http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
I found this pretty interesting. Finally I can prove to gay bashers that homosexuality is NOT unnatural considering the fact that it occurs in nature! At this point there are very few arguments against it.
Old news im afraid and nothing really new
Yup. And the worst part is, even with this proof (the fact that it doesn't seem to be well-known yet notwithstanding), the bashers still say homosexuality is wrong. Mainly because they outright reject any natural proof of this sort when presented with it.
I don't support it, but I certainly don't go around looking for gays and yelling in their face "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL."
I actually think homosexuality in animals is somewhat amusing. I had gay lizards, once. >.>
I had a gay dog
Ohh everyone said that Zues trying to mount my sisters pit bull was a dominance thing but I don't buy it. The would french kiss, I don't mean licking each others faces I mean licking each others tongues.
I don't know about French kissing, but I do know that mounting
is a dominance thing for dogs.
Also, I suppose the problem with attempting to justify homosexuality to those who will refuse to believe it is similar to any debate about religion v. science. It reminded me about this quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spagetti_monster):
Quote from: Bobby HendersonI think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
No matter how much evidence you can present, someone somewhere will always choose to stick to their beliefs.
And I think that also proves that animals don't only rely on raw instinct.
Yeah I had a gay dog in my house once. the funnier part being he kept trying to hump my non-gay dog and so making him really angry
There was a scientist who wrote a paper concerning the gay necrophilia he saw ducks exhibit. It won him an ignoble prize.
Hate to burst your bubble, but simply because animals do it doesn't make it normal. In fact, the percentage of pure homosexuality (ie, the animal will not show sexual responses to the opposite sex) in the typical animal species is even lower than among humans.
All it demonstrates is that it is an uncommon trait and that humans are even weirder than most animals. But I've been saying that, like, forever. :P
Like all studies of this nature, it's how people decide to interpret meaning in the data. Purely statistically, primary homosexually in animals is a very anomalous trait, save for a few species such as the all-female lizard species, which are quite abberational themselves.
... or when you put a lot of animals together in too little space, I thought?
Doing such causes an increase in "abnormal" behaviours, like homosexuality, incest, murder, and a belief in an invisible all-seeing, all-knowing person in the sky watching everything you do, or so I understand.
Yes, but animals don't have souls, so it's still only a sin for people to be gaying it up all the livelong day.
There was also that old news clip I read a while back... about how a leopard seal tried to "rape" a male penguin.
it may exists in the animal world, but its quite the rarity.
Alondro, I'm wondering, what would make it 'normal' behaviour?
Quote from: Nelix on June 05, 2008, 12:38:22 PM
Alondro, I'm wondering, what would make it 'normal' behaviour?
I would say when it follows a typical bio-psychological profile for the species as a whole.
IE, when there are as many homosexuals as heterosexuals, and that ratio is caused by natural evolutionary processes rather than artificial social/behavioral pressures, then it's normal.
Geniuses are abnormal too, you know. :3
Homosexuality in animals is old news. Bonobo chimps have up to 50% of their sexual relationships with their own gender.
People who claim it is wrong do so most often because of their religion, often quoting a verse out of their holy book. Christians famously quote Leviticus 18 and 20 ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination." and "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." respectively), while ignoring the rest of the chapter.
If they would be consistent about their faith, they would be condemning people who eat shrimp, lobster, mussels, oysters, etc to hell as well. Leviticus 11 clearly states:
"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
Eating insect is also a path to hell (Lev 11:44), but I've never heard Phelps rave about that either.
The religious claiming that gays go to hell first need to read their own holy books. It would really help if they knew what they believed in.
What about mushrooms? They aren't even in the Bible.
Quote from: Tapewolf on June 08, 2008, 07:42:13 AM
What about mushrooms? They aren't even in the Bible.
I'm an atheist, so my comments are likely biased, but when it comes to the monotheistic religions the general rule of thumb seems to be "If pleasure can be had from it a tall, it will lead straight to hell", so you should ask yourself: do you like mushrooms? Well, do you?
Quote from: Vidar on June 08, 2008, 07:57:46 AM
...the general rule of thumb seems to be "If pleasure can be had from it a tall, it will lead straight to hell", so you should ask yourself: do you like mushrooms? Well, do you?
