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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
I wouldn’t hold your breath (as the gay dolphin said to his partner).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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]).
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.
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!
