Well, gay "marriage" works for penguins...

[shanek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html?ei=5007&en=25655dedbc29ffd6&ex=1391490000&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all

Free registration, blah blah blah.

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.

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.

And it's not just penguins, either:

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.

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."

So, with all of this evidence, how can anyone go about saying that homosexuality is "unnatural," or "against God" (didn't God create the animals, too, according to Judeo-Christian beliefs? And animals did not have a fall into sin, so how could homosexuality be against God or be sinful?), or that sex only exists for purposes of procreation?

I'd be interested to hear how the "moralists" respond to this evidence.

[Jon_in_london]

My old dog was AC-DC. He would quite often try and bum-hump other male dogs.

[geni]

Pretty easy to find out there is a thread on this over at RR somewhere about a week old.

edit

link to the thread

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?threadid=130659

[Demigorgon]

Odds are good that freaks of nature just don't happen in humans.

[LW]

Originally posted by shanek
And animals did not have a fall into sin, so how could homosexuality be against God or be sinful?

...

I'd be interested to hear how the "moralists" respond to this evidence.

Well, I had a couple of nights ago a conversation with one of the rare Finnish fundamentalist Christians and this very same argument came up then.

The answer: everything bad you see in the animal kingdom is the result of man's fall into sin.

The idea is that the perfect world where Beagles and Bunnies lay together in peace was destroyed when Eve took the fruit and after that evil entered into animalkind.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by geni
Pretty easy to find out there is a thread on this over at RR somewhere about a week old.

edit

link to the thread

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?threadid=130659

Ermm..interesting comments. Especially about the possibility of zoo keepers "warping" the animals. Like they haven't got better things to do than to deliberately train queer penguins...

I guess people there didn't read the article either

Hmmm....well

When I was a kid I remember my cat eating her first litter of kittens (very disturbing)...so are we to use cases such as these for justification of cannabalism?

From the article:

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."

Or the naturalistic fallacy: just because something is natural doesn't make it moral, just because something is unnatural doesn't make it immoral.

[mjv]

I'd be interested to hear how the "moralists" respond to this evidence.

I don’t consider myself a “moralist” nor do I care whom people choose to sleep with, but you have yet to provide any “evidence” only an article filled with wild speculation based mostly on a book of wild speculation.

I have yet to see any concrete evidence that any animals are gay that stands up to even gentle scrutiny. Anthropomorphizing animals and willfully misinterpreting ordinary bonding and social behaviors as “gay” is not the way to win people over to a point of view or cause.

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.

The author of the poorly researched book cited in the article throws out this nonsense and ignores basic animal behavior. Yes those gulls do occasionally form same sex pairs, but it is for the benefit of the species. Their drive to perpetuate the species prevents them from being “old maids”.

In certain times, when there are not enough males to mate with the females, the females will form pairs, not for sexual gratification, but because they are programmed to perpetuate the species. They must do so because two parent families are a necessity in gull communities; you must have a pair of birds to successfully hatch and raise the chicks. One has to stay with the eggs for warmth and protection against predators while the other obtains food. The courtship rituals are simply incidental to their drive to perpetuate their kind. When the male to female ratio improves, guess what? The females leave their “gull friends” and mate with males (sorry, couldn’t help it).

Simple, biological, explanation.

[Thanz]

Hmmm..... Gay penguins and other animals.

Does that mean that homo milk really does come from a gay cow?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
Odds are good that freaks of nature just don't happen in humans.

Nice use of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LW


Well, I had a couple of nights ago a conversation with one of the rare Finnish fundamentalist Christians and this very same argument came up then.

The answer: everything bad you see in the animal kingdom is the result of man's fall into sin.

The idea is that the perfect world where Beagles and Bunnies lay together in peace was destroyed when Eve took the fruit and after that evil entered into animalkind.

I see. And the biblical support for this is...?

[shanek]

So, both in this thread and the other one cited from the RR board, the response of the "moralists" (notice how I keep putting that in quotes?) is either steadfast denial, No True Scotsman, begging the question, or any other of a number of fallacious and even dishonest responses.

Figures...

[Snide]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
Odds are good that freaks of nature just don't happen in humans.
Like being left-handed? Or two s.d. from the mean in height?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by shanek
So, both in this thread and the other one cited from the RR board, the response of the "moralists" (notice how I keep putting that in quotes?) is either steadfast denial, No True Scotsman, begging the question, or any other of a number of fallacious and even dishonest responses.

Figures...

Actually, it's more of straight strawman, in that if it happens in nature, it must be "morally acceptable." No one ever said that.

The point is that if it happens in other animals, then there is no justification for the claim that it is only a "lifestyle choice."

[Zero]

This month's Maxim magazine has an article on gay manatees or something...

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by shanek
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html?ei=5007&en=25655dedbc29ffd6&ex=1391490000&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all

Free registration, blah blah blah.

...

I'd be interested to hear how the "moralists" respond to this evidence.

Well you see, the Supreme Court of the South Pole over-ruled the law about same penguin-sex civil unions and decided the only thing to do was to make same penguin-sex marriage legal for both genders.

The jury is still out on same-sex walrus marriage however.

:p

[shanek]

Originally posted by Snide
Like being left-handed? Or two s.d. from the mean in height?

And, many animals care for their young; does that make them "freaks"? Many animals care for their young; does that make them "freaks"? What behavior of animals and humans is "freakish"?

They're just defining it the way they WANT to define it. They bring up things like infanticide, hoping we won't notice that infanticide is a violent act that directly harms others but homosexuality isn't. In fact, as the article shows, homosexuality can provide a nurturing environment for those who wouldn't otherwise have one.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Zero
This month's Maxim magazine has an article on gay manatees or something...
If it is in Maxim, you can bet that they are lesbian manatees.... Hot wet lesbian manatees....

