NationStates Jolt Archive

From the article, "The Animal Homosexual Myth":

-- Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior

Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:

There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]
Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]
Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]



Full article: http://narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

Yes, the source may seem questionable on a scale of biase. However, the points raised in the article appear to be credible assertions, if not complete proof that homosexuality in animals is a "myth", as the title would suggest.

If you accept the evidence presented in the document as valid, the article does not necessarily speak against human homosexuality or gay marriage (although it was clearly the author's intent). It does, however, dispel the proposition that homosexuality should be accepted because of its occurence in nature (if you are to accept the author's observations and conclusions as fact). Regardless, the arguments against homosexual relationships will remain the same even if one is to accept the research article as factual. It simply challenges the "born that way" idea about how homosexuality originates. As an alternative, many other authors on the website offer psychological explanations as to why some people develop attractions to the same sex. These other articles and research presented on the site do raise some credible points themselves, although it does take some sorting out to find the objective ones from the subjective ones.

*sob* WHY oh WHY would you do this to General?

*sob* WHY oh WHY would you do this to General?

Far, far worse has been done.

Anyways, it's all animal behaviour that winds up being productive for the rest of the species, though don't confuse me saying that as believe I'm saying that as it ending up as it being conducive to reproduction in and of itself.

[I]-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist

Does the phrase "explain away," sound familiar to you?

It means explaining why something is so in such a way as to suggest that it isn't. In this case it's saying "animals don't engage in homosexual behavior, they just perform sex acts with members of their own sex."

It says that bonnobos are fairly pan-sexual and a horny dog will go after anything that moves (or in the case of some unfortunate pieces of furniture, some things that don't). Long story short, a huge part of sex is just a collection of urges that have an undeniable effect on our behavior. We don't necessarily understand them, but we can't deny them, so we shouldn't outlaw them or make those moved by them in ways that lie at the outsides of the bell curve act as though they are second-class citizens.

a horny dog will go after anything that moves (or in the case of some unfortunate pieces of furniture, some things that don't).
Hahaha.

Oh man, that's why I would not want a male dog. Unless it was really little, then it would be more funny than anything.

Recipe for Thread Flambee:
Ingredients:
Half a brain
A sheltered middle class upbringing in a neophyte culture
Healthy Contempt for others
Desire for attention and approval


Create a title. This is much like making a crust, except you use the following easy form:
"How come (Insert demographic) always think (Insert Opinion)?"

Include veiled implication that (Inserted Opinion) is of course, a completely invalid idea, and that anyone forcefully asserting their beliefs is a singleminded zealot incapable of reason. Bake at 450 F on a multiracial/denominational/gendered forum ten seconds and let stand.
Serves any number of guests.

I'm a little confused as to what exactly it is you are saying. Are you saying that society should not accept us, or that society should not accept us on behalf of homosexualitie's presence in animals because a study done 9 yrs ago suggests a possible explanation for homosexuality in certain species of animals?

"-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist "

and

"Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]"

Can't he make up his mind?



"It does, however, dispel the proposition that homosexuality should be accepted because of its occurence in nature"

Whoever claimed that?

<snip>
It simply challenges the "born that way" idea about how homosexuality originates.
<snip>


i don't see how it does that. just because other animals arent born homosexual (as the article tries to suggest) doesnt mean that humans can't be. some animals are born with feathers. we arent. some animals arent born with spines. we are. i fail to see how this article does anything to discredit the hypothesis that homosexuals are "born" homosexual (quotes because it is rather hard to say whether humans are born with any sort of sexuality... it seems more likely that they are born with the genes that will eventually make them either homo- or heterosexual (or indecisive... i mean, bisexual)... oh my, parentheses within parentheses. it must be getting late.)


zzzzzz

Oh man, that's why I would not want a male dog. Unless it was really little, then it would be more funny than anything.
Funny because my female dog does the exact same thing. Except to my leg. And my friends' legs. And my _____'s legs. You get the idea.

I was in high school when it happened.

Most of us were in high school. Our bodies changing, semicontrollable urges. The fear and trepidation of what was happening physcially and mentally. No one really understood, though classes were made available.

I always felt different from my peers. Isolated and terrified of my terrible secret. The attractions I felt towards others were decidedly unnatural. Various prospects made themselves available to me, and though I was pressured to choose, I just couldn't. A few were kind enough to keep my secret when I told them I wasn't interested.

For four years I hid the truth. For four years I refused to accept what I was, hiding behind studies and solitary hobbies. It would have been so easy to go with the flow, to accept what they said, but my body just didn't work that way.

On graduation day, I was titled the valedictorian. My speech was quiet. I worked hard on it. My words were meant to inspire. I recalled my own angst and tragedies to convey how things might be in the world we were walking into. And at the end, I told everyone the awful truth. A hush fell on the crowd as I accepted the real me. I chose to be who and what I am. My parents were stunned. The faculty was embarassed. The students hated me. And all for saying two little words that indicated my chosen sexuallity:

"I'm straight."

What? You don't remember choosing to be straight? Are you sure? If you don't remember choosing straight, how can you be so sure others chose to be gay?

Funny because my female dog does the exact same thing. Except to my leg. And my friends' legs. And my _____'s legs. You get the idea.
I've never had a female dog do that. My old dog used to lift her leg when she went pee from time to time.

