I found this article interesting more for the fact that everyone seems so surprised that homosexuality could exist in a "natural" state. The implication that human culture and behavior is so far removed from nature, that the human animal is so separate from our evolutionary next-of-kin that our rules and experiences are absolutely non-applicable to other animals, is, evolutionarily, ridiculous.
What animals do — what’s perceived to be “natural” — seems to carry a strange moral potency: it’s out there, irrefutably, as either a validation or a denunciation of our own behavior, depending on how you happen to feel about homosexuality and about nature. . . . “A lot of zoologists are suspicious, I think, of applying the same evolutionary principles to humans that they apply to animals,” Paul Vasey, the Japanese-macaque researcher, told me.
This bias towards regarding human experiences as something completely incomparable to the experiences of animals, even in ration-and-reason-obsessed science, is irrational and unreasonable. Humans are animals; animals with strange evolutionary adaptations, granted, but still subject to the same forces that created all forms of life. And, as such, it is silly to disregard the possibility of things like emotions, thought, sensation, and even sexual choice--for whatever reason and due to whatever complicated, controversial science-y factors that we haven't quite figured out yet (and do we really expect to find the absolute answer, really?).
The only people who should be honestly, truly surprised by the phenomena of homosexual pairings in non-human animals are people who honestly, truly don't believe homosexuality is something that happens naturally.
No comments:
Post a Comment