tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4302058077294515606.post1666737780360166988..comments2023-05-21T08:15:38.932-04:00Comments on Benjamin Peck's Writings, 2008-2011: FACE IT : HOMOSEXUALITY EXISTS IN NATURE AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT ITBenjamin Peckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11060411573921973698noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4302058077294515606.post-6276210397626703992009-01-19T11:32:00.000-05:002009-01-19T11:32:00.000-05:00I disfavor nature-based arguments for a couple of ...I disfavor nature-based arguments for a couple of reasons.<BR/><BR/>First (and least important), the science of support for animal homosexuality is easily attacked on at least two grounds. The first ground is that animals do not generally show themselves to be "sexually oriented" at all. As you indicate, they show a wide variety of sexual behavior, including sex with objects, people, and other species. The vast majority of sexual "hit counts" will be normal-ish sexual encounters between members of the opposite sex (my Dad had a very confused male rabbit that mounted the female about 20 times from various angles and made quite a mess out of her, but they never had baby rabbits, I guess that's normal-ish). So you are open to a fuzzy squishy debate about what percentage of encounters are homosexual before homosexuality is "natural". Also, then you have to decide whether inter-species contact is therefore "natural" if you use animal observation as your standard (or mounting bushes, fence posts, etc.) The second ground is that it is also open to the old "we're not animals" argument which you mention. It's fine to call that line of reasoning weak, but you're not going to win a debate arguing it. For example, animals kill other animals and we decide that's not acceptable among humans. I can find many other contexts where we reject animal behavior as acceptable, and now you are back to the soft squishy debate about which contexts are legitimate.<BR/><BR/>The second (and most important) problem I have with the homosexuality is natural argument is that it legitimizes the debate itself. Rather than letting a religious person define the terms of the debate by getting into whether it is natural - it would be better to say "why the hell does it matter." Arguments based on liberty are stronger. Let's say a guy wins the "nature" debate, and in fact let's say through some triumph of science somebody discovers a characteristic in animals and humans (say, enlarged hypothalamus, although this is not it despite hype about it), and can demonstrate that those with the characteristic are naturally homosexual. Rather than a triumph for homosexual rights, this will be their devastation. There will be all sorts of nonsense from this - development of drugs or surgery to "cure" people, testing of whether people are "legitimate" homosexuals or false homosexuals, and of course some people will still find it to be unacceptable regardless of its "natural" status. They won't understand why God cursed that person, but it still doesn't make it right, etc. etc.<BR/><BR/>The best treatment of this issue is to make a liberty based argument that no one should care about homosexual activity between consenting adults (or any other sexual activity for that matter). That is the only argument that, if it wins, is unassailable. Be careful what you wish for - if you win your argument and still lose, then you may be arguing up the wrong tree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com