Are Gay Unions a Bad Thing?

[Prospero]

Okay, so I found this article (http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2003/10/06/1) (which came as no surprise to me) and was wondering what the general consensus about gay unions/marriages/parternerships, etc is. I mean, aside from the fact that gays are in the process of taking over the world and subjecting all "breeders" to the "gay-germs" that make them gay, there's really nothing too wrong is there?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm not sure I full support gay marriage, but I fully support the ability a gay couple to achieve legal standing as a couple. I also support religious authorities presiding over gay wedding ceremonies.

[American]

Well I tried changing the gays for years, and they ain't budging. I guess we should just leave them alone and let 'em do all that stuff if they want. Free country! :)

[MoeFaux]

I think the whole idea of marraige is bullsh*t to begin with. Why should the government know who you're sleeping with?
But, marraige means rights, and folks need those. So if a man and a woman together are able to get those rights, why the hell not a two men? It's blatant discrimination.
We don't say, "Black people shouldn't be able to get married". That's crap. How is this any different? It's what they ARE. I'm furious that there's still so much hate and ignorance about gays. It is just hate. If I want to get a girlfriend and marry her, who the hell are you to stop me?

[kitsune]

Okay... I've said this once before here, and I'll say it again.

I don't care what it gets called, but I would like the same, or similar rights that two heterosexual people who are married have. I would like to be the next-of-kin... hell, I'd like to be SEEN as kin legally.

A couple that has been married for 5 minutes has more rights than a gay couple that's been together for 30 years.

I say let gay marriages happen. Call them unions, partnerships, whatever. If it's between two consenting adults, who cares what goes on between them? If they want to get married, let them!

[Tony]

Originally posted by kitsune

I say let gay marriages happen. Call them unions, partnerships, whatever. If it's between two consenting adults, who cares what goes on between them? If they want to get married, let them!

What she said.

edit to make correction (see post below).

[kitsune]

Originally posted by Tony


What he said.


Thank you, but he's a she. *wink*

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by kitsune
A couple that has been married for 5 minutes has more rights than a gay couple that's been together for 30 years.


A few weeks ago (or nights, I can't recall, I've been working lots of O.T.) I saw a special on VH1 that counted down the shortest Hollywood marriages. I think the shortest was 6 hours. Your point is all the more salient given this fact.

For the record I disagree with domestic partnership benefits. If you're going to expect the social benefits of marriage, then you need to "take the leap" so to speak. Get the paper... and I have no qualms. Shack up and expect the benifits, forget it...

[Peach Jr.]

I'm all for gay marriages/civil unions/whatever form it takes.

Right now my ex-girlfriend is in a relationship with her partner of 4 years and their (her partner's) 4-year-old son. If anything were to happen to her partner, she would have to rely on the good graces of her partner's family to even legally visit the little boy she loves as her own. If her partner is hospitalized, she would have to lie to get the same privileges of visitation that I, not having to hold my nose to marry a man, enjoy by being married. It isn't fair. I've been trying to talk them into going to Toronto for a civil union, but there's some question as to whether it'd hold up in the state they live in currently.

[kittynh]

Hey, all the unions I've seen in Vermont have been fine. This year I have 5 same sex couples with kids I teach. I'd rather teach any kid with 2 parents than a kid going through the "both my divorced parents want to be my favorite, life is gooood!" phase of life. In Vermont it's common enough now that the kids don't have a problem. Before Civil Unions these same couples had to spend a fortune in lawyers fees to draw up complicated agreements about children, and money, and even then not all the bases were covered. Much of America believes gays only dress as pink flamingos and parade through the streets...

I know gay parents who drive Volvos and bake brownies and own houses and pay taxes. They are in fact pretty dull. But they like it dull in Vermont. What counts here is are you a good neighbor. If so, you can sleep with a giraffe for all anyone cares.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by kitsune
Thank you, but he's a she. *wink*
...And she's a fox. ;)

[Foofer]

My friend, Michael, has been with his boyfriend almost as long as I have been with my husband. Their relationship isn't any different than ours. They love each other, live together, share ups and downs. They deserve the same rights and opportunities as anyone else. Michael was the Man of Honor at my wedding and I'm waiting for all the ignorant bigots to get the hell over themselves so I can be Best Woman at his.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

why does anyone get married? if two people love eachother
they will stay together without a contract.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
why does anyone get married? if two people love eachother
they will stay together without a contract.
That's not the point. Gay couples should be entitled to the same legal rights as straight couples. The question to ask is, why are they currently treated as inferior under the law?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

they should have the same rights.

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, it's promoting monogamy and love. And the recognition that a gay family is just as great as a hetero family.

I watched that stupid 'be the next supermodel' show last night, and two of them were going on about how being gay is immoral and an abomination.

I think their attitudes and closemindedness are an abomination. Gay people are people and not an abomination. Hell, there are gay animals! It's freaking natural, so get over it.

I just got a flyer in the mail from our city's representative of our provincial gov't. It asked the question "do you value the traditional union of a man and woman and the traditional family"

I checked off 'no'...and then added "do you think everyone should have equal rights? I know you don't".

the Tory and Alliance gov't are fighting the federal gov't attempts to legalize marriage in all of Canada. I'm sick of the letters to the editor about the breakdown of the traditional family. Traditional families? With fathers molesting their kids? Yeah, that's much better than two gay people making it official.

It's like they are saying that the traditional family is so sacred, and so perfect, with smiling men and women that never cheat on each other or beat their kids. Reality check people!

Gay marriage won't affect 'traditional families' one iota.

Our gay tenants are married. I'm tempted to write my own letter asking how that is affecting everybody's lives and 'traditional families' in this stupid city. It's so disruptive that noone knows any gay couples in the city are married.

[chulbert]

I am unaware of any morally and intellectually honest argument you can make against gay unions in a free and enlightened society.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Hell, there are gay animals! It's freaking natural, so get over it.



Thats the second time I've seen this written on these boards and it seems like absolute BS to me.

Could you provide the name of one of these "gay" animals?

[Jeff Corey]

Weren't Bullwinkel and Rocket J. Squirrel a couple?

[Attrayant]

Snaggelpuss?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by mjv



Thats the second time I've seen this written on these boards and it seems like absolute BS to me.

Could you provide the name of one of these "gay" animals?
Couple of links for you:
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html
http://www.rnw.nl/lifestyle/html/gayanimals000808.html

[mjv]

Originally posted by Thanz

Couple of links for you:
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html
http://www.rnw.nl/lifestyle/html/gayanimals000808.html

Interesting links, though both of them readily indicate that people are misinterpretting as "gay" activities that are actually just displays of dominance. Male wolves and female wolves are often seen "humping" other male wolves and female wolves. But they do it to display thier dominance over the others. The other wolves submit to it because they know they have a place in the pack below the alpha male or female. Its simply all about dominance and submission, nothing more. If the alpha male or female becomes weak, the others will cease submitting and will express their dominance.

It would seem to me that some gays are apparently grasping at straws to explain their sexual preferences.

Not sure why gays would want to equate themselves with wild animals anyway though....

[chulbert]

Originally posted by mjv
Interesting links, though both of them readily indicate that people are misinterpretting as "gay" activities that are actually just displays of dominance. Male wolves and female wolves are often seen "humping" other male wolves and female wolves. But they do it to display thier dominance over the others. The other wolves submit to it because they know they have a place in the pack below the alpha male or female. Its simply all about dominance and submission, nothing more. If the alpha male or female becomes weak, the others will cease submitting and will express their dominance.

