Only 4:03AM and already a strong ‘post of the day’ candidate.
I would say not, since in the same show, he unleashed a pretty scathing deconstruction of creationism and the account of Noah’s Ark. Did you miss that bit?
No, he said funny things about being fucked in the head, which are still funny even if the book is a rigorous scientific work. Which I think it is, having read the thing. Have you actually read it?
Homosexuality is sexual attraction to members of one’s own sex. Animals clearly display this. I hesitate to mention Scotsmen and porridge given the subject matter, but attempting to distinguish human homosexuality and animal sexuality is clearly such a fallacy.
It’s also important not to overlook the fact that Gervais makes frequent plays on feigned ignorance; it’s one of his major themes.
samclem
I posted before I saw this comment; otherwise I wouldn’t have posted. oops. sorry.
So what? Is anyone actually disputing that Homosexuality and Pedophilia could both be described as natural behaviours, by some definition? You’re not edging towards a fallacy of composition here are you? i.e. that because they’re both described as natural, they’re the same in every other way too.
“Um”, isn’t there a difference between illustrating a science text with sketches because you can’t or won’t provide photos to back up your words, and illustrating a science text with sketches because photography hasn’t been invented yet? 
Actually, no. But SM’s comment had no broader context than natural.
And…if they are both indeed natural, I would wonder what SMs point is/was. Of course, if the point is/was one of legitimacy (in whatever context; social moral, political etc) than one is faced with the conundrum of legitimizing pedophilia as well, if naturalness is the [sole] criteria.
If I understand you correctly, you are pointing out that there are differences between pedoplilia and homosexuality. (while sharing the quality of being natural)
I don’t disagree with that assesment.
My point is/was that those differences make a more compelling case for whatever point SM was trying to make; and aligning human homosexuality with the instinctual behavior of beasts, paradoxically, undermines the ‘cause’, in my view.
I am not trying to lay siege to human homosexuality, but saying that if I were defending it I would not use naturalness as evidence for it’s legitimacy, in any context.
At any rate, I apologize for posting, and won’t post again to the thread. I just wanted to clarify my post.
I made no mention of natural paedophilia for the same reason I made no mention of natural waterfalls: because the OP asked whether homosexuality occurred in nature. If you wish to debate this tangent, I’ll take the position that natural or not, some behaviour requires consent of both parties and negative consequences ought to be brought to bear where that consent is absent.
I can hardly choose between compelling and less compelling cases based on a comparison with something neither me nor anyone else in the entire thread brought up until you, an hour ago.
And nor did I: I answered the General Question “or are they dominance displays?” by suggesting that human homosexual acts could just as easily be such “dominance displays” if there is no way to tell the difference between them.
My point was that many people do not accept that homosexuality (human or otherwise) is ‘natural’, and it is they whom I would direct towards Bruce Bagemihl’s book. If you accept it is, but going on to question homosexuality’s ‘legitimacy’, then that’s a whole other debate, which I’m happy to engage in elsewhere.
Diagrams and illustrations are much clearer and easier for the general public to understand than photographs are. A photograph of one male Bonobo performing oral sex on another may be perfectly clear and undeniably a picture of sexual activity. The untrained eye might mistake a penis for a finger or a toe, see grooming behavior, or something else. Additionally, lighting conditions or ditracting objects can be corrected in illustrations.
The Philadelphia zoo has signs showing different organgutan facial expressions and their meanings. Not only could these signs use photographs of orangutan faces, they could use photographs of the orangutans living in the room next to the signs. Instead, the signs use simple black and white drawings. These are much simpler for the public to understand.
Actually, I don’t even know why we’re continuing to discuss it; declaring a book invalid on the say-so of stand-up comedian Ricky Gervais is without a doubt the lamest item of argument I have ever seen offered in earnest.
Um, is there any sense in rejecting as invalid an entire scientific text because it is one of many that include drawings?
In fact, I’d argue that such texts are the majority; that it’s standard practice. A scientist recording his observations as field notes is not considered bad science by anyone but Ricky Gervaise and roger thornhill. The assumption that a peer reviewed scientist is lying unless he has photos to prove his recorded observations weren’t made up is ludicrous and would invalidate much of science.
Does homosexual behavior equal homosexuality? I’ve seen cows try to hump various things (including yours truly), and I think it’s just a matter of simple horniness. I can’t imagine two bulls alone in a pen say “Nope, don’t swing that way, buddy.”
Some guy on a drunken binge could have gay sex and he wouldn’t necessarily be gay, just really, really drunk. To an outside observer, he could be seen as gay (or such behavior could be pigeon-holed into “drunk behavior”).
The point is, it’s hard to determine genuine sexual attraction among animals, since they seem to enjoy humping anything within their parameter. But I’d like to see a bull walk past a herd of cows to spend some quality time with another bull. Then we’d have our answer.
By the same token, homosexual behavior sometimes happens among guys who don’t think of themselves as gay but are in settings were no women are available – prison, the military, at sea, in work camps – and aren’t satisfied with their own hands.
There are pictures in Bruce’s book. He uses both illustrations and photographs of homosexual sex acts.
Who’s doing this, Mangetout? Enlighten us - with evidence, if that’s okay with you.
Doc, a judge might I suppose convict a man on the basis of drawings, or reconstructions, of a motor accident or an assault, but I don’t think he or she would be a very good judge. Certainly rather you had her than me.
The standards for legal evidence and scientific evidence are not the same. Last time I checked, the existence of electrons had been proven. It’s impossible to see them. Unca Cecil’s classic column on the penises of porcines mentions that while it was a proven fact that pigs had corkscrew penises, he was unable to find a photograph.
As there are no photographs of actual Australopithicenes, dinosaurs, etc do you accept the images and models reconstructed from fossils?
Jane Goodall includes photographs and stills in In The Shadow Of Man. There are also drawings showing various behaviors. Do you believe Goodal’s claims about the chimpanzees at Gambi?
Your comparison to court is flawed for another reason. The drawings do not stand alone. They are the testimony of an expert witness.
Well, my dog, Scooter, has a proclivity for show tunes, so connect the dots.
Doc, two points. First, expert witnesses can be and often are “bought”. Wouldn’t make an argument from them myself. Second, if something as unprecedented and incredible (and likely to be disbelieved and contested) as underwater blow-hole homosexual sex between two male dolphins has been observed by a diver, who can then pop back up to the surface and get his/her sketch-pad out and draw it, then you would think a camera would be the first thing they’d put on their To Do list for when they scoot back down underwater.
With all those dolphins (let’s say 5-10% for the same of argument, assuming that cetaceans have a similar rate of homosexuality to humans) cavorting around doing blowhole sex, there’s plenty of opportunities for these folks to rock the scientific world, convince the sceptics, like me, and make a few bucks on the side.