Work of the Evil One, they are.
Then you're allowed to eat them. ;-]
You can eat locusts and grasshoppers. :P
I don't eat shrimp, lobsters or clams... clams looks like snot inside anyway. Actually, I hate seafood altogether.
Not to mention, with all the mercury and PCB's and other crap seafood's absorbing these days, I wouldn't eat it even if I liked it.
Anyway, once more, homosexual behavior in mammals is fairly common. Exclusively homosexual animals, however, are very rare except in overcrowded conditions or where they are housed only with animals of the same sex for nearly their entire lives.
Bisexuality is the biological norm for primates.
It's common for animals to exhibit bisexuality, but very rare when it comes to being gay altogether! This isn't completely from any scientific backing, this is just from mostly observation of various animal's behavior throughout the years.
look under every guy that is labeled gay it still doesn't change the fact that he's still a guy, yes i personally believe that being gay is a sin, no i don't think that gay people are bad. i would rather hate only the sin and have a good friend than have yet another enemy.
now bisexuality in the animal kingdom could just be the human equivalent to experimenting during summer camp or something.
I actually get rather annoyed, though, when people use what animals do to justify what they're doing.
Many species practice infanticide and cannibalism. Does that make it ok for people too? Somehow, everyone becomes very apologetic when it comes to matters of sex.
Of course... if cannibalism is ok cuz animals do it... VORE... yessssssssss... :veryevil
Naturally, I'm kidding. Basically, I'd just be happy is people everywhere learned some damned self-control! Humans have a big freakin frontal cortex and it'd be nice to see more than 1% of the population using it for a change!
PS: I'm still a virgin. My biological instincts have been crushed by my sheer willpower! The insanity helped too! I rewired the primitive amygdalar arousal pathways to only be turned on by furries, which don't exist, therefore I can never be tempted!
Of course now I have to use my genetics knowledge for evil and create a perfect, glorious, god-like leonine furry race to whom I shall gladly offer myself as a sex slave, which will obviously then trigger Armageddon somehow... meh, ya win some, ya lose some. :/
PS: It's too hot today. ;)
Quote from: gh0st on June 09, 2008, 03:20:14 AM
look under every guy that is labeled gay it still doesn't change the fact that he's still a guy, yes i personally believe that being gay is a sin, no i don't think that gay people are bad. i would rather hate only the sin and have a good friend than have yet another enemy.
Your reasoning for hating homosexuality are based on your personal religion. That's fine, as long as you don't expect everyone else to behave according to your personal beliefs.
Unfortunately, there are too many people who arrogantly think that their religious beliefs give them the authority to force other behave according to their own beliefs.
Telling gays that homosexuality is a sin, and that they will burn in hell is the equivalent of calling African Americans "niggers" in terms of hate speech. It may be your personal beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, but that does not give anyone the right to tell them where they go after they die. That right would lie with the God the religious profess to believe in, and not his followers.
Gh0st, I don't know if
you say such hurtful things to homosexuals. I'm just trying to make a point here.
Quote from: gh0st on June 09, 2008, 03:20:14 AM
now bisexuality in the animal kingdom could just be the human equivalent to experimenting during summer camp or something.
In that case bonobo's do a hell of a lot of experimenting. >:3
Quote from: Tapewolf on June 08, 2008, 07:59:07 AM
Quote from: Vidar on June 08, 2008, 07:57:46 AM
...the general rule of thumb seems to be "If pleasure can be had from it a tall, it will lead straight to hell", so you should ask yourself: do you like mushrooms? Well, do you?
Work of the Evil One, they are.
I love mushrooms.
I'm going to hell when I die. :<
Quote from: rabid_fox on June 02, 2008, 07:39:41 PM
Yes, but animals don't have souls, so it's still only a sin for people to be gaying it up all the livelong day.
Is it wrong that I laughed hysterically the first time I saw this, and still do to this day?
~Keaton the Black Jackal
Heh, if I go to hell, it won't be becuase I'm gay... It will most likely be becuase someone pushed me a little to far and broke the wall holding up the pent up rage only a life of pacifism could create...
On a brighter note... Gay feral smexies?
Just read this. How interesting.
Alberta Council of Stupidity (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704)
So now the offended person can file charges against private religious citizens for their opinions and have the government force payment. I guess Canada doesn't have that 'separation of church and state' thing.
Now, I'd love to see what they'd do if a Muslim in Canada denounced homosexuality.
Quote from: Alondro on June 11, 2008, 10:13:58 PM
Alberta Council of Stupidity (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704)
I applaud this. It's about time one of those wacko evangelicals got it stuck to them.
I
would like to see a Muslim, or any other fundamentalist guy for that matter, throw a fit and get their asses handed to them as well.
I hope Fred Phelps moves to Canada >:3
Quote from: techmaster-glitch on June 11, 2008, 10:26:51 PM
Quote from: Alondro on June 11, 2008, 10:13:58 PM
Alberta Council of Stupidity (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704)
I applaud this. It's about time one of those wacko evangelicals got it stuck to them.
I would like to see a Muslim, or any other fundamentalist guy for that matter, throw a fit and get their asses handed to them as well.
I hope Fred Phelps moves to Canada >:3
Uhm, what about freedom of speech? This is not a case where there was any physical attack. It was one person's opinion. The government doesn't even have any business getting involved.
And frankly, my point about the Muslim is that they would never have dared to do prosecute in any fashion, lest suicide bombings commence. :B
Quote from: Alondro on June 11, 2008, 10:37:01 PM
Uhm, what about freedom of speech?
Actually had a project on this recently. Now, there is the freedom of speech. The question is; is there also freedom...of hate speech?
I'm just saying, there
is a point when it goes too far. Too much of a good thing and all that.
If someone disagrees with homosexuality, that's fine. It's their own choice what they want to do. When they start carrying crusades and beat on about "all gays go to hell" and that shit,
that is where the line must be drawn.
Freedom is speech is not "Say whatever you want." What freedom of speech does is it protects certain kinds of speech.
Ah I see. And who gets to decide what speech is allowed and which isn't? Some enlightened social elite? I'm sure they would never choose only to fine those who happened to be against things they favored, while allowing their buddies to rant and rave constantly, and then make excuses for or ignore any violence that does occur.
Freedom to express one's opinion is the very core of the freedom of speech right. You cannot start restricting the expression of public opinion without undermining the entire social philosophy.
It's amazing people can't see the dangerous precedent something like this sets. When a government starts imposing fines for nonviolently expressing beliefs, you're not far away from birthing a communist or fascist regime.
Quote from: Alondro on June 12, 2008, 09:48:16 AM
When a government starts imposing fines for nonviolently expressing beliefs, you're not far away from birthing a communist or fascist regime.
Wait, so Canada's going to become communist/facist?
Oh snap! xD
Quote
See the map, they're hoverin' right over us
Tell you the truth, it makes me kinda nervous
Always hear the same kind of story
Break their nose and they'll just say "sorry"
Tell me what kind of freaks are that polite?
It's gotta mean they're all up to somethin'
So quick, before they see it comin'
Time for a pre-emptive strike!
...I think I'm getting
way off the original topic :B
Quote from: techmaster-glitch on June 12, 2008, 11:37:41 AM
Quote from: Alondro on June 12, 2008, 09:48:16 AM
When a government starts imposing fines for nonviolently expressing beliefs, you're not far away from birthing a communist or fascist regime.
Wait, so Canada's going to become communist/facist?
Oh snap! xD
In 1932, who thought Germany would threaten the world? In 1998, who thought terrorists could destroy the World Trade Center? I reiterate what I have said countless times, learn REAL history, learn how quickly democracies can disintegrate, and how little it takes for freedoms to be snatched away. When the masses are weak-willed, it only takes the proper charisma and trickery to lead them whichever way one wishes.
Once a precedent is set, everyone who's been waiting for the right opportunity will pounce upon it. Just look at the loopholes that are exploited to get criminals off the hook. Those things never worked long ago, until one single case succeeded and set the precedent. Common sense goes right out the window. No one ever questions whether perhaps a mistake was made in the judgement. The legal precedent is all that matters. And each time is one step closer to edge of the cliff.
Quote from: rabid_fox on June 02, 2008, 07:39:41 PM
Yes, but animals don't have souls, so it's still only a sin for people to be gaying it up all the livelong day.
HOW can you prove that animals dont have a soul? do they not feel love? do they not feel hate? do they not feel disappointment? id say they had a soul. Every liviing thing imo has a soul. Although it depends on the brain how primitive you are along with your bodys instincts. but the soul could always be there. Just the body has simpler thoughts.
This is why i HATE catholics and others "animals go to hell because they dont have a soul" Oh really? if thats all they go to hell for? Then NOBODY gets into heaven NOBODY!
which is worse? not having a soul or stealing something or perhaps killing something? So its ok to kill animals because they go to hell anyway and we will go to heaven because they dont have a soul?
yea im blowing it all out of proportion but hope you get my point.
Question, Anepo. How do you know animals feel love?
Quote from: Alondro on June 12, 2008, 03:59:02 PM
In 1932, who thought Germany would threaten the world?
Actually, Hitler always said his main goal was to conquer the world, but everyone thought "he was just joking." The Europeans then decided to just appeased him until he had enough resources to declare war and win against the European powers outright. The U.S. tried to stay out of European political affairs until we were attacked by the Japanese.
It's one of the reasons we in the U.S. refuse to become isolationists again, nobody else is willing to snip the psychotic dictators in the bud and they will actually rally to the defence of genocidal maniacs if the U.N. is any precedent.
Quote from: techmaster-glitch on June 11, 2008, 10:46:42 PM
Actually had a project on this recently. Now, there is the freedom of speech. The question is; is there also freedom...of hate speech?
I'm just saying, there is a point when it goes too far. Too much of a good thing and all that.
If someone disagrees with homosexuality, that's fine. It's their own choice what they want to do. When they start carrying crusades and beat on about "all gays go to hell" and that shit, that is where the line must be drawn.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it."
That's been the U.S.'s stance on this matter.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on June 21, 2008, 04:37:27 AM
Question, Anepo. How do you know animals feel love?
They do feel grief. If you have a pair of dogs together from puppies, when one of them dies, the other will lapse into depression and IIRC often stops eating. Dogs support embarrassment as well.
Now there is of course the question of whether they really do feel it or whether they just act as if they do, but that opens up a whole other can of worms, e.g. "How do I know a other humans feel love?"
As for animals not having souls as part of Catholic doctrine, I have no idea where that even came from. The Bible has at least one reference to doves having souls. Though it could be a metaphor of course.
Quote from: Tapewolf on June 21, 2008, 08:52:41 AM
Now there is of course the question of whether they really do feel it or whether they just act as if they do, but that opens up a whole other can of worms, e.g. "How do I know a other humans feel love?"
Oh, come on, Tapewolf. How can I trap him with the fun ones if you keep sidestepping them for him? ;-]
Quote from: Anepo on June 21, 2008, 02:14:29 AM
Quote from: rabid_fox on June 02, 2008, 07:39:41 PM
Yes, but animals don't have souls, so it's still only a sin for people to be gaying it up all the livelong day.
HOW can you prove that animals dont have a soul? do they not feel love? do they not feel hate? do they not feel disappointment? id say they had a soul. Every liviing thing imo has a soul. Although it depends on the brain how primitive you are along with your bodys instincts. but the soul could always be there. Just the body has simpler thoughts.
This is why i HATE catholics and others "animals go to hell because they dont have a soul" Oh really? if thats all they go to hell for? Then NOBODY gets into heaven NOBODY!
which is worse? not having a soul or stealing something or perhaps killing something? So its ok to kill animals because they go to hell anyway and we will go to heaven because they dont have a soul?
yea im blowing it all out of proportion but hope you get my point.
Hell needs burnt-fur-smell. It's a thing people dislike. Natural process, this whole thing.
...If they don't have souls, why do you assume that they go to Hell? Wouldn't it make more sense for a thing with no spirit to not continue in any way after death?
No, no, no, no. They go to hell BECAUSE they have no souls. Anything without a soul gets a free ticket to damnation. Anything WITH a soul can choose where they go.
Damned badgers.
Nothing has a soul!
The Cubi ate them all already.
:<
If animals don't have a soul, then what part of them would go to hell? I thought hell was a place where the souls of those who don't go to the right church got to after they die. :erk
Quote from: Vidar on June 23, 2008, 01:09:59 AM
If animals don't have a soul, then what part of them would go to hell? I thought hell was a place where the souls of those who don't go to the right church got to after they die. :erk
Actually most churches simply say "evil people" go to hell, with the rules as to what constitutes "evil" being, for the most part, a universal list comprised more of "crimes against the community" rather than any innate religious doctrine.
Those that accuse certain faiths of "going straight to hell" are typically a very small, ignorant, and vocal minority.
Also, lets remember that not all religions require a "church." Some have temples or mosques or ziggurats....
Everyone goes to hell.
It's called 'Earth'.
:P
A "soul" itself is a abstract thing, and none in here should try to tell others what they think about it. Well, one can always share hir opinion, but not force it to others.. Debating is encouraged, but arguments should be based on facts or evidence. To argue which is better, ice cream or cotton candy is pointless. Fun, perhaps, but without an end.
To the topic of homosexuality. Few generations ago it was considered a disease. Now, it is more of a "way of life". I do not know if anyone can "born" as homo, but it is know that genes might have something to do with it. Siblings, parents and even more distant relatives, homosexuality runs in families. Of course, in these cases the spark might come from action patters. Monkey see, monkey do. After all, that's how human mind works. Perhaps this could be a good reason, why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.
I'd like to point out that as I mentioned earlier, gayness was considered a mental illness not too long ago; much like pedophile is today. Don't be so quick to judge those, who cannot accept homos. Can you image a day, when pedophiles will have their own parade?
Quote from: Omega on June 24, 2008, 03:56:41 PM
Monkey see, monkey do. After all, that's how human mind works. Perhaps this could be a good reason, why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.
Quote from: GatorGSAObviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
(sourced here (http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/12reasons))
Quote from: Omega
I'd like to point out that as I mentioned earlier, gayness was considered a mental illness not too long ago; much like pedophile is today. Don't be so quick to judge those, who cannot accept homos. Can you image a day, when pedophiles will have their own parade?
NAMBLA would certainly have it that way, but I think they've been reduced to a fringe group now. Not that I support them, mind you.
I suppose that some of it comes down to genetic predisposition, but also what the majority of people agree with. For instance, it may well be possible to be genetically predisposed to being a serial killer, and while that doesn't make it right, you could at least try to plead insanity at trial. But if you take say, African-Americans, they're genetically predisposed to being black, and they're a minority, and I believe that the majority of people in this country now agree that segregation is bad. Maybe not the best example, but hopefully you get my point?
Not my theory, really.
I was only talking of possibilities. The chances of turning out to be a gay becomes greater, if statistics are to be believed in, in families that has relatives who are homosexual. That doesn't mean that you are one if your uncle is.
Quote from: modelincard on June 24, 2008, 05:59:29 PM
Quote from: Omega on June 24, 2008, 03:56:41 PM
Monkey see, monkey do. After all, that's how human mind works. Perhaps this could be a good reason, why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.
Quote from: GatorGSAObviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
(sourced here (http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/12reasons))
Wait, what?
*groan*
I didn't mean that if the parents are gay, the children will
indubitably become gay too, but the risk is probably/definitely higher. Not to mention the lack of certain role model. If the kid turns out to be straight, it might cause the same problem as being a gay in straight family. It all comes down to details. You can't judge gay as a single group. People are different. Some gay people might be fit to be parents, other won't. But the fact remains that the couple cannot fill the missing gender and therefore the child might become alienated from it.
Let me put it this way.
Would you let an anarchist adopt a baby? Or ex junkie? Jehovah's witness? Scientology? None of above are sickness nor anything condamnable, but I doubt that parents are able to raise the children unbiased. Hell, I probably can't, after I'll get a larva or two. But I will try to keep 'em open minded as long as I can. (which itself is one kind of brainwashing)
Not my problem really, but deep down in my heart, I might feel bad for the kid.
Ah, lordy.
Gays, bisexuals and heterosexuals are all useless tossers. Here's the inside scoop - sexuality is entirely passé in the 21st century if you live in the Western World, except as leverage. Nobody cares anymore, unless they've got something else to prove and are using where the penis lands as a pathetic excuse for it.
Sexuality is a NOTHING. Stop making a big deal out of it. Nobody cares.