You might be correct if the animals' behaviors weren't, in some cases, almost exclusively homosexual.

[mjv]

Originally posted by chulbert


You might be correct if the animals' behaviors weren't, in some cases, almost exclusively homosexual.


But I disagree with calling such behavior "homosexual".

A male wolf mounting another male wolf does it to show dominance. They do not complete any sexual act. It is not done for sexual gratification.

If there is no sex act, nor an intent of a sex act, then the activity cannot be sexual and by my reasoning cannot be considered a homosexual act.

And as for "exclusively" homosexual behavior, I failed to find any real evidence of it in the articles that were presented. I fail to see how a couple of faniciful generalizations about certain animals creates a foundation to make that claim.

[epepke]

People argue about gay marriage.

But the real acid test will come when there is gay divorce.

[Attrayant]

They do not complete any sexual act. It is not done for sexual gratification.

How do you know this? Some people get sexual gratification from smelling other people's feet, or being whipped with a riding crop. Who are you to say what kinds of acts return sexual gratification for their participants?

Not sure why gays would want to equate themselves with wild animals anyway though....

Okay, and why is this a bad thing? Is it a bad thing so say that humans and chimps have genomes that are 99% (or whatever the percentage is) identical, thus "equating" the two groups?

[Attrayant]

But I disagree with calling such behavior "homosexual".

I, too, am not altogether certain that we can label some observed behaviour as "homosexual" since our perceptions are so far removed. Best to say we can't call it at all.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Attrayant


How do you know this? Some people get sexual gratification from smelling other people's feet, or being whipped with a riding crop. Who are you to say what kinds of acts return sexual gratification for their participants?

How do I know this? Simple observation. I started with wolves, so I'll continue:

A non alpha male will often act out the submissive role when challenged by the alpha male, even "presenting" themselves as a way of indicating their lesser status. As I've said before, if the alpha male becomes ill or injured, the previously submissive beta male will attack him and establish himself as the new alpha male. If the beta male received some sexual gratification from the "submissive act" as you appear to suggest, then he would continue to act out that role. He does not, therefore it seems reasonable to me that his actions are not sexual in nature and are not intended to bring about sexual gratification.



Okay, and why is this a bad thing? Is it a bad thing so say that humans and chimps have genomes that are 99% (or whatever the percentage is) identical, thus "equating" the two groups? [/QUOTE]

Man is a thinking being, to imply that we are controlled only by animal lust seems a little odd to me.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by mjv



Thats the second time I've seen this written on these boards and it seems like absolute BS to me.

Could you provide the name of one of these "gay" animals?
Borobus monkeys.
Dolphins.
There's two, straight off.

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm sure gay hamsters are showing each other dominance, especially the females :rolleyes:

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

.There are homosexual and bisexual animals, ranging from charismatic megafauna like mountain gorillas to cats, dogs and guinea pigs. There are transgendered animals, transvestite animals (who adopt the behavior of the other gender but don't have sex with their own), and animals who live in bisexual triads and quartets.

There are gay animals. Sexuality is complex, and being gay isn't that far from being hetero. Most theories now show that pheremones are a key factor in homosexuality in humans. Normally a man is the only one that reacts to females hormones, and only females react to male hormones. The reaction to the pheremones that happens when you like someone takes you to that higher level of attraction. You can also like someone, and not react too much to that particular person's pheremones.

The reaction to the pheremones is the one that causes blood to flow to certain places. This can happen other ways too, but try to be attracted to someone without pheremones, and it's just not the same. That's why men usually can like each other, but not get attracted to each other.

Bisexual people must be able to pick up both sets of hormones with their VNO lobes. The VNO lobe is not associated with smell at all. Pheremones have no smell. The VNO lobe is in the nose though, near the front, not where the nose picks up smells

[mjv]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Borobus monkeys.
Dolphins.
There's two, straight off.

I'll give you the courtesy of assuming that is a typo. I've looked at a few articles on Bonobus Monkeys and while they do seem to enjoy rubbing up on each other, I see no evidence that Bonobus monkeys have exclusive homosexual relationships, to quote another poster.

I also couldn't find anything but anecdotal nonsense in a google search for these gay dolphins you claim are everywhere. Must be a conspiracy I guess.

[Eos of the Eons]

Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it. Humans beings--a lot of them anyway--like to do it too, but of all the planet's species, they're the only ones who are oppressed when they try.

For a love that long dared not speak its name, animal homosexuality is astonishingly common. Scouring zoological journals and conducting extensive interviews with scientists, Bagemihl found same-sex pairings documented in more than 450 different species.

Among bonobos, a chimplike ape, homosexual pairings account for as much as 50% of all sexual activity.

Heterosexual and homosexual dolphin pairs engage in face-to-face sexual encounters that look altogether human. Animals as diverse as elephants and rodents practice same-sex mounting, and macaques raise that affection ante further, often kissing while assuming a coital position.

Humboldt penguins may have homosexual unions that last six years; male greylag geese may stay paired for 15 years--a lifetime commitment when you've got the lifespan of a goose. Bears and some other mammals may bring their young into homosexual unions, raising them with their same-sex partner just as they would with a member of the opposite sex.
.


http://www.google.ca/custom?q=cache:hMQX95m0qNMJ:whatsthisthen.netfirms .com/gayanimals.html+gay+guinea+pigs,+homosexual&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[mjv]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I'm sure gay hamsters are showing each other dominance, especially the females :rolleyes:

Try reading my previous post, alpha female wolves do it all the time to keep the other wolves in line. You must not be watching enough nature shows.



http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

.

There are gay animals. Sexuality is complex, and being gay isn't that far from being hetero. Most theories now show that pheremones are a key factor in homosexuality in humans. Normally a man is the only one that reacts to females hormones, and only females react to male hormones. The reaction to the pheremones that happens when you like someone takes you to that higher level of attraction. You can also like someone, and not react too much to that particular person's pheremones.

The reaction to the pheremones is the one that causes blood to flow to certain places. This can happen other ways too, but try to be attracted to someone without pheremones, and it's just not the same. That's why men usually can like each other, but not get attracted to each other.

Bisexual people must be able to pick up both sets of hormones with their VNO lobes. The VNO lobe is not associated with smell at all. Pheremones have no smell. The VNO lobe is in the nose though, near the front, not where the nose picks up smells [/QUOTE]

Christ, what forum am I on? So, the adds for pheromone colognes in Playboy are real huh? I just hope they don't send you the wrong one by accident. And bisexual people have VNO lobes that pick up pheremones...fascinating. I don't imagine there is any real proof of this, right?

[Eos of the Eons]

Homophobe, I didn't know playboy sold any such thing. I'm talking about scientific studies on the Discovery channel, get your head out of the gutter of sand.



high-libido homosexual rams cause havoc in the sheep pens by disrupting other males mating with females.


http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm


Close minded folks really make me ill.


These guys in this link are ever so much more educated:

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sheepandanimals.html

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by mjv
I'll give you the courtesy of assuming that is a typo. I've looked at a few articles on Bonobus Monkeys and while they do seem to enjoy rubbing up on each other, I see no evidence that Bonobus monkeys have exclusive homosexual relationships, to quote another poster.