[Zero]

Originally posted by Thanz

If it is in Maxim, you can bet that they are lesbian manatees.... Hot wet lesbian manatees.... That's just wrong, dude...

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The point is that if it happens in other animals, then there is no justification for the claim that it is only a "lifestyle choice." I personally wouldn't claim that it is a lifestyle choice, but out of curiosity, how does the fact that a behavior occurs in other animals remove all justification for the claim that analogous human behavior might be a "lifestyle choice"? Animal behaviors that we would analogize to adultery, thievery and murder are frequently observed in nature, but no one would conclude from this fact alone that human adulterers, thieves and murderers have not made "lifestyle choices".

[shanek]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I personally wouldn't claim that it is a lifestyle choice, but out of curiosity, how does the fact that a behavior occurs in other animals remove all justification for the claim that analogous human behavior might be a "lifestyle choice"? Animal behaviors that we would analogize to adultery, thievery and murder are frequently observed in nature, but no one would conclude from this fact alone that human adulterers, thieves and murderers have not made "lifestyle choices".

Again, you're comparing homosexuality to behavior that directly harms others. You're comparing apples and accordions.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by shanek
Again, you're comparing homosexuality to behavior that directly harms others. You're comparing apples and accordions. I am not comparing anything to any other thing. Pgwenthold's post pretty clearly implied a general principle: If incidences of behavior X occur in non-human animals, then incidences of behavior X among human beings are not attributable to a "lifestyle choice". I merely plugged in different behaviors for X in order to probe whether that rule as stated is true. It seems to be false. Perhaps it simply requires refinement or qualification, but so far I haven't seen any proposed.

Edited to add: I daresay this principle can also be shown to be false by applying it to various non-harmful behaviors, so presumably the distinction between a harmful behavior and a non-harmful behavior is not relevant for this purpose - and a good thing, too, because an evaluation of whether given behaviors (for example, adultery or homosexual sex) are in fact harmful to animals, to humans, to both, or to neither, would far exceed the intended scope of my comment.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I am not comparing anything to any other thing. Pgwenthold's post pretty clearly implied a general principle: If incidences of behavior X occur in non-human animals, then incidences of behavior X among human beings are not attributable to a "lifestyle choice". I merely plugged in different behaviors for X in order to probe whether that rule as stated is true.

Except that the behaviors you plugged in, since they cause direct harm to others, can NOT be considered mere "lifestyle choices." Murder is not a lifestyle choice because it harms others. Homosexuality, though, could be considered one because it harms no one.

pgwenthold's post simply spoke to a different criteria for something to be a "lifestyle choice": the casualness with which a decision is reached. Most homosexuals agonize over it, sometimes for years, and have to accept the fact that that is who they are; that isn't a casual choice. And the fact that it occurs in so many other species does support his assertion that homosexuality is not a casual choice someone makes.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I personally wouldn't claim that it is a lifestyle choice, but out of curiosity, how does the fact that a behavior occurs in other animals remove all justification for the claim that analogous human behavior might be a "lifestyle choice"? Animal behaviors that we would analogize to adultery, thievery and murder are frequently observed in nature, but no one would conclude from this fact alone that human adulterers, thieves and murderers have not made "lifestyle choices".

I would argue that the predisposition to kill, cheat, and steal come from within and are not something that must be taught or something you must chose to feel (look at pedophiles - for most people, the thought of victimizing children is revolting; pedophiles don't even see it as wrong; ditto murderers)

They can chose _not_ to act on these, especially if they are behaviors that society has deemed should not occur, but it takes more than a decision to be a serial killer to make one a serial killer. You have to have the mentality that allows one to do it in the first place.

If the sight of blood makes you queezy (not something you really have a lot of contol over) you aren't going to be able to be a serial killer.

It also works that way in the animal kingdom. For example, while some dogs are great bird hunters, able to run into the water to retrieve a bird, my dog hates water and therefore can't be a hunter. What does that say? To me it says some dogs are better hunters than others. Not because they have a choice about hunting, but because of the way they are wired.

Now, give my dog a rabbit on land and he'll chase it all over. But not into the water....

[Thanz]

Excellent Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon on this:

http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2004/01/10/

[subgenius]

I don't go for fancy cars
For diamond rings
Or movie stars
I go for penguins

Throw your money out the door
We'll just sit around
And watch it snow
I go for penguins
Oh Lord I go for penguins

Penguins are so sensitive
Penguins are so sensitive
Penguins are so sensitive
To my needs

"Penguins"--Lyle Lovett

[pgwenthold]

Not to rain on anyone's parade or anything (and I'm sure you will hate me for this) but I was wondering: did we ever see Opus with a girlfriend in Bloom County? I'm starting to wonder...

Ack!

[Snide]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Not to rain on anyone's parade or anything (and I'm sure you will hate me for this) but I was wondering: did we ever see Opus with a girlfriend in Bloom County? I'm starting to wonder...

Ack!
Rumor has it he was suspiciously friendly with Chilly Willy.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
My old dog was AC-DC. He would quite often try and bum-hump other male dogs.

Often dogs don't even discriminate by species.

Anyone who tries to argue that homosexuality doesn't exist in nature is just ignorant.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Not to rain on anyone's parade or anything (and I'm sure you will hate me for this) but I was wondering: did we ever see Opus with a girlfriend in Bloom County? I'm starting to wonder...

Ack!

I believe opus was engaged for a while.

To a human. Lola Granola was her name. It went badly, as you would expect, this being Opus we're talking about.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Renfield


I believe opus was engaged for a while.

To a human. Lola Granola was her name. It went badly, as you would expect, this being Opus we're talking about.

Ah, Lola Granola, you are correct.

Did Opus ever have a thing with the Bassalope? (Wasn't her name Daisy?)

Of course, Opus had all that built-up rage that he let loose on mimes (with the olive loaf - the Mime Whacker)

God what a comic strip that was...

