The Oslo Natural History Museum recently opened up the world’s first museum exhibition about homosexual animals. Geir Soeli, the project leader, contends that "homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them." Furthermore, the exhibit clearly states…
We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear — homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature,
There are plenty of exhibits to see. They have photos of a happy male whale couple and another of two male giraffes mounting each other in the most professional manner. But it’s not just for large animals. God created homosexual bees, beetles, birds, and many others. God truly does work in mysterious ways. You’ve all heard of March of the Penguins, well guess what? That movie could easily have been March of the Queer Penguins because they too swing the other way.
Needless to say, Christians are outraged at this "abomination". Clearly it’s the work of the liberal agenda and not that of God. Liberals are converting straight animals to homosexuals to garner support from the public. Sounds harmless, but a closer look will show the hazards to come. Sure a couple gay birds is quite harmless, but then it spreads to other animals like hippos and elephants. Soon we have an army of gay pachyderms marching on the doorstep of America, God’s chosen country. But it doesn’t stop there… oh no. Eventually, we’ll have gay cats and gay dogs. And those pets will be adopted by little boys and little girls. They won’t stop until all our kids are riding the queer train to straight to hell. Think about the kids? Isn’t anyone thinking about the kids. Oh the humanity!
No related posts.
But the religious right doesn’t believe that we’re animals, or at least that we are ‘special’ animals. Won’t they just claim that their behavior doesn’t reflect on what behavior is acceptable for us?
No, they’ll just deny the evidence.
Bees? Wtf are bees doing having sex? Get back to work.
ok, so animals are prone to the same defect as humans…
hello boris,
How is homosexuality a defect if just about every single member of a species, Bonobos, practice it?
From the article:
Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are among extremes in having sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. “Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them,” Soeli said.
It’s also interesting that none of the heterosexual animals try to prevent homosexual pair bonding in every species accept human. That would suggest that anti-homosexual beliefs and behaviors are cultural, not biological.
look, one can’t really argue that homosexuality is biologicaly normal. one species’ behaviour is hardly evidence of such. yes, youre right there is an aversion towards such among humans, and it is mostly cultural (i can only theorize that this cultural phenomenon has firm biological roots). i personally can think of very few things more disgusting, but i do not approve of anyone trying to prevent it or otherwise inhibit someones rights. but to go as far as saying its normal, natural? no way. the homosexual behaviour in humans is a result of many factors, some of them being abnormal upbringing or a hormonal anomaly. we are NOT supposed to be wired with an attraction to the same sex. that is just not beneficial for the survival of the species at all. i do find it interesting that people will bring up examples from other animal species’ as a proof that something is “natural”. that logic is flawed. animals are subject to same laws as we are, and that includes defects.
what i see happening a lot is that this issue gets boxed with the whole xtian vs. atheist issue. freethinkers vs. indoctrinated, closeminded individuals.
Hello Boris,
It is a bit of a mystery as to why homosexual behavior exists in animals (including humans) since it seems to note benefit the species’ survival. In the case of the Bonobos, the question is answered. It is part of social bonding and belonging to a social group has many survival advantages. The article also addresses other ways it may be beneficial:
[article quote]
Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end.
Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, he said.
And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. “The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women,” he said.
[/article quote]
I know that this argument often gets tied into the Christian vs. atheist issue, but (if I remember correctly) you’re an exception to that. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re an atheist who does not approve of homosexuality. If that’s the case, you and I can leave Christianity out of the discussion.
atheist/agnostic… it’s a blurry line. the reason i even brought it up is because i have observed many atheists who claim homosexuality is normal as a matter of party line. a matter of opposing the xtians. i think if more people really looked at it objectively they would come to a similar conclusion. your regular human male has some pretty strong hormons, some pretty hardwired parts of the brain that are supposed to make him attracted to females, for the sake of promoting the species. attraced to parts of the female physique that could otherwise even be described as disgusting. but we don’t see it that way cause. hence my (well not really mine) theory of hormonal/genetic defect.
then there is the issue of abnormal upbringing. mostly observed in girls who have been either abused by men at some point or had a really rocky relationship with the father (there are many shades of gray in there). one of my friends is a “lesbian” who’s not really a lesbian, just really really bitter at men. through her i have met many other lesbians, and all of them have one thing in common: they are bitter. men have done them wrong in the past, and now they are