The Acolyte Rizla,
Make up your mind, is the committment of marriage social behaviour or private behaviour? Once it is registered by the State it is a public behaviour.

Yuyutsu,
That homosexuals determinetheir source of example and justify their behaviour on what dumb animals do indicates they cannot justify their behaviour on what is highly acceptable as human behaviour.

Dear Philo,

You missed my point.

I was not referring specifically to homosexuals, nor am I one or take particular interest in their case.

I do however object to that attitude of superiority of humans over other species, so I simply commented that humans are not superior to animals - and given the prevalence of certain disgusting human behaviours, perhaps being dumb, is even an advantage, a compliment. What's highly acceptable as human behaviour is often not acceptable at all.

If you want to criticise homosexuals, please do so on other grounds, but don't insult the good animals, who are often better than humans.

As an example, may I remind you of Proverbs 6, verse 6: "Go to the ant, lazy man; consider her ways and be wise"!

Philo,

Sex is private. Marriage is public. Sex does not become public when it is practised by a married couple. Simple enough for you to understand?

Homosexuals do not justify their sexual behaviour on the homosexual behaviour of animals any more than heterosexuals justify their sexual behaviour on the heterosexual behaviour of animals. The point about animals engaging in homosexual behaviour was raised as a rebuttal of your ludicrous assertion that homosexuality is unnatural.

The Acolyte Rizla,
What you have intimated about homosexual activity in other species bears only scant relation to human homosexuality, as there are generally quite different causative mechanisms operating, though there are some parallels.

In some instances there is clear indication of genetic defect - as in the case of some male domestic sheep, probably as a result of selective breeding. In other cases, including in birds, there are group and species survival imperatives operating, and which most significantly are of instinctive origin, rather than conscious decision.

There are parallels in whale and dolphin species, but the individual and group survival necessities operating could be considered quite different - as in younger male animals forming male only groups, and practising the motions of sexual activity to master the techniques involved - and given the strenuous and potentially life-threatening competition involved in achieving mating rights, and with limited mating opportunity, it is understandable that sparring and technique practising should be commonplace. Few, if any, such survival and procreational imperatives could be seen to apply to the human species however.

It does however appear that sexual tension is not limited to humans, and various relief mechanisms may be employed.

The sexual activities of Bonobos in particular bears little relation to human homosexual behaviour, as Bonobos use sexual interraction as a group as well as individual bonding mechanism, don't form monogamous relationships, and the principal homosexual activity is female-female, which is a key bonding mechanism, as Bonobo communities appear to be matriarchal.

It is possible of course that most of the factors at play in the animal kingdom are also operative in human homosexuality in one way or another, including instinctive response, genetic defect, male-male sparring (carried to a new level), and the operation of female matriarchal dominance instincts.

The key difference is that humans are expected to rise above instinctual response, and apply rational reasoning in the best interests of the group, tribe, civilisation. Such imperatives clearly are no longer a prime motivation in our liberated society. Though gay marriage may not be threatening, societal fragmentation is.

Philo, while you are re-thinking your assertion that anything done with hands or feet is natural, could I ask if you'd give the same response to my assertion that playing a wind musical instrument, such as a trumpet or a clarinet is unnatural, but can be morally good? Will you say that anything done with the mouth is natural?

The discussion of animal homosexual behaviour is only relevant while people are supposing that what is unnatural is morally wrong. Once this spurious assumption is dropped, the issue changes.

Starting point: Some humans find that they are sexually attracted to others of the same sex. A proportion of those are also attracted, sometimes to a greater degree, sometimes to a lesser (often much lesser) degree to people of the opposite sex.

Is there any good reason why any of those should not engage in sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex? (I think not.) Then what are the moral requirements for sex; and are there any moral differences between gay male sex, lesbian sex and heterosexual sex? Well, yes, there are some. But not such as to make any of the varieties automatically wrong.

The next step is to ask what marriage is good for--not what it has been used for (a long and complex story--and by no means has its principal purpose always been the production and support of children) but what good it may achieve, and at what cost.

Saltpetre,

What I intimated about homosexual activity in other species was that it occurs.