[Demigorgon]

Homosexuality, though, could be considered one because it harms no one.

Tell that to the parents of someone who doesn't want their kid to be a homo.

[Ælfgifu]

I understand that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but I do have one question for someone more well versed in biology than I am.

How can we make comparisons about penguins and humans? Humans are mammals. Penguins are birds.

I don't think we can make the claim that "homosexuality is a natural occurance penguins, therefore it's natural in humans as well." That's quite a leap in the animal kingdom, isn't it?

Have a nice day,
Kelly :)

[Snide]

Originally posted by Ælfgifu
I understand that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but I do have one question for someone more well versed in biology than I am.

How can we make comparisons about penguins and humans? Humans are mammals. Penguins are birds.

I don't think we can make the claim that "homosexuality is a natural occurance penguins, therefore it's natural in humans as well." That's quite a leap in the animal kingdom, isn't it?

Have a nice day,
Kelly :)
As skeptics, we don't need to. I think the point of Shane's post is that where the argument goes, "Homosexuality is not natural," the penguin example is evidence that this is not so. Anyone who subsequently tries to enter mammals v. birds into the discussion is introducing a Red Herring.

[psy kick]

The "church people" I know would just say, Well, some animals eat their young too. They just don't know any better.

Penguins CHOOSE to be gay!
penguin rights!
It'll be a platform of the Democrats, you watch!

;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
Tell that to the parents of someone who doesn't want their kid to be a homo.

How does that harm them?

And does it harm them if, say, their kid doesn't become a doctor like they want?

That's just another pathetic excuse.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html?ei=5007&en=25655dedbc29ffd6&ex=1391490000&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all

So, with all of this evidence, how can anyone go about saying that homosexuality is "unnatural," or "against God" (didn't God create the animals, too, according to Judeo-Christian beliefs? And animals did not have a fall into sin, so how could homosexuality be against God or be sinful?), or that sex only exists for purposes of procreation?

Excellent point, Shanek, except you don't go nearly far enough (for once).

How can cannibalism be wrong? Animals do it! Look at the preying mantis.

And mass suicide! Would you be the one to cast the first stone against the lovable lemming?

And parasitism should be constitutionally protected. Witness the elegance of the bedbug, cockroach, or king of the americas.

I'd be interested to hear how the "moralists" respond to this evidence.

You don't have to be a moralist to base your beliefs on something other than your bible according to Marlin Perkins.

But if you want a strictly "moral" (i.e., evil religious dogma) reason, then a fundie would tell you that it's also clearly stated in Genesis that mankind was created apart from the animals, and only man possesses a soul. Whether you buy it or not, at least it represents consitency in regard to this silly assertion of yours.

I can't believe that in an election year, this is all you have to rant about.

[corplinx]

I wonder if the gay penguins accesorize those little tuxedos.

[psy kick]

I'm still trying to get the picture of lesbian manatees out of my mind.

[Earthborn]

I have yet to see any concrete evidence that any animals are gay that stands up to even gentle scrutiny. Anthropomorphizing animals and willfully misinterpreting ordinary bonding and social behaviors as "gay" is not the way to win people over to a point of view or cause.You are right of course. If you put it like that, there is no concrete evidence that any animal is gay, including humans.

If humans beings prefer to exhibit ordinary bonding and social behaviours toward members of the same sex, does that make them 'gay' ? Or are they just exhibiting ordinary bonding behaviour?

I think you are too much preoccupied by the idea that sexual preference is some sort of defining characteristic, that 'gayness' is something that sets homosexual people apart from heterosexuals. This is the reason why you think that when animals clearly exhibit homosexual behaviour, they still might be missing that 'defining characteristic' that would make them gay.

Gay rights activists have been saying something different all along: that homosexual behaviour is just the exact same normal human social, bonding and courtship behaviour as heterosexuals have, just directed at the same sex. And sexual preference is just that: a preference. Some people prefer to exhibit courtship towards a different sex as themselves, some towards the same sex, and others couldn't care less one way or the other. If you look at it that way, it is obvious these penguins are 'gay': they prefer eachother while they have the same sex, while showing little interest in penguins of the opposite sex.Yes those gulls do occasionally form same sex pairs, but it is for the benefit of the species.Are you claiming that animals base their decisions on what is most beneficial for the species? I didn't even know seagulls knew that sex leads to offspring. I thought pairbonding animals just form pairs with someone they happen to like.In certain times, when there are not enough males to mate with the females, the females will form pairs, not for sexual gratification, but because they are programmed to perpetuate the species. They must do so because two parent families are a necessity in gull communities; you must have a pair of birds to successfully hatch and raise the chicks. One has to stay with the eggs for warmth and protection against predators while the other obtains food. The courtship rituals are simply incidental to their drive to perpetuate their kind.So what you are saying is:
Seaguls are robots that are perform a complex program that has all possible problems a gull colony can face programmed into it, along with a preprogrammed solution. When a seagull needs to choose a mate, it counts all seagulls in the colony, determines their sexes and makes a decision based on statistical analysis whether the species can survive or not. If the species might not survive because of a lack of males, it performs the preprogrammed solution of choosing a female instead.Simple, biological, explanation.It is neither simple, biological nor an explanation.

A much simpler explanation would be that the vast majority of females have a preference for males and try to choose a mate they like according to their preferences. If the male population drops, they have a harder time finding a male mate that fits any other preferences they might have. That will cause the females with the weakest preference for males more likely to settle for a female. The same thing will likely happen with males choosing males when the female population drops, even though it would have no benefits for the species.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Earthborn

A much simpler explanation would be that the vast majority of females have a preference for males and try to choose a mate they like according to their preferences. If the male population drops, they have a harder time finding a male mate that fits any other preferences they might have. That will cause the females with the weakest preference for males more likely to settle for a female. The same thing will likely happen with males choosing males when the female population drops, even though it would have no benefits for the species.

