h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The aim of this thread is to take apart, brick by brick, all of the main homophobic arguments, using a method which starts in each case with the weakest ones, moving on until there is nowhere left to go for these ideas. All contributions are of course welcome, with some rather obvious caveats. We'll start with the argument from nature, a.k.a. the naturalistic fallacy. This much-touted argument states that homosexuality isn't 'natural.' By 'natural', it is generally meant 'occurring in nature', put simply, 'what other animals do.'

Argument 1:"No other animal exhibits any homosexual behaviour."

The most extreme form of the argument from nature, and the easiest to dismiss. The Vast amounts of extant counter-evidence render this nonsense to all but the most stubbornly ignorant.

Argument 2:"All the examples of homosexual behaviour in animals come from populations or individuals under stress."

This is a paraphrase of something Vicky wrote. It might persuade some uninformed people as it is slightly less blatantly untrue than argument 1. But it's still nonsense:

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

At which point, the only path left open is to cherry-pick the animals that don't exhibit homosexual behaviour. This is where the phrase 'naturalistic fallacy' steps in. You can make some compelling analogies from looking at animal behaviour, but gerrymandering will always give false results.

Argument 3:"Homosexuality does not exist in any other animal."

A bit more intricate, this. First we need some terms. Working from dictionary.com, we can get the following meanings of 'homosexuality'

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality

*Sexual desire or behaviour directed towards someone of one's own sex.

Both of these are equivalent to what I have termed 'homosexual behaviour' above, so argument 3 doesn't apply to this definition.

*The quality or state of being homosexual.

This is a trickier area, partly because of the nebulousness of abstract nouns, i.e., what does "I am gay" actually mean? Over to you people...

>>
This much-touted argument states that homosexuality isn't 'natural.' By 'natural', it is generally meant 'occurring in nature', put simply, 'what other animals do.'
<<

AFAIK, other animals don't go to church either

>>..other animals don't go to church..<

Apparently, bats are commonly found inhabiting church belfrys



Rather suggestive, no?

Sorry, Taliesin, you lost me there, suggestive of...?


I also forgot about the church mouse.

<<...homosexuality isn't 'natural.'>>

Well, it is... and it isn't.

It IS 'natural' in the sense that nature causes it - some are born to it...

It's NOT 'natural' in the sense that it works against the main thrust of nature - procreation.

It takes all kinds, and they're all equally valid in nature.

Sorry, Jack, I quoted you in a misleading way. Please Read...

<>

'bats in the belfry' --> http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/56600.html

>>
It's NOT 'natural' in the sense that it works against the main thrust of nature - procreation.
<<

That doesn't strike me as true. Otherwise you could say that het sex at any time other than when a woman is ovulating is not natural. But we have sex for pleasure for very good evolutionary reasons - we are a communal species and the way we reproduce and raise our offspring is enhanced by love and pleasure.

Having said that the idea that the point of nature is solely procreation seems too reductionist to me. There's a hell of alot more happening out there than just reproducing.

Nature doesn't need a point - it just is. Purpose is irrelevant outside of human society.

"What is point of climate change?"

Pleasurable sex is a side issue, here.
--
<>

Yep, sure is - and is a product of nature relevant to us (and not only us). It doesn't change the 'main thrust of nature - procreation'
--
<<...the idea that the point of nature is solely procreation seems too reductionist to me. There's a hell of alot more happening out there than just reproducing. >>

Yep, there is a lot out there - again relevant to us (and perhaps only to us?) because of our development. Doesn't change the overall 'main thrust', though.

Yes, but even if, for a moment, we accept that procreation is the main thrust of nature (a rather male description of things given the context ), and we accept that sex for pleasure enhances the species ability to reproduce, then why is homosexual sex excluded from that? We are talking about the survival of the species here, not individuals, so if we reproduce best tribally (aka extended family groups) then all activities that enhance the tribe, enhance reproduction and the survival of the species. We have other examples of humans who don't procreate being very useful to the species eg post menopausal women who take on large amounts of work and childcare (in most mammal species females die once they stop reproducing*).


* I suppose fundamentalist Christians could make the case that menopausal women aren't natural either then.

And:

<>

That's true, it doesn't need - or have - a point. as you say, it just...is.

Who mentioned purpose?

'The main thrust' - perhaps that should be 'The Only thrust'. It surely is? That doesn't (shouldn't) imply purpose. In the words of an expert ( Prof Steve Jones? Richard Dawkins?) "Life just wants to be", which means... Procreation.

No?

Argument 1:"No other animal exhibits any homosexual behaviour."
Argument 3:"Homosexuality does not exist in any other animal."

May I suggest that all the odd-numbered arguments in this thread are basically different ways of saying "Animals aren't gay"?

Rod the Brit: >The main thrust' - perhaps that should be 'The Only thrust'. It surely is? That doesn't (shouldn't) imply purpose. In the words of an expert ( Prof Steve Jones? Richard Dawkins?) "Life just wants to be", which means... Procreation.<

Ah but of course. We're born. We fk. We die. Darwinism implies that homosexual attraction fulfils no reproductive purpose so it must be useless.

Psycorp: >May I suggest that all the odd-numbered arguments in this thread are basically different ways of saying "Animals aren't gay"?<

Sorry, but that only applies to argument 3, as argument 1 is about an activity.

Sex is fun. If it wasn't no-one would bother. So the urge to enjoy the experience is purpose enough, and just as legitimate with someone of the same sex as of the opposite or a jam-jar full of liver.

Unless I've understood it wrong, and please let me know if that's the case - evolution isn't an engine, more a filter for what's "fittest", or as I prefer, *best fit* for continuation of the species (fittest implies you can force it). Nature doesn't have an opinion what you do with your urges, it only presents the consequences thereafter. So party on, and if you want a kid, head to the fertility clinic. If you can't, adopt. If you can't adopt, write a love song. Or start a dating agency. Or convince someone to stop whining and *call her*. Or just pay your taxes so someone else can get the fertility treatment they need. What I'm saying is we are ALL somehow, directly or otherwise contributing to the progess of the species, and don't necessarily have to be hetero to do it.

Nature abhors a vacuum, arf arf etc.

If the human race stopped reproducing & died out, some other species would have the opportunity to flourish. In evolutionary terms, humans would have failed. That doesn't mean that homosexuality is unnatural, merely not advantageous in human evolution.

Well, that's a reudctio ad absursdum argument. As charming an idea as it is, the human race is never likely to go completely gay. If homosexual behaviour exists in other animals as well, how can this be so? If evolutionary theory suggests homosexuality shouldn't happen and it does, doesn't that part of the theory need to be reworked?

Please go easy on me. As far as biology's concerned, I barely know what a cell is.

So, that being the case, lets move this argument on to more current cultural arguments (none of which I personally hold, but all of which I've heard) which should be pretty easy to debunk:

'lesbians aren't really gay, they have just had bad experiences with men, all they need is to meet the right man.'

'It's a sign of mental instability, none of them are normal, you know, in the head.'

or:

'It's wrong, in the eyes of god, it's a sin and the temptation should be resisted. To fail to resist is to be led by the devil so he may retain your evil soul forever.'