|
A couple of thoughts related to different arguments in this thread:
1. Whether or not homosexuality is present in non-human animals is not that important to the question of whether or not a "line" should be drawn. If homosexuality is natural, it doesn't make it right, (or wrong). Many phenomena are natural (cancer, scarlet fever, childbirth, respiration, peniccilin, etc.). Their "naturalness" doesn't make them good or bad.
2. As others have suggested, humans are animals. In addition, humans are not "more evolved" or "higher" than any other species.
3. I personally don't by the group selectionist model for homosexuality forwarded by reii in post #7. The kin selection (benefitting genetic relatives) argument forwarded by others is more convincing to me, but I think that the jury is still out on the question of whether or not male homosexuality is an biological adaptation. The biological basis of female homosexuality is even less certain.
|