Sounds like a women's prison movie. Thanks, Earthborn, I will surely sleep well tonight. :D

[waitew]

Homosexuality?Nature?Other species?What the hell are you talking about?I've had dogs.. both male & female hump my leg...does that mean it's natural? I don't think so......either that or dogs of both genders seem to find my leg really,really attractive...but..I digress.

[Lemastre]

My dogs often hump my leg. Does this mean my leg is queer? The leg gets no pleasure from it, by the way, and the dogs don't seem to either after a little while.

[LW]

Originally posted by shanek


I see. And the biblical support for this is...?

The justification is indirect and via end-time prophesies. I am right now behind a quite thin internet pipe and without my Bible search script, so I don't give exact quotes.

The argument goes like this:

(1) In several places the coming New Earth is described as a place where "The lion and the lamb lie together in peace".

(2) Thus, in New Earth animals don't kill each other.

(3) The coming New Earth is restoration of the old Paradise.

(4) So, in Paradise the animals didn't kill each other.

(5) Since now animals do kill each other, the things have changed after creation.

(6) The Bible tells that Paradise ended with the fall to sin.

(7) Therefore, fall to sin made also animals kill each other.

The Christians have had almost 2000 years of time to come up with excuses for theological inconsistensies. They have become rather good in it by now.

[LW]

One more thing about arguing with Christians about "natural" things.

Many Christians don't use "natural" in the sense as "occurs in nature" but in the sense "as God wanted it to be". So, the natural state of a human would be living forever in harmony with God, but because of sin we aren't in our natural state anymore.

This terminologial difference causes confusion occasionally.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Lemastre
My dogs often hump my leg. Does this mean my leg is queer? .
Yes.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You are right of course. If you put it like that, there is no concrete evidence that any animal is gay, including humans.

If humans beings prefer to exhibit ordinary bonding and social behaviours toward members of the same sex, does that make them 'gay' ? Or are they just exhibiting ordinary bonding behaviour?

I think you are too much preoccupied by the idea that sexual preference is some sort of defining characteristic, that 'gayness' is something that sets homosexual people apart from heterosexuals. This is the reason why you think that when animals clearly exhibit homosexual behaviour, they still might be missing that 'defining characteristic' that would make them gay.

I an preoccupied by the seemingly willful anthropomorphizing of animal behavior to make it ‘homosexual’ behavior without understanding that many activities humans would consider ‘homosexual’ have other interpretations in the animal world.

For example, take a wolf pack: you have an alpha male and an alpha female the rest of the males and females are subordinate to them. It is often observed that the alpha male will mount the other males and that the beta males will often “present” themselves to the alpha male in certain confrontations. The same occurs among the alpha female and the beta females. But it is incorrect to call this homosexual activity, because its purpose is to reinforce their social structure not for pleasure or to satisfy a desire for the same sex. Likewise the beta males and beta females will assert their position amongst the betas by similar means. The beta males and females generally do not mate, this does not make them gay, it is just that their place in the social structure does not allow it.

Gay rights activists have been saying something different all along: that homosexual behaviour is just the exact same normal human social, bonding and courtship behaviour as heterosexuals have, just directed at the same sex. And sexual preference is just that: a preference. Some people prefer to exhibit courtship towards a different sex as themselves, some towards the same sex, and others couldn't care less one way or the other. If you look at it that way, it is obvious these penguins are 'gay': they prefer eachother while they have the same sex, while showing little interest in penguins of the opposite sex.

I don’t see it as obvious at all because of the many things the story does not explore such as whether they have been raised in captivity and were perhaps not properly socialized with females, whether there may be hierarchical issues with other males in the social order; whether there are enough females to go around, etc. Without this information, I do not think it is appropriate to label them “gay”.



Are you claiming that animals base their decisions on what is most beneficial for the species? I didn't even know seagulls knew that sex leads to offspring. I thought pairbonding animals just form pairs with someone they happen to like.

This statement proves my point. It is classic anthropomorphism. To the best of our knowledge, animals to not mate based on “someone they happen to like”.

As an explanation I will return to wolves. The alpha male and alpha female are the only ones who mate in the pack. The alpha female with ferociously attack any beta female who tries to mate with her alpha male. However, if the alpha male is seriously injured or becomes seriously ill and weak, he will be killed or forced to leave the pack by the beta males. Now, if the alpha female chose her mate because she "liked" him, we would expect her to leave as well to go find her mate. Instead, the alpha female will mate with the new alpha male. Its simply her nature to strive to produce the best offspring to perpetuate the pack that she can.


So what you are saying is:
Seaguls are robots that are perform a complex program that has all possible problems a gull colony can face programmed into it, along with a preprogrammed solution. When a seagull needs to choose a mate, it counts all seagulls in the colony, determines their sexes and makes a decision based on statistical analysis whether the species can survive or not. If the species might not survive because of a lack of males, it performs the preprogrammed solution of choosing a female instead.It is neither simple, biological nor an explanation.

We know that animals have an instinct to produce young and increase their numbers. Of course a seagull determines the sexes of the other seagulls when it needs to choose a mate and if there are no males it will do its best to find a way to produce offspring. Female gulls in this case will usually mate with a male (when his mate is absent obviously) produce an egg and then pair up with another unattached female in order to raise it. It is impossible for them to do otherwise as there must be at least one bird watching the nest at all times. Simple. Biological. Explanation

A much simpler explanation would be that the vast majority of females have a preference for males and try to choose a mate they like according to their preferences. If the male population drops, they have a harder time finding a male mate that fits any other preferences they might have. That will cause the females with the weakest preference for males more likely to settle for a female. The same thing will likely happen with males choosing males when the female population drops, even though it would have no benefits for the species.

