Off Topic: On Homosexuality in Animals
February 11, 2012 in Articles
In the Blogless Lepolt entry I made yesterday, I complained about being treated as a bigot for holding a rationally-derived intelligent position on a subject that happens to be in concert with the majority view but presently categorized as politically incorrect by those who argue otherwise. This is not a full exposition of any of that, but it will point those who are still uncertain to the essence of the topic. It is something I wrote intending it as a series of Facebook posts to an individual who made an argument on the subject, which ultimately I decided to send him as a series of private messages, and then decided to post here for a larger audience. I’m not sure how it will be taken, or how large an audience I might get, but here is a slightly edited (to remove personal references) version of what I sent him.
The point made was that homosexual behavior has been observed in animals, and is therefore as natural as heterosexual behavior. I have three objections to this.
First, although it might be that I simply don’t have that information, it is not my impression that there has ever been demonstrated to be a homosexual preference in any animal. There have been instances of promiscuous conduct which include homosexual acts, but those individual animals engaging in such acts do so for simple gratification and engage with equal eagerness in heterosexual acts. Thus we might argue that for some animals indiscriminate promiscuity is natural; that does not prove that homosexual preference is natural. As I admit, though, it might be that there is data outside my knowledge. This is why I have two more points, because on some level this first one is irrelevant.
Second, the fact that there is homosexual conduct among animals, even were it demonstrated that there is a homosexual preference involved in some cases, does not mean that it is “natural” in the sense most people mean by that, that is, that they were born that way. I believe that persons identifying as homosexual have genuine feelings based on brain and body chemistry that are in that sense as “real” and “natural” as heterosexual feelings. What I do not believe is that they were born that way. The nature/nurture argument will probably not be resolved in our lifetime, but I think that homosexual feelings are induced by environmental factors, and have elsewhere explained how our sexual feelings and secondary related feelings of bonding can become attached to any object by reinforced association. I would agree that the feelings self-identified homosexuals have are in that sense “natural”, caused by natural factors, and as “natural” as those of heterosexuals–and of pedophiles, bestialists, necrophiles, and fetishists. I further consider it not only possible but entirely likely that similar environmental factors could induce similar “natural” “feelings” in animals, such that they associated sexual gratification with same-sex objects (or with any other object; I knew a dog once who was very protective of his wedded pillows). I see no reason why such an association should not result in whatever bonding occurs among other species that is analogous to our love and commitment relationships. Saying it occurs naturally does not mean it is not a sickness. The acts of masochists, sadists, nymphomaniacs, and indeed of keptomaniacs, pyromaniacs, and sociopathic killers are all in that sense “natural”; that does not mean we accept them as “normal”.
Third, it is not our practice to base what is right for human culture on the conduct of animals. Within the sexual realm alone, animals are known to commit rape; to have sex with pre-pubescent females; to have sex with members of their own immediate genetic families; to kill their mates as part of their pleasuring; to kill other creatures as part of their sexual activity; to have sex with animals of other species; to engage in indiscriminate coupling. It might thus be argued that these are all “natural” expressions of sexuality. That does not mean that we as humans wish to allow them to be recognized as normative for humans. We make laws concerning the social order in order to promote the social order that we, the majority of society, wish to establish as normative. If we, the majority of human beings in this society, believe that homosexuality is an abberant psychosexual condition afflicting some, even if we are persuaded that it cannot be cured or that no cure should be imposed on any who do not seek it, and we wish to arrange our social order such that our children recognize a difference between homosexual relationships which we wish to discourage and heterosexual relationships which we wish to encourage, that is a matter of policy and not a matter of bigotry. After all, on some level (even evolutionary scientists would admit this) the reason heterosexual couples have natural children is so that they will have natural grandchildren and natural progeny into the distant future, preserving their genome as part of the racial genome in perpetuity. That heterosexuals wish their children to be taught that heterosexuality is normative and homosexuality abberant so that they will mature expecting to fulfill their role in providing descendants for their ancestors is a perfectly reasonable policy decision, a decision concerning what kind of society we would prefer to leave for the future.
This has very little, ultimately, to do with the question of homosexual marriage. Obviously, the last point is related, because it suggests that it might be a matter of public policy whether homosexuality ought to be validated and thus encouraged as equal in stature to heterosexuality as a matter of social policy. My objections to the legalization of homosexual marriage, though, have little to do with that, and are based primarily on a question of valid state interest: the state has a right to regulate heterosexual sexual conduct because the state has a right to protect the children produced by such relationships, and therefore the state has a right to regulate the rules applying the relationship between the parents. It will do so conveniently through marriage or inconveniently through family court proceedings and collection of child support from unwed fathers. No such right to regulate the relationships between homosexual lovers exists, and homosexuals ought to be embarrassed that they are trying to get their relationships regulated after having fought long and hard to get them declared out-of-bounds for legal regulation. That, though, is not the same issue as whether such relationships can be called “natural” by any meaning of the word, or whether in the sense that they are “natural” we ought to embrace them as “normative”.
JohnA1nut said on February 12, 2012
I saw a political cartoon that went thus.