A sheltered middle class upbringing in a neophyte culture

ne·o·phyte- n. 1.A recent convert to a belief; a proselyte. 2.A beginner or novice: a neophyte at politics. 3. a. Roman Catholic Church. A newly ordained priest. b.A novice of a religious order or congregation
4.a plant that is found in an area where it had not been recorded previously 5. any new participant in some activity 6. a new convert being taught the principles of Christianity by a catechist

I’m neutral on the argument, but could you explain the use of that word?

I've never had a female dog do that. My old dog used to lift her leg when she went pee from time to time.
We've come to three potential conclusions about my dog:
1. She's transgendered.
2. She's a lesbian.
3. It just doesn't matter to her as long as it's sex.

This article gets a :rolleyes:

I like how he goes from talk about bonobos doing scrotal rubbing to a dogs dominance mounting. The dogs aren't homosexual so the bonobos aren't either?

Hmmmm

If we have to guys doing scrotal rubbings, will people say "Oh he is just showing dominance!"

While I don't think the behavior of bonobos is particularly relevant to the issue of gay rights, it should be noted that, even if you buy its argument, that article seems to ignore known examples of homosexual pairings in animals that mate for life. A pair of male penguins at one zoo (I can't remember which offhand; I'll look for a link) even "adopted" an abandoned egg and raised the chick together (which, personally, I find sort of disgustingly cute... :p ).

[never mind]

Why so defensive? It's a simple article on animal biology/sexuality? Why do so many people assume that this is some sort of attack on their lifestyle?

*confused*

Why do you assume that people pointing out untruths are being defensive?

As far as I know, there are recorded evidences of homosexual dogs, moose, macaques and bisons, in the wild. We can probably find occurrences of homosexuality among other species of mammals. Looks like 25% of animal species have homosexual possibilities! :eek:
It seems that more intelligent species have more control over their sexuality. They're less "pre-programmed", more behavioral.
Many explanations have been proposed for homosexual behaviors in animals:
- Lack of available mates (less powerful male has a hard time finding an available female, so he turns to other males)
- Sexual deprivation (male hormones kick in, but the animal has found no mate and so he tries to mate with another male)
- Mistaken identity (the other male looks like a female, or has female smell/pheromones on his skin)
- Abnomaly in behavior (due to a pathologic condition)
- Population control (nature's trigger)
- True homosexuality

BTW I have never seen homosexuality in animals, but I have seen a moose... well... pleasure himself by rubbing his thingie on a tree. It was mildly disturbing. And the poor tree had a hard time.

lol

Why do you assume that people pointing out untruths are being defensive?
Heh - you quoted me before I decided not to partake in this disussion.

To answer your question, it is obvious from some of the comments here that some people are being defensive.

Anyway, I have decided against partaking in another of these discussions - which is why I deleted my original comments. The whole thing has been debated to death and back.

What? You don't remember choosing to be straight? Are you sure? If you don't remember choosing straight, how can you be so sure others chose to be gay?
I remember choosing to be asexual.

Heh - you quoted me before I decided not to partake in this disussion.

To answer your question, it is obvious from some of the comments here that some people are being defensive.

Anyway, I have decided against partaking in another of these discussions - which is why I deleted my original comments. The whole thing has been debated to death and back.

OMG...

+5 points to New Fubaria!

For exceptional skill in the activity called "Not poking the hornets nest with a short stick."

Recipe for Thread Flambee:
Ingredients:
Half a brain
A sheltered middle class upbringing in a neophyte culture
Healthy Contempt for others
Desire for attention and approval


Create a title. This is much like making a crust, except you use the following easy form:
"How come (Insert demographic) always think (Insert Opinion)?"

Include veiled implication that (Inserted Opinion) is of course, a completely invalid idea, and that anyone forcefully asserting their beliefs is a singleminded zealot incapable of reason. Bake at 450 F on a multiracial/denominational/gendered forum ten seconds and let stand.
Serves any number of guests.

...oooh... I like this recipie... do you have any others?

I remember choosing to be asexual. Sounds to me like it's not choice.
I mean, I couldn't "choose" to be homosexual, so therefore I can't make a choice.

...oooh... I like this recipie... do you have any others?

I still don’t understand why he used the word neophyte. :confused:

Recipe for Thread Flambee:
Ingredients:
Half a brain
A sheltered middle class upbringing in a neophyte culture
Healthy Contempt for others
Desire for attention and approval


Create a title. This is much like making a crust, except you use the following easy form:
"How come (Insert demographic) always think (Insert Opinion)?"

Include veiled implication that (Inserted Opinion) is of course, a completely invalid idea, and that anyone forcefully asserting their beliefs is a singleminded zealot incapable of reason. Bake at 450 F on a multiracial/denominational/gendered forum ten seconds and let stand.
Serves any number of guests.



Recipe for Typical NS poster response:
Ingredients:
No brain
A sheltered middle class upbringing and plenty of liberal documentaries
Healthy Contempt for anything that isn't 100% supportive of degenerate lifestyles
Desire for attention and the approval of the other sheep


Find a non-Politically Correct Thread. This is important because you need to know what to specifically attack. When in doubt use the following easy form:
"How come (Straight White Men) always do/say/think(Something heinous)?"

Include a total assertion that (Inserted Opinion) is of course, a completely valid idea, and that anyone forcefully asserting their beliefs is a singleminded bigot incapable of reason. Bake at 450 F on a multiracial/denominational/gendered forum ten seconds and let stand. Season liberally with the rabid agreement of others.
Wins approval of any number of users just like you.

