NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering what everyone thinks about this. It seems there are 450 plus species of animals indulge in homosexual behaviour.

feel free to read from the source http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/27/1090693965406.html

But people have this annoying tendency to believe that humans are somehow above other animals.

I always knew something was up with those damn flamengos...

It doesn't prove that it's part of any plan, but it lends support to the idea that it is a natural phenomenon and that it isn't a choice.

I think animals being homosexual show that there just might be a heredity link to it, that's all.

I mean, it's possible that the environment just took over where God left off... and there we have it, gays!

God gave everyone free agency to do anything they want. Why wouldn't animals have the right. Just because theres a whole bunch of animals that are wrong in the head doesn't make things right. Some animals eat there spouse. Does that mean someones allowed to eat their spouse? (You know what i mean, dont even take it that way)

I honestly don't know if animals can be truly homosexual, as it would go against their basic instincts, ie mating to continue the species. It may be true, but whose to say if animals are logical creatures who know what they are doing. Maybe they are confused. Human homosexuals and animal homosexuals maybe different because how do we know if animals can experience feelings of pleasure and love?

i think it shows that gay animals are a part of gods plan. it says nothing about gay humans

God gave everyone free agency to do anything they want. Why wouldn't animals have the right.

So does that mean gay animals are sinning?

Who knows, like HannibalSmith said they might not even know what they are doing.

I don't know, does God approve of killing and eating your babies because animals do it?


BTW, I don't think that God gives two shits who your shagging, as long as you're a good person...though I'm sure some Christian nut will have something to say about that.

Edited for clarity.

I honestly don't know if animals can be truly homosexual, as it would go against their basic instincts, ie mating to continue the species. It may be true, but whose to say if animals are logical creatures who know what they are doing. Maybe they are confused. Human homosexuals and animal homosexuals maybe different because how do we know if animals can experience feelings of pleasure and love?

Actually, I think it's been shown that only three species of animals have sex purely for fun and enjoyment of the act itself; humans, dolphins, and bonobos, but this information could be outdated now.

Actually, I think it's been shown that only three species of animals have sex purely for fun and enjoyment of the act itself; humans, dolphins, and bonobos, but this information could be outdated now.

not outdated at all, actually even more supported. animals most certainly are homosexual, both in act and in "lifestyle." bottle-nose dolphins, for example, do not form life-long heterosexual pair bonds, they merely come together briefly to mate and then separate, but they DO form life-long homosexual bonds that are only briefly interrupted by perfunctory heterosexual interactions for procreation.

Some animals also steal, bully weaker specimens, kill each other over women, and eat their own poo for that matter. That doesnt make it right.

Furthermore, the difference between humans and lesser animals is we know right from wrong, and can control urges we know are wrong.

So no, gay animals dont excuse human faggary any more than stealing animals excuse human larsony.

I don't know about "God's" plan (as an agnostic), but they are apparently part of natures plan...though, due to our igenuity, we have achieved a situation that other animals never could - homosexual animals (exclusively homo-, not bi-) cannot reproduce. Through IVF and other technologies, humans can.

simple animals are horny, and stupid. no animal is only gay. sure they may seem gay but every male animal will mate with a female. animals are stupid, its the same reason a dog will hump human's leg.

Actually, I think it's been shown that only three species of animals have sex purely for fun and enjoyment of the act itself; humans, dolphins, and bonobos, but this information could be outdated now.

I've seen a walrus masturbate, so I'm pretty sure he gets fun and pleasure out of sex. And with many other animals, biologists have tried to reason for years that homosexual behaviors were confused animals or were animals that were showing dominance. This view is being challenged quite a bit now, though.

simple animals are horny, and stupid. no animal is only gay. sure they may seem gay but every male animal will mate with a female. animals are stupid, its the same reason a dog will hump human's leg.

Actually, they have done studies where they separated an animal pair-bonded with a member of the same sex from its partner and presented it with opposite-gender options and it would not choose them.

There are also transexual bighorn sheep which act like the females in every way (even traveling with the female herd and rejecting any advances from another male when mating season is not occuring) except for, of course, having a penis and all that.

I call it mutual masturbation. Sort of like prison sex. Just because you find the occasional animal that does it, doesn't make it right. Animals can under-develop or have anomilies in their gene pool too! Some animals clean there arseholes with their tongues! I have one, it's called a cat!