But again this “simpler explanation” is attributing human attributes (such as preference) that we do not know that animals have and completely ignoring what we do know about their behavior. If your explanation were to hold then we would observe that female gulls would form “gay” pairs exclusively or at least on a long-term basis. That is simply not the case. What is observed is that female gulls will do what they need to do to produce offspring when males are scarce. When the male populations improve, the female gulls stop having a “preference” for female gulls.

Just to make myself clear (since I know the "homophobe" nonsense is coming), I don't really care if homosexuality is "natural" or "unatural", but I do not see the value in basing an argument on questionable conclusions about animal behavior.

ETA: this last statement is general and is certainly not directed at earthborn .

[Fade]

I an preoccupied by the seemingly willful anthropomorphizing of animal behavior to make it ‘homosexual’ behavior without understanding that many activities humans would consider ‘homosexual’ have other interpretations in the animal world.

So what do you define as homosexual and heterosexual?


For example, take a wolf pack:

As shane would say, Apples and Accordians.

Wolves and humans don't share the same type of hierarchy. I would agree that mounting in a wolves case amounts to dominating. Many animals use this sort of behaviour to establish dominance.

I don’t see it as obvious at all because of the many things the story does not explore such as whether they have been raised in captivity and were perhaps not properly socialized with females, whether there may be hierarchical issues with other males in the social order; whether there are enough females to go around, etc. Without this information, I do not think it is appropriate to label them “gay”.

Why not? Penguins, unlike wolves, DO use pair-bonds in the same way humans do. Many birds, and many primate species do.

Sex is almost entirely "programmed" into us. The idea that we must be socialized with people of the opposite gender to be heterosexual is laughable. Many cultures have (more had in the past) schooling systems which strictly segregated males and females. My father, for instance, was sent to an all male boarding school when he was 9, and remained there until he was 17. He had effectively no female contact during puberty. None. Yet, he was strictly heterosexual.

It isn't a stretch, at all, to put forth the assumption that socialization matters even less in species such as penguins. We humans rely on instinct for sex far, far more than we admit. We can often over-ride instinct with our intelligence. Penguins don't have that option. Most animals don't have that option.

This statement proves my point. It is classic anthropomorphism. To the best of our knowledge, animals to not mate based on “someone they happen to like”.

I don't want to put words in Earthborns mouth, but I read this statement to mean that the animals choose based on factors they don't really understand or care about. Certain members will be appealing for reasons outside their understanding. In essence, they choose things they "just like."

For the record, that is how our sexuality works as well. Can you define exactly why you are attracted to what you happen to be attracted too?

Nope. Sure can't. You look at a person and you find them attractive. You can consider WHY you find them attractive, but you can't jump beyond that point. Evolution has taken care of it.

As an explanation I will return to wolves.

Why don't you try to find an example that relates to human sexuality? We aren't pack animals. Except for those cases where men could literally buy a harem of women, polygamy is almost entirely non-existant in the human animal. It always takes an outside force (money, religion) to put humans into a polygamist relationship. We *instinctively* pair-bond. Comparing us to non pair-bonding animals does exactly nothing.

We know that animals have an instinct to produce young and increase their numbers.

The penguins tried to hatch a rock. This to me is ample evidence that those penguins don't have any idea why they are doing what they do, but they still have a need to pro-create. They likely don't understand why they couldn't make a child, and they likely thought the egg given to them was how it was supposed to work anyway.

But again this “simpler explanation” is attributing human attributes (such as preference) that we do not know that animals have and completely ignoring what we do know about their behavior.

We aren't ignoring what we "know about their behaviour"

We are amending what we know to include concepts that we refused to recognize because, ironically, our human ideals prevented us from doing so.

If your explanation were to hold then we would observe that female gulls would form “gay” pairs exclusively or at least on a long-term basis.

Many of these birds pair-bond for their entire lives. I'd consider that long term. You're only considering a relationship real if it happens to be exclusive is another example of you anthropomorphizing seagull relationship structure.

Funny, that.

You claim the authors of these works are anthropomorphizing animal relationships.

Then you, yourself, use human relationships as an archetype of what a relationship needs to be in order to be gay or straight.

Nice little circle you got there.

[mjv]

So what do you define as homosexual and heterosexual?

That is exactly my point! What do you define as homosexual and heterosexual? It is entirely too easy for people to attribute our understanding of what a particular activity would be if “Bob” did the same action to “Steve”, without stopping to realize our interpretation of the purpose of activity may not match the purpose of the animal engaging in that activity.

As shane would say, Apples and Accordians.

Wolves and humans don't share the same type of hierarchy. I would agree that mounting in a wolves case amounts to dominating. Many animals use this sort of behaviour to establish dominance.

Never said they did, just trying to illustrate that our interpretation of the behavior could be influenced by a desire to misread the data to provide “evidence” for a point of view. Again, I am not arguing about whether homosexuality is natural or not, my issue is with whether the conclusions drawn from the available evidence are reasonable or are being manipulated to reinforce a particular view.



Sex is almost entirely "programmed" into us. The idea that we must be socialized with people of the opposite gender to be heterosexual is laughable. Many cultures have (more had in the past) schooling systems which strictly segregated males and females. My father, for instance, was sent to an all male boarding school when he was 9, and remained there until he was 17. He had effectively no female contact during puberty. None. Yet, he was strictly heterosexual.

It isn't a stretch, at all, to put forth the assumption that socialization matters even less in species such as penguins. We humans rely on instinct for sex far, far more than we admit. We can often over-ride instinct with our intelligence. Penguins don't have that option. Most animals don't have that option.

But you are subverting your own point with this argument. Whether we, or your father in the example, are influenced by socialization has nothing to do with animal behavior. It is well known that animals raised in zoos with no socialization among their species often have problems understanding how to mate and how to raise their young. Again, my issue is with the interpretation of the behavior, not with how it translates or does not translate to human beings, because as you say and common sense shows we can override instinct with our intellect.