I also couldn't find anything but anecdotal nonsense in a google search for these gay dolphins you claim are everywhere. Must be a conspiracy I guess.
Bonobo "ladies" strengthen their friendships through "lesbian" sex, frequently performing what researchers call "genito-genital rubbing."
You can read the full article if you like. (http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/)

[mjv]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Homophobe, I didn't know playboy sold any such thing. I'm talking about scientific studies on the Discovery channel, get your head out of the gutter of sand.



Ah yes, when all else fails and you cannot provide any actual proof, call someone a homophobe.

You must have been hell in debate class.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

high-libido homosexual rams cause havoc in the sheep pens by disrupting other males mating with females.


http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm


Close minded folks really make me ill.



Oh please, so it doesn't even occur to your "open" mind that perhaps a high libido ram would disrupt males mating with females because HE wants to make it with the females?

What a coincidence, folks who try to twist the facts to fit a social agenda make me ill.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu


You can read the full article if you like. (http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/)


Perhaps you should read the article:

"These highly sexed females are also far more likely to initiate sex with the males than any other great ape females (including humans!). "

So lets recap, "lesbian sex" is in quotations, indicating that the author was not implying that they are in fact lesbians. My read of this is strengthened by the quote above. They may be randy little monkeys, but very few "lesbians" actively seek sex with males.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by mjv



Perhaps you should read the article:

"These highly sexed females are also far more likely to initiate sex with the males than any other great ape females (including humans!). "

So lets recap, "lesbian sex" is in quotations, indicating that the author was not implying that they are in fact lesbians. My read of this is strengthened by the quote above. They may be randy little monkeys, but very few "lesbians" actively seek sex with males.
That makes them bisexual. :rolleyes:

[mjv]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

That makes them bisexual. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want, but the other poster said they were gay, not bi or out on a lark, but gay. Your earlier post strongly implied the same.

But if moving the goal post during the game makes it easier for you, go right ahead.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by mjv


Roll your eyes all you want, but the other poster said they were gay, not bi or out on a lark, but gay. Your earlier post strongly implied the same.

But if moving the goal post during the game makes it easier for you, go right ahead.
What exactly is your problem?

[Foofer]

Well, now that we've gone off topic...

We can go on and on about the great gay animal debate. There are gay humans. I know many. They are gay because they were born that way. If there was a choice in the matter, they would not be gay. They would not purposely go through the anguish of being disowned by their friends and family, beaten by homophobes, etc., just to be deviant.

I know a girl that came out to her father about a year after her brother died. The last thing that her father ever said to her was that he wished she had died instead of her brother. I know a guy that visited his family on Thanksgiving and was asked to eat in the living room away from everyone on a paper plate with plastic utensils so he wouldn't give everyone AIDS. I was with a guy that was about to get beaten by a carload of guys with bats, until I ran out in the street and convinced them that I was his girlfriend. If they chose to be gay, they must be masochists.

[Eventually]

Originally posted by epepke


But the real acid test will come when there is gay divorce.

That's part of the reason that gay "marriage" is necessary. People in a non-marital cohabitating relationship accumulate jointly-owed property. If the relationship ends, there is really no easy way under the law to distribute that property or to determine custody issues with children.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Foofer
I was with a guy that was about to get beaten by a carload of guys with bats, until I ran out in the street and convinced them that I was his girlfriend. If they chose to be gay, they must be masochists.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html

Tell your friend to check out that website.

[Tony]

I love it!! If you question religion and the paranormal you are considered a skeptic. But if you question the non-sense of gay animals you are called a "homophobe" and "close-minded". So far the only bigots Ive seen on this thread are the people who accept the unsuppored aaumption of gay animals and make ad hominem attacks against those who question such non-sense.

Good job mjv, this woo-wooism has to be opposed. The true test of a skeptic is weather or not they are skeptical about the PC cause du jour.

[Terry]

Originally posted by mjv

Thats the second time I've seen this written on these boards and it seems like absolute BS to me.

Could you provide the name of one of these "gay" animals?

Lance.

Oh, you mean the species? Greyleg geese sometimes form a monogamous same-sex pair bond for their entire lives. My reference for this is the book "Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemilh. The book lists primary sources.

The book lists a lot more examples. I'd have to say though, there is plenty of same-sex animal interaction, but the majority of such animals are bisexual rather than exclusively homosexual.

--Terry.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Tony
I love it!! If you question religion and the paranormal you are considered a skeptic. But if you question the non-sense of gay animals you are called a "homophobe" and "close-minded". So far the only bigots Ive seen on this thread are the people who accept the unsuppored aaumption of gay animals and make ad hominem attacks against those who question such non-sense.

Good job mjv, this woo-wooism has to be opposed. The true test of a skeptic is weather or not they are skeptical about the PC cause du jour.


Did you check out any of the threads? Even some people who didn't believe it before checking it out changed their minds after really checking it out.

Why would humans be the only animals on the planet to have homosexuals. That's what I'm skeptical about. Considering all that has been shown to prove that people can't simply choose to be gay, and all that's been shown to prove that homosexuality is something you are born as, how the heck would humans be the only beings with homosexuality?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


Why would humans be the only animals on the planet to have homosexuals.

Why would humans be the only animals on the planet to be able to invent automobiles?

Considering all that has been shown to prove that people can't simply choose to be gay, and all that's been shown to prove that homosexuality is something you are born as, how the heck would humans be the only beings with homosexuality?

That hasnt been proven by the slightest stretch of the imagination, you just want to believe that because it fits your pre-concieved notions.

The whole "gay animal" shpeel (sp?) is mostly an anthropomorphic argument.

[Tony]

Did you check out any of the threads? Even some people who didn't believe it before checking it out changed their minds after really checking it out.

Which threads? Which people?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Tony


Why would humans be the only animals on the planet to be able to invent automobiles?

Considering all that has been shown to prove that people can't simply choose to be gay, and all that's been shown to prove that homosexuality is something you are born as, how the heck would humans be the only beings with homosexuality?

That hasnt been proven by the slightest stretch of the imagination, you just want to believe that because it fits your pre-concieved notions.

The whole "gay animal" shpeel (sp?) is mostly an anthropomorphic argument.


Inventing automobiles is not an ability humans are born with. Humans have to learn that. Bad analogy. Name one physical attribute that only humans have.

It has been proven, and you're not believing it only because it doesn't fit your pre-concieved notions.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Tony


Which threads? Which people?

Gayness in the Animal Kingdom is very common and natural just as in man/women kind.

Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl,
751 pp, with illus, $40, ISBN 0-312-19239-8, New York, NY, St Martin's Press, 1999.

Reviewed in JAMA of the American Medical Assn April 26, 2000 Highlights:
Reviewed by William Byne, MD, PhD

A good thing about science is that, given enough time, it will eventually correct itself. Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl illustrates that self-correcting process by dispelling two prevalent myths: that reproduction is the sole reason for sexual behavior and that homosexuality is hard to find in the animal kingdom.
ind.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sheepandanimals.html

[Tony]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons



Inventing automobiles is not an ability humans are born with. Humans have to learn that. Bad analogy.

It wasn’t an analogy, I was hoping you might get it but I guess I have to spell it out. The human mind is much more complex and advanced than any animal. We are able to think beyond and outside our instincts. The fact that some things would be uniquely human isn’t surprising when considering those facts.


Name one physical attribute that only humans have.

Homosexuality isn't a physical attribute, it is an emotional one.

It has been proven, and you're not believing it only because it doesn't fit your pre-concieved notions.

That’s a pathetic lack of creativity.

