Rocky

It supports the theory that homosexual behavior is not simply some satanic deviant behavior.

From today's New York Times February 7, 2004 Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name By DINITIA SMITH Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either. At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them. "They did a great job," he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach. Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world. This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic." But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral? The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly. Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said Mr. de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, `The females are very affectionate.' " Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Mr. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. (Homosexuality, he says, refers to any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.) Last summer the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law. "Sexual Exuberance" was also cited in 2000 by gay rights groups opposed to Ballot Measure 9, a proposed Oregon statute prohibiting teaching about homosexuality or bisexuality in public schools. The measure lost. In his book Mr. Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild. Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Females perform courtship rituals, like tossing their heads at each other or offering small gifts of food to each other, and they establish nests together. Occasionally they mate with males and produce fertile eggs but then return to their original same-sex partners. Their bonds, too, may persist for years. Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Researchers have noted that in some cases same-sex behavior is more common for dolphins in captivity. Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex. Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, who studies homosexual behavior in Japanese macaques, is editing a new book on homosexual behavior in animals, to be published by Cambridge University Press. This kind of behavior among animals has been observed by scientists as far back as the 1700's, but Mr. Vasey said one reason there had been few books on the topic was that "people don't want to do the research because they don't want to have suspicions raised about their sexuality." Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said. For Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University, who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, their homosexuality "is about bond formation," she said, "not about being sexual for life." She said that studies showed that adult male dolphins formed long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Ms. Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added. But, scientists say, just because homosexuality is observed in animals doesn't mean that it is only genetically based. "Homosexuality is extraordinarily complex and variable," Mr. Bagemihl said. "We look at animals as pure biology and pure genetics, and they are not." He noted that "the occurrence of same-sex behavior in animals provides support for the nurture side as well." He cited as an example the ruff, a type of Arctic sandpiper. There are four different classes of male ruffs, each differing from the others genetically. The two that differ most from each other are most similar in their homosexual behaviors. Ms. Zuk said, "You have inclinations that are more or less supported by our genes and in some environmental circumstances get expressed." She used the analogy of right- or left-handedness, thought to be genetically based. "But you can teach naturally left-handed children to use their right hand," she pointed out. Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable." But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes." Mr. Bagemihl is also wary of extrapolating. "In Nazi Germany, one very common interpretation of homosexuality was that it was animalistic behavior, subhuman," he said. What the animal studies do show, Ms. Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think." "You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate." In bonobos, she noted, "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction." "Sexual expression means more than making babies," Ms. Zuk said. "Why are we surprised? People are animals."

That too.

1. Depends on who chooses the "competent" professional. 2. Your obtuse language sure sounds like you just called me a name. 3. and btw, regarding your comments to Excie, you don't answer to me when you call people names, and you certainly don't justify it with the rationalization you offered.

Well, this thread has certainly degraded into schoolyard bullying... cynically speaking... But, with a couple of the usual suspects, Excie, i repeat one of your earlier encouragements: "why waste your breath? One has to learn that the world does not stop if a Cynic or a Zixar tells one to .... off. Please, someone pass them the prozac.

According to my research, I think cynic's use of the word polygyny is meant to limit the discussion to the practice of allowing a man to have more than one wife or female mate at the same time --- as opposed to polygamy, which by definition (but not by mormon practice) means that either spouse may have multiple mates of the opposite sex. In other words, if the doggone mormons were honest, they wouldn't have called their practice polygamy, but used the word "polygyny" instead, because polygamy would have allowed a wife to have more than one husband at the same time. Now that that distinction has been made clear, what do we do now?

Yeah, what makes THEM think they are better than us NON-marrieds? :D-->

Cynic... how will divorce be handled then? It's complicated enough now, with only one husband/one wife at a time.

I don't get the point of zixar's analogies either... and Coolwaters, I don't know how you came up with the connection on pursuit of happiness, but I appreciate it, because it takes the matter back to the foundation of our society. And as to the point regarding polygamy, I don't see polygamy inherently as something that should be subject to specific exclusion, but as with homosexuality, some of the related cultural manifestations are or may be highly undesirable. Welfare fraud, closed societies with no accountability and high levels of personal intimidation, and child sexual exploitation are very real issues inherently tied to polygamist subcultures in northern Arizona and Utah.

because the number of kids in school on the 100th day is the basis used for state funding of schools... at least in Arizona... and probably in other states too.

I have no idea... I've not been invited to their meetings. I'm neither gay nor republican.

" TARGET=_blank>http://www.adrianplass.com/articles/chainsaw_fellowship.htm Oh come on Cynic, don't forget your pals in the Log Cabin Republicans.

In terms of the sovereignty of the individual citizen, Trefor, your argument made complete sense.

Incest definition and laws have nothing to do with the age of the participants. Therefore, incest does not necessarily include minors. There are older people (past child bearing years) with legitimate concerns about societal limitations on this.

