The Bonobo: An Unwitting Pawn of the Homosexual Agenda
By Miguel Guanipa (07/26/08)
A most lubricious attempt at mainstreaming bisexuality was advanced some time ago in a provocative essay by science writer Emily V. Driscoll.
Ms. Driscoll related the story of a temporary conjugal arrangement of sorts between two male penguins in captivity and surveyed the available research on the sexually promiscuous shenanigans of the bonobo, a close relative of the chimpanzee, which are known for quenching their sexual appetite with virtually any member of their clan despite gender or genealogy.
In keeping with the central argument of her thesis, Ms. Driscoll did not veer much from the standard arguments about the ubiquitous regularity of what many less enlightened folk obstinately continue to regard as deviant sexual behavior. She counseled on what any marginally educated individual should be required to accept as the natural “malleability of sexual orientation”, implicitly endorsing a moral imperative for the cultural acceptance of divergent sexual practices, and she joined the chorus of respected academics in concert with the premise that the heterosexual trend is merely a social construct imposed on this our modern society which yearns for emancipation from the stifling bonds of tradition.
In her essay Ms. Driscoll recounts the rather peculiar antics of Robert Gramzay, a keeper at New York’s Central Park Zoo, who peered into the fabulous courtship of the aforementioned two chinstrap penguins.
After failing to procure a suitable mate from the opposite sex the two male penguins were compelled by the forces of nature to further enhance what was once a strictly platonic relationship (some argue that reproductive logistics in a state of captivity could have also influenced their choice). They then built a nest into which Mr. Gramzay promptly slipped an egg he snatched from a nearby “straight” penguin couple who were experiencing marital difficulties (the only unsolicited intrusion into this blossoming partnership which the curiously eager Mr. Gramzay admits to having facilitated in his self-appointed role as matchmaker of the beasts).
The story quickly gained national attention and became a standard fare argument in the homosexual community for reaffirming the organic essence of what has only until recently been though of as a disordered sexual proclivity.
Driscoll summons Biologist Joan E. Roughgarden’s groundbreaking research on animal sexual behavior to validate the unusual consequences of Mr. Gramzay’s creative intervention on behalf of the two flightless waddlers. Ms. Roughgarden, a professor at Stanford University, maintains that bisexual behavior is a common occurrence in the animal kingdom, and far too often a culturally suppressed indigenous trait of the human species. She believes along with behavioral ecologist Marlene Zuk of the University of California and Petter Böckman, an academic adviser at the University of Oslo’s Museum of Natural History, that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is a commendable genetic trait of our bipedal ancestors, as it tends to promote a more cohesive environment and ensure the avoidance of conflict and survival of the community. Succinctly put by Emory University Primatologist Frans B. M. de Waal: “The more homosexuality, the more peaceful the species,”
Driscoll also appeals to former football coach turned Sociologist Eric Anderson, who conducted a study in which, allegedly, more than a third of American Football players admitted to having sexual relations with other men. By showing indomitable jocks surrendering to an almost instinctual proneness to engage in homosexual behavior Anderson’s empirical data would put an end to the notion that Homosexual behavior is not what nature intended.
But one can not help but glean a certain bias in the evidence presented by the above mentioned experts as they would all appear, upon closer examination, to have a vested interest in the validation of their conclusions.
Professor Joan E. Roughgarden for example, is one formerly known as Mr. John Roughgarden, prior to his extended sabbatical during which his organ of copulation was surgically removed and his entire wardrobe refurbished; Behavioral ecologist Professor Marlene Zuk proudly introduces herself to her audiences as a feminist biologist; Dr. Eric Anderson’s claim to fame is that he is reported to be the first openly gay male high school sports coach in the US; Zookeeper Robert Gramzay is also an avowed homosexual; Primatologist De Waal’s alleged reports of rampant bisexual behavior in the Bonobos primordial setting are supported by sequences that were actually recorded while in captivity, and Zoologist Petter Böckman, who once organized a lewd pictorial exhibit of homosexual behavior in the wild confessed that the endeavor was unashamedly laced with a “political motive”.
Yet even if we give these scholars the benefit of the doubt and dismiss any politically incorrect accusation of bias associated with their own personal ideology or sexual orientation, there is still the problem of failing to admit that animal behavior is quite significantly altered in the less than primeval milieu of captivity, where it could not be accurately classified as being purely organic.
Ranging from things like eating their own feces to killing their offspring and engaging in incestual relations, animals in captivity have been known to engage in very dysfunctional behavior, due primarily to the adulterated surroundings in which they are forced to coexist.
Furthermore, animals are not known to morally compartmentalize their diverse venues of sexual interaction. They do not consciously separate sexual activity intended for procreation from that which is intended for pure entertainment. It is safe to assume that for them it is all one and the same, unlike humans who fully understand the implications of sexual intercourse and are more than instinctively prone to choose the different sexual activities they can be engaged in order to achieve specific desired results. This is something that Bononos do not possess the necessary cognitive awareness to fully apprehend. Arguably a thesis just as compelling could have been easily advanced by anyone who has had the opportunity to observe many a stray canine in his neighborhood importunely sniffing the hind quarters of another male of his own species.
But if we were to accept as the final word from these scholars that wild animals habitually engage in what we humans have come to characterize as unorthodox sexual behavior - along with their subtle advocacy for progressive sexual enlightenment of their own species - the alleged findings would tend to undermine the evolutionary model upon which their original premise is anchored in the first place.
In other words, why would a - cognitively and otherwise - more advanced species like humans evolve to adopt the sexual practices of a presumed kindred species that is manifestly proven to have peaked at a lower developmental gradient on the evolutionary chain? The real answer to this question is that humans know better, but I suspect that evolutionary biologists have already though of a much more exotic repartee to this objection.
In the end the dubious claims from these academics in support of the notion that bisexuality (presently a trendy segue into the subject of homosexuality) is a genetically ingrained condition of the human race serve only to illustrate the lengths to which some will go to justify the compulsory social acceptance of their personal sexual eccentricities; but mostly as confirmation to the old adage that a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
