How is that relevant to this blog? Conservative Christian Americans were just as sure that Indians were deviants and blasphemers as they are about gays. And they're just as wrong now as they were then. The objective evidence, such as that found in this posting, proves they don't know what the hell they're talking about.
9 comments:
Writerfella here --
Natives are 'outsiders' in modern American society, as they became when European-American society was born, while it relentlessly was evolved, and after it fully had been established. Gays also have been and are 'outsiders' in modern American society, most especially if they choose to reveal their orientations and openly to live their lives accordingly.
Choice therefore seems to be another factor in such a parallel comparison. Choose to be 'tribal' and live on a given reservation or at least keep with the Native culture of your region and you are an 'insider' to your own people while being as much an 'outsider' as the rest of your people. Choose to be modern and strive to get an education and find yourself a place in the modern world, and you become an 'outsider' in your own people's eyes while becoming only a little bit less of an 'outsider' to Americans. Choose to be a gay fully into gay culture and you are an 'insider' to them while being as much an 'outsider' as the rest of them. Choose to conceal your gay existence and you are an 'outsider' to gay society and only are functionally tolerated by American society.
Is it any wonder, then, why many gay groups and gatherings refer to themselves as 'tribes'?
Homosexual behavior among other animal species always has been identified as occurring only under conditions of stress such as overpopulation or isolation from one or the other gender. Thus, the recent studies likely will remain controversial and will find difficulty achieving acceptance in traditional scientific circles.
Jeez, even schools of scientific thought can be 'outsiders', just as in other human endeavors.
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
"Homosexual behavior among other animal species always has been identified as occurring only under conditions of stress such as overpopulation or isolation"
That's not the case for the bonobo, which is perhaps the human species closest "relative".
The article in question didn't address the reasons for homosexual behavior in animals in depth. But the brief explanations it did offer had nothing to do with stress or overpopulation. As the project leader noted, "The sexual urge is strong in all animals. ... It's a part of life, it's fun to have sex."
Furthermore, factors such as overpopulation are still natural phenomena. If an animal lives in a certain ecological niche, it often doesn't have an option such as moving elsewhere. If its instinctual response to a natural stressor is homosexuality, I'd say that still falls under the heading of biological programming. Animals don't have "lifestyles" so they can't "choose" to be gay.
But this is far from my area of expertise. If anyone has more information on the subject, feel free to post it.
Writerfella here --
What I referred to were the classical studies and those done before now, escpecially around 1980. At that time, a very large segment of the scientific community was caught up in the kinds of arguments these latest studies soon will produce. Science stoically tries to maintain its image of adjustment and adaptation to new observations, but in fact the process involves some of the most devastatingly emotional, personal, and intellectual infighting that one could imagine. Normally it all goes unseen and unheard by the general populace. Knowledge does find acceptance eventually but not for quite a while. That's why I prefer to be a science fiction writer rather than a science writer, because I mostly will tell you all that I know and science writers always are apologizing while exercising damage control.
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Comment from a correspondent on the original posting:
Same sex relationships are a natural part of existence--a fact now well-documented scientifically in a recent definitive book: BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE by Bruce Bagemihl. It's an excellent work.
From Kirkus Reviews, 11/28/98, via Amazon.com:
"A scholarly, exhaustive, and utterly convincing refutation of the notion that human homosexuality is an aberration in nature. ... Bagemihl does realize that some among us will never be convinced that homosexuality occurs freely and frequently in nature. But his meticulously gathered, cogently delivered evidence will quash any arguments to the contrary."
Writerfella here --
Bravo for such a book. But is either its philosophy or its copies selling?
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Amazon.com ranked Biological Exuberance #99,223 in sales as of today.
Among thinking people, it's pretty well established that homosexuality is primarily biological in origin. Among conservatives it may be a different matter.
Writerfella here --
As always is, of course. One wonders: what do 'conservatives' conserve? The status quo? Their own view of the universe? The passenger pigeon?
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Conservatives conserve their wealth and privileges, mostly.
Post a Comment