I have no pre-conceived notions; I am just skeptical of "gay" animals. Your whole reason for needing to believe that there are gay animals is to counteract the people who contend that since gayness isn’t natural, it is wrong. I could care less if gayness was natural; I believe people have the freedom to do what they want. Since you have shown a previous disrespect for individual rights, its no surprise that you would need to justify homosexuality in terms of "nature".

[Eos of the Eons]

Homosexuality isn't a physical attribute, it is an emotional one.


Sheer ignorance. Go learn about human sexuality, and come back with better arguments rather than accusations.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sheepandanimals.html

You didnt answer the question, where are these phantom people who changed their minds? Where are these phantom threads? Or, are you a liar?


Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Did you check out any of the threads? Even some people who didn't believe it before checking it out changed their minds after really checking it out.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Sheer ignorance. Go learn about human sexuality, and come back with better arguments rather than accusations.

Sheer ignorance? Look whos talking, liar. LOL

This is the third ad hominem attack you have made against someone on this thread for attacking your woo-wooism, fortunately, that still doesnt make your "arguments" valid.

[Eos of the Eons]

You have no grasp on the physical aspects of human sexuality. You think men only like women because they choose to? It's only emotional?

A few scientists are now siding with the farmers. Recent studies indicate that homosexual behavior in some species may have much more to do with sexual gratification than with reproduction. Studies are also revealing biological differences between straight and gay animals. These findings may lead to screening tests to help prevent the wrong animals from getting hired for mating jobs. They may also shed light on the possible roots of human homosexuality, some researchers argue.


Before calling someone a liar, go look up human anatomy.

http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm

I am also looking up a woman (christian) who did a study and did change her mind.

Go learn something rather than sitting around calling people liars.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
You have no grasp on the physical aspects of human sexuality. You think men only like women because they choose to? It's only emotional?




Before calling someone a liar, go look up human anatomy.

http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm

I am also looking up a woman (christian) who did a study and did change her mind.

Go learn something rather than sitting around calling people liars.

Again, that still doesn't answer my question, so I'll ask again. Who are these people that changed their minds? And where are these threads? They shouldnt be hard to find, you do know how to use the search function on this website right?

[Eos of the Eons]

Some researchers have argued that animals engage in homosexual activities to associate with dominant same-sex members of their clan and thereby boost their social standing. This theory does not apply to his macaques, Vasey reports in the September Animal Behaviour.

For 2 years, he collected data on the mating habits of three macaque families, made up of 18 adult females, 5 adult males, and 14 youngsters. Of the mature females, 15 engaged in homosexual consortships.

In over 75 percent of the homosexual couples, one or both partners regularly supported the other in fights. Dominant and subordinate members paired up and came to each other's aid, seemingly blind to rank. Moreover, consorts took the unusual step of siding with their partners over their kin during squabbles.

The homosexual relationships also altered social structures. "During homosexual consortships, over half of the subordinate female partners increased in dominance," Vasey reports. The dominant animal's position remained stable.

However, the monkeys didn't choose their same-sex partners on the basis of their potential as allies, otherwise big-shots would have had little interest in their subordinates, he argues. Also, the dominant animals did most of the grooming, and low-and high-ranking members of a couple mounted each other at a similar rate.

"Mutual sexual attraction was the impetus for the formation and maintenance of homosexual consortships," he contends. Sexual selection theory holds that animals pick partners that will increase their chances of passing on their genes, but this doesn't apply to homosexual macaques.

[Eos of the Eons]

Internet Public Post from a Gay discussing genetics
There is mounting evidence that sexual orientation has a major genetic/biological cause. In terms of traits, surely you are aware of recessive genes. Some traits skip generations. Someone could indeed have the genes for being gay without it being expressed. In addition, there is the complication of those who may not be aware of their own innate sexual orientation.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/natural.html

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Tony


Again, that still doesn't answer my question, so I'll ask again. Who are these people that changed their minds? And where are these threads? They shouldnt be hard to find, you do know how to use the search function on this website right?


I thought I had posted the link in this thread on page one. I didn't say anyone on this site changed their mind. I was referring to a researcher who did her own studies. She was a christian who though the idea of gay animals was ridiculous. After her research, she changed her mind.

I'm sure I can't expect you to know how to research this the way she did (studying animals themselves). I'm looking for the web page where she published her findings.

Freakin link worked on Friday

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/11/05/science.sheep.reut/index.html

[Eos of the Eons]

There's clearly a wide range of homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom. It's widespread, common and impossible to deny or explain away any longer. Homosexuality is natural as green grass in summer, and it's high time we accepted that fact.
The birds do it. It's been described in 130 species of birds. The southeastern blueberry bees do it. Same sex pairs of animals kiss and caress each other with obvious affection and tenderness. Male pairs and female pairs form long-lasting pair-bonds and reject, threaten, even fight off potential opposite sex partners when they are presented with them. Same sex partners engage in almost every conceivable means of sexual expression throughout the animal kingdom.

It's high time we quit criminalizing something that is so normal, so natural, so harmless and so common among animals and recognize that what we call "sodomy" is really quite natural after all.

We're animals. And being animals, we should quit trying to pretend that we're not. What we call a "crime against nature" isn't unnatural, and it shouldn't be a crime.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.


http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
I love it!! If you question religion and the paranormal you are considered a skeptic. But if you question the non-sense of gay animals you are called a "homophobe" and "close-minded". So far the only bigots Ive seen on this thread are the people who accept the unsuppored aaumption of gay animals and make ad hominem attacks against those who question such non-sense.

Good job mjv, this woo-wooism has to be opposed. The true test of a skeptic is weather or not they are skeptical about the PC cause du jour.
Irrational statement. And there is no "unsupported assumption" that animals engage in homosexual behaviour. We have already shown you bonobos monkeys and dolphins. Bashing the gay community does make you a homophobe, and standing up for minority rights is scarcely a "cause du jour"; it is fundamental to human rights. Like demanding equal treatment for atheists.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Irrational statement. And there is no "unsupported assumption" that animals engage in homosexual behaviour. We have already shown you bonobos monkeys and dolphins.

You haven't shown anything, you've merely prescribed human-centric interpretations to animal behavior.

and standing up for minority rights is scarcely a "cause du jour"

How utterly stupid. How is trying to prove that gay animals exist standing up for minority rights? If these people really cared they would spend more time advocating for "gay rights" instead of trying to prove a theory that is irrelevant to gay rights.


Bashing the gay community does make you a homophobe,

This is PC ********* at its worst. "Bashing" the gay community does not mean you fear gays. Who is "bashing" the gay community? If someone "bashes" the game of football, does that mean they fear it?

[Kimpatsu]

You really are a bigot aren't you, Tony?
I already posted links demonstrating the bisexual nature of bonobos monkeys, but you can ignore it if you choose.
How does one "bash" the game of football"? The most you can say is that you don't enjoy playing or watching the game. To denigrate gay people for being gay, however, is bigotry, the same as saying that you hate black people for being black.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You really are a bigot aren't you, Tony?


You really are a dumba$$. I guess anyone who is skeptical of your woo-wooism is a "bigot". Please tell me what I am bigoted against.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I already posted links demonstrating the bisexual nature of bonobos monkeys, but you can ignore it if you choose.



