient role during sexual encounters. This interpretation would obviously make the verse refer only to the tribal culture of the time, and not to today's western culture.
Waskow cites two alternative meanings to the passage:
"Do not lie with a man as if it were the same thing as lying with a woman." That is, when two gay males have a sexual encounter, they should continuously be aware that it is different from a male-female coupling. It might be interpreted to mean: "Set up a parallel set of institutions for dealing with this kind of sexual relationship, different from those that apply to sexual relationships between a man and a woman."
"Do not sleep with a man as it were with a woman" That is, if two males engage in a sexual act, neither should pretend that the passive partner is like a woman. They should be fully aware of their sexual orientation and maleness. i.e. they should come out of the "closet" and recognize their gayness. 6
He concludes that if this passage condemns some forms of homosexual behavior, it may refer only to the ancient Israelites, not to North America today. Perhaps: "at one time of human and Jewish history the path avoided gay male sexuality, and at a later time this avoidance might be null and void? Can the circle of the beloved community widen as we mature?"
Traditional Jewish and Christian belief is that God dictated the Torah to Moses. Thus every word was included for a specific reason. If God wished to ban all gay homosexual acts then it could be argued that the passage would have read "You shall not lie with a male." The addition of the phrase "as with a woman" must have been included for a specific reason. Perhaps it was added to give the passage one of the above meanings.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bi…
More...
Leviticus contains the "Holiness Code" which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. There are instructions on how to make themselves presentable to worship God at the temple, and how to separate their idenity from Egypt and the pagan nations in promised land.
It is important that even among scholars there are differences of opinions, especially in regard to Lev. 18:22.
Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."
Arthur Waskow, a writer and rabbi, points out that: "The whole structure of sexuality in Torah assumes a dominant, male and a subordinate woman." 6 In a male homosexual act of anal intercourse, one partner may be viewed as taking a passive role - the role normally played by a woman. Thus anal intercourse between two gay men would be as improper in Biblical times as a workplace situation in those days during which a woman supervised a man. Also, because woman were considered to play such an inferior role in society, sex between two lesbians are not condemned in the Old Testament. All women were of low status and thus neither would be seen as adopting a dominant or a subservient role during sexual encounters. This interpretation would obviously make the verse refer only to the tribal culture of the time, and not to today's western culture.
Waskow cites two alternative meanings to the passage:
"Do not lie with a man as if it were the same thing as lying with a woman." That is, when two gay males have a sexual encounter, they should continuously be aware that it is different from a male-female coupling. It might be interpreted to mean: "Set up a parallel set of institutions for dealing with this kind of sexual relationship, different from those that apply to sexual relationships between a man and a woman."
"Do not sleep with a man as it were with a woman" That is, if two males engage in a sexual act, neither should pretend that the passive partner is like a woman. They should be fully aware of their sexual orientation and maleness. i.e. they should come out of the "closet" and recognize their gayness. 6
He concludes that if this passage condemns some forms of homosexual behavior, it may refer only to the ancient Israelites, not to North America today. Perhaps: "at one time of human and Jewish history the path avoided gay male sexuality, and at a later time this avoidance might be null and void? Can the circle of the beloved community widen as we mature?"
Traditional Jewish and Christian belief is that God dictated the Torah to Moses. Thus every word was included for a specific reason. If God wished to ban all gay homosexual acts then it could be argued that the passage would have read "You shall not lie with a male." The addition of the phrase "as with a woman" must have been included for a specific reason. Perhaps it was added to give the passage one of the above meanings.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bi…
80
76: you're almost proving yourself wrong. Of course the ancient hebrews weren't up to date on germ theory. That's why, when certain practices caused sickness, it made them believe such acts to be against god's will, rather than just unsanitary. Hence, holy laws against eating shellfish (which could have toxins), pork (which could have all sorts of harmful shit), etc. And yes, hand washing with water does help, even if it's not as effective without soap, it's still effective enough for biblical hebrews to notice a difference and accredit it to divine law.
And about all sex being unprotected during those times? Yeah; that's WHY they had to make strict rules about it, and they attributed those rules to god because people attributed everything to god in that time and place.
The whole point is that nowadays, now that we have soaps, and refrigerators, and "red tide" alerts, we no longer have to be quite as careful about pork, shellfish, etc. And we now realize that these things are NOT cursed by god, they're just dangerous without proper storage and preparation.
So it should therefore follow that sex should no longer be a big deal, now that we have condoms and knowledge about how STIs are not curses from god and about how homosexuality, while rare, is natural and not a symptom of demonic possession. But the religious right, while they've finally caught on to the idea that pork chops are OK, still refuse to acknowledge that these sex "laws" are not really decrees from god.
