Moral? You Decide. Natural? Case Closed.
Okay, I've fallen in love with the sagacious blogger Beep Beep from Beep! Beep! It's Me - because of the comment she left on my last post. And I am grateful to her for inspiring this post regarding a must-read book that I've been dreadfully remiss in not hitherto vociferously flacking. Reading Biological Exuberance was the equivalent of lightning striking in my brain. This scholarly zoological tome adheres to precepts of scientific writing as it describes homosexual behavior in almost 200 different animal species. Bruce Bagemihl obliterates any notions that homosexuality is not "natural". Order your copy ASAP, and take a magnificent ride through 768 pages of same-sex activity throughout the animal kingdom. And more props to Kept Woman for being so fucking right about everything. If only the rest of the straight world were as bright as she. Kept, do your kids have any clue how fanfuckingtastic their mom is? Get the book everyone. The morality of homosexuality can and will be argued ad nauseum by the small minded, but the case is closed on the fact it's NATURAL.
posted by Aethlos at 9:09 PM
11 Comments:
What an extraordinary blog she has! And I've a new book to read pool-side.
Awwwww, you sweetie.
I was just reading Beep Beep's comment on the last post thinking, "Doh! If we did everything that was 'natural' wouldn't the entire society turn into a bunch of aggressive, alpha-domineering heathens?"
Add then I remembered our government and thought, "Wait a minute..."
yes, well, the key, of course, is do whatever's natural as long as it doesn't injure another or impinge on their right to do what's natural for them.... mais oui....
Lame argument, Aethlos. Hamsters eat their babies, does that make it okay? Black widow spiders kill the males after mating. It's natural, so it must therefore be morally acceptable?
andy, i was careful to point out the MORALITY of homosexuality would still be debatable... but the natural/unnatural aspect is clear. also, read my comment just above yours... i'm clear about anything "natural" which injures another. OH, and by the way, i don't think morality applies to spiders - period. So any notion about the morality of a black widow eating it's mate is totally absurd. Is it immoral for a snake to eat a mouse? That's a ridiculous question, and i'm shocked, as logical as you are, that you would even bring something like that into it. eek.
(absent human beings there is no such thing as morality - it's a human construct.)
But that's precisely the point; humans are significantly different than "animals" because we have established this social construct of right and wrong, and because "civil" behavior is actually quite unnatural. We hold it as a paramount civil virtue to protect the weak, defend the vulnerable, and assist the downtrodden. You don't find this in a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" natural world. I don't want my sexuality justified by the argument that male monkeys whack each other off so therefore homosexuality is "natural."
The case must be made that what homosexuality is -- more than mere "getting off" -- is a moral argument. As Jon Stewart said, do you consider it part of the human condition, or merely a fetish? We can make a moral case that homosexuality is about emotional bonds as well as sexual bonds. Are we seriously attempting to defend against the superfluous argument that homosexuality is "unnatural"? Those people are irrelevant. Make the moral case. I'm not an animal.
AH, OKAY, i didn't understand what you meant. Yes, i was seriously responding to the claim it's "unnatural"... but i prefer your approach to them "they are irrelevant". Much better way to look at it. I AM an animal - a moral one. But making the moral case for my sexuality would be based on some agreement of definitions (as most legal contracts begin with "section one - definitions") Unless i had a group who agreed on the definition of "moral" i wouldn't attempt to write that argument. I can't imagine how many different definitions of "moral" my blog readers have... hmmmm... which begs an interesting new post.... :):)
THANKS ANDY!
RE: Andy > Well, just because something is natural DOESN'T make it culturally or socially acceptable.
That is pretty obvious as killing is natural, but we have quite sophistocated laws about killing, when it can occur and why.
My point is purely this>>>> The argument ad nauseum from homophobes is: "Homosexuality is wrong because it isn't natural."
Homosexuality is obviously natural.
Human behaviours are natural behaviours as human beings are part of nature.
But just because a behaviour is natural, it doesn't mean that a society or culture will find it morally or ethically acceptable.
It is just a totally crap argument to say "Homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural.
Oh and thanks for the plug for my blog mate :)
OH, and don't let our asides distract from this book!... it really is fascinating to read about all the same-sex behavior in the animal kingdom. FASCINATING.
Post a Comment
<< Home