# Let's get real about homosexuality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 15, 2005, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454 "2005-04-15T07:36:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hoops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoops/32/6408_2.png) [@Hoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoops)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/21 "2005-04-15T21:06:25Z")
Greetings all. Thanks for your participation. **Furt** , yeah, ‘getting real’ is rather a vague statement. Here’s how I see it. There are religious objections to homosexuality. These I leave out of the debate–they are questions of faith and are not subject to change through reasoning. Thus the OP was about arguments I would use if I was trying to change the mind of someone who might be swayed, using real world arguments instead of appealing to morality or emotion. I haven’t read the book **roger thornhill** mentions, but it seems to be aimed at refuting the argument that homosexuality isn’t ‘natural,’ by demonstrating that it occurs in nature. Personally, I don’t use this argument; it seems to me that using animal behavior as a yardstick for what is or is not acceptable human behavior is fraught with difficulty (though I’d be happy to hear arguments to the contrary). **Rune** , you’ve got me dead to rights in that I simply made an assertion without backing up my opinion that beastiality and pedophilia laws are simply not likely to be overturned. There is a certain difficulty in refuting ‘slippery slope’ arguments like ‘if we accept homosexuality, next thing you know we’‘ll have to accept beastiality’, and this was probably the weakest link in my OP. In my defense, while the internet as a marvelous tool for research, it is for obvious reasons difficult and possibly unwise to research the above topics online! I do like **Binarydrone** take on the subject–that it boils down to consent. As to the ick factor, I suppose that is a personal issue and not really grist for a reasoned argument; also, as others have pointed out, this crosses gender and sexuality lines and there are plenty of ‘straight’ scenarios that would be as icky to me as any ‘gay’ scenarios. Sorry, **Sampiro**. Alas, the trail of broken hearts I leave behind stretches ever longer. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/22 "2005-04-15T21:30:48Z")
I’m still trying to work out the phrase “substantial minority.” ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/23 "2005-04-15T22:33:55Z")
> [@Eutychus](#): > > I’m still trying to work out the phrase “substantial minority.” That one’s easy. Clearly, it’s the opposite of “an insubstantial majority.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hoops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoops/32/6408_2.png) [@Hoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoops)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/24 "2005-04-15T23:22:55Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > That one’s easy. Clearly, it’s the opposite of “an insubstantial majority.” 🙂 Ouch! Ouch! You guys are killin’ me! Seriously, is this regarded as a poor construction? It seems to be [widely used](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22substantial%20minority%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) to mean a significantly large subsection within a minority group. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/25 "2005-04-16T00:11:05Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > I’ll respect your ick factor if you respect mine. No no no. That’s WAY too PC an interpretation of the problem. We should all just admit that \*all \* sex is repellant and sick and we should all be thoroughly disgusted by ourselves. That we are able to engage in any sexual behavior whatsoever without vomiting all over ourselves is a mystery so great that it IMHO it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of God. I personally plan to spend tonight flagellating myself for my sinful thoughts while reciting from Jonathan Edwards’ Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/26 "2005-04-16T00:42:30Z")
The ‘ick’ factor isn’t _something we do_, it’s _something that happens to us_ - I get an ‘ick’ from thinking about eating insects; all it’s really useful for is telling me that I probably won’t want to eat insects; it’s entirely valid, real and nothing to be ashamed of; it’s just useful only to me. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/27 "2005-04-16T01:56:18Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Bagemihl’s Ph.D. is in linguistics We have more in common than I thought. > [@Sampiro](#): > > Bagemihl has even admitted that he wanted to refute the “doesn’t occur in nature” argument for personal reasons, **BUT** he refuted it _using heavily researched and detailed observations proof read by professionals in the biological sciences_. But what exactly did he refute. You don’t specify. That what exactly doesn’t occur in nature? And how might this (whatever it is exactly) be generalized to the human realm? > [@Sampiro](#): > > And what is [infelicitous](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infelicitously) about the name _Stonewall Inn_? Yes, it’s a primarily gay themed publishing house, yes it’s named after the Stonewall Inn riots, what’s your point? It’s called a joke, old chap - an ancient and well attested linguistic device. As part of his routine, Gervais jokes about the tender (or not so tender - just like real life) lovemaking of the animals he uses to illustrate his talk (Bruce’s illustrations, to be more precise). He refers in particular to the erotic effects of the various tongues, penises and female sexual organs on the nerve endings of the bits being rubbed or indeed penetrated. The walls of the dolphin’s blow-hole (the name seems more appropriate all the time - those blokes who assigned names must have known a thing or two we didn’t until recently and the invention of line drawings, oops - underwater photography) as well as the anus and sex organs of various other species are thus described as enjoying the stimulation of these nerve endings. So, and this is where I thought I was both subtle enough to get the thumbs-up from the more sophisticated wits here while appealing also to the lesser lights, I made a joke based on the humour inherent in the fact that the imprint, publishers, whatever, viz. Stonewall, have a potentially erogenous ‘-wall’ with, who knows, perhaps plenty of nerve endings of their own - just awaiting stimulation from some hot dolphin or stub- (short?