And about all sex being unprotected during those times? Yeah; that's WHY they had to make strict rules about it, and they attributed those rules to god because people attributed everything to god in that time and place.
The whole point is that nowadays, now that we have soaps, and refrigerators, and "red tide" alerts, we no longer have to be quite as careful about pork, shellfish, etc. And we now realize that these things are NOT cursed by god, they're just dangerous without proper storage and preparation.
So it should therefore follow that sex should no longer be a big deal, now that we have condoms and knowledge about how STIs are not curses from god and about how homosexuality, while rare, is natural and not a symptom of demonic possession. But the religious right, while they've finally caught on to the idea that pork chops are OK, still refuse to acknowledge that these sex "laws" are not really decrees from god.
81
unless I misunderstood something, but it sounded like lymerae is arguing that, since the biblical hebrews knew little about the science of sanitation, their religious laws had nothing to do with sanitation. Which is sort of a paradoxical argument.
84
Leviticus Schmiticus.
You girls are getting sidetracked by shellfish and missing the big story.
God nuked the Gays.
Those who do not learn from history are ... blah ... blah ... blah.
You girls are getting sidetracked by shellfish and missing the big story.
God nuked the Gays.
Those who do not learn from history are ... blah ... blah ... blah.
85
Ok Dan, but by your logic you should only be allowed to adopt penguins.
(relax, just kiddddddding :)
(relax, just kiddddddding :)
86
Bonefish @81,
I agree with you as well, the biggest theological theme is that Leviticus is a manual (of sorts) of regulations enabling God to set up his earthly throne among the people of his kingdom. His chosen people were to live set apart and distinctly different from all the nations around them.
Yes, their religious laws did involve rules for santitation, hygene and illnesses. Anything imperfect, sick or damaged wasn't ritually pure and could not be used or participate in the worship of God. The health of the people of Isreal would serve as a visual indicator that they were indeed God's chosen people, as would their everyday living, celebrations, successes in battle and their worship.
Leviticus' laws and regulations are commonly thought to be divided into six catagories:
I. The Five Main Offerings (chs. 1-7)
II. The Installation of the Ministry of Aarron and His Sons (chs. 8-10)
III. The Distinction Between Clean and Unclean (chs. 11-15), where we find all the instructions about food, purification from childbirth, regulations for skin diseases, rules for mildew, and discharges that cause uncleanness.
IV. The Annual Day of Atonement (ch. 16)
V. Holy Living (chs. 17-26), rules, laws, punishments, prohibitions, celebrations/annual feasts, Sabbath, Jubilee Years, and the covenant blessings and curses.
VI. Regulations for Offering Vowed to the Lord (ch. 27)
I agree with you as well, the biggest theological theme is that Leviticus is a manual (of sorts) of regulations enabling God to set up his earthly throne among the people of his kingdom. His chosen people were to live set apart and distinctly different from all the nations around them.
Yes, their religious laws did involve rules for santitation, hygene and illnesses. Anything imperfect, sick or damaged wasn't ritually pure and could not be used or participate in the worship of God. The health of the people of Isreal would serve as a visual indicator that they were indeed God's chosen people, as would their everyday living, celebrations, successes in battle and their worship.
Leviticus' laws and regulations are commonly thought to be divided into six catagories:
I. The Five Main Offerings (chs. 1-7)
II. The Installation of the Ministry of Aarron and His Sons (chs. 8-10)
III. The Distinction Between Clean and Unclean (chs. 11-15), where we find all the instructions about food, purification from childbirth, regulations for skin diseases, rules for mildew, and discharges that cause uncleanness.
IV. The Annual Day of Atonement (ch. 16)
V. Holy Living (chs. 17-26), rules, laws, punishments, prohibitions, celebrations/annual feasts, Sabbath, Jubilee Years, and the covenant blessings and curses.
VI. Regulations for Offering Vowed to the Lord (ch. 27)
87
@ 80-81
Ok, let me clarify. The Leviticus codes may have something to do with sanitation - as we, looking back thousands of years later, read meaning into them. When they were developed, however, and when they were redacted, that was not their intention. They were developed as a means of ritual temple purity, which is less about germs and more about "cooties"; there are plenty of laws in Leviticus not defensible even by a long, long stretch as sanitation procedures. Forbidding weaving together threads of different materials into the same cloth? Forbidding planting intermingled plants into the same garden?