Recipe for Typical NS poster response:
Ingredients:
No brain
A sheltered middle class upbringing and plenty of liberal documentaries
Healthy Contempt for anything that isn't 100% supportive of degenerate lifestyles
Desire for attention and the approval of the other sheep


Find a non-Politically Correct Thread. This is important because you need to know what to specifically attack. When in doubt use the following easy form:
"How come (Straight White Men) always do/say/think(Something heinous)?"

Include a total assertion that (Inserted Opinion) is of course, a completely valid idea, and that anyone forcefully asserting their beliefs is a singleminded bigot incapable of reason. Bake at 450 F on a multiracial/denominational/gendered forum ten seconds and let stand. Season liberally with the rabid agreement of others.
Wins approval of any number of users just like you.

OOoh, I sense a NS Forum Cookbook coming!

Drakedia, you just made my day. :D

Drakedia, you just made my day. :D

I'm deeply humbled. It's only 2:25 in the morning over here and I already made someones day. I like getting started early I guess.

Anyway it had to be said, a good 90+% of responses in threads like this follow the same basic cookie cutter:

"O Nos! j00 j3st sez d4t h0ms3Xu4|ity 4in't t3h b0mb!!!111oneoneone"

A little sarcasm never hurt anyone... (keyword little)

Sounds to me like it's not choice.
I mean, I couldn't "choose" to be homosexual, so therefore I can't make a choice.
It is a choice. I chose to be asexual, in about 6th grade

The penguins were at either Bronx or Brooklyn Zoo.

As for the arguments about homosexuality in animals and its implications for human sexuality...

The underlying assumption here is that if homosexuality can be proven or disproven in animals it will legitimize or illegitimize human homosexuality.

It's a vexing and difficult argument to enter because it is used in a circular way by people who have a problem with gays and lesbians. I don't use the word "lifestyle" because it's innacurate and odious in this context. Playing golf is a "lifestyle", being gay isn't.

If you're familiar with prejudice towards gay people you'll probably hear:

Homosexuality isn't natural -- it isn't found in nature.

Given evidence to the contrary, the response becomes:

Animals do lots of things, that doesn't make it right for people.

So, my advice is: know what you are getting into if you engage in this particular debate. It goes 'round and 'round as long as the bigotry runs deep.

It is a choice. I chose to be asexual, in about 6th grade

You choose to not have a sexuality. Or, rather to not act on whatever drives you may or may not have.

I realize that asexuality is a somewhat "hot" topic, with recent articles on Salon.com. I won't assume anything about you, or asexuals in general apart from my initial statement.

BUT! (and, it's a big but)

My answer to everyone speculating about whether or not it's a choice: take gay people's word for it. Chances are they know what is going on inside their own minds and bodies better than you do.

You choose to not have a sexuality. Or, rather to not act on whatever drives you may or may not have.

I realize that asexuality is a somewhat "hot" topic, with recent articles on Salon.com. I won't assume anything about you, or asexuals in general apart from my initial statement.

BUT! (and, it's a big but)

My answer to everyone speculating about whether or not it's a choice: take gay people's word for it. Chances are they know what is going on inside their own minds and bodies better than you do.

Exactly. I choose not to have a sexuality. That is a choice. And I've been asexual for a long time. Hell, I haven't even heard of this Salon.com article. I actually made quite a stir here a few months back when I argued against sex.

I find it rather silly how the article is using the example of bonobos to conclude the behavior of all other animals. It would be like saying that Christians can't drink alcohol because Islam is also a religion and forbids it...

From the article, "The Animal Homosexual Myth":

-- Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior

Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:

There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]
Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]
Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]



Full article: http://narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

Yes, the source may seem questionable on a scale of biase. However, the points raised in the article appear to be credible assertions, if not complete proof that homosexuality in animals is a "myth", as the title would suggest.

If you accept the evidence presented in the document as valid, the article does not necessarily speak against human homosexuality or gay marriage (although it was clearly the author's intent). It does, however, dispel the proposition that homosexuality should be accepted because of its occurence in nature (if you are to accept the author's observations and conclusions as fact). Regardless, the arguments against homosexual relationships will remain the same even if one is to accept the research article as factual. It simply challenges the "born that way" idea about how homosexuality originates. As an alternative, many other authors on the website offer psychological explanations as to why some people develop attractions to the same sex. These other articles and research presented on the site do raise some credible points themselves, although it does take some sorting out to find the objective ones from the subjective ones.

True, but animals don't seem to have personality, I would more look towards finding homosexuality in intelligent animals then Bonobos which are known to be as you've said, purely sexually driven, which in turn would discount heterosexuality would it not?

Also to preserve 'born that way' attitudes we have the currently famous "Arm Pit" scent test which seems to be becoming a well added addition to homo arguments etc etc.

I'd like to see study into homosexual sentient animals, elephants, parots, penguins, seals, dolphins (Which are known to have homosexual relationships which span life times, damn wheres my bloody sea world article).

There is a great article on a gay penguin who actually would hang out with the girly penguins, learnt how to preen himself like them and perform mating rituals like the female, I thought that was quite special lol. But yes, some animals shouldn't be used to prove it, there are a few type of rodents that actually have sex with everything until they die after 24 hours of sex. Does that mean having sex with a shrub is natural? I doubt it, though when a male dolphin courts another male dolphin as he would to a female, I take second thoughts.