I don't want to put words in Earthborns mouth, but I read this statement to mean that the animals choose based on factors they don't really understand or care about. Certain members will be appealing for reasons outside their understanding. In essence, they choose things they "just like."

For the record, that is how our sexuality works as well. Can you define exactly why you are attracted to what you happen to be attracted too?

Nope. Sure can't. You look at a person and you find them attractive. You can consider WHY you find them attractive, but you can't jump beyond that point. Evolution has taken care of it.

Yes, and evolution has taken care of ensuring that animals, such as gulls, do what needs to be done to ensure the survival of their species. The reasons I am attracted to someone are generally controlled by numerous factors (some known, some unknown) in my social and psychological makeup, which is not comparable with the makeup of a seagull, which operates on a much different plain of existence.

Why don't you try to find an example that relates to human sexuality? We aren't pack animals. Except for those cases where men could literally buy a harem of women, polygamy is almost entirely non-existant in the human animal. It always takes an outside force (money, religion) to put humans into a polygamist relationship. We *instinctively* pair-bond. Comparing us to non pair-bonding animals does exactly nothing.

Why not use an example that relates to human sexuality? Because a) this thread postulated that animal behavior is directly relatable to human sexual behavior, b) wolves just happen to be an interest of mine, and c) I was trying to show that my disagreement is with the interpretation, thus the specifics of polygamy vs. pair bonding is incidental.


The penguins tried to hatch a rock. This to me is ample evidence that those penguins don't have any idea why they are doing what they do, but they still have a need to pro-create. They likely don't understand why they couldn't make a child, and they likely thought the egg given to them was how it was supposed to work anyway.

Again, that is my point, without knowing more about the socialization, raising, and environment of the penguins it is unsupportable to state definitively that they are gay, when they could just not know “how it was supposed to work”.


Many of these birds pair-bond for their entire lives. I'd consider that long term. You're only considering a relationship real if it happens to be exclusive is another example of you anthropomorphizing seagull relationship structure.

Funny, that.

We are talking about female mating pairs of California gulls. They form a nesting pair only so long as is necessary during the breeding season and until males are available. And besides if they did pair bond for life, wouldn’t that be exclusive by definition? Not sure I understand your point regardless.

You claim the authors of these works are anthropomorphizing animal relationships.

Then you, yourself, use human relationships as an archetype of what a relationship needs to be in order to be gay or straight.

Once again you misunderstand, I am discussing relationships among animals vs. relationships among humans only because that is the discussion at hand. It still remains that the interpretation of these animal behaviors is on shaky ground knowing what we do about animal behavior.

[Earthborn]

But it is incorrect to call this homosexual activity, because its purpose is to reinforce their social structure not for pleasure or to satisfy a desire for the same sex.How do you know what its purpose is? Couldn't it be that the animals act on their impulses and that the result of that is that social structures are reinforced?

You could also say that its purpose for the species is the reinforcement of social structures, but the direct purpose for the individual animal is satisfying its own pleasure.

You also seem to be forgetting that a similar thing might be going on in human relationships. In all male communities, for example prisons, people sometimes use male rape to humiliate others in order to establish a social hierarchy. This does not disprove in any way these people do it first and foremost for their own pleasure.I don’t see it as obvious at all because of the many things the story does not explore such as whether they have been raised in captivity and were perhaps not properly socialized with females, whether there may be hierarchical issues with other males in the social order; whether there are enough females to go around, etc.You could ask the same question about people we do consider gay: the behaviour they exhibit may be because they were not properly socialized with females, there may be hierarchical issues or they may not be unable to get a girl.

There maybe many reasons why someone would start to have a preference for one particular sex. But despite all the different ways a person might become gay, we all call them gay. So why not call those penguins gay? Sure, it is anthropomorphism. I don't see that as a bad thing necessarily, because we are animals too, and there are a lot of similarities between our behaviour and that of other animals.To the best of our knowledge, animals to not mate based on "someone they happen to like".I think they do just as humans. And just as with humans, their collective mating behaviour is beneficial for the continuation of the species.

You are very preoccupied with the idea that animals behave in ways that are beneficial for their species, and seem to think that that is all they ever consider. You fail to see that specific behaviours can have a very different meaning for the individual animal (or human) involved.Now, if the alpha female chose her mate because she "liked" him, we would expect her to leave as well to go find her mate. Instead, the alpha female will mate with the new alpha male. Its simply her nature to strive to produce the best offspring to perpetuate the pack that she can.You try to prove me wrong by showing an example of an animal with a very different social life than seagulls. Since wolves have a very strong hierarchy, the individual concern for the alpha female is to maintain her status. You could say that she 'likes men in power'.

The seagulls on the other hand are pairbonding. There are probably a lot of characteristics in other seagulls that attract or repulse them. You dont have to anthropomophisize them to understand that. You could understand these attractions and repulsions as simple taxis. One of those characteristics is sex. To ensure the survival of the species evolution (or God) has made most of them have a strong taxis towards members of the opposite sex. But not all of them have an equally strong taxis, and for some of them other taxis will dominate if they find themselves in a situation where there are not enough males around.