-) tailed macaque. Whatever. Randy bugger anyway. > [@SAmpiro](#): > > Are openly queer authors by definition incapable of academic integrity? And as a queer author who has written peer reviewed articles, if your answer is yes I will go ahead and pre-order a CITE now. Easy answer to this one. As one who has written peer reviewed articles myself, and had them published, as well as reviewing the work of others, my answer is no. **Smaft** , but do the photos show a male dolphin fucking anoher male dolphin in the head? Even just one? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2005, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/28 "2005-04-16T06:37:48Z")
Lightly sophisticated wit here. I thought the reference was hilarious. **Sampiro** , I _love_ to read your stories and you are very dear. But for Flannery’s sake, rewrite this sentence: > [@](#): > > And as a queer author who has written peer reviewed articles, if your answer is yes I will go ahead and pre-order a CITE now. (Shudder) ---
**Author:** ![smaft](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c2a13f/32.png) [@smaft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smaft)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/29 "2005-04-16T15:50:32Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > **Smaft** , but do the photos show a male dolphin fucking anoher male dolphin in the head? Even just one? Specifically that? On a quick glance through the dolphin section, I don’t find one. I haven’t gone through the entire book, however. But I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that unless researchers can prove their conclusions with clear, unambiguous photographs, their studies are invalid? ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/30 "2005-04-16T22:10:44Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > Smaft, but do the photos show a male dolphin fucking anoher male dolphin in the head? Even just one? > [@smaft](#): > > Specifically that? On a quick glance through the dolphin section, I don’t find one. I haven’t gone through the entire book, however. > > But I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that unless researchers can prove their conclusions with clear, unambiguous photographs, their studies are invalid? Maybe he’s just looking for a good source of blow-hole porn. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/31 "2005-04-16T22:30:18Z")
Forget gay dolphin sex. What about [dolphin bestiality](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=672005&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)? (I’m sorry somebody had to bring up the wholphin at this point.) ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/32 "2005-04-17T00:32:45Z")
> [@smaft](#): > > Specifically that? On a quick glance through the dolphin section, I don’t find one. I haven’t gone through the entire book, however. I wouldn’t hold your breath (as the gay dolphin said to his partner). > [@](#): > > But I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that unless researchers can prove their conclusions with clear, unambiguous photographs, their studies are invalid? Well, in a word, yes, if their hypotheses/guesses are so risky (no, I don’t mean they should use condoms - I mean this in the Popperian sense, i.e. if they predict the unexpected and novel, in short, if they take the form of such bold conjectures as dolphins fucking each other in the head). ---
**Author:** ![smaft](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c2a13f/32.png) [@smaft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smaft)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/33 "2005-04-17T17:08:45Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > Well, in a word, yes, if their hypotheses/guesses are so risky (no, I don’t mean they should use condoms - I mean this in the Popperian sense, i.e. if they predict the unexpected and novel, in short, if they take the form of such bold conjectures as dolphins fucking each other in the head). But that’s what I’m not understanding. Dolphin researchers, and there are several dozen studies listed in Bagemihl’s book, have always reported witnessing dolphins sticking their noses, fins, tails, and penises in other dolphins’ mouths, genital flaps and blowholes, regardless of gender. It seems to be part of standard dolphin behavior, in at least some species. In other words, there is nothing “unexpected and novel” about it. It’s not risky, nor is it “bold conjecture”, to state what has previously been established. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/34 "2005-04-18T01:34:05Z")
> [@smaft](#): > > Dolphin researchers, and there are several dozen studies listed in Bagemihl’s book, have always reported witnessing dolphins sticking their noses, fins, tails, and penises in other dolphins’ mouths, genital flaps and blowholes, regardless of gender. Not even _one_ photo out there? I mean, off the bat, if dolphins are carousing in swirling waters in the wild, then I’d be hard put to know exactly what’s going where, or for what purpose or reason. (Of course, if the action has been observed in captivity, then it needs to be treated with extreme caution.) Lock \*me /I] up and I might do some weird things! Though I like to think I’d draw the line at blowholes. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/35 "2005-04-18T01:58:55Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > Not even _one_ photo out there? I mean, off the bat, if dolphins are carousing in swirling waters in the wild, then I’d be hard put to know exactly what’s going where, or for what purpose or reason. (Of course, if the action has been observed in captivity, then it needs to be treated with extreme caution.) > > Lock \*me /I] up and I might do some weird things! Though I like to think I’d draw the line at blowholes. Is hard core dolphin porn some sort of need for you? Bagemihl wrote his book on a very modest advance. Most zoological images are copyrighted (if I had dolphin hardcore blowhole lovin’ on video I’d _definitely_ copyright it) meaning you must pay or otherwise secure permission to use it. Bagemihl probably did not have the funds to secure the photographs or else the owner did not wish to grant it (“Hey, you’re that photographer whose work was in that fags-with-flippers book, aren’t ya?” not being the ultimate career goal of most nature photographers). There are many books about the JFK assassination that do not have photographs from the Zapruder film (even though much of the text revolves around JFK developing a blowhole) and many about the Clinton presidency with no photos whatever (even though a blo… never mind)- it doesn’t mean they’re unreliable. Perhaps Bagemihl’s next book will come with a pop-up section and a special DVD of the film “Flipper Does Fire Island” so as to increase in your eyes its scholarly nature. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/36 "2005-04-18T02:17:29Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Is hard core dolphin porn some sort of need for you? > > Bagemihl wrote his book on a very modest advance. Most zoological images are copyrighted (if I had dolphin hardcore blowhole lovin’ on video I’d _definitely_ copyright it) meaning you must pay or otherwise secure permission to use it. Bagemihl probably did not have the funds to secure the photographs or else the owner did not wish to grant it (“Hey, you’re that photographer whose work was in that fags-with-flippers book, aren’t ya?” not being the ultimate career goal of most nature photographers). There are many books about the JFK assassination that do not have photographs from the Zapruder film (even though much of the text revolves around JFK developing a blowhole) and many about the Clinton presidency with no photos whatever (even though a blo… never mind)- it doesn’t mean they’re unreliable. > Perhaps Bagemihl’s next book will come with a pop-up section and a special DVD of the film “Flipper Does Fire Island” so as to increase in your eyes its scholarly nature. A simple ‘no’ will suffice. ---
**Author:** ![smaft](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c2a13f/32.png) [@smaft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smaft)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/37 "2005-04-18T02:33:57Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Most zoological images are copyrighted (if I had dolphin hardcore blowhole lovin’ on video I’d _definitely_ copyright it) meaning you must pay or otherwise secure permission to use it. Bagemihl probably did not have the funds to secure the photographs or else the owner did not wish to grant it (“Hey, you’re that photographer whose work was in that fags-with-flippers book, aren’t ya?” not being the ultimate career goal of most nature photographers). In addition, it should be pointed out to anyone who hasn’t seen the book, that Bagemihl’s stated purpose is to consolidation/summarization of scientifically-documented non-reproductive sexual behaviors (homosexual intercourse, oral/anal sex, mutual masturbation, etc.) among animals. Even limiting his scope to mammals and birds, he still deals with more than 300 species in a single volume. It is not intended, nor even possible, to be proving specific hypotheses; he merely presents what research to date (1999) has collectively shown- that sex among animals is not as straightforward (yes, pun intended) as many believe. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/38 "2005-04-18T03:22:20Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > A simple ‘no’ will suffice. I’ll be more concise when you stop critiquing books that you haven’t read (an offense for which I’ve no doubt you would give a student a failing grade [as you should]). ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/39 "2005-04-18T04:00:46Z")
> [@Hoops](#): > > I haven’t read the book roger thornhill mentions, but it seems to be aimed at refuting the argument that homosexuality isn’t ‘natural,’ by demonstrating that it occurs in nature. Personally, I don’t use this argument; it seems to me that using animal behavior as a yardstick for what is or is not acceptable human behavior is fraught with difficulty (though I’d be happy to hear arguments to the contrary). Well, I think one’s libido out weighs ones sexual prefrence. (generaly speaking) For, example. There are a lot of convicted criminals doing hard time in jail right now, who are also participating in gay sex in one form or another. Now, I’d be willing to bet my next paycheck that if your were to ask these guys _before_ they went to prison, if they would engage in gay sex; you’d get an emphatic “NO!”. Which is a problem I have with the above mentioned book. I think **Hoops** may have missed the point of what the book was trying to say. I think what it was trying to say that gay sex IS natutal. Due to the fact that animals do it. My problem with these so called incidents is. Were there any (submisive) females around for these animals to get it on with in the first place? Under a controled experiment wouldn’t you want to give the “animal” a choice of both? And _then_ see what he goes for? This concludes (to me anyway) that prehaps there might be a smigeon of gay in all of us. I would just really like to know why that “smigeon” is more predominate than in others. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454/40 "2005-04-18T04:55:13Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > I’ll be more concise when you stop critiquing books that you haven’t read (an offense for which I’ve no doubt you would give a student a failing grade [as you should]). Ee-owch!! I haven’t graded students for six years now, but I would never give an F to a student for critiquing a book they had never read. Why, some people who haven’t read a book can critique it far better than those who have. Plus, how would I know what books the student has read? And what qualifies as “reading” a book? But I do wonder whether PhD candidates have read all the books, chapters and articles that they list in their Bibiliography. I would answer for myself, but my supervisor may be reading this! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-real-about-homosexuality/299454.md?page=1)