Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study

AE14

Board Sponsor
Invalid Link Removed

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.
Click to expand...

Based on some previous discussions around the board, I thought that some of you might find this interesting
 
Obviously these animals have not heard of jesus, and are all going to hell.
 
However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.
Click to expand...

I saw some crazy ******* on a thread just recently, spreading some God-hating nonsense like this: Mullethole, or something.
 
Well, it just goes to show it is not just humans, regardless of what many here say :)
 
I wonder if this behaviour "developed" in response to a wide discrepancy in availability of mates. Sexual energy has to be dissipated somewhere, somehow.

I'd be interested in a stud of the rates of homosexuality in China as well.

Not to place the phenomena solely on behavioural adaptation, but perhaps actual brain changes in response to an external stressor.
 
Definitely. Homosexual, asexual, and transgenderal behavior is widespread as an adaptive mechanism because sexual behavior as a whole confers certain biological benefits to its participants, beyond just the obvious procreation. That is precisely where the argument from the other side tends to fall apart as well - that is, assuming procreation is the sole purpose of sexual behavior. Transgenderal homosexuality, for example, can promote more cohesive pack dynamics and therefore confer an obvious survival benefit to the animal partaking in it; or, as CDB mentioned, it can also be an adaptive mechanism to cope with food scarcity and/or the necessity for sexual behavior sans members of the "appropriate" gender. Its ubiquity in animals of all manners of order should lead one to believe that, logically, some biological benefit is derived from its practice.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Definitely. Homosexual, asexual, and transgenderal behavior is widespread as an adaptive mechanism because sexual behavior as a whole confers certain biological benefits to its participants, beyond just the obvious procreation. That is precisely where the argument from the other side tends to fall apart as well - that is, assuming procreation is the sole purpose of sexual behavior. Transgenderal homosexuality, for example, can promote more cohesive pack dynamics and therefore confer an obvious survival benefit to the animal partaking in it; or, as CDB mentioned, it can also be an adaptive mechanism to cope with food scarcity and/or the necessity for sexual behavior sans members of the "appropriate" gender. Its ubiquity in animals of all manners of order should lead one to believe that, logically, some biological benefit is derived from its practice.
Click to expand...
Ok.
So where is the part where Big Gay AL takes all the animals on a big gay boat ride????

Props to South Park!! :)

JP
 
I have to admit I am somewhat disappointed. I had hoped that this thread would pull more people in who have been so fervent in their feelings about how homosexuality is wrong. :(
 
AE14 said:
I have to admit I am somewhat disappointed. I had hoped that this thread would pull more people in who have been so fervent in their feelings about how homosexuality is wrong. :(
Click to expand...

Maybe Wi-Fi reception is slow in the closet. :)
 
AE14 said:
I have to admit I am somewhat disappointed. I had hoped that this thread would pull more people in who have been so fervent in their feelings about how homosexuality is wrong. :(
Click to expand...

Hard data is usually less enticing than opinion pieces, in my experience.
 
Chimps will use homosexuality as a form of dominance. Lots of animals do, thank god for Discovery Channel providing me with such amazing information... (oh and animal planet)
 
Check out the written work of Desmond Morris (The Naked Ape or the Human Zoo) he does a good job of explaining some interesting theories on animal homosexuality, especially on the homosexual prevalence when animals are placed in zoo's. It's an interesting read, albeit a little outdated, nonetheless still contains good info...
 
WannabeBatman said:
Check out the written work of Desmond Morris (The Naked Ape or the Human Zoo) he does a good job of explaining some interesting theories on animal homosexuality, especially on the homosexual prevalence when animals are placed in zoo's. It's an interesting read, albeit a little outdated, nonetheless still contains good info...
Click to expand...
The Naked Ape was fantastic reading. I'm currently in the middle of Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee which is just beginning to touch on similarities and differences in sexual behaviours amongst the various apes.

Great stuff as well.
 
I still need to read The Half-Blood Prince before the new movie comes out...

That's in interesting read right there. Maybe the folk from the other thread are still at work/in the gym?
 
SilentBob187 said:
I still need to read The Half-Blood Prince before the new movie comes out...

That's in interesting read right there. Maybe the folk from the other thread are still at work/in the gym?
Click to expand...

I cant see any of them coming here, as it will not help their position in the least
 
AE14 said:
Well, it just goes to show it is not just humans, regardless of what many here say :)
Click to expand...

Most breeds of animals have instances where they kill and often eat their newborns, does that mean its a good idea for humans too?
 
EasyEJL said:
Most breeds of animals have instances where they kill and often eat their newborns, does that mean its a good idea for humans too?
Click to expand...
I think the term often used is "unnatural". It isn't.
 
EasyEJL said:
Most breeds of animals have instances where they kill and often eat their newborns, does that mean its a good idea for humans too?
Click to expand...

Most? Not really. However, it seems you miss the point. As dsade said, the term thrown around here is unnatural, and obviously that is not true.
 
