And then there’s our cousins the primates
And in this great big gay debate there’s our cousins the primates, who seem to go at it in wild abandon.
Primates: Not surprisingly many observations of non-human homosexuality have been of our fellow primates. Homosexual mounting is, in fact, “common in monkeys” (Edwards & Todd, 1991) and has been described in detail in many species, including rhesus monkeys, stumptail macaques (Mitchell, 1979, pp. 134 &142), Japanese macaques (Mehlman & Chapais, 1988; Mitchell, 1979, p. 416) and others. In a study of stumptail macaques in captivity, 23 of the 143 sexual encounters observed by Chevalier-Skolnikoff were female-female, often resulting in orgasm (Small, 1993, p. 141).
While comparatively less common in “higher” primates (Edwards & Todd, 1991) homosexual mounting has frequently been observed. Male-male mounting in the great apes has been described in chimpanzees, bonobos, mountain gorillas (Wrangham, 1986, p. 367; Yamagiwa, 1987; Yamagiwa, 1992; Edwards & Todd, 1991) and pygmy chimpanzees (Savage & Bakeman, 1978). Male-male mounting in lesser apes (siamang and gibbons) has been observed in Hylobates syndactylus and Hylobates lar (white-handed gibbons) (Edwards & Todd, 1991).
In many primate species same-sex mounting is far more than incidental and should not be dismissed as an unimportant aberration (Small, 1993, p. 143). Female bonobos have been observed to choose genital-genital rubbing with another female over copulation with a male. During one season in which 58 bonobo females were observed, 45 “engaged in homosexual activity” and some were exclusively homosexual (1993, pp. 144-145). Yamagiwa observed 98 homosexual mountings in male mountain gorillas; these were both ventro-ventral and dorso-ventral encounters (Yamagiwa, 1987).
An unchosen preference: There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertions that homosexuality is a choice (De Witt, 1992), the overwhelming majority [yeah, like in 100% of us] of homosexual males and females indicate they never chose to become homosexual, but that they are that way innately (SteveD41, 1993, “Evidence”; Greg Bear, 1993). Those who would dismiss this point make the untenable mistake of believing in synchronized mass dishonesty, rather than accepting the stated feelings of homosexuals as indicators of (at least partially) natural biological drives.
I couldn’t say it better – what the NO GAYS movement seems to believe in is: “the untenable mistake of believing in synchronized mass dishonesty” We ain’t making this up, folks.
Statistical information gathered from interviews with large numbers of American homosexuals and heterosexuals reveals a quantitative presence of feelings of difference in pre-homosexual children. [they’re not “pre” – they’re gay.] Children who mature into adult homosexuals are behaviorally different from their pre-heterosexual counterparts in many ways, exhibiting “gender nonconformance,” a refusal to act out traditional gender roles, from the age of 2 or 3 on, [because we’re not “pre-”] as well as a number of other developmental differences (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981). The innate sex drive of homosexuals is so powerful a determinant of their behavior that many choose to respond to it, even while facing intense social and cultural pressure not to. Said one homosexual male [and a million, tens of millions even,] “our need to love others of our gender is innate. There is no choice involved” (Anecdotal accounts include: Leavy, 1993; Alex, 1993; SteveD41, 1993, “God made “).
A second anatomical difference was subsequently discovered by Dr. Laura S. Allen and Dr. Roger A. Gorski of the University of California at Los Angeles. Allen and Gorski found that another brain structure, the anterior commissure, a “cord of nerve fibers that allows two halves of the brain to communicate with one another, is larger in homosexual men than it is in either heterosexual men or in women.”
Even with the increased number of studies being conducted, the “question of the basic origin of fixed homosexuality remains controversial” (Ellis, 1992). The trend is towards identifying biological factors which may lead to a predisposition for homosexuality, [it’s not “pre-” anything, it is.] while leaving the door open for environment and experience as determining factors in individual behavior. [Of which there is not a shred of evidence to back up, and everything mitigating against it, except how each gay guy responds to the negativism that is hurled at him.]
And the only moral element in this is that no one is teaching young gay boys to be morally responsible — except for some gay men like me who are pleading with them to find prince charming and settle down. We are, of course, then accused of “recruiting” and “indoctrination.” It’s balderdash. We’re trying to make better men of them — gay men, but better. The rest of the nation seems to be adamant in teaching young gay boys and teens and men that they are sex crazed heathens hellbent on destroying society, or ill, sick, demented, depraved or somehow if they would just shush and go away without a word of comfort they will grow up OK. And despite this barrage of negativism, we do indeed grow up OK.
There is a time for everything. It’s time to break this spell of negativism about gay people — and for the moral and political leaders of this nation to find something good with us. Talk to your flight attendant, your hairdresser, your interior designer — he might know something of the issue.
- Posted in: Uncategorized