Recipe for Thread Flambee:
Ingredients:
Half a brain
A sheltered middle class upbringing in a neophyte culture
Healthy Contempt for others
Desire for attention and approval


Create a title. This is much like making a crust, except you use the following easy form:
"How come (Insert demographic) always think (Insert Opinion)?"

Include veiled implication that (Inserted Opinion) is of course, a completely invalid idea, and that anyone forcefully asserting their beliefs is a singleminded zealot incapable of reason. Bake at 450 F on a multiracial/denominational/gendered forum ten seconds and let stand.
Serves any number of guests.

Don't forget the pineapple slices. Everything is better with pineapple slices. :)

Can I step in real quick to note that no one is asexual. One can be celibate, but not asexual. "A" as a prefix for "sexual" is not the same as, say "a" as a prefix for "theist".

In the latter example, "a" means "without", in the former, "singular". It could be argued that someone who only partakes in masterbation is asexual, but as this is more intracourse than intercourse, it doesn't really count.

Can a person choose not to have sex? Sure. But orientation has nothing to do with activity. Gay men and women often have sex with those of opposite genders, sometimes even marrying and having children: this doesn't make them heterosexual. On the flip-side, straight people (especially confused adolescents) sometimes engage in homosexual behavior, but are still heterosexual.

If one says that they are not attracted to anyone or anything sexually, we can suppose this possibility exists. But attraction is not something over which human beings exert much control, and often the "choice" to not have any urges is eventually met with frustration or psychological disorder; unless, that is, steps are taken to "choose" some form of genital or cerebral mutilation.

Imagine a dinner party, three guests and a host. The host brings out a tray with cakes and chocolates. When offered to take from the plate, the first guest says: "I love cake, I'll take some".
The second guest replies "Really? I've always found cake too rich. But I'd love a chocolate."
"See, I find chocolate too sweet." Responds the first guest.
The host then turns to the third guest and asks which he prefers:
"I'm on a diet" says the third guest.
"Fair enough", retorts the host, "but that really doesn't answer the question, now does it?"

My answer to everyone speculating about whether or not it's a choice: take gay people's word for it. Chances are they know what is going on inside their own minds and bodies better than you do.
No according to people who are against homosexuals :rolleyes:

Why should it matter whether it's a matter of genetics, nature, or choice?

If we're going to say that "well, we should only do the things that nature shows us are natural," then we should all strip naked right now, because animals don't wear clothes unless they're in the circus.

And last I checked, I had a functional set of genitals, and free will. Conceivably, there's nothing to stop me from inserting them wherever they may be accepted. Regardless of my genetics or previous preferences.

It DOESN'T MATTER. There's nothing WRONG with homosexuality. PERIOD.

As long as no one is being abused, and as long as everyone is doing what they like, it shouldn't be treated as though it's a problem.

Why should it matter whether it's a matter of genetics, nature, or choice?

If we're going to say that "well, we should only do the things that nature shows us are natural," then we should all strip naked right now, because animals don't wear clothes unless they're in the circus.

And last I checked, I had a functional set of genitals, and free will. Conceivably, there's nothing to stop me from inserting them wherever they may be accepted. Regardless of my genetics or previous preferences.

It DOESN'T MATTER. There's nothing WRONG with homosexuality. PERIOD.

As long as no one is being abused, and as long as everyone is doing what they like, it shouldn't be treated as though it's a problem.


Hear hear :)

Why do you assume that people pointing out untruths are being defensive?

why do you assume they're untruths?

it's just an article on animal behaviour. someone's watched how animals behave and written down what they saw. it's about as close to fact as we can get by just observing animals and it doesn't mean that the article's purpose is to try and undermine homoesexuality in people, or say that it's wrong.

why do you assume they're untruths?

it's just an article on animal behaviour. someone's watched how animals behave and written down what they saw. it's about as close to fact as we can get by just observing animals and it doesn't mean that the article's purpose is to try and undermine homoesexuality in people, or say that it's wrong.
That was absolutely not as close to “fact” as we can get … it was a bunch of un supported and at times seemingly contradictory conclusions drawn from a survey of a small sample size in one species

There are massive flaws not only in statistical nature of their survey (namely it being “large”) but in the way and type of seemingly unsupported conclusions they draw from that data

Can I step in real quick to note that no one is asexual.

Actually, there are glandular disorders which can cause one to never enter puberty. That person would effectively be asexual, I think.

That was absolutely not as close to “fact” as we can get … it was a bunch of un supported and at times seemingly contradictory conclusions drawn from a survey of a small sample size in one species

There are massive flaws not only in statistical nature of their survey (namely it being “large”) but in the way and type of seemingly unsupported conclusions they draw from that data

I'm not saying it's necassarily right. I'm just saying that there's no point getting angry at some guy for pointing out what he saw in animal behaviour. So what if he was wrong? He's talking about what he saw or tought he saw a bunch of animals do. And I'm saying that you can't get hard fact from that, so you can't start attacking it as "untruths" either. No, you can't prove whether or not there are "truly" homosexual dogs but then you can't prove that he was trying to say homosexuality in humans is wrong, either. Even if he's saying that homosexuality isn't natural as part of our animal instinct, doesn't mean he doesn't agree with it.