Ah well i'm not one of the religious loonies, but I can still find homosexuality to be distasteful and disgusting so long as I KNOW a person is homosexual. prancing around in a pink satin shirt and waving a hand around is disgusting to me. A gay pride parade with men wearing chaps with no underwear and a feather duster jammed in their ass is disgusting. if I don't know what a person does in their bedroom, I also don't care, just as all that the rest of the world can say about me in the bedroom is that i've had sex 3x as is displayed by 3 children.
 
AE14 said:
Most? Not really. However, it seems you miss the point. As dsade said, the term thrown around here is unnatural, and obviously that is not true.
Click to expand...

And my point is it being "natural" just like the eating of their young doesn't make it a good thing, or a behavior humans should emulate :)
 
This is why we should eat our own children. :D I'm even throwing in economics, history, and eating babies.

Invalid Link Removed - Thank you Mr. Swift
 
EasyEJL said:
Ah well i'm not one of the religious loonies, but I can still find homosexuality to be distasteful and disgusting so long as I KNOW a person is homosexual. prancing around in a pink satin shirt and waving a hand around is disgusting to me. A gay pride parade with men wearing chaps with no underwear and a feather duster jammed in their ass is disgusting. if I don't know what a person does in their bedroom, I also don't care, just as all that the rest of the world can say about me in the bedroom is that i've had sex 3x as is displayed by 3 children.
Click to expand...

That is a gross generalization of homosexuality. It's akin to claiming that Venice Beach bodybuilders walking around in tank-tops with juice-acne are a proper generalization of the heterosexual male.
 
AE14 said:
I have to admit I am somewhat disappointed. I had hoped that this thread would pull more people in who have been so fervent in their feelings about how homosexuality is wrong. :(
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, I never said it was wrong, but rather preferred that my grade school child not be exposed to material that was inappropriate.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
That is a gross generalization of homosexuality. It's akin to claiming that Venice Beach bodybuilders walking around in tank-tops with juice-acne are a proper generalization of the heterosexual male.
Click to expand...

And yet, if they aren't exhibiting such signs, I have no way of knowing what sexual acts they perform with who in their bedrooms, and also don't care. If i meet someone and don't immediately know their sexual orientation by them not aggressively broadcasting it, I don't care. I think allowing gay pride parades is ludicrous and disgusting, and inappropriate for public places.
 
And as is often used by groups trying to prove a point, perhaps the original study should be read. In the instance of the albatrosses, there is no same sex sexual activity - the female albatrosses are bonding to raise babies (as there is a surplus of females and shortage of males) which are still conceived the old fashioned way - 1 male 1 female. On locusts, male-male pairings killed off weaker males - I don't see anything about sex here. So if the "study" showed that in the animal kingdom in many cases animals of the same sex worked together for species survival reasons without sexual contact gasp, what a surprise :dunno:
 
B5150 said:
It's a known fact that "All dogs go to heaven".
Click to expand...

And if they run out of room there's always All Dogs Go To Heaven 2.
 
EasyEJL said:
And yet, if they aren't exhibiting such signs, I have no way of knowing what sexual acts they perform with who in their bedrooms, and also don't care. If i meet someone and don't immediately know their sexual orientation by them not aggressively broadcasting it, I don't care. I think allowing gay pride parades is ludicrous and disgusting, and inappropriate for public places.
Click to expand...
Allowing?

wow...let freedom ring.
 
public display vs private display. if the parades weren't as disgusting and sexually oriented as they are, i wouldn't have a problem with it. The hispanic pride or black pride parades don't have guys in assless chaps humping each other on a float. Its not appropriate behavior for public display.
 
EasyEJL said:
public display vs private display. if the parades weren't as disgusting and sexually oriented as they are, i wouldn't have a problem with it. The hispanic pride or black pride parades don't have guys in assless chaps humping each other on a float. Its not appropriate behavior for public display.
Click to expand...
WHile vulgar to some extent, it's not much worse than other stuff i've seen on public display.

I'll let you know tomorrow, as they are having one in downtown columbus tomorrow. It has always been more theatrical than anything.
 
see i'm ok with a clean one. but when the SEX part of homosexuality is what is being pushed, as it generally is, then it has no public place.
 
I thought christine said it was when some of your friends came over :) or was that this one?

Invalid Link Removed

I know i'm in quite the minority with my feelings as i'm only concerned about the over the top public displays, and don't care in the least what is done in a bedroom. 2 men, 2 women, alternate combinations including midget, whatever. Just not in public, and don't try and ram it down my throat either figuratively or literally :) For me its not that homosexuality is wrong or right, but that the public displays are distasteful, base and classless.
 
EasyEJL said:
And yet, if they aren't exhibiting such signs, I have no way of knowing what sexual acts they perform with who in their bedrooms, and also don't care. If i meet someone and don't immediately know their sexual orientation by them not aggressively broadcasting it, I don't care. I think allowing gay pride parades is ludicrous and disgusting, and inappropriate for public places.
Click to expand...