I didnt see it, im reading it now.


edit: Ok, I just finished it, fascinating stuff, and I like the idea of "ethical hedonism". ;) But are the bonobos "gay", or do they just really like sex?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
You really are a dumba$$. I guess anyone who is skeptical of your woo-wooism is a "bigot". Please tell me what I am bigoted against.
You want to get into a pissing contest about intellect, be my guest. However, you are a bigot; you called gay rights the cause du jour, rather than recognising the truth that all people have the right to equality, be they gay, black, women, or atheists.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
Ok, I just finished it, fascinating stuff, and I like the idea of "ethical hedonism". ;) But are the bonobos "gay", or do they just really like sex?
I really like sex, but I've never had a gay encounter. I would only have a gay encounter if I wanted to, something the Bonobos seem to get behind. (No pun intended.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

However, you are a bigot; you called gay rights the cause du jour,...

:cry: what a freakin crybaby :cry:

I said the movement to prove the gay animal concept was the cause du jour, but I guess to a knee-jerk PC monger details that invalidate your idiocy are irrelevant.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
No I didnt. I said the movement to prove the gay animal concept was the cause du jour, but I guess to a knee-jerk PC monger details that invalidate your idiocy are irrelevant.
The issue of gay animals is moot; the Bonobos prove the point. Why the objection, anyway? Why does the concept of gay animals so enrage you?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

The issue of gay animals is moot; the Bonobos prove the point.

That has yet to be proven, even though I acknowledge that the bonobos are an interesting case.

Why the objection, anyway?

Der, It's called skepticism. I support "gay rights", but I oppose the lemmings who say that any questioning of any and all things gay makes you a bigot.

Why does the concept of gay animals so enrage you?

It doesnt enrage me. Kneejerk PC mongers and woo-woos who make unfounded and dishonest ad hominmen attacks "enrage" me. I have no emotional attachment to either side of the gay animal debate, I just dont like people who spout junk science unquestioningly.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Eventually
That's part of the reason that gay "marriage" is necessary. People in a non-marital cohabitating relationship accumulate jointly-owed property. If the relationship ends, there is really no easy way under the law to distribute that property or to determine custody issues with children.

Logically, you're right, but my point is that gay divorce is going to open up a whole can of worms that most people in the debate aren't even thinking about.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, because I think the way divorce gets done is pretty horrible. For example, you mention custody issues. De facto, the way they are handled today is by always giving the custody to the woman unless she's both addicted to heroin and a prostitute. Gay divorce is going to throw a monkey wrench into this sort of thing. Again, it'll probably be a good thing, but there will be a lot of cases I get to laugh my head off over before it becomes remotely settled.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

I really like sex


Do you like sex enough to have sex with a man?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Foofer
Well, now that we've gone off topic...

We can go on and on about the great gay animal debate. There are gay humans. I know many. They are gay because they were born that way. If there was a choice in the matter, they would not be gay. They would not purposely go through the anguish of being disowned by their friends and family, beaten by homophobes, etc., just to be deviant.

I know a girl that came out to her father about a year after her brother died. The last thing that her father ever said to her was that he wished she had died instead of her brother. I know a guy that visited his family on Thanksgiving and was asked to eat in the living room away from everyone on a paper plate with plastic utensils so he wouldn't give everyone AIDS. I was with a guy that was about to get beaten by a carload of guys with bats, until I ran out in the street and convinced them that I was his girlfriend. If they chose to be gay, they must be masochists.


Mmmm. I disagree with what you said. I'll elaborate if you want, but I've never gotten my point across. The "It cant be a choice because people never, ever, EVER do anything negative to themselves" is not a valid argument. It may not be a choice, but that isn't evidence for it, IMHO.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
Do you like sex enough to have sex with a man?
I don't understand the question. I've never felt attracted to a man, so the issue of sex has never come up.

[mjv]

Well,

Now I see my decision to abandon this arguement was the right one.

I could already see it devolving from a simple request for evidence of claims made to bitter name calling and accusations.

Thanks for the words of encouragment Tony, I was beginning to think I was the only one who appreciated the irony of "sceptics" making blanket claims based on what appears to be very little real evidence.

I still remain sceptical about the claims of what appears to be one "biologist" (I put that in quotes, because I could find nothing on google about the author's credentials as a biologist other than the fact that he wrote a book on "gay" animals). Wouldn't be the first time that an "expert" turns out not to be one as I found in a marijuana legalization thread.

[Foofer]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf



Mmmm. I disagree with what you said. I'll elaborate if you want, but I've never gotten my point across. The "It cant be a choice because people never, ever, EVER do anything negative to themselves" is not a valid argument. It may not be a choice, but that isn't evidence for it, IMHO.

I'd like to hear your views on the subject. I promise not to call you names if I disagree :) but, since I can't speak for anyone else, PM me if you like.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Foofer


I'd like to hear your views on the subject. I promise not to call you names if I disagree :) but, since I can't speak for anyone else, PM me if you like.

Just that people do things for attention or whatnot, and it's not necessarily seeking positive attention. (Attention, feedback, reaction, whatever you want to call it.) If it were so negative to be openly gay, how come there are more than a few 'flamingly queer' gays out there? Sureley they'd be hiding in the closet for fear of their lives?

I draw a parallel (And it's not an exact one, I admit, but bear with me here) between that argument and the argument that alien abduction victims wouldn't be lying because why would they choose to be ridiculed and called crazy? The answer is that some people seek that kind of attention out.

And here's where I make the disclaimer that being gay does not equal wanting attention. (Well, not usually.) I'm merely saying that that's a bad argument for it not being a choice.

[Foofer]

Ratman,

Some "flamingly queer" gays may very well be seeking attention (the irritatingly flaming Bobby Trendy caused one of my gay friends to proclaim that he "hates faggots."), although there are plenty of heterosexuals that seek attention through ways that are annoying to a lot of people. However, I think another reason for it is a kind of defense mechanism. You hate me because I'm gay? Fine. I'll shove it in your face. I know a few atheists that do the same thing to christian co-workers and family members.

The "flamingly queer" gays get the most attention and media coverage but they are not representative of all gays. Most of the gay guys I know are just guys. They are not obviously gay, they are not all neat and well dressed and they even watch football. Okay, they watch Miss America, too.

Another reason I don't see it as strictly attention seeking is many gays (at least the ones I know) realized they were gay from a very young age. One example is a male friend that at seven years old had his first crush on Randolph Mantooth from the show "Emergency" and around the same time he would take his sister's Barbies and use them to put on pretend beauty pageants.

[Eos of the Eons]

I like how people dismiss studies without looking into them.

Sexual attraction is usually thought to be controlled by hormone levels with in the body, but it is a more complicated process. Both hormone and pheromone signals are involved in chemical attraction. Pheromones send chemical signals between individuals to elicit a response in other members of the species while hormones cause a response within the body of one individual. Pheromones are thus important to sexual attraction between individuals of a species.

Look up the reaction that pheremones have on the physical body. I'm talking about the increased blood flow, among other things.

http://is2.dal.ca/~kcollin2/pheromones.html
Pheromones, which elicit a specific sexual response in an individua

Through evolution, mammals have evolved a system of chemosensory receptors, capable of detecting an array of different odours, similar to the macroglomerular complex of insects. There is a defined dual olfactory system in insects; ordinary glomeruli are tuned to receive and process information for regular odours, while the macroglomerular complex interprets pheromone signals (Mustaparta 1996). The two systems are anatomically distinct, the receptor cells are specifically tuned to odours at given concentrations and elicit different responses. A dual olfactory system has also evolved in mammalian species so they will have a specifically sensitive method of detecting hormonal signals. The accessory olfactory system is called the vomeronasal system, consisting of a vomeronasal pit, which leads to the vomeronasal organ (VNO) where the pheromone receptor cells are located (Herrada and Dulac 1997). From the VNO vomeronasal neurons convey messages to the accessory olfactory bulb (AOB) where the response signal is mediated. The dual system allows for specificity of the receptor cells and processing of the different signals.