I call it mutual masturbation. Sort of like prison sex. Just because you find the occasional animal that does it, doesn't make it right. Animals can under-develop or have anomilies in their gene pool too! Some animals clean there arseholes with their tongues! I have one, it's called a cat!

What if homosexual mounting is actually the norm in a population? It is in bighorn sheep. Does that mean every single male bighorn sheep that isn't a transvestite is an poorly developed?

Actually, they have done studies where they separated an animal pair-bonded with a member of the same sex from its partner and presented it with opposite-gender options and it would not choose them.

There are also transexual bighorn sheep which act like the females in every way (even traveling with the female herd and rejecting any advances from another male when mating season is not occuring) except for, of course, having a penis and all that.

Okay, and they have studied that if you raise sheep with dogs the sheep act like dogs so whats your point.

Okay, and they have studied that if you raise sheep with dogs the sheep act like dogs so whats your point.

I'm talking about occurences in normal, wild populations. You are talking about occurences in domesticated animals. The two are different.

What if homosexual mounting is actually the norm in a population? It is in bighorn sheep. Does that mean every single male bighorn sheep that isn't a transvestite is an poorly developed?

Sorry, I don't know anything about big horn sheep. Are they found near nuclear test sites on places like that?

I guess my point stands that it remains an anomily in the animal kingdom.

I'm not going to bother pushing the "We are above animals card". I understand objections to that.

it's usually just a show of dominance (especially for males). as to the bighorn sheep, that's just weird. i can't explain that. maybe they're just weaker and feel more protected (as the stronger males will protect the weaker females form predators).
dogs will hump your leg as a way of expressing dominance and ownership. sort of like he's saying, "who's your daddy now, bi-atch!?"
:p

I'm talking about occurences in normal, wild populations. You are talking about occurences in domesticated animals. The two are different.

huh? in your othe quote you said "they" separated them from there pair. that is not a normal occurance in the wild

huh? in your othe quote you said "they" separated them from there pair. that is not a normal occurance in the wild

That was a specific experiment designed to see if the animals were just confused and/or couldn't find a different-gender mate. Because the animals not only refused opposite gender mates, but when presented with both male and female possiblities, actually still chose same-sex bonds, it was obvious that the normal (couldn't find a mate) explanation was untrue.

But homosexual pair-bonds have been observed in the wild in many, many species (thus not really an anomaly).

I don't know, does God approve of killing and eating your babies because animals do it?


BTW, I don't think that God gives two shits who your shagging, as long as you're a good person...though I'm sure some Christian nut will have something to say about that.

Edited for clarity.
Yes, we should just kill off every Christian who is wrong, no sarcasm, but truly, a christian, and anyone for that matter can go to heaven, aslong as you have a good relationship with jesus christ, but thats as religious I'm gunna get. This wannabes waving their hand as if they actually felt the power of God command them to. These people thinking they can heal, saying its a gift from god. They are truly going to Hell, I will make sure of that, I'm not sure how, but I will! If I'm going down, no sense in going alone, although I do get my own special section in Hell, due to the fact I am the worst Villain this world has ever seen. These religious freaks are freaks, no redeeming qualities, they will only serve the purpose of delivering god's message, in a horrible misinterrpreted way. John, the baptist is surely rolling over in his grave. If God loves everyone, then homosexuals count, and they will go to heaven.