How is this relevant though, Easy? Either you are disgusted by homosexuality in both a social and sexual context, or you are disgusted by the manner of dress and behavior you are describing. To me, your stated opinion seems somewhat at odds with the more tolerant view you espouse. Keep in mind, I am not calling you a bigot, just stating what I see.

You are describing actions in a social context of a particular group of homosexuals, which is alienable from the biological and greater social context of homosexuality as a whole; here, you are grouping the two together to describe your pointed version of "homosexuality" that you find disgusting. Not every homosexual, or even most homosexuals, act in that manner. I would say only this: if removed from the situations you are describing, you still find the act of homosexuality disgusting, inappropriate, and disagreeable to your senses, then I would say you are in fact concerned with homosexuality itself.

EasyEJL said:
And as is often used by groups trying to prove a point, perhaps the original study should be read. In the instance of the albatrosses, there is no same sex sexual activity - the female albatrosses are bonding to raise babies (as there is a surplus of females and shortage of males) which are still conceived the old fashioned way - 1 male 1 female. On locusts, male-male pairings killed off weaker males - I don't see anything about sex here. So if the "study" showed that in the animal kingdom in many cases animals of the same sex worked together for species survival reasons without sexual contact gasp, what a surprise :dunno:
Click to expand...

Yes, but immediately above this we see, "Dolphins have been known engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding", something I mentioned previously. As well, the full-text goes on to describe a wide range of homoerotic behavior, irrespective of sexual preference, as conferring a wide-range of survival benefits for the species. The albatross example seems to be the red herring (no pun intended) in terms of the homosexual behavior, in terms of only exhibiting same-sex pair bonding without sexual behavior.
 
EasyEJL said:
I thought christine said it was when some of your friends came over :) or was that this one?

Invalid Link Removed

I know i'm in quite the minority with my feelings as i'm only concerned about the over the top public displays, and don't care in the least what is done in a bedroom. 2 men, 2 women, alternate combinations including midget, whatever. Just not in public, and don't try and ram it down my throat either figuratively or literally :) For me its not that homosexuality is wrong or right, but that the public displays are distasteful, base and classless.
Click to expand...

I agree with you somewhat....vulgar is vulgar. What I see is a celebration of individuality and freedom to be after so many years of being forced to hide and live ashamed. They are celebrating themselves...and yeah, some go over the top ust like an other group inthe world.
 
dsade said:
I agree with you somewhat....vulgar is vulgar. What I see is a celebration of individuality and freedom to be after so many years of being forced to hide and live ashamed. They are celebrating themselves...and yeah, some go over the top ust like an other group inthe world.
Click to expand...

To me that is visually disturbing, but not socially disturbing, and there is a large difference. I have no preference to see a large fat man in a Madonna-costume, but my opposition to it is purely aesthetic, hah. There is huge difference between saying, "That is disgusting..." such as seeing your Grandpa bend over is disgusting, and saying "That is disgusting..." in a moral sense.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
if removed from the situations you are describing, you still find the act of homosexuality disgusting, inappropriate, and disagreeable to your senses, then I would say you are in fact concerned with homosexuality itself.
Click to expand...

nah, removing the over the top public displays, I could care less what people do behind closed doors, i'll even go ahead and say "i have both make and female friends and acquantainces who are gay". The sex acts they perform in private I don't find disgusting, just non-interesting.

my problem over gay marriage is just one of semantics and what marriage means to me. I see no reason why they should have the same rights (as well as penalties) of heterosexual couples, just the word marriage doesn't apply. I could even see that any (regardless of same sex or different sex couples) such unions performed by the state could be called civil unions, and marriage as a word left to religious institutions. In that case my wife and I would have been in a civil union rather than marriage and that would be ok as well. Nothing will ever convince me that marriage fits the definition of anything outside 1 man and 1 woman coming together to begin a family. I'm even ok with civil unions involving more than 2 partners - what happens inside their private dwelling is between them, and a contractual agreement to handle distribution of wealth and estate is not materially different than articles of incorporation.
 
dsade said:
I agree with you somewhat....vulgar is vulgar. What I see is a celebration of individuality and freedom to be after so many years of being forced to hide and live ashamed. They are celebrating themselves...and yeah, some go over the top ust like an other group inthe world.
Click to expand...

yeah, but see if I have to purposefully plan avoiding public streets with my children because of sexually inappropriate/obscene displays like this, or have to put up with an exchange like this

"Daddy, why is that woman not wearing pants or a shirt?"

"Shut up, its not a woman, its Matt from RPN, don't wave"

I feel that my right of use of public places is being preempted by something that doesn't belong in a public place, and that children shouldn't be exposed to.
 
EasyEJL said:
yeah, but see if I have to purposefully plan avoiding public streets with my children because of sexually inappropriate/obscene displays like this, or have to put up with an exchange like this

"Daddy, why is that woman not wearing pants or a shirt?"

"Shut up, its not a woman, its Matt from RPN, don't wave"

I feel that my right of use of public places is being preempted by something that doesn't belong in a public place, and that children shouldn't be exposed to.
Click to expand...

ahhahahahahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top