Once you study the entire biology of attraction, one cannot possibly conclude that homosexuality is a whim of one's choice.

Can any heterosexual male that has never ever been attracted to other men even try to like another male physically. It's not something that a heterosexual can just suddenly switch to. Just try to not be 'turned on' by females when you are not homosexual.

Getting back to the the rest of the animal kingdom, the studies are not weak or just simple misinterpreted short term observances. There are key factors that can teach us a lot about human homosexuality as well.

I found the one study on sheep very humorous because of the fact that the males that are attracted to other males don't ever 'think' of being the receivers. Part of the frustration is finding a willing receiver. Being a receiver hardly seems natural...thus the confusion by males about how to go about acting on attraction to another male. It's not like they can agree to take turns. They want to perform as males....but on the males they find attractive. Talk about confusion! Sheep aren't about to think "wow, this is weird, I'm trying to make a male sheep pregnant"...they simply are attracted to another male, and not the females. Animals hardly mate simply to bring progeny into the world. Attraction is the biggest part of the reproductive process in the animal world. Mix up the pheremones, and you find the animals acting on their attraction...not thinking about bringing progeny into the world. No male sheep attracted to females are thinking 'my chance to get offspring'...they are simply acting on a drive, on attraction.

There's no way I can turn off my attraction to men and choose to be gay. It's like trying not to breath.


Most recently, Simon LeVay compared 41 autopsied brains and discovered a difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in the interstitial nucleus 3 of the anterior hypothalamus.

has a master's degree in natural sciences from Cambridge and a doctorate in neuroanatomy from Göttingen University in Germany. In 1971 he moved to Harvard, joining the team of David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel, who won a Nobel Prize in 1981 for their work on the brain's visual system.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/sex_and_the_brain_by_david_nimmo.htm


Homosexual Behavior

common in farm animals
useful to detect when females in heat
selection by man may have enhanced this
can collect bulls off of other bulls as mounts




http://www.wisc.edu/ansci_repro/lec/lec_14/lec14out.html



The film 'Out in Nature', referenced below [F10], shows clear examples of homosexual relationships being an intrinsic part of normal behaviour in many mammal and bird species.


http://www.geocities.com/markpeaty/sex.html


The study of homosexuality and animals is not fluff. It's not something a person believes on a whim and flimsy evidence. Rather, just like anything I find to believable, it is based on in depth study, proof, and consistent observance.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I like how people dismiss studies without looking into them.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/sex_and_the_brain_by_david_nimmo.htm




eote, eote, eote...

You simply must, M-U-S-T, start reading the things you post:

(Mr. LeVay's own words) "It's important to stress what I didn't find," he points out with the courtly patience of someone who long ago got used to waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."

"Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later."

You might also be interested to know that Mr. LeVay has yet to recreate his findings and neither has ANYONE ELSE. Most scientist (and interestingly, quite a few gay publications) found his 1991 study to be fundimentally flawed because of its small size and the unsupportable assumptions made by the author about the sexual preferrences of a number of his subjects.

But I suspect that will make little difference to you.

[Kimpatsu]

I'll repeat my earlier question: MJV, what exactly is your problem with the gay community?

[mjv]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I'll repeat my earlier question: MJV, what exactly is your problem with the gay community?

Ah, so now I apparently have gone from having a "problem" to having a problem with the entire gay community. Wow, who would have thought. But come on, some of my best friends are...

Keep trying Sparky, you baited someone else into a shouting match, but I simply don't have the time or the interest to play your silly little game.

To turn the tables, I wonder what exactly your problem is with someone asking people to support their claims? On a sceptic website no less...

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by mjv


Ah, so now I apparently have gone from having a "problem" to having a problem with the entire gay community. Wow, who would have thought. But come on, some of my best friends are...

Keep trying Sparky, you baited someone else into a shouting match, but I simply don't have the time or the interest to play your silly little game.

To turn the tables, I wonder what exactly your problem is with someone asking people to support their claims? On a sceptic website no less...
We have supplied plenty of evidnce of gay and bisexual behaviour among animals. That's not what I asked, though: You keep decrying the gay community as "unnatural". I ask again: what exactly is your problem?
Or are you just a troll?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Foofer
Another reason I don't see it as strictly attention seeking is many gays (at least the ones I know) realized they were gay from a very young age. One example is a male friend that at seven years old had his first crush on Randolph Mantooth from the show "Emergency" and around the same time he would take his sister's Barbies and use them to put on pretend beauty pageants.

I didn't say it was strictly attention seeking. I said that that's a poor argument that the gay lifestyle is not a choice. It may not be a choice, but it's still a poor argument.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

[1]We have supplied plenty of evidnce of gay and bisexual behaviour among animals. [2]That's not what I asked, though: You keep decrying the gay community as "unnatural". I ask again: what exactly is your problem?
[3]Or are you just a troll?

There you go again...

[1] no, you haven't. Anecdotal stories and anthropomorphizing animal behavior do not equate to evidence. I have repeatedly asked for evidence and have yet to be provided with anything that is not HIGHLY subjective in its interpretation.

[2] you obviously have difficulties with reading comprehension, I have done no such thing. At the moment, my problem is you. You will not argue the matter in a rational manner, ignore any reasonable response to shaky "evidence" that is presented, and have resorted to making up positions that I have not taken.

[3] no, but I know one when I meet one.

Now, please run along and pester someone else...your nonsense is tiring.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by mjv
[1] no, you haven't. Anecdotal stories and anthropomorphizing animal behavior do not equate to evidence. I have repeatedly asked for evidence and have yet to be provided with anything that is not HIGHLY subjective in its interpretation.
Just becasue you are incapable of understanding the evidence does not make the evidence aqny less compelling.
Originally posted by mjv
[2] you obviously have difficulties with reading comprehension, I have done no such thing. At the moment, my problem is you. You will not argue the matter in a rational manner, ignore any reasonable response to shaky "evidence" that is presented, and have resorted to making up positions that I have not taken.
The evidence is not shaky; it is definitive. You have taken every opportunity you can in this thread to vilify the gay community. I would like to know why.
Originally posted by mjv
[3] no, but I know one when I meet one.
As there is no question precding this supposed answer, I do not understand what you are trying to say.
Originally posted by mjv
Now, please run along and pester someone else...your nonsense is tiring.
Your trolling is most tiresome.

[Foofer]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


I didn't say it was strictly attention seeking. I said that that's a poor argument that the gay lifestyle is not a choice. It may not be a choice, but it's still a poor argument.

I know you didn't.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Just becasue you are incapable of understanding the evidence does not make the evidence aqny less compelling.

The evidence is not shaky; it is definitive.

Everything that was presented in this thread is easily explained by normal animal behavior and has nothing to do with sexual preference. You have not proven your position, yet you keep claiming you have. That is dishonest.

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You have taken every opportunity you can in this thread to vilify the gay community. I would like to know why.

I would like to know why you keep inventing supposed attacks I am making on the gay community. You know I have done no such thing. That makes you a liar.

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
As there is no question precding this supposed answer, I do not understand what you are trying to say.