Gee, from the title I was kinda hoping for a complaint about all them queer critters merrily boffing the "incorrect" gender of their own species and so inviting God's Displeasure.....

Something like: "GAY FUCKING PENGUINS ARE CONTRARY TO GOD's LAW AND WILL BURN IN HELL FOREVER!!!!"


To which, of course, the Penguin replied: "Hey! If you lived in fucking antarctica you'd DREAM about Hades!"


So someone came up with an alternate thesis on why ONE species of ape rubs their genitals? Well goody for them. Rather beside the point though isn't it?

Personally, I rub mine for pleaure, for fun, or sometimes just for no particular reason at all. Has no real bearing on my sexuality.

Oh yeah - and I'm NOT A BONOBO either!!




Never ceases to amaze me what circuitous routes some people will take to justify their bias.

Don't like "homos"? Fine. Whatever. Spend a whole life finding reasons to denigrate and marginalize as many people as you can if you like. I think it's a sad fucking way to live, but it's your choice I guess.

I, on the other hand, don't much care how people get their consensual rocks off. They can do it alone, with people of either (or indeterminate) gender, in groups, with toys, in chains, with pain, quickies, longies, in any orifice, and in any position that turns their crank. Or not.

but why the hell should it matter to me if I ain't the one fucking them?

Oh yeah - and I'm NOT A BONOBO either!!

:eek:

but why the hell should it matter to me if I ain't the one f***ing them?

People who claim religion for their “crusade” against homosexuality need to take a careful look at their own lives. I almost guarantee there is something they could improve in their own relationship with God.

:eek:



No really, it's true. I may be a rude and obnoxious "bonehead", but it ain't quite the same thing...

:D

How exactly does the fact that Bonobos seem to use sex to diffuse situations (something humans often do as well) change the fact that they have homosexual sex? And of course, the article completely ignores the longer term relationships that develop between Bonobos - which may or may not be homosexual.

We also must remember that the "dominance" idea in dogs is no more backed up than the "homosexuality" one - it has just been around longer. We don't know what a dog is thinking when it starts humping. I do know that my (male, but neutered) dog gets humped by any male dog - and rarely humps back.

The article also leaves out, for instance, bighorn sheep, in which homosexual sex is actually the norm and some will choose same sex over the opposite (even during the mating season) time and time again. There are also transgendered bighorn sheep - which are male but act in every possible way exactly like a female - right down to not allowing themselves to be mounted outside the mating season (males normally mount each other year-round).

It leaves out the information that many birds will only pair-bond with members of the same sex, although the norm is opposite-sex pairs. It leaves out the fact that dolphins only form homosexual lifelong pair-bonds. It leaves out the fact that the only sexual activity we have seen in the wild in giraffes is same sex.

I could go on for pages of this....

I remember choosing to be asexual.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, what you chose is to not have sex. You have admitted more than once that you do feel sexual attraction and you do have urgues to engage in sexual activities. You are therefore, not asexual. Sorry.

There is a great article on a gay penguin who actually would hang out with the girly penguins, learnt how to preen himself like them and perform mating rituals like the female, I thought that was quite special lol. But yes, some animals shouldn't be used to prove it, there are a few type of rodents that actually have sex with everything until they die after 24 hours of sex. Does that mean having sex with a shrub is natural? I doubt it, though when a male dolphin courts another male dolphin as he would to a female, I take second thoughts.

Some of the most interesting stuff comes from birds. For instance, several species of birds which engage in homosexual activity have different mating rituals for attracting a male or a female. Thus, the dance for a male to try and attract another male is different from that a male would use to attract a female.

well my little terrier bitch humps just about everything with four legs... namely cats and dogs. she doesn't show much discrimination.

we're pretty sure she just does it for the sensation.

one of the neighbors mentioned that it might have something to do with showing dominance... but with cats? I could understand if she's humping the dogs to show dominance over them... but cats? hmmm.

it is hilarious to see a dog on a cat... lmao. after a few seconds the black cat, Adam, turns around and lightly swats her with a paw and she gets off.

lol

I don't understand why people feel the need to look to animals to figure out whether homosexuality is "natural." Why not just look to other human cultures? As Marvin Harris pointed out in his book Why Nothing Works: The Anthropology of Daily Life,

"Anthropological studies do show quite conclusively nonetheless that relatively few societies place a complete ban on all types of homosexual activities. Therefore, the appropriate question to be asked about societies that instill an aversion to all forms of homosexuality and force their gays into a closet is not why homosexual behavior sometimes occurs (a favorite but misguided theme of psychiatrists, social scientists, and homosexuals themselves), but why it doesn't occur more often. Not why some people find it appealing, but why so many people find it appalling."

By posting this article, I only hoped to see what certain people's opinions on the "naturalness" of homosexuality as proved by animals were and what they thought of the research presented in the article. However, numerous responses in this thread have been absolutely ludicrous, it being obvious that many posters chose to ignore large portions, if not all, of my comments (which were posted under the excerpt from the article in my original post). I don't even feel the need to re-post any of them, because they were already written in the original post, i.e. the beginning of this thread. I never ONCE said that I completely accepted the research in the article as fact, nor that it was justification for discrimination against homosexuals. It continues to amaze me how people see only what they wish to see in order to procure more defensive ranting, essentially "playing the victim." If this is the attitude that some of you wish to adopt, then I am sorry to say that you'll find few new allies in your cause. I myself am not opposed to homosexuality and do not believe that it is inherently evil due to its "unnaturalness" or due to my religious beliefs. Some of you, however, chose to ignore much/all of my comments under the excerpt from the article, and immediately jumped to this conclusion. To the many posters who have responded in a way that criticizes my "implications" in posting this article, I would ask you to carefully read my post again. Furthermore, I would ask people not to choose to quote from my comments and use the selected words entirely out of context and not in relation to the sentences that precede or follow them.

