From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:02:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.141239.22840@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>In article <C03vn5.77K@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>>  >Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, the
>>  >statement that it is a lifestyle choice is scientifically questionable,
>>  >but if it is, so what?  Christianity, meat-eating, and monogamous
>>  >marriage are not dictated by nature--they are all lifestyle choices.
>>  
>> I don't know who wrote this but a lot of folks are taking it at face
>> value, I would like to this statement supported. I for one do not
>> believe it.  *every*  I think not.
>
>I have been unable to locate the file containing the extensive list of
>references, so I went to my local used book store, pulled a half-dozen
>books off the "Animals and Nature" shelf, and found that homsexuality in
>various mammalian species was discussed in Herbert Wendt's THE SEX LIFE
>OF ANIMALS (1965); Susan Michelmore's SEXUAL REPRODUCTION IN HUMANS,
>ANIMALS, AND PLANTS (1965); and Francois Bourleiere's THE NATURAL
>HISTORY OF MAMMALS (1954).  Michelmore cites instances in several
>mammalian species (including such varied species as mice, elephants, and
>dolphins, in answer to one poster's question).  Wendt also refers to the
>large body of study in this area regarding primates in particular done
>by H. C. Bingham, C. R. Carpenter, G. V. Hamilton, A. J. Kempf,
>A. H. Maslow, Robert M. Yerkes, and S. Zuckerman.
>
>Note that this was found simply by checking the half dozen books that
>happened to be in one used book store at a given time.  It would seem as
>though finding further documentation in this area would not be
>particularly difficult, but if I find the more complete file, I will
>certainly post it.

But this still hardly justifies the absolutism of homosexuality being
observed in *every* mammalian species.  Just a minor tsk. 8-)

>
>Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
>--
>"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
>say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
>find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
>of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
>the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
>-Nathan Engle

This is kind of disingenous.  Historically only a commander had sufficient
impact on a campaign, battle, conflict to personally affect its outcome.
Through most of history such impact was the result of choosing
advantagous terrain, or through force of will to rally his troops to break
an enemy attack, or sustain an attack.  And while there are plenty of 
instantances where the commander was not up to the task at hand, and some such
commanders are believed to be gay (Edward II for example), to subscribe their 
defeat strictly to their homosexuality is myopic.  What is more likely and 
harder to substaniate is the loss of a unit due to an individual's
action/inaction.  And while I'm sure there have been occasions where a
soldiers homosexuality inhibited his performance, there are just as many if
not more instances of green troops, as well as hardened soldiers cracking
under pressure.  In WWII it was called Shell Shocked.  In Korea, Combat
Fatigue.  Today we call it Delayed Stress Syndrome.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13594 talk.abortion:55173