As she says, “Just because animals do certain things doesn’t prove that we necessarily do them too.” But sometimes humans can be compared to other animals, and the comparisons have weight. We might be able to get some good ideas from them.
She points out that animals flirt, they masturbate, they watch other animals express their sexuality, even through video.
They exhibit habits other than monogamy. They are polygamous and polygynous. And they are social monogamists as well as serial monogamists, even swans. Bonobos, for example, have multiple sexual partners at any given time in their life. And some species even engage in group sex. When red-sided garter snakes mate, the female is made the center of what is called a mating ball, where 100 males all attempt to mate with the female at the same time.
People exhibit habits other than monogamy. Although not always socially accepted, people partner in a variety of ways. Many of those ways have proved to be perfectly healthy.
Also,
They are homosexual as well as heterosexual. Marine birds, mammals, monkeys, great apes, dolphins, penguins, cattle, bonobos and rams are just a few of the many animal species in which scientists have observed homosexual behavior.
Humans are homosexual as well as heterosexual, obviously. And each is perfectly normal and absolutely biological. Once again, the only issue in human society is our lack of acceptance of both orientations.
She goes on to note that some animals have sex for pleasure, some will seek out additional sex partners if the current one is not interested in another session at that time, some over-indulge, and there are female initiators. And I’ll add that anyone who has had closely related hamsters can verify that some animals engage in consanguineous sex.
Consenting adults should have their rights to any of these things, without the law interfering.
My cats engaged in consanguineous sex, and although I found it a bit strange at the time, the kittens are perfectly healthy and normal. I realize my experiences may be anecdotal, but I have never seen any reason why consanguinamory should be branded as illegal because of a moderately increased chance of genetic defects. First, the risk, although increased, still remains minimal. Secondly, we wouldn't try to deny people the right to procreate if they have a disability, or an increased chance of getting cancer, for example. Largely, birth defects within inbred individuals tends to lower over time, as natural selection culls these characteristics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
ReplyDeleteNow there are other potential things to consider within consanguinamorous relationships, like it's effect on families (which obviously doesn't apply to GSA couples). However, these things are highly anecdotal and circumstantial, and only a psychologist could say whether incest has any true negative effect on the specific family. Most of the time, it doesn't. In some cases, incest can be the result of a dysfunctional family environment, but that is merely a manifestation of an existing problem, and incest in itself may not be problematic. Sure, you could say that a dad f****** his three year old is most definitely not beneficial to the family, but that's abuse- it's not consensual and completely irrelevant. It's a bit like trying to compare a loving couple to rape. Of course, a lawyer might say the members may not have the right to consent, but in most parent-offspring consanguinamorous relationships, it's between unrelated GSA adults. What about minors you say? Well, a brother can' exactly force his brother or sister to have sex with him, now can he? It's obviously consensual! No, don't get me started on the right to consent bullcrap that some jurisdictions like to babble about when dealing with "underage" sex, consent is determined by intelligence and mental maturity, not by a specific number of birthdays.
Also, another argument that springs up on occasion is "but in-breeding results in reduced genetic diversity that is derogatory to our evolution" since in-breeding constitutes less than 1% of the population, in part due to the Westermarck effect, that point is essentially moot. I'm not even going to go into the subjective arguments of "I think it's disgusting".
Thanks, Alex B. I appreciate your comments.
DeletePurebred animals are bred to their siblings and parents into order to amplify or prolong certain genetic characteristics.
ReplyDeleteThis is theorized to be the reason some breeds Golden Retrievers have a 1 in 3 chance of getting cancer. Labrador Retrievers have similar problems with cancer. Hip dysplasia can be exacerbated or propagated by inbreeding. That said, I don't see any similarities between dogs and humans, (M.Sc. in Animal Husbandry.), and I doubt the relationship between consanguineous breeding and cancer in canines.
Alternatively, I've had 7 dogs of the same breed, one of which was the result of consanguineous breeding. Every dog bred independently got diffuse lymphoma or lung cancer. Both of which are untreatable in canines. The one who's parents were brother-sister died of old age...
Why is it that people with religious blindness grab at every straw that appears to support their particular religious point of reference, and for many, their point of religious reference constantly changes?
ReplyDeleteWell, Keith that's the case here. Did you know that lumping all animal sexual behavior into a generalization goes directly contrary to honest science? Did you ever contemplate how one-sided your "supporting" "evidence" here is? Instead of supplying honest science with all views and reasons for those views, your material here excludes any and all fair representation to the completely valid experiences and arguments against your views.
Are you Democrat, by chance? Republican? Or, like me, have you done your homework and discovered the political system is a rigged social engineering project designed to occupy everyone's attention while the owners of those social engineers go about destroying every liberty people are born to enjoy?
Please, Keith, grow up and begin to think for yourself, not some social engineered idiot working behivd a curtain hiding a covert "1984-esque" world of induced fantasies designed to keep citizens from doing their own thinking.
BTW, go read "1984." The insight it shares from a man himself inside this hideous system is scary.