Is Nature Gay?

[Dimmesdale]

And if so, what does that prove about humankind?

If there is gayness in animals, some believe that seems to determine that for humans it should be fine also. But this is a non-sequitur.

This assumes that humans are simply another animal and that there are no other factors involved -- such as a rational/discerning will, and a higher purpose to existence over and beyond instinctual behaviors.

I don't think for a moment that animals "sin" when they display homosexual or other polyamorous sexual behavior. But this is far from saying that this should apply to the human, as a "writ large" generality that Nature as a whole is omni-tolerant.

Rather, I think of polyamorous animal sex as "Nature's Infinite Concession" to creatures of a lower order. In other words, just as you would tolerate the immaturity of a child, because it is lacking in so many departments, so too we should tolerate and even admire the subrational and finitized behaviors of lesser living entities. They are what they are. But humans on the other hand, can decide who they are.

There's the element of free will again. Hope it sticks.

[AgnosticBoy]

Is nature gay? (from thread title)
As in if homosexuality is a product of nature vs. nurture? Both of these contribute to homosexuality.

And if so, what does that prove about humankind?

Something being natural would only prove how things are but not how things ought to be. To say otherwise falls into the is-ought fallacy

If there is gayness in animals, some believe that seems to determine that for humans it should be fine also. But this is a non-sequitur.

I question if sexual orientation applies to non-human animals. Even if one could be applied, I'd even question if we could reliably call it gay or straight since some animals may engage in one type of sexual behavior (same-sex or opposite-sex behavior) for some time, but then engage in an opposite sexual behavior at another point in time. Take for instance the two gay (or thought to be gay) male penguins, Silo and Roy. The two were a mating pair for 6 years until Silo left to mate with a female penguin.

Either way, just because something is natural (by default) for non-human animals, doesn't automatically mean that it's natural for humans. As I also brought up earlier, even if something is natural, that doesn't always make it right. For instance, it could be natural but harmful (e.g. infanticide committed by male lions).

This assumes that humans are simply another animal and that there are no other factors involved -- such as a rational/discerning will, and a higher purpose to existence over and beyond instinctual behaviors.

I do believe we have free-will to some degree but it's sort of indirect. By that I mean we're able to manipulate the determining factors (environment and biology) to achieve a desired goal, possibly any desired goal with the only limitation being knowledge (i.e. knowing how to do it).

Either way, nothing you've said shows that homosexuality is right or wrong. Don't know if that was part of your point. Even if it could, I'd then question if nature is enough to extract objective moral values from seeing that there's an epistemic issue (knowing which morals, having correct deductions/application from them) and ontology (objective morals need to apply to all Universe and not just humans - otherwise what's point in being good if it doesn't ensure a good life - we could get hit by an asteroid no matter how good mankind is).

I think that's enough theorizing for one day.

[Purple Knight]

Rather, I think of polyamorous animal sex as "Nature's Infinite Concession" to creatures of a lower order. In other words, just as you would tolerate the immaturity of a child, because it is lacking in so many departments, so too we should tolerate and even admire the subrational and finitized behaviors of lesser living entities. They are what they are. But humans on the other hand, can decide who they are.

There's the element of free will again. Hope it sticks.

This is a totally valid distinction between human and animal, for those who accept that animals are really lower and can't help what they do.

But the question then is not why can humans be expected to do better when animals cannot, but if heterosexuality is better than homosexuality in the first place. You've placed animals in this lowly space where they're just going to do whatever they're made to do. It then becomes obvious that they are made to, at least sometimes, gratify their urges in a way that does not result in offspring. They masturbate too. And mallards? Don't get me started on mallards. So if animals are hardcoded to do these things, why do they need to be excused by the animal's lowly nature?