From what I have seen homosexuality amongst animals is a rarity. Bisexuality by contrast is both common and sensical. The male female union is the menas to procreate but let's face it males and females are designed differently physically, emotionally and hormonally. We see this same behaviour in the 'male bonding' of homo erotic sports such as football, rugby, soccer and etc. We see further evidence of this in the bonding of women and the common agreement that women can rely on their girlfriends and share an intimaxy with other females that is not usually attainable between sexes. If we look at lions wesee that the male is predisposed to wander and mate with many females while the females often group together and share child rearing responsibilites. Humans are the same the male drive is to have sex with as many women as possible while the female is typically more selective (yes this has been changing with the advent of birth control and social programming) because of the time and energy involved in child bearing. The heterosexual monogamous partnership is simply a means to indulge the weak male majority. Consider if we supported our instincts then only the smartest, strongest and most capable males would mate and children would not be raised by a couple or as is common now by a single. Children would be raised by one male and a group of females. Further should women choose the traditional lesbian (read bisexual) route as espoused by sapphos they would have fulfilling and nurturing sensual/sexual relationships with other women who would undertsand them and provide for them in a way men have not. Further their heterosexual desires would be satisfied by the roaming male. I think it endemic of our culture that the anthrocentric mindset has convinced women to settle for men who they dont want for fear of being alone and that those men most prone to non-monogamous lifestyles are pressed into entering single person relationships that they eventually cheat within as they are contra to their being. Further that women would choose to limit themselves to relationship styles that subject themselves to a single lover who is physically and hormonally incapable of truly understanding them. So, yes if there is a god, it is part of I'S plan. We have the inherent desire to build lasting relationships in social groups which is safer than living independantly and to seek to fulfill ourselves through these relationships. In the case of the male having sex for pleasure with females and if so desiring with males and for women to have fulfilling sex lives with both sexes while being able to share the strongest genes to ensure their children are as likely to survive as possible. Further with the pressures of living in a crowded world the male,male homeoerotic bonding allows women to have two or more males partners who are similarly strong and capable which allows the men an even greater pool of potential mates and helps prevent the over development of specific gene patterns. DIversity is after all strength.

Some animals also steal, bully weaker specimens, kill each other over women, and eat their own poo for that matter. That doesnt make it right.

Some animals protect their children to the death, is that also wrong for humans to do?

Some animals protect their children to the death, is that also wrong for humans to do?

The point is that animals do many things that we consider immoral, and they do many things that we consider moral. Why should we look to the animal kingdom to justify our morals when their morality (if they even understand the concept) is completely different from ours?

The point is that animals do many things that we consider immoral, and they do many things that we consider moral. Why should we look to the animal kingdom to justify our morals when their morality (if they even understand the concept) is completely different from ours?

Give a 'D'!
Give me an 'U'!
Give me a 'H'!
What does that spell?

The point is that animals do many things that we consider immoral, and they do many things that we consider moral. Why should we look to the animal kingdom to justify our morals when their morality (if they even understand the concept) is completely different from ours?

The occurence of homosexuality amongst animals does not morally justify it, it is simply used to counter the statement that homosexuality is unnatural. It occurs in nature, so it is natural.

As for those saying it is rare, it has been recorded in 450+ species. That may well be small in relation to the number of species in the world, but is large in terms of the number of species for which we have recorded heterosexuality. Yes, we can presume it occurs, but it hasn't been recorded.

If a male dog puts its nose up another male dog's butt, is that gay?
(same sentence, but replace male with female)?


What if one panda sticks his willie in another pandas ear?

Plan? This cluster-fuck of random nature in action has been planned?

Yikes!

I need to speak to the foreman.

What if one panda sticks his willie in another pandas ear?

That'd make me a sad panda... :(

That'd make me a sad panda... :(

hehe :D

hehe :D

You find my suffering amusing? Sadist.

You find my suffering amusing? Sadist.

I'm sorry. Well at least he isn't sticking it in your butt like those damn koalas and bonobo chimps do.

I'm sorry. Well at least he isn't sticking it in your butt like those damn koalas and bonobo chimps do.

Oh those damn koala's! I'll get them some day! *shakes paw* :mad:

Humans are just animals that have the brain capacity to analyze their actions. Attraction has nothing to do with our intelligence, but instinct deep inside. You don't see a hot girl and think, "Beautiful face, hot @ss, big breasts." You just think wow first and then you analyze why you know that she's hot. You're programmed to subconsciously be attracted to someone and then your brain can sort out the reasons why. Animals just go for it.

The only ONLY reason that some people think that homosexuality is wrong and "unatural" is because the church and society has told us that it is wrong for so long, that we've just grown to accept it as a fact.
If you are religious in the way that you follow some of what the bible says word for word, then you are bound to believe that it's wrong because you've been told it is by your faith. I for one, think it's something completely natural... Like others have said, 450+ animals take part in homosexual acts. I think that sexual satisfaction and reproduction are completely different things, so if you find that you're more sexually satisfied by being with the same sex then so be it. I mean, how many people look at other men/women and think they are attractive? Everyone does. It's just that some people will find them more attractive than others do.