Moving on, I found that the research presented in this article raised an interesting point: that much of the behavior observed in animals is related to a number of variables that it may not always correspond in a human way (such as the idea that animals may not engage in mating-like activity purely due to reproductive or sexually-related reasons). The author of this article has attempted to use his research to correspond with the idea that homosexuality is not an in-born trait and, if you are to read other article on the website, may be triggered by psychological factors, an idea that would in no way discredit homosexual relationships (in my opinion), and is far more credible and researchable than attempting to study creatures that cannot verbally confirm their "orientation."

Regardless of what you may think of the the article that I posted, it is just one article. I'm sure there are others that point in favor of animal homosexuality occuring in an orientation-based way. I'd be interested in reading those, as well.

Moving on, I found that the research presented in this article raised an interesting point: that much of the behavior observed in animals is related to a number of variables that it may not always correspond in a human way (such as the idea that animals may not engage in mating-like activity purely due to reproductive or sexually-related reasons).

You are correct that they may not correspond in a human way, however, the rest doesn't follow. First off, it is rather obvious that it isn't purely due to reproductive reasons - or homosexal activity wouldn't exist - just like in humans. And there is no reason to say that using sexual pleasure to diffuse a situation (something that human beings also do) is not sexually-related. It is using sexual pleasure for crying out loud! It is like saying that masturbation is not sexually-related.

The author of this article has attempted to use his research to correspond with the idea that homosexuality is not an in-born trait and, if you are to read other article on the website, may be triggered by psychological factors, an idea that would in no way discredit homosexual relationships (in my opinion), and is far more credible and researchable than attempting to study creatures that cannot verbally confirm their "orientation."

The author did not use his own research, but used the research of others and tried to "explain it away". On top of that, the author completely ignored the plethora of evidence that is just as available as these cases, but cannot be "explained away" (not that it was actually explained away anyways, as I already pointed out).

And as for reserach "attempting to study creatures that cannot verbally confirm their orientation", that is exactly what this guy did! He is assuming that there must be another explanation for this behavior. Incidentally, that is what the behavioral biology community did for years. They just ignored, or "explained away" what they deemed to be "anomolous" behavior. It is only recently that these behaviors are actually being examined at all.

Do you know how they used to determine the sex of many animals in the wild? They would wait until humping commenced and then assume the one on top was male and the one on bottom was female. It really blew their minds sometimes when the two switched...

Regardless of what you may think of the the article that I posted, it is just one article. I'm sure there are others that point in favor of animal homosexuality occuring in an orientation-based way. I'd be interested in reading those, as well.

I would suggest a book actually that compiles quite a bit of research (although not all that I have read) - Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagehmil. He neither assumes that all behavior is related to a specific orientation nor disputes it, but simply presents the instances of homosexual behavior in animals. You'd be amazed at how widely varied they can be.

I would also suggest some of the reserach in goats, which has demonstrated a link between homosexual orientation (measured by watching what mates an animal chooses - if it always chooses same sex, it is determined to be homosexual) and androgens in the womb.

A point of information: The ancient Greeks used sexual relationships between pupils and teachers to form a stronger relationship between them ( or something like that, I apologise if I'm wrong but my memory is rusty today)

It may be possible that by attaching stigma etc. to sex and making it a private activity we have just narrowed down what we use sex for and we may have originally been much more like bonobos etc. in our sexual practices. Our unnatural labels of sexuality may be the problem in trying to understand this.

Am I just waffling inanely again or did any of that mean anything?

A point of information: The ancient Greeks used sexual relationships between pupils and teachers to form a stronger relationship between them ( or something like that, I apologise if I'm wrong but my memory is rusty today)

Or between soldiers. The lovers' brigade was quite famous - the idea behind it being that if relationships were encouraged between soldiers, the soldiers would fight more bravely as they would not want to be dishonored in front of one they loved.

It may be possible that by attaching stigma etc. to sex and making it a private activity we have just narrowed down what we use sex for and we may have originally been much more like bonobos etc. in our sexual practices. Our unnatural labels of sexuality may be the problem in trying to understand this.

Am I just waffling inanely again or did any of that mean anything?

Makes perfect sense to me. In fact, there have been many views of how sex might have been used by humans and affected human society. For instance, after observing the rather intricate sign language used by certain chimpanzees relating to sex, there have been suggestions that language may have developed out of sexual relations.

"It does, however, dispel the proposition that homosexuality should be accepted because of its occurence in nature"

Whoever claimed that?

