Subject:
|
Re: Animal reproduction (was (of course?) Terms and Conditions Question)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 May 1999 20:25:06 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.&IHateSpam&missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
1007 times
|
| |
|
|
<3739A6C9.4D71376@cclabs.missouri.edu> <FBMy2u.Hy4@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Jesse R. Long" wrote:
>
> Christopher L. Weeks <c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote in message
> news:3739A6C9.4D71376@cclabs.missouri.edu...
> >
> > This _may_ be, and I understand the style and its purpose, but since • the
> > conversation is about personal motivation for animals to engage in
> > homosexual behavior, that frame of reference is inappropriate.
>
> Hardly. The original hypothesis floated here was that animals engage
> in homosexual behavior, thus humans have some sort of natural
> justification for such behavior. Determining what motivates an animal
> to have sex is crucial to the hypothesis.
I missed the point (I guess) that this is the derivitave of 'natural'
justification for homosexuality. That makes sense, but I hadn't thought
of it like that...how/why would such justification help anyone?
> When animals have sex it may feel good. But the animals are running
> around thinking "mate mate mate mate" and not philosophizing about the
> joys of sex.
I guess this is getting redundant, and we just disagree. I think
they're running around thinking much like humans "sex sex sex sex...oooh
that feels good." I don't think the philosphize about the joys of sex
either, they just dig it.
> For me, this is a clear distinction between having sex
> out of animal instinct (pleasureable or not) and having sex for
> pleasure.
Why do you think so? I mean, what makes you think that their
sex-related cognition is so different from human? I even agree with you
if we get low enough on the complexity scale, like jellyfish for sure,
and not at all for cats and dogs, but I'm not sure about birds and such.
> I don't know of any male animal that prefers sex with males over
> females, which is what homosexuality is about.
I presume you mean other than humans.
> It's a mindset and a
> way of life that claims this behavior is natural and acceptable, not
> just an act.
I don't follow what this means. Are you just asserting that
homosexuality is a mindset and way of life (as opposed to just an act)
or is the focus of your statement the 'claiming it is natural' part?
> Animals can't function on that level; animals are driven
> by hormones and nothing else and are just horny as hell when they
> engage (if they do) in homosexual acts.
Do you assert that among all the organisms, cognition is unique to
humans? What about emotion. If so...uh...have you ever been around a
pet? If not, then surely you see that whatever limited faculty for
cognition and emotion any given critter has, also act as motivators.
So, like us, the other animals act due to a combination of hormones and
rational information processing - the balance between the two is just tipped.
> I don't know if homosexuals
> want their behavior deemed little more than animal lust that they
> can't direct towards females. Pointing to animals for support doesn't
> work.
I don't know what they want either. I also don't see how having some
kind of model from the lower animals could help to justify
homosexuality. In some cruicial ways, we're unique among animals, and
so even if there are no other species that exhibit homosexuality as a
way of life, why not just chalk it up to improved cognitive
capabilities. Our improved minds allow us to break genetic directives
all maner of ways.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
150 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