And since nothing in nature is perfect, there will also be some individuals who have a very strong taxis towards members of the same sex. Those gulls are 'gay'.it will do its best to find a way to produce offspring.Do you honestly believe that animals have the knowledge that their sexual acts will lead to offspring and can act on that knowledge? I find that hard to believe. I find it easier to believe that they are just acting out on their impulses.But again this "simpler explanation" is attributing human attributes (such as preference) that we do not know that animals have and completely ignoring what we do know about their behavior.That's not true and you know it. I'm purely speaking about taxis: attractions and repulsions. That's pretty much as unanthropomorphic as behaviour can be explained, although humans have them too. We just call them likes and dislikes. It ignores nothing about what is known about any sort of behaviour.If your explanation were to hold then we would observe that female gulls would form "gay" pairs exclusively or at least on a long-term basis. That is simply not the case. What is observed is that female gulls will do what they need to do to produce offspring when males are scarce.But that is entirely consistent with what I'm saying! After all the gulls do have a preference or taxis or attraction towards males. They are however also attracted by other characteristics and that's why they form a pair with a female if they can't get a male. However, if the population of males returns to normal, many of them will be able to find a male mate that they are attracted too and will 'run off with someone else'.What is observed is that female gulls will do what they need to do to produce offspring when males are scarce.Again you are assuming that producing offspring is the individual goal of each seagull. But I don't think they have any clue as to how offspring is produced.When the male populations improve, the female gulls stop having a "preference" for female gulls.They don't have a preference for females, they have a preference for males! It is just that when they can't find a male that fits other preferences, those with a weaker preference for males will settle for a female.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by mjv
That is exactly my point! What do you define as homosexual and heterosexual?Yes, but you are the one who believes the word 'homosexual' should not be used to describe animal behaviour. You are the only one who apperently uses a different definition then the most obvious: homosexual behaviour is directed towards members of the same sex, heterosexual behaviour towards members of the opposite sex.

And we define 'gay' as pairbonding with a member of the same sex, so any creature that prefers to pair up with a member of its own sex is by definition, gay.It is well known that animals raised in zoos with no socialization among their species often have problems understanding how to mate and how to raise their young.Of course. And I think they were pretty well socialized or else they would not have come up with the idea of trying to hatch a stone. I bet they did that because they saw others do it with their eggs and imitated it. So they knew how to care for their offspring, they just couldn't get any.The reasons I am attracted to someone are generally controlled by numerous factors (some known, some unknown) in my social and psychological makeup, which is not comparable with the makeup of a seagull, which operates on a much different plain of existence.I think the principles are much the same, because there are also a lot of similarities between humans and seagulls. Again, that is my point, without knowing more about the socialization, raising, and environment of the penguins it is unsupportable to state definitively that they are gay, when they could just not know “how it was supposed to work”.Some would argue that human homosexuals 'just don't know how it is supposed to work'.

By saying that it is unsupportable to state that they are gay, because we know nothing about the socialization, raising and environment, you are saying that they cannot be gay if their behaviour is caused by those outside influences. You basically make the bold claim that either homosexuality is genetic, or it isn't really homosexuality. I don't buy that for a minute.

I use a much simpler definition: someone is gay if they prefer to pairbond with someone of the same sex. These penguins have formed a pair while being of the same sex and are not interested in anyone else, and are therefore, by definition, gay!

[Fade]

That is exactly my point! What do you define as homosexual and heterosexual? It is entirely too easy for people to attribute our understanding of what a particular activity would be if “Bob” did the same action to “Steve”, without stopping to realize our interpretation of the purpose of activity may not match the purpose of the animal engaging in that activity.

So you revert to nay-saying?

If an animal pair-bonds with another animal, that's homosexuality. The reasons don't really matter. It's how we use the term. It is my opinion that it directly correlates to how humans pair-bond, because we are all basically hard-wired by the same source (evolution).

Never said they did, just trying to illustrate that our interpretation of the behavior could be influenced by a desire to misread the data to provide “evidence” for a point of view
What on earth are you talking about? How else am I to consider two animals of the same gender pair bonding for life, and raising young together? What ELSE could that POSSIBLY BE other than homosexuality?

Again, I am not arguing about whether homosexuality is natural or not, my issue is with whether the conclusions drawn from the available evidence are reasonable or are being manipulated to reinforce a particular view.

Manipulating the data would be finding two cohabitating animals of the same gender to be homosexual.

That isn't happening.

But you are subverting your own point with this argument. Whether we, or your father in the example, are influenced by socialization has nothing to do with animal behavior. It is well known that animals raised in zoos with no socialization among their species often have problems understanding how to mate and how to raise their young.

Animals that must exist in a social hierarchy in order to procreate (Wolves, to use your example) would suffer from lack of socialization with their own species, yes. But what you have indirectly claimed is that these animals have just happened upon homosexuality because they haven't been adequately socialized with females. It's absurd. Outside of social hierarchies, every single animal on this earth is going to know how to mate. Not working within that hierarchy is what causes problems, nix socialization, NOT the physical aspect of mating itself. If this were not so, there would be no sexual species on the entire planet. Evolution has already taken care of sexual instinct, some "higher" animals just choose to also use their own form of politics to dictate who gets to mate.

Again, my issue is with the interpretation of the behavior, not with how it translates or does not translate to human beings, because as you say and common sense shows we can override instinct with our intellect.

The interpretation of the behaviour seems sound to me.

Two animals of the same gender pair bonding, despite being seperated, despite being inserted into a male-female relationship. These birds continue to come back to one another, time and again. It's happening in several different zoos, and is probably also happening in the wild. But, I believe that they need to use blood tests to figure out penguin gender. Doing that to thousands of birds would prove difficult.

Yes, and evolution has taken care of ensuring that animals, such as gulls, do what needs to be done to ensure the survival of their species. The reasons I am attracted to someone are generally controlled by numerous factors (some known, some unknown) in my social and psychological makeup, which is not comparable with the makeup of a seagull, which operates on a much different plain of existence.

You're wrong, actually. You and the seagull are wired in much the same way. You have little control over your mating instincts. Society can impress upon us variation of feature (General body type, ultra-specific differences such as piercings, obesity, distended lips/labias/ears) but you have very little control over whether you are, to be crude, a butt or a bust man. Nature provides the cues, and our intelligence fills in specifics. But, the base is all the same, in almost all animals.