Well an arguement I have seen before is people saying "Homesexuality is natural" of course, the opposers say "no it isnt" and the proposers go on to say "Yes it is, it occurs in X, Y and Z animals". Now at this point there are two routes that can be taken. Either the easy or the hard one to dipell this point. The harder one being to disprove the existance of homosexuality in the animals (Point:- I say this is hard but not impossible. It may be the case that there is not homosexuality in animals, I'm not experianced enough on the subject to say. By saying its hard I'm not saying that it isnt true and thus you have to falsify evidence to do it which is hard, I am saying its hard to gather the kind of proof needed to make that point certianly). The easier point to make however is that just because something may exist in nature, that does not make it natural for us to do. In nature, it has been seen that sexual rivialrys can in some cases cause animals to kill one another, or that two animals may kill one another over food. Just because it occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural for us.

Well an arguement I have seen before is people saying "Homesexuality is natural" of course, the opposers say "no it isnt" and the proposers go on to say "Yes it is, it occurs in X, Y and Z animals". Now at this point there are two routes that can be taken. Either the easy or the hard one to dipell this point. The harder one being to disprove the existance of homosexuality in the animals (Point:- I say this is hard but not impossible. It may be the case that there is not homosexuality in animals, I'm not experianced enough on the subject to say. By saying its hard I'm not saying that it isnt true and thus you have to falsify evidence to do it which is hard, I am saying its hard to gather the kind of proof needed to make that point certianly). The easier point to make however is that just because something may exist in nature, that does not make it natural for us to do. In nature, it has been seen that sexual rivialrys can in some cases cause animals to kill one another, or that two animals may kill one another over food. Just because it occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural for us.

Actually, it generally starts with someone saying homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, and only then do people claim it isn't.
I've never heard anyone spontaniously say "gays are ok because dogs are gay too".

Well an arguement I have seen before is people saying "Homesexuality is natural" of course, the opposers say "no it isnt" and the proposers go on to say "Yes it is, it occurs in X, Y and Z animals". Now at this point there are two routes that can be taken. Either the easy or the hard one to dipell this point. The harder one being to disprove the existance of homosexuality in the animals (Point:- I say this is hard but not impossible. It may be the case that there is not homosexuality in animals, I'm not experianced enough on the subject to say. By saying its hard I'm not saying that it isnt true and thus you have to falsify evidence to do it which is hard, I am saying its hard to gather the kind of proof needed to make that point certianly). The easier point to make however is that just because something may exist in nature, that does not make it natural for us to do. In nature, it has been seen that sexual rivialrys can in some cases cause animals to kill one another, or that two animals may kill one another over food. Just because it occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural for us.


So, you're saying humans DON'T kill each other over sexual rivalries or for scarce resources?


Well shit.


Would somebody please hand me all my history books...... and a big fucking vat of White-out? We got work to do.....

O.K. Point taken, there are probably very few homosexual animals. Apparently, though, there are alot of bisexual animals.

The easier point to make however is that just because something may exist in nature, that does not make it natural for us to do. In nature, it has been seen that sexual rivialrys can in some cases cause animals to kill one another, or that two animals may kill one another over food. Just because it occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural for us.

Also, just because something excists in nature doesn't make it bad either.
Animals protect their young, should we humans not do that?

Coming soon to a forum near you. Other good science by NARTH's director; medical doctor and child psychiatrist Dr. J. Satinover. His quantum brain hypothesis, liberalism is a sin and secret mathematical codes in the Torah. :rolleyes:

He's a big fruitcake and so is NARTH.

So, you're saying humans DON'T kill each other over sexual rivalries or for scarce resources?


Well shit.


Would somebody please hand me all my history books...... and a big fucking vat of White-out? We got work to do.....

Nice there. What I said was just because it occurs in animals does not make it natural or right

Also, just because something excists in nature doesn't make it bad either.
Animals protect their young, should we humans not do that?

So then we agree, looking at animals is not a good thing to base our morality on.

So then we agree, looking at animals is not a good thing to base our morality on.

Quite, now if only we could convince others of this.

Quite, now if only we could convince others of this.

It's really only the anti-equality camp that needs that convincing. They are the only ones who ever try to use it as a justification for their actions. The rest of us simply point out how very silly their "argument" is.

And there is no reason to say that using sexual pleasure to diffuse a situation (something that human beings also do) is not sexually-related. It is using sexual pleasure for crying out loud! It is like saying that masturbation is not sexually-related.
I was under the impression that only humans and dolphins engage in sexual activites for pleasure; I intrepreted the "diffusing of the situation" as being a natural instinct unrelated to pleasure for this reason.

And as for reserach "attempting to study creatures that cannot verbally confirm their orientation", that is exactly what this guy did! He is assuming that there must be another explanation for this behavior. Incidentally, that is what the behavioral biology community did for years. They just ignored, or "explained away" what they deemed to be "anomolous" behavior. It is only recently that these behaviors are actually being examined at all.
Very true, that is just what he did. However, my point was not to use his article as justification for studying psychological links to homosexuality, although it does appear that he hoped that his ideas would lead to the clsoing of the case on animal homosexuality.

I was under the impression that only humans and dolphins engage in sexual activites for pleasure; I intrepreted the "diffusing of the situation" as being a natural instinct unrelated to pleasure for this reason.

That is a common, but incorrect perception. Many apes have sex (and even masturbate - often with tools they devise for that very reason) for pleasure, as do several other mammalian species. Some chimps have a rather advanced form of sign language which relates only to sexual positions. In some species, actual sex may not be involved, but sexual touching for pleasure occurs.

When Bonobos "diffuse the situation" with sex, they still often reach orgasm - something which seems to be rather pleasureable in them.

