This isn’t much of a diary entry, but I found the links I followed from a Norwegian news story absolutely fascinating. The news story was not in English, so I’ll provide no link, but it led me to the pages of the Museum of Natural History at the University of Oslo where a quite unique exhibition is currently on.
AGAINST NATURE? — an exhibition on animal homosexuality
On Thursday October 12 2006 The Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, opened the first-ever museum exhibition dedicated to gay animals.
Today we know that homosexuality is a common and widespread phenomenon in the animal world. Not only short-lived sexual relationships, but even long-lasting partnerships; partnerships that may last a lifetime.
The exhibit puts on display a small selection among the more than 1500 species where homosexuality have been observed. This fascinating story of the animals’ secret life is told by means of models, photos, texts and specimens. The visitor will be confronted with all sorts of creatures from tiny insects to enormous spermwhales.
I was somewhat aware of the occurrence of homosexuality in the animal world, but no clue as to the extent and variety that is being observed.
Pleasure ride: A male killer whale rides the dorsal fin of another male. Sex just for the pleasure of it is common in many animals. Photo: Brian Scott.
(Image from the linked source.)
For a level headed essay on the subject, check this link:
The Natural “Crime Against Nature”
A Brief Survey of Homosexual Behaviors In Animals
The wingers obviously hate the concept; have a look if you think you can stomach it.
The case is getting pretty clear.
The link from the Museum explains my ignorance:
Imagine… SEX FOR PLEASURE…
Zounds! 🙂
Hi DJ,
Yeah, what a concept…
The good news is that hell won’t be such a lonely place for us sinners after all :o) Makes you wonder about Noah’s Ark a little too, huh? ;o)
And if there is such a thing as life after death, I think I’ll hang with the Bonobos. They rock…and roll!
We could probably all benefit from the bonobo approach to conflict resolution… 😉
LOL 🙂
Creatures still have sex? Perhaps I’ve been married too long.
making friends with an orca?
You have just developed a new fan base –
all my gay male friends want to make you
an honorary member (hmm? wonder what that
means?). Very interesting pics – still
trying to figure out the one of the whales
“fencing”.
has been a difficult truth for Christians since the beginning. The insistance in the 19th C. that, for example, predator-prey relationships (i.e., the struggles of prey and the ruthlessness of parasites) had Christian messages from which godly humans could take religious lessons is well recorded.
More insidious is popular science writing and ditto nature shows that often fall into making, perhaps unintended (giving the benefit of the doubt), ethical evaluations about nature largely due to anthropocentric fallacy. Examples include characterizing prey as “victim,” and predatory efficiency as “merciful dispatch.”
Such thinking is called “natural theology,” or the attempt to infer the existence of God from the biota and the competitive struggle for survival.
If one still buys into natural theology and believes that the power, wisdom, and goodness of God is manifested in the world by the animals, their history, habits, and instincts — yet thinks homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, then a believer’s head must needs explode.
I don’t subscribe to this philosophy, but one argument from a historical Christian viewpoint is that humans are a higher creation than animals. We are superior to them morally. When we act like animals, in this case, when we engage in homosexuality, we are “bestial.”
This argument is neo-Platonic and teleological. Nature is moving toward perfection and we humans are more perfected than animals. Homosexuality in animals is a sign of their lower moral status. Homosexuality in people makes them like animals, and is an lowering of the human into “depravity.”
This argument is much more complex than I can relate in my present state of weariness. Free Will plays a large role. Please note that I didn’t make this up, and I do not hold with it. I only share this line of thought as an example of how a scientific finding does not necessarily alter a philosophical/theological position. Consider this a sophist’s contribution to the debate.
Also, I don’t have any interest in defending this philosophy.
“Nature is moving toward perfection. . .”
“. . . and we humans are more perfected than animals.”
Perfect example of “natural theology” and anthropocentric fallacy in a single sentence and in that order. (Wish I’d thought of it.)
Nature has no idea of (godlike) “perfection.”
We humans are probably less “perfected” than nearly every animal (other than chimps, perhaps) because we’re much younger as a species than so many of them.
Only people blinded by misguided faith could think in terms of Nature moving toward perfection. Nature can not select for perfection because that implies a static and unchanging baseline from which to judge the acquisition of such an exaulted status. Anyone with eyes can know for himself that the natural world is characterized by constant and unpredictable change. Therefore, a state of perfection in Nature is oxymoronic. Proving a “natural theology” is fallacious.
Nature is not capable of evaluating any existing state within itself, much less one of relative perfection. The only object in Nature for which there’s any evidence of the ideation of such an abstract concept as “perfection” is human beings. Hence “perfection in Nature” is strictly a reserved-to-humans idea. Proving the anthropocentric fallacy.
Sheesh- Thought I’d seen everything LOL! Can’t get that whale picture out of my head.
What it proves to me is the human male is a real ‘shrimp’ in comparison LOL!
Kind of makes me want to not swim in the ocean any more…:-)