Holy S***, Zixar! Common ground!!! Actually, I think the list would be too big for me to even get started... but one of the biggest problems I see is such tragic portrayal of fathers.

TS, did you see what your buddy Pudge did? Signed a multi-year with Detroit! Well, I guess he got his ring, so he can afford to gamble on the prospect of rebuilding?

ok. you're probably correct on that. if I recall correctly, that was Scalia's point in his dissent on the big ruling last year. However, at this point, incest can be outlawed (still or again) on the citizenship argument because we are generally talking about at least one of the participants being a child. Children do not have ALL of the rights or responsibilities of citizenship, and therefore are not capable of granting legal consent. (which takes us back to Jonny's concern, I know). And on polygamy, it may be true that such a thing would be difficult or impossible to keep outlawed, but there are plenty of other problems associated with the closed subcultures currently practicing polygamy in the US, and those include (but may not be limited to...) forced compliance (which is not valid consent), child sexual abuse, and welfare fraud. Those items are being used to prosecute polygamists now, but it is still difficult.

anyone know why the 100th day is so special? (hint, I do)... niKa, it sounds like a whole bunch of fun!

zix, thanks for clarifying. however, the reason two same-sex heteros can't is because the sex is "assumed". And as to your challenge to Trefor, I gave you the reason when I explained about the sovereignty of the individual in the founding documents.

Tell me, what is preventing this from happening now? How do we know it is NOT happening now?

I have to agree with Trefor, as his argument makes sense. Here's why: America was NOT founded on any principle even remotely related to any argument for the furtherance of "society". America WAS founded on the fundamental concept of the sovereignty of the individual citizen. Now, what we face in this debate on gay marriage probably would like much like debates in the 1700s and 1800s regarding slavery and women's rights. You see, blacks were denied the freedoms (why should they have special treatment, after all) by denying them the dignity to be considered citizens. I'm not sure how they worded or justified denial of voting rights to women, other than the original notion that a citizen was a white property owner... but the fact is that the commonly understood applicability of the rights of citizenship as spelled out in the founding documents is where the limits were made. So, any application of limitations of freedoms today (which is the real issue) must be put in terms of clarifying that gays apparently are not worth being considered citizens in our society. And that seems downright silly. Arguments about basing current societal rules on the issue based on "what's 'good' for society" or whether this would be to grant "special" rights to a "special interest group" quietly but most definitely deny the fundamental sovereignty of the individual citizen, and deny the validity of America's founding philosophy.

In search of sno-cones?

Jonny, I was concerned with my spelling of the name of the state in question, not yours. I don't criticize spelling here. But I still don't see the connection between your concern and the issue at hand in the discussion of gay marriage. Even IF such a scenario could reasonably be expected (which may be possible, I'm not challenging you on it), there are NOW laws related to underage marriage and sex. Granted some states allow a 16 year old to marry with consent, and maybe 14, but there are still, and currently, even limits to that. AND, there are laws (though difficult to enforce) related to FORCING children to get married. THIS is not an issue of gay marriage, but IS an issue related to closed societies as offshoot to the mormon church in southern Utah/Northern Arizona. Officials in both states for about 50 years "winked" at, or allowed, knowingly but not officially endorsing, polygamy in a very closed culture around Colorado City, which is on the border of Arizona and Utah. But as, in the last couple of years, more horror stories of young girls being forced into plural marriages at ages as young as 13, efforts have stepped up to try to get the problems dealt with. That community is run by religious zealots, politically and commercially. They have intimidated state law enforcement and witnesses with impunity, for years. Such a thing would take a heck of a lot of intense effort to set up with same sex underage marriage. I just don't see the connection you make as being a reasonable fear. by all means, lets make sure children cannot be subject to such situations, however.

Don't expect a retraction. That would not apply in the case of a paid ad. The BEST we could hope for is to have it NOT run again. I can't imagine they only intended to air it once. That wouldn't make sense. Also, from the earlier explanations, the $29K was to produce the spot. The air time would be a different story, and the one time, on Imus probably did NOT cost as much. Paris Hilton, cleavage? The only cleavage she has is on the back side. -->

Jonny, Granted you are entitled to your opinion. However, you appeared to have presented it as a topic for discussion. And you used the court rulings in Massachusetts (spelling?) as a logical segue into the gloom and doom "inevitability" that we will be forced to accept "legalized pedophilia". We have common ground on this issue, at minimum, in concern about children being exploited. However, you don't make any logical sense in connecting the point, and I can't see any relationship between the issues. So, we agree we don't want children exploited. We don't agree that what the MASS. court ruled will lead to that happening. Further, while I can't deal with imagining the notion of two guys having sex, I cope by not imagining it. I'm not convinced, however, that allowing consenting adults privacy in their homes will be harmful to society. But even if it is, I am strongly against amending Constitutions for religious purposes.