Interestingly, when female-female sex was first observed in many apes, such as Japanese Macaques, researchers were convinced that it couldn't be pleasureable - that it must mean something else (how could animals possibly be gay? right?), so they implanted sensors in the vagina of female apes. They then observed the activity to determine whether or not they were orgasming. In both female-female contact and in masturbation, orgasm was occurring - blew the researchers away.

That is a common, but incorrect perception. Many apes have sex (and even masturbate - often with tools they devise for that very reason) for pleasure, as do several other mammalian species. Some chimps have a rather advanced form of sign language which relates only to sexual positions. In some species, actual sex may not be involved, but sexual touching for pleasure occurs.

When Bonobos "diffuse the situation" with sex, they still often reach orgasm - something which seems to be rather pleasureable in them.

Interestingly, when female-female sex was first observed in many apes, such as Japanese Macaques, researchers were convinced that it couldn't be pleasureable - that it must mean something else (how could animals possibly be gay? right?), so they implanted sensors in the vagina of female apes. They then observed the activity to determine whether or not they were orgasming. In both female-female contact and in masturbation, orgasm was occurring - blew the researchers away.
Interesting, I had always heard that sex was just for procreation-only in most of the animal kingdom. Well then, it can be said that bonobos and other animals who engage in sexual acitivities to "diffuse the situation" are seeking pleasure, but not necessarily a mating commitment with a member of the same sex.

Recipe for Thread Flambee:
Ingredients:
Half a brain
A sheltered middle class upbringing in a neophyte culture
Healthy Contempt for others
Desire for attention and approval


Create a title. This is much like making a crust, except you use the following easy form:
"How come (Insert demographic) always think (Insert Opinion)?"

Include veiled implication that (Inserted Opinion) is of course, a completely invalid idea, and that anyone forcefully asserting their beliefs is a singleminded zealot incapable of reason. Bake at 450 F on a multiracial/denominational/gendered forum ten seconds and let stand.
Serves any number of guests.
rotf

LOL this is turning into Zoology class...

One honest question tho.

We have instances where animals engage in sex for fun.
We have instances where animals engage in Homosexual sex.
We have instances of male and female animals mating for life, (the closest thing to Marriage in the animal kingdom)

But is there any species of animal that have Same Sex mating for life? (the animal verson of Same Sex Marrage.)

LOL this is turning into Zoology class...

One honest question tho.

We have instances where animals engage in sex for fun.
We have instances where animals engage in Homosexual sex.
We have instances of male and female animals mating for life, (the closest thing to Marriage in the animal kingdom)

But is there any species of animal that have Same Sex mating for life? (the animal verson of Same Sex Marrage.)

Yep.

I don't necessarily agree with your parallel or that we should pattern ourselves after the behavior of non-human animals.

But, yes, there are several species in which lifetime pair-bonding beyond same-sex animals has been documented.

Yep.

I don't necessarily agree with your parallel or that we should pattern ourselves after the behavior of non-human animals.

But, yes, there are several species in which lifetime pair-bonding beyond same-sex animals has been documented.
Actually Cat-tribe... I was serious... I am not drawing any parallels, but asking an honest question.

Which species have a lifetime same-sex pair-bonding?

TG me if you like. I would rather this quest for knowledge not add fuel to the fire.

and I am excluding Hermaphroditic/Asexual species like some gastropods.

I read the thread title and thought it'd be about the sinfullness of animal homosexuality. Thought for a second that the conservatives had gone completely mad.

I'm glad for once to be wrong.

As was previously mentioned, there have been penguins who have formed life-time homosexual bonds.

The same has been said for sheep. Other examples likely exist, but probably not many.

For this simple reason: lifetime mating isn't really that common in the animal kingdom. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it happens very rarely and that often times when it is observed it turns out to be an oversight on the part of researchers.

One more reason both sides of the argument might want to discount this whole "well, what do the animals have to say about it?" topic.

Actually Cat-tribe... I was serious... I am not drawing any parallels, but asking an honest question.

Which species have a lifetime same-sex pair-bonding?

TG me if you like. I would rather this quest for knowledge not add fuel to the fire.

and I am excluding Hermaphroditic/Asexual species like some gastropods.

More than one bird species. Both swans and penguins come to mind from my reading.

It also occurs in male dolphins. They do go to females during the mating season, but always return to each other for the rest of the year.

Very few mammals form lifetime pair-bonds from the start, but an older male elephant will often bond with a younger male - and they will stay together until the older male dies.

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, but there are more. You may want to pick up a copy of Biological Exuberance by Bruce Baghemil.

More than one bird species. Both swans and penguins come to mind from my reading.

It also occurs in male dolphins. They do go to females during the mating season, but always return to each other for the rest of the year.

Very few mammals form lifetime pair-bonds from the start, but an older male elephant will often bond with a younger male - and they will stay together until the older male dies.

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, but there are more. You may want to pick up a copy of Biological Exuberance by Bruce Baghemil.
Thanks, will check it out. most of the examples I found were only short term relationships and only in extremly male heavy groups.

Exactly. I choose not to have a sexuality. That is a choice. And I've been asexual for a long time. Hell, I haven't even heard of this Salon.com article. I actually made quite a stir here a few months back when I argued against sex.

A different (I would argue, more objective) assessment of that particular incident, might be:

You caused some confusion a while back, by apparently not knowing the difference between 'asexual' and 'celibate'.