Read your own post Brainiac, you were the one who asked the question.

You are a liar and a troll. I have no need to interact with you further.

[Kimpatsu]

Answering without quoting the original makes reference difficult, Brainiac.
Normal animal behaviour? Exactly! Gay behaviour is normal! Your insistence that homosexuality is confined to homo sapiens is dishonest, and implies animosity towards the gay community. Perhaps you should explain yourself better.

[mjv]

Try to sound out the big words:

You are a liar and a troll. I have no need to interact with you further.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Foofer


I know you didn't.

'Kay. :)

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by mjv
You might also be interested to know that Mr. LeVay has yet to recreate his findings and neither has ANYONE ELSE.But a year earlier, the Dutch scientist Dick Swaab had made very similar observations, independent of LeVay's work. His study has some of the same problems as LeVay's though.

Combining these two studies with other evidence, it is now perfectly reasonable to assume that homosexuals have slightly differing brain structures on a microscopic level. It is not known whether these are causes or effects or even how much these differences correlate with homosexuality.Anecdotal stories and anthropomorphizing animal behavior do not equate to evidence.You are right, but you are asking for the impossible. Only behaviours can be scientifically compared. You are asking for the underlying intentions. You want to know whether animals engage in homosexual behaviour because they are gay, but that's not researchable and not even a scientific question. You can see why that is a difficult to answer question if you try to answer whether there are straight animals. It is obvious that there are animals who engage in heterosexual behaviour, but do they do it for the same reason as humans? Are they driven by the same impulses, the same desires?

All we can hope to do is to compare behaviours, and if we do that we see that homosexual behaviour is common in the animal world.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
We have supplied plenty of evidnce of gay and bisexual behaviour among animals. That's not what I asked, though: You keep decrying the gay community as "unnatural". I ask again: what exactly is your problem?

In no way do I mean to support the opinions of the person you are responding to, but I dislike oversimplification of reality for the purposes of supporting opinions.

Yes, there are plenty of examples of homosexual behaviors amongs animals, including many species where the members mate pretty much indescriminantly, but that is not the same thing as being gay, and there are certain problems with claiming that they are:


A large proportion of gay individuals have had heterosexual experiences. Most of them will say that having a heterosexual experience does not make one not gay. Many will say, "Sure, I slept with the girls in high school, but I'm still gay."
The majority of humans who have had homosexual experiences are not gay by any reasonable definition of the word.
The gay community in the US in the 1980s widely reviled bisexuals, considering them "fence-sitters," to use only the most polite of many terms.
As far as I can tell, the only examples of homosexual individuals of animal species other than humans are three species of whiptail lizards, all of the members of which are female but who still mate.
Also as far as I can tell, there are no species other than humans where some male mate with other males but also avoid mating with females. On the contrary; it seems that in species with homosexual behavior, the ones most adept at also exceed at mating with females.


The practice of mating with members of the same sex to the exclusion of mating with members of the opposite sex when they are available, a reasonable definition of gay does appear to be uniquely human. One might assert that this is simply a corollary of the human practice of monogamy, but it does not explain the fact that many gays who had no concern for monogamy still look down on bisexuals.

[Terry]

Originally posted by epepke

A large proportion of gay individuals have had heterosexual experiences. Most of them will say that having a heterosexual experience does not make one not gay. Many will say, "Sure, I slept with the girls in high school, but I'm still gay."


I think this is defensible. Some people have heterosexual sex because it is the expected thing, or because they think it will make their same-sex attraction go away. I'd say these people are still (exclusively) gay. Other people actually like heterosexual sex as well as gay sex. Those people I'd say are bisexual.


The practice of mating with members of the same sex to the exclusion of mating with members of the opposite sex when they are available, a reasonable definition of gay does appear to be uniquely human. [...]

I agree about the behaviour. But I don't agree with your definition of gay. 80's bi-haters notwithstanding, bisexual people are now and have always been part of the gay community. But that's probably another argument for another thread. ;)

--Terry.

[Prospero]

Originally posted by epepke


A large proportion of gay individuals have had heterosexual experiences. Most of them will say that having a heterosexual experience does not make one not gay. Many will say, "Sure, I slept with the girls in high school, but I'm still gay."
The majority of humans who have had homosexual experiences are not gay by any reasonable definition of the word.
The gay community in the US in the 1980s widely reviled bisexuals, considering them "fence-sitters," to use only the most polite of many terms.
As far as I can tell, the only examples of homosexual individuals of animal species other than humans are three species of whiptail lizards, all of the members of which are female but who still mate.
Also as far as I can tell, there are no species other than humans where some individuals mate with other males but who also avoid mating with females. On the contrary; it seems that in species with homosexual behavior, the ones most adept at also exceed at mating with females.


The practice of mating with members of the same sex to the exclusion of mating with members of the opposite sex when they are available, a reasonable definition of gay does appear to be uniquely human.

Not to criticize your last point, but seagulls are actually a very remarkable case against your argument. Specifically, "lesbian gulls" will mate with a male and then return to a nest to lay the eggs. However, during that time, she will have a female partner with whom she will have sexual encounters with consisting primarily of rubbing their clitorises together. What is most remarkable is the fact that the lesbian gull uses the males solely to get pregnant and then makes a point of excluding him. It is an interesting phenomena, especially considering it is not universal among female gulls. Additionally, the second female in the relationship will never seek out a male to get pregnant by, thus giving proof of a species where members specifically exclude members of the opposite sex in preference for members of the same gender.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Earthborn
But a year earlier, the Dutch scientist Dick Swaab had made very similar observations, independent of LeVay's work. His study has some of the same problems as LeVay's though.

Combining these two studies with other evidence, it is now perfectly reasonable to assume that homosexuals have slightly differing brain structures on a microscopic level. It is not known whether these are causes or effects or even how much these differences correlate with homosexuality.

Okay, I will answer since you were responding to me. And thanks for doing so in a reasonable manner by the way.

Here’s what we know so far:

LeVay’s work is flawed scientifically for a number of reasons and has not been replicated; therefore I consider basing any strong conclusions on it to be unreasonable.
Swaab’s conclusions are similarly flawed and appear to be contradicted by LeVay and others doing similar research; therefore any strong conclusions based on it are also unreasonable.

I fail to see how two unverified theories lead to a “perfectly reasonable” assumption that homosexuals have differing brain structures. It just seems to defy logic to me to use “questionable evidence A” and “questionable evidence B” to get to the “absolute conclusion C”.




Originally posted by Earthborn
You are right, but you are asking for the impossible. Only behaviours can be scientifically compared. You are asking for the underlying intentions. You want to know whether animals engage in homosexual behaviour because they are gay, but that's not researchable and not even a scientific question. You can see why that is a difficult to answer question if you try to answer whether there are straight animals. It is obvious that there are animals who engage in heterosexual behaviour, but do they do it for the same reason as humans? Are they driven by the same impulses, the same desires?

All we can hope to do is to compare behaviours, and if we do that we see that homosexual behaviour is common in the animal world.

But the use of the term “homosexual behavior” in your last sentence completely contradicts your statement in the paragraph above; “homosexual behavior” is a loaded term because it assumes that we KNOW the underlying intentions. If we do not know, we do not know, and that is fine, but I asked for evidence because people were claiming animals were gay as a statement of fact. I'm not to blame if it is impossible for them to provide proof of their assertions.