Heterosexual woman. “I’ve been married and divorced 6 times and I want to get married again.” This is legal
Two drunks in Las Vegas “We met four hours ago at the casino bar and we (hic) want to get married.” This is legal
Two gay men “We’ve been in a committed relationship for 10 years and we want to get married” This is illegal.
So much for defending the sanctity of marriage…….
I’ve also heard people say that gays should be used instead of animals for medical experimentation.
Personally, I have no opinion. These are the opinions of others, not mine.
WilliamTWodium said on February 12, 2012
I find the argument that the legal institution of marriage stems from the right of the state to protect the children produced by sexual intercourse to be problematic. Does the state have the right to regulate the relationships of sterile/infertile heterosexual couples?
WilliamTWodium said on February 12, 2012
And I see that I should have read the article under the “objections” link before posting. I still support homosexual marriage. The penultimate paragraph under “A Legal Basis for Marriage” fails to convince me:
” . . . Ours is an overburdened legal system as it is. Having a full package of state-mandated protections to which any young couple can agree with one stop to one office reduces the potential burden there. It also prevents the possibility that a smorgasbord approach to protections might develop, through which one partner would not receive the protections needed through ignorance, neglect, or trust. For those who would seek such protections for a non-traditional relationship, the smorgasbord is the better approach. No package of protections will fit all such couples, and certainly not the one currently designed to protect the children of a husband and wife.”
Surely it could be left to the non-traditional couple to determine which is the better approach? To grant a woman a license to marry a eunuch but not to marry another woman seems discriminatory – why should the formal couple have access to the convenient package when the latter does not? The possibility of medical miracles would apply equally to each, I would think.
I get the impression that you would prefer a “non-traditional relationship” be restricted in its legal recognition based on the intent of the participants, whereas a man-woman relationship would remain unrestricted with regard to participant intent. I have trouble seeing that as non-discriminatory.
Eric said on February 12, 2012
Wodium,
Before you critique, even gently, the defenders of the poor overburdened camel, perhaps you might want to look at the hateful on your side.
Why is it that Mark hides his opinions to some degree in his preceding piece, is ‘in the closet’ a bit?
I’ve been treated with bigotry, prejudgice, intolerance, and hatred.
WilliamTWodium said on February 12, 2012
Eric,
I do not comment representing a side. I am speaking for myself, to MJ. I have great respect for the man, and it sometimes troubles me when we differ on certain things.
I’m sorry to hear that you have been treated with bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, and hatred. I have not, or if I have been I haven’t noticed it much.
I admit I had not read the prior Blogless Lepolt entry, though I have done so now. I would hope myself capable of rational discussion in lieu of character assassination, but I am also perfectly capable of dropping the topic if MJ refrains from responding to my comment.
Tadeusz said on February 12, 2012
Wodium,
But the burden of MJ’s comment is the oppression he lives.
Well, I’m pretty much the Devil given my race, gender, and views. Heh. You can get angry or you can laugh. Laughter is much healthier, and I suspect its more annoying to bigots. Your views are much more in line with the Establishment so you’re not likely to get singled out for a 2 Minute Hate.
Generally speaking, I’d say you’re pretty capable of avoiding character assasination due to an instinctive or trained courtesy….although I did shock you when I reccommended consigning Watchmen to the circular file or some such thing. But hey, Mark is going to do that for his series, so that should make you happy.
JohnA1nut said on February 12, 2012
“If it wasn’t for the sex, I could be gay. Cuz then you’re just hanging out with your buddies”
Bill Engvall.
M. J. Young said on February 12, 2012
I missed who said it, but I remember the line frequently: “Men want to marry men? Cowards!”
I have often been called a bigot for attempting to express a rationally-based argument against expanding marriage to regulate homosexual relationships.
Ultimately to my mind the question is why the government provides a special legal status for any two people in any relationship. There are three categories in which it does so: business partnerships, parent/child relationships, and heterosexual marriages. I can see state interests in all three–and as was emphasized time and again in law school, in order for the government to be involved in anything, there has to be a state interest. In striking down laws against homosexual activities, the courts have established that there is no state interest in homosexual sexual relationships; now we are to pass laws that require a state interest where we have already determined that there is none.
Ultimately it seems to me that before you can talk about regulating homosexual relationships by defining and licensing them as “marriages” you have to decide whether there is any basis for regulating heterosexual relationships that way. If there is, then you have to determine whether whatever it is that justifies the regulation of heterosexual relationships applies to homosexual relationships; if there isn’t, then you have to determine how to dismantle a system of state regulation that interferes in an area of life in which the state has no business interfering.
That is, either it is perfectly right to have a legal status called “married” because there is a viable state interest in regulating the relationships of individuals choosing to adopt that status, or it is not right for there to be such a status. If it is not right, it should be discontinued. If it is right, we should figure out what basis the state has to interfere in such matters, then determine whether that basis can be extended to cover relationships not currently covered under the existing law.
I’ve put forward what I think is the only legitimate basis for the state to have any involvement in interpersonal relationships that are primarily sexual. That basis by definition is limited to heterosexual couples. If someone has another basis on which to justify state interference, I’d be pleased to consider it.
–M. J. Young