"That's why, when certain practices caused sickness, it made them believe such acts to be against god's will"
Bring me a biblical verse to show that the Leviticus purity laws had to do with avoiding sickness, rather than appearing in God's Temple in a ritually pure state, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, again, you're reading into the text what you want to see, rather than reading out of it.
If you want to draw connections between Leviticus and modern sanitation, that's fine - it makes a great theory, and lots of theologists have done it before you. Just don't claim it as an inherent aspect of the text, because it's not. The raw original Hebrew is saying something different, and you should recognize when you're adding your own theories on top of the original meaning. Otherwise, you're twisting the bible to serve your own opinions - and that's a rather fundie thing to do.
"So it should therefore follow that sex should no longer be a big deal, now that we have condoms and knowledge about how STIs are not curses from god and about how homosexuality, while rare, is natural and not a symptom of demonic possession."
What STI's are you thinking were around in the biblical era? I'm genuinely curious. Unless you're simply thinking bacterial infection from anal sex...
Anyway, there are many ways of arriving at tolerance for homosexuality that don't involve trashing the bible. Kim in Portland @77 demonstrated one (thanks, Kim!) Other Rabbis have argued that Leviticus warns against pagan cult rites of anal sex, rather than a loving homosexual relationship - since, after all, a homosexual identity was not something conceptualized in those times (most theorists would argue, not until the 18th or 19th century did homosexuality gain recognition as a lifelong identity and not as isolated sex acts).
The point is, it doesn't matter how we arrive at the battle for LGBT rights, as long as we show up. Some people get there through religion, some people get there by rebelling against religion. Both are fine choices.
More...
Ok, let me clarify. The Leviticus codes may have something to do with sanitation - as we, looking back thousands of years later, read meaning into them. When they were developed, however, and when they were redacted, that was not their intention. They were developed as a means of ritual temple purity, which is less about germs and more about "cooties"; there are plenty of laws in Leviticus not defensible even by a long, long stretch as sanitation procedures. Forbidding weaving together threads of different materials into the same cloth? Forbidding planting intermingled plants into the same garden?
"That's why, when certain practices caused sickness, it made them believe such acts to be against god's will"
Bring me a biblical verse to show that the Leviticus purity laws had to do with avoiding sickness, rather than appearing in God's Temple in a ritually pure state, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, again, you're reading into the text what you want to see, rather than reading out of it.
If you want to draw connections between Leviticus and modern sanitation, that's fine - it makes a great theory, and lots of theologists have done it before you. Just don't claim it as an inherent aspect of the text, because it's not. The raw original Hebrew is saying something different, and you should recognize when you're adding your own theories on top of the original meaning. Otherwise, you're twisting the bible to serve your own opinions - and that's a rather fundie thing to do.
"So it should therefore follow that sex should no longer be a big deal, now that we have condoms and knowledge about how STIs are not curses from god and about how homosexuality, while rare, is natural and not a symptom of demonic possession."
What STI's are you thinking were around in the biblical era? I'm genuinely curious. Unless you're simply thinking bacterial infection from anal sex...
Anyway, there are many ways of arriving at tolerance for homosexuality that don't involve trashing the bible. Kim in Portland @77 demonstrated one (thanks, Kim!) Other Rabbis have argued that Leviticus warns against pagan cult rites of anal sex, rather than a loving homosexual relationship - since, after all, a homosexual identity was not something conceptualized in those times (most theorists would argue, not until the 18th or 19th century did homosexuality gain recognition as a lifelong identity and not as isolated sex acts).
The point is, it doesn't matter how we arrive at the battle for LGBT rights, as long as we show up. Some people get there through religion, some people get there by rebelling against religion. Both are fine choices.
88
Right; I just misinterpreted your argument in 76. It sounded like you were arguing that all those laws in Leviticus couldn't have anything to do with sanitation, since the Hebrews didn't realize at the time that their holy practices were, coincidentally, sanitary practices. In other words, it sounded a lot like you were arguing that they are the true laws of god, your evidence being that the Hebrews thought they were. But I guess you were more making an argument about the cultural nature of these laws, whose meaning has nothing to do with sanitation. my bad.
90
Bonefish - A LOT of evolutionary biologists and behaviorists would balk at the idea that a gene "helps the survival of the SPECIES." This is NOT an obvious conclusion, or simple extrapolation of selfish gene theory, or of any interpretation of how evolution works. You can't insist on stuffing the idea of "survival of the species" down our throats without qualifying it first.
"it's still about genes for altruistic behavior that help the survival of the species" - college level evolutionary biology courses may spend entire semesters debating the validity of this statement. In fact, the phrase "survival of the species" is pretty much banned in a lot of classrooms. Well-established, experienced professors who make this statement in the public arena still get trounced by their peers for standing by it.
You are talking in group selection terms, plain and simple, and you should own up to it. I'm not totally against group selection, I think the idea has merit, but you should confess, and not pretend that everyone should understand that it makes any sense at all.
"it's still about genes for altruistic behavior that help the survival of the species" - college level evolutionary biology courses may spend entire semesters debating the validity of this statement. In fact, the phrase "survival of the species" is pretty much banned in a lot of classrooms. Well-established, experienced professors who make this statement in the public arena still get trounced by their peers for standing by it.
You are talking in group selection terms, plain and simple, and you should own up to it. I'm not totally against group selection, I think the idea has merit, but you should confess, and not pretend that everyone should understand that it makes any sense at all.
91
So your beef is more over the idea that an altruistic behavior's advantage can extend to the entire species, rather than just a local population? Or maybe my use of "survival" of the species instead of a more accurate term, like "fitness." I understand that a "species" is a very fluid phenomenon, constantly changing, so "survival of the species" may be a taboo phrase (and "survival" suggests nothing more than lack of extinction, as if the species would go extinct without such behaviors).
But I think it stands to reason that it's possible for an altruistic behavior to ultimately aid in the overall fitness, then, of a species. If the smaller communities and slightly larger populations that contain alleles for such behaviors fare better than those who don't, then the genes for those behaviors will ultimately become more common throughout the species, and will therefore (if it's so advantageous) serve as an advantage to that entire species. Yes, this is assuming lots of things (like genetic exchange between all the different populations, etc), but that's why I don't think it ends up happening every single time an altruistic behavior emerges.
The reason I think this is relevant to homosexuality is not because I think we, the entire human species, all owe our lives to our ancient gay relatives. It's because it serves as an explanation for how there can be a gene for behaviors that reduce one's fitness, but those genes can still stick around because they increase the fitness of that individuals relatives (several of whom will have an allele for that gene, and pass it on). This aspect of altruistic behaviors is pretty well established. The phenotype of a gene can result in that GENE's proliferation, even if it doesn't help the individual showing the phenotype. This is the take-home point that I wanted people to get from reading up on "selfish gene" theory, as it relates to the "natural/unnatural" debate around homosexuality. That a behavior does not necessarily need to result in more children to be advantageous enough to stick around. Hell, it could even just be benign, neither advantageous nor harmful, and still stick around due to chance. That's another theory.
The greater implications on whether or not these behaviors are the difference between extinction and proliferation of an entire species weren't really relevant to the point I was making, though I guess I shouldn't have used such presumptuous phrasing as "survival of the species," since it's less guaranteed to extend to the entire species than just the local population. Although it's taking a beef with that, and missing my valid overall point, that was pedantic, if anything.
More...
But I think it stands to reason that it's possible for an altruistic behavior to ultimately aid in the overall fitness, then, of a species. If the smaller communities and slightly larger populations that contain alleles for such behaviors fare better than those who don't, then the genes for those behaviors will ultimately become more common throughout the species, and will therefore (if it's so advantageous) serve as an advantage to that entire species. Yes, this is assuming lots of things (like genetic exchange between all the different populations, etc), but that's why I don't think it ends up happening every single time an altruistic behavior emerges.
The reason I think this is relevant to homosexuality is not because I think we, the entire human species, all owe our lives to our ancient gay relatives. It's because it serves as an explanation for how there can be a gene for behaviors that reduce one's fitness, but those genes can still stick around because they increase the fitness of that individuals relatives (several of whom will have an allele for that gene, and pass it on). This aspect of altruistic behaviors is pretty well established. The phenotype of a gene can result in that GENE's proliferation, even if it doesn't help the individual showing the phenotype. This is the take-home point that I wanted people to get from reading up on "selfish gene" theory, as it relates to the "natural/unnatural" debate around homosexuality. That a behavior does not necessarily need to result in more children to be advantageous enough to stick around. Hell, it could even just be benign, neither advantageous nor harmful, and still stick around due to chance. That's another theory.
The greater implications on whether or not these behaviors are the difference between extinction and proliferation of an entire species weren't really relevant to the point I was making, though I guess I shouldn't have used such presumptuous phrasing as "survival of the species," since it's less guaranteed to extend to the entire species than just the local population. Although it's taking a beef with that, and missing my valid overall point, that was pedantic, if anything.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (91) RSS