Why not use an example that relates to human sexuality? Because a) this thread postulated that animal behavior is directly relatable to human sexual behavior

No, this thread has posulated that certain animals which happen to share human-style pair bonding happen to exhibit paralells upon our entire sexual spectrum. You are taking this a step further and creating a straw man.

b) wolves just happen to be an interest of mine,

I like wolves too. They do not, however, relate to human sexuality. Canines in general will either have opportunistic breeding (dogs) or dominance alpha breeding (wolves). Humans have neither of these things.

c) I was trying to show that my disagreement is with the interpretation, thus the specifics of polygamy vs. pair bonding is incidental.

Part of a good comparison is finding two things that are similar.

Again, that is my point, without knowing more about the socialization, raising, and environment of the penguins it is unsupportable to state definitively that they are gay, when they could just not know “how it was supposed to work”.

These penguins did the same things the other penguins were doing in order to procreate. Your socialization hypothesis doesn't work. They are like the other penguins in every single respect (They act like penguins in every respect) except they happened to pair bond homosexually.

We are talking about female mating pairs of California gulls. They form a nesting pair only so long as is necessary during the breeding season and until males are available. And besides if they did pair bond for life, wouldn’t that be exclusive by definition? Not sure I understand your point regardless.

They have a biological imperative to procreate. They know they need to be inseminated to procreate, so they seek out that insemination and return to their pair bond. Humans actually do this, as well.

The point? You seem to be disregarding their pair-bond because they aren't following the human ideal of two dedicated partners. They can remain pair-bonded despite "infidelity."

The broader point is that I've seen this argument take a hypocritical form.

Some will, in the same breath, accuse these scientists of reading human behaviours in these animals, and then claim these animals aren't actually doing what the scientists say they are, because they aren't doing what humans do.

It's circular reasoning. Either we can draw paralells between mating, or we can't. Being that it's AMAZINGLY *********** RIDICULOUS to study mating behaviour of one animal in isolation of all others, it's reasonable to assume that there will be vast paralells, and behaviour seen in one "X TYPE" relationship structure in one species, will correspond to the same behaviour in another "X TYPE" species.

We are animals too.

Once again you misunderstand, I am discussing relationships among animals vs. relationships among humans only because that is the discussion at hand.

I am not misunderstanding anything. Your arguments are all over the place, and they fail to form any sort of coherent whole.

[mjv]

Okay, I give up.

Thanks to both of you for being reasonably civil in this, but apparently my skills with debating in writing are just not adequate to the task.

One last attempt to clarify what I am saying:

The article and the conclusion based on it (that homosexuality is part of nature) are based on a conclusion that is not proven. This conclusion, that there are gay animals, has no basis in fact. Where are the peer reviewed studies, the National Geographic programs, etc. that would accompany such a momentous discovery? They do not exist, this all tracks back from what I can tell to one not terribly well researched book.

Yes, animals do perform actions that appear to us to be homosexual, but as I have repeatedly pointed out there is no evidence that these activities are sexual in nature or based on a desire for the same sex.

If an act by an animal (in wolves, lions and yes, in the penguins) is simply a display of dominance, socialization, or a natural method of reinforcing the social hierarchy then it is not a sex act at all. If it is not a sex act then it can hardly be considered ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’, and therefore conclusions cannot be made using this as evidence.

My limited knowledge of animal behavior tells me that the more logical and supported conclusion is that these acts are normal animal behaviors that are being misinterpreted to fit a fixed conclusion.

Thanks again for engaging me on this issue in a reasonable manner, and while this could go on, I honestly do not have the time to go through each point for each of your posts and post a rebuttal.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[Regnad Kcin]

I highly recommend the title "Sex on the Brain: The Biological Differences Between Men and Women" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140263489/qid=1076811549/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-9539114-7559010?v=glance&s=books), by Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Deborah Blum.

Among the topics covered is homosexuality in primates and other species where, yup, it's been found all over the place.

[Fade]

If an act by an animal (in wolves, lions and yes, in the penguins) is simply a display of dominance, socialization, or a natural method of reinforcing the social hierarchy then it is not a sex act at all.

><

It's usually fairly easy to see when a specific sex act is being used as a domination technique, and when a specific sex act is not being used as a domination technique.

I've already agreed with you that many "homosexual" acts found in nature are not really sexual, but are in fact social engineering techniques.

I think you need to realize that this isn't a head-butting conversation. I agree with parts of what you say, and disagree with others. I think if you come to accept this, debate will become much easier.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Jocko
And mass suicide! Would you be the one to cast the first stone against the lovable lemming?Time to lay off the Disney movies... (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm)

And here's a bonus (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbugsuicide.html), 'cause I'm feeling generous.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by shanek
Except that the behaviors you plugged in, since they cause direct harm to others, can NOT be considered mere "lifestyle choices." Murder is not a lifestyle choice because it harms others. Homosexuality, though, could be considered one because it harms no one.

pgwenthold's post simply spoke to a different criteria for something to be a "lifestyle choice": the casualness with which a decision is reached. Most homosexuals agonize over it, sometimes for years, and have to accept the fact that that is who they are; that isn't a casual choice. And the fact that it occurs in so many other species does support his assertion that homosexuality is not a casual choice someone makes. By the term "lifestyle choice", I understand a conscious adherence to a certain way of life, presumably reflecting individually held values. I don't understand why, for example, criminality can't constitute a choice of lifestyle (though arguably not a justifiable lifestyle, for the reason you cited). Harmful behavior is indeed a defining characteristic of the manner in which some people choose to lead their lives.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Did Opus ever have a thing with the Bassalope? (Wasn't her name Daisy?)

Of course, Opus had all that built-up rage that he let loose on mimes (with the olive loaf - the Mime Whacker)

God what a comic strip that was... The rabbit got the basselope pregnant. They had basselopes with rabbit feet.