By the way, it should be noted that a few of the authors I saw on the intenet made it a point to use this term: "homosexual" behavior, which I find much more reasonable because it more clearly identifies that we are using an assumption in describing the behavior. Its a small thing, but I think it matters in the discussion.

I'll give you an example of what I am trying to say: If I walk into a strangers house and their poodle starts humping my leg, do I automatically assume the poodle is trans-specied? Of course not! (Right guys? I mean come on, we can agree on that right?…right?):(

Likewise if I bring my boy poodle to a friend’s house and their boy poodle chases my poodle around and humps my poodle a few times, do I automatically assume they are gay and want to spend the rest of their lives together or do I take a more reasonable approach and assume that as males they are simply settling a dominance issue as many wild animals do in stabilizing their social structure?

And that’s all folks…

[mjv]

Originally posted by Prospero


Not to criticize your last point, but seagulls are actually a very remarkable case against your argument. Specifically, "lesbian gulls" will mate with a male and then return to a nest to lay the eggs. However, during that time, she will have a female partner with whom she will have sexual encounters with consisting primarily of rubbing their clitorises together. What is most remarkable is the fact that the lesbian gull uses the males solely to get pregnant and then makes a point of excluding him. It is an interesting phenomena, especially considering it is not universal among female gulls. Additionally, the second female in the relationship will never seek out a male to get pregnant by, thus giving proof of a species where members specifically exclude members of the opposite sex in preference for members of the same gender.

http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm.

as posted by eote, explains that:

"In the wild, when male ring-billed and California gulls are scarce, up to 5 percent of females raise their young with a female partner. They court each other as they would a male and set up a nest together. One or both then copulate with males that already have mates, research by Michael R. Conover of Utah State University in Logan and others has shown. Two-parent families are a necessity in gull communities. One parent stays home and guards the nest from egg-hungry neighbors, while the other goes in search of food."

Sounds like a biological cause to me...

Even more interesting is their comment that the gulls do not stay with their "gull-friend" for life, the majority return to male companions when the numbers improve. Sorry about the bad pun.


And that's really all folks...

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by mjv
And that's really all folks...
Promise?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Prospero
Not to criticize your last point, but seagulls are actually a very remarkable case against your argument. Specifically, "lesbian gulls" will mate with a male and then return to a nest to lay the eggs.

That's interesting. I think I had heard about this once but had completely forgotten about it.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Promise?

What, are you lonely or something? Go find a hobby Troll.

I'm planning to let the issue go because I've gotten bored with explaining the same thing over and over to trolls who are actively ignoring the fact that they are engaging in the very non-critical thinking that they despise in the "woo woo" crowd.

Now, go scurry back to your little hole.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by mjv


What, are you lonely or something? Go find a hobby Troll.

I'm planning to let the issue go because I've gotten bored with explaining the same thing over and over to trolls who are actively ignoring the fact that they are engaging in the very non-critical thinking that they despise in the "woo woo" crowd.

Now, go scurry back to your little hole.
Fabulous insult, but I'm not the troll here. You're the one in violation of the Jerk rule.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by mjv
I fail to see how two unverified theories lead to a “perfectly reasonable” assumption that homosexuals have differing brain structures. It just seems to defy logic to me to use “questionable evidence A” and “questionable evidence B” to get to the “absolute conclusion C”. Okay, maybe I should explain that.

The reason that it is a reasonable conclusion is:
- Differences in brain anatomy that seem to correlate with sexual behaviour have been observed (there is just no agreement with exactly what sexual behaviour and whether it is cause or effect.)
- We know that homosexuals behave somewhat differently than heterosexuals (that's obvious) and since the brain is the organ that causes people to behave, it is perfectly reasonable to assume their brains are somehow slightly different. We're just not sure exactly in what way.“homosexual behavior” is a loaded term because it assumes that we KNOW the underlying intentions.Maybe in your mind. I think many researchers just define 'homosexual behaviour' as sexual behaviour between individuals of the same sex, regardless of intentions.I'm not to blame if it is impossible for them to provide proof of their assertions.Hardly my problem either. But if someone has assertions that cannot be proven, it is better to point out that it can't be proven instead of asking for evidence.I'll give you an example of what I am trying to say: If I walk into a strangers house and their poodle starts humping my leg, do I automatically assume the poodle is trans-specied? Of course not! (Right guys? I mean come on, we can agree on that right?…right?):(I would say that the poodle engages in 'bestiality'....or do I take a more reasonable approach and assume that as males they are simply settling a dominance issue as many wild animals do in stabilizing their social structure?If you make that assumption you are trying to guess the intentions of the dogs, instead of objectively observing their behaviour. Without any evidence of their intentions, saying that they 'are settling a dominance issue' is no more reasonable than assuming ' they want to live together for the rest of their lives'. The reasons are not even mutually exclusive!

If you don't want to anthropomorphize their behaviour, all you can do is observe their behaviour, which is homosexual (meaning sexual between individuals of the same sex) and you can try to figure out whether it causes them to have a stable hierarchy after they did it. You cannot conclude that it is the reason why they engage in it.

Once they have reached a stable hierarchy, it also makes it possible for them to live together for the rest of their lives. Perhaps that was they reason they wanted to settle the issue in the first place? :p

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Fabulous insult, but I'm not the troll here. You're the one in violation of the Jerk rule.

I’m sorry, but you are the troll. MJV has handled this issue with skepticism and thoughtfulness; you've handled it with credulity and ad hominem attacks.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
I'm sorry, but you are the troll. MJV has handled this issue with skepticism and thoughtfulness; you've handled it with credulity and ad hominem attacks.
Wrong; MJV was given the evidence for which he asked, but as that didn't fit with his preconceptions, he ignored the evidence and continued his strident ad hominem attacks. Show me on example of ad hominem from me. (Jokes don't count, note.)

[mjv]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Wrong; MJV was given the evidence for which he asked, but as that didn't fit with his preconceptions, he ignored the evidence and continued his strident ad hominem attacks. Show me on example of ad hominem from me. (Jokes don't count, note.)

One last time, I will address the brick wall that is Kimpatsu and his inability to handle telling the truth.

I did not ignore the "evidence", I in fact did a little research into the "evidence" and found it to be seriously lacking in one way or another.

As for ad hominem attacks, I do not believe I have made any. You are a troll. That is not an ad hominem attack. In my experience with you it is a fact.

1. You provided no input on the discussion.

2. You repeatedly lied about my statements and tried to inflame the issue.

3. You repeatedly questioned and attacked my motives in asking for real evidence for the claims being made.

4. You repeatedly ignored the valid objections I made regarding the "evidence" that was provided.

I'm sure it makes no difference to you in your little dream world, but 1+2+3+4 =troll.

Anyway, at least I know that I can comfortably ignore your future posts since I know they will be irrelevant trollish ramblings.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by mjv
1. You provided no input on the discussion.
Yes I did; read my statements above.
Originally posted by mjv
2. You repeatedly lied about my statements and tried to inflame the issue.
Liar; I quoted YOU. In what way did I inflame the situation?
Originally posted by mjv
3. You repeatedly questioned and attacked my motives in asking for real evidence for the claims being made.
I have every right to question your motives. The fact that you view such as an attack is telling.
Originally posted by mjv
4. You repeatedly ignored the valid objections I made regarding the "evidence" that was provided. You have yet to make any valid assertions.
So thta makes YOU the troll. Now, crawl back under your bridge and wait for the three Billy Goats Gruff...