From what I have seen homosexuality amongst animals is a rarity.

There are at present 450 animals which practise homosexuality with fair regularity, 150 of which are birds. Lesbians are rarer than homosexual males.

It is not nonsensical since in many species, such as bonobo monkeys, it helps knit social groups more closely together since the females live in one group and the males another. In animals which often conflict with each other yet must stay in the same herd, such as some type of antelope having males which regularly contest, sometimes violently, for a female, this becomes particularly important.

John, the baptist is surely rolling over in his grave.

I find that highly unprobable, since he was executed for condemning the relationship Herod had with his sister in-law.

The occurence of homosexuality amongst animals does not morally justify it, it is simply used to counter the statement that homosexuality is unnatural. It occurs in nature, so it is natural.

Just because it is natural for other animals doesn't mean it's natural for humans. It's perfectly natural for praying mantis' to eat their young, but it is not natural for humans to eat their young. I don't care that 150 species of birds exhibit homosexual behavior, because they can naturally fly - humans can't. If you want to prove that human homosexual behavior is normal, then look to humans, or monkeys at the very least.

As for those saying it is rare, it has been recorded in 450+ species. That may well be small in relation to the number of species in the world, but is large in terms of the number of species for which we have recorded heterosexuality. Yes, we can presume it occurs, but it hasn't been recorded.

Hetersexuality does not need to be recorded, because animals procreate and further their species either by heterosexual or asexual means. If a species is currently alive, then by logic it practices either heterosexuality or asexuality. You can't make that assumption with homosexuality, since it does not lead to the continuation of a species. Therefore, homosexuality needs to be recorded.

Just because it is natural for other animals doesn't mean it's natural for humans. It's perfectly natural for praying mantis' to eat their young, but it is not natural for humans to eat their young.

This has happened a couple of times actually, so it is actually perfectly natural for a human person to eat its young.

I don't care that 150 species of birds exhibit homosexual behavior, because they can naturally fly - humans can't.

The Wright Brothers have proven you wrong.

Humans are not some magical force extricated from nature. We are a part of nature as much as anything else is; everything we do is "natural" and as such using it as a measure of legitimacy is ridiculous, as is declaring a facet of humanity as "unnatural": the tools we create, the ideas that occur to us, the actions we commit, the shelter we design - all of it is a part of nature, whether we deem it good or bad.

Populations evolve, not individuals. A number of examples have been given where homosexuality would be beneficial to a society, it would also serve as a limiting factor on population growth were that population in an area with limited resources. As such it is possible that homosexuality could be propagated through genes, although obviously we don't know the exact causes of homosexuality in humans.

Personally I consider it a bit of a non-issue. I fail to see how homosexuality in of itself would appear to lower or twist any affection and emotional bond between the two people into anything different than heterosexual couples feel.

Hetersexuality does not need to be recorded,

You've missed the point. The fact remains that we know next to nothing about the mating practices about the vast majority of even the most studied of species. The simple fact that most of the animals we have been observing and testing are domesticated may mean we never know of their sexual practises outside of the confines of domestication and selective breeding. This makes it likely that any sexual practise we do look and record for is going to barely be the tip of the iceberg in terms of sheer numbers. Furthermore the fact that some populations propagate themselves makes no mention about the proportion of homosexuals within that population, and therefore the limited number of heterosexual and bisexual members in comparison.

Some animals also steal, bully weaker specimens, kill each other over women, and eat their own poo for that matter. That doesnt make it right.

Furthermore, the difference between humans and lesser animals is we know right from wrong, and can control urges we know are wrong.

So no, gay animals dont excuse human faggary any more than stealing animals excuse human larsony.

That doesn't make it right? You're trying to apply human morality to the animal kingdom, and that really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Using your reasoning, all predators are going to burn in eternal hellfire for "bullying" and, *gasp* MURDERING animals that are weaker than they are.

My advice to you: learn something about the lower species on this planet. Or, better yet, become a missionary at a wildlife sanctuary. Try to convince a cheetah to give up gazelle for Lent.

"Faggary" and "Larsony?" Those sound like Gaelic surnames.

This has happened a couple of times actually, so it is actually perfectly natural for a human person to eat its young.

Then why do most people think it's wrong for a human person to eat it's young? What is okay in one species' isn't neccessarily okay in another.

The Wright Brothers have proven you wrong.

No they haven't. Planes are an external means of flying, birds possess an internal means of flying. A human in and of himself cannot fly, a bird can (unless it's a penguin or something).

You've missed the point. The fact remains that we know next to nothing about the mating practices about the vast majority of even the most studied of species. The simple fact that most of the animals we have been observing and testing are domesticated may mean we never know of their sexual practises outside of the confines of domestication and selective breeding. This makes it likely that any sexual practise we do look and record for is going to barely be the tip of the iceberg in terms of sheer numbers. Furthermore the fact that some populations propagate themselves makes no mention about the proportion of homosexuals within that population, and therefore the limited number of heterosexual and bisexual members in comparison.

No, I haven't missed the point, I just don't find it valid. It is proven that all animal species participate in either a heterosexual or asexual manner because they have not died out. Or am I forgetting another method of reproduction of the animal kingdom? We cannot make that simple assumption with homosexual behavior because it does not lead to reproduction. Therefore, to prove that homosexual behavior is a common occurence in animals in nature, it has to be documented. There is no way around that. It may very well be that homosexual behavior is present in nearly all species, but at this point that is an unproven hypothesis.

here we go some more liberal, politically correct propaganda trying to convince us that male male and female female can go together even though they are not anatomically compatable. Ill say my opinion on the matter and probably get flamed for with stupid crap like "u suxOrz u stoopud faag111 lolol" but anyways I do not think that homosexuality is part of Gods plan. In the bible it does say "If any man lays with another man as he lays with a woman or a woman lays with another woman as she lays with a man they shall both be put to death." Yes its harsh, yes I am a bible thumper, no I dont hate gay people, yes I do hate stupid people who think I hate gay people. There is my $0.02

No, I haven't missed the point, I just don't find it valid. It is proven that all animal species participate in either a heterosexual or asexual manner because they have not died out. Or am I forgetting another method of reproduction of the animal kingdom? We cannot make that simple assumption with homosexual behavior because it does not lead to reproduction. Therefore, to prove that homosexual behavior is a common occurence in animals in nature, it has to be documented. There is no way around that. It may very well be that homosexual behavior is present in nearly all species, but at this point that is an unproven hypothesis.

Yes, you have missed the point. Just because we know that animals propagate, but we don't necessarily know with what frequency and exactly what mating "rituals" are involved until we study it. In most of the species that biologists have studied in depth, homosexuality has been observed. In fact, in giraffes, heterosexual sex has *never* been documented in the wild. No one is saying that that means it doesn't happen, but people love to say "we haven't seen homosexual sex, so it doesn't happen," which is an equally invalid claim.

In the bible it does say "If any man lays with another man as he lays with a woman or a woman lays with another woman as she lays with a man they shall both be put to death." Yes its harsh, yes I am a bible thumper, no I dont hate gay people, yes I do hate stupid people who think I hate gay people. There is my $0.02

I'll be a bible thumper too, so I'll sell my daughter into slavery (one day when I have one) as long as she only has to serve seven years unless he marries her. And I'll go buy some foreign slaves. When I beat them, if I poke their eye out by accident, I will set them free, as per the Bible's instructions. Also, if I ever hear that a woman was raped inside the city where I live, I will go and stone both her and her rapist, as per the Bible's instructions. I will also call for the death of all Iraquis, since the Bible instructs armies to "show no mercy" and kill every man, woman, and child.

Oh, wait.

I'll be a bible thumper too, so I'll sell my daughter into slavery (one day when I have one) as long as she only has to serve seven years unless he marries her. And I'll go buy some foreign slaves. When I beat them, if I poke their eye out by accident, I will set them free, as per the Bible's instructions. Also, if I ever hear that a woman was raped inside the city where I live, I will go and stone both her and her rapist, as per the Bible's instructions. I will also call for the death of all Iraquis, since the Bible instructs armies to "show no mercy" and kill every man, woman, and child.

Oh, wait.
Don't forget, no eating those fucking shellfish (http://godhatesshrimp.com/).

Lets face it, the bible is FUCKING STUPID

Then why do most people think it's wrong for a human person to eat it's young?

Because most people don't automatically correlate what is "natural" with it automatically being legitimate, because they recognise that doing so would automatically legitimise rape and murder and everything else humans naturally do.

In history, some adult humans have eaten their young, in some cases it's happened fairly recently. The fact that it has happened in this universe automatically means it is a natural event and this is an inescapable fact - anyone with a morality surrounding what is "natural" is going to either have to dump this ethical framework or accept baby eating as a good thing.

That baby eating is natural says nothing about our sense of ethics, which may condemn something for being overly forceful, for it being something we wouldn't like to experience ourselves, for it to fit a cohesive framework of logic, for doing so would automatically make us appear better in the eyes of our peers, due to a visceral reaction which has not been properly analysed, (such as our immediate, unanalysed disgust,) or even because of a misconception that something which is uncommon or repugnant is automatically "unnatural", as if such a person could still exist!

What is okay in one species' isn't neccessarily okay in another.

Sure. The problem being that I wasn't asserting otherwise: "all of it is a part of nature, whether we deem it good or bad."

No they haven't. Planes are an external means of flying, birds possess an internal means of flying. A human in and of himself cannot fly, a bird can (unless it's a penguin or something).

The fact that mankind has constructed elaborate tools as a means of flying does not change the fact that mankind has developed the natural ability to fly. Can we fly in planes? Yes. That it isn't internal is irrelevent, should we similarly condemn porcupines as being unnatural for masturbating with a stick, chimps for using a shoot to go termite and ant hunting? Pidgeons and rats for nicking our buildings as shelter?

No, I haven't missed the point, I just don't find it valid. It is proven that all animal species participate in either a heterosexual or asexual manner because they have not died out.

Well this is a problem, because you've missed the point again. That all species in the animal kingdom propagate themselves is true, otherwise as you quite rightly say they would die out. The point was that this does not automatically mean that the entirety of said populations is hetereosexual - that a significant proportion of a species that clearly propagates itself may be homosexual. Our findings thus far, given the limited scope of studies into animal sexuality at even the fundamental level of knowing how animals reproduce or court when not being thoroughly broken in by humans, ensure that it is exceedingly likely that homosexuality is more widespread than we think.

Steel Legions:
here we go some more liberal, politically correct propaganda trying to convince us that male male and female female can go together even though they are not anatomically compatable.

How on Earth are females and females or males and males not anatomically compatible? They sure as Hell don't seem to have any problem bringing each other to orgasm.

Lets face it, the bible is FUCKING STUPID

Now, now, I didn't say that. I merely suggest that the Bible is a human tool, and every person must decide for themselves (generally through prayer contemplation if you are actually interested) which parts are truly inspired by God and which were just a bunch of guys who thought they knew what God wanted writing out of their asses.

Now, now, I didn't say that. I merely suggest that the Bible is a human tool, and every person must decide for themselves (generally through prayer contemplation if you are actually interested) which parts are truly inspired by God and which were just a bunch of guys who thought they knew what God wanted writing out of their asses.
They're laws for things that don't apply. Christians generally ignore OT law.

They're laws for things that don't apply. Christians generally ignore OT law.

Yes, most do - but fundies only ignore it when it doesn't help them yell "eye for an eye" or "gays are bad!"

here we go some more liberal, politically correct propaganda trying to convince us that male male and female female can go together even though they are not anatomically compatable.

Not anatomically compatible? I don't want to be crude, but often when humans have sex, they use other parts of their bodies beside their sex organs. Digits, tongues, etc. These extra-genital stimuli aren't exactly compatible in a biological sense. Do you engage in sex purely for procreation? Do you only utilize the missionary position as dictated by scripture? What about foreplay? And I'm just talking about male/female intercourse.

Man, Christians must have the most boring sex-lives.

Lets face it, the bible is FUCKING STUPID

kind of like yourself, hippies, the dixie chicks, paris hilton and john kerry.

here we go some more liberal, politically correct propaganda trying to convince us that male male and female female can go together even though they are not anatomically compatable.

Could you please explain what in the fuck a woman is supposed to do to get at my prostate short of donning a strap-on and pegging me? It's logically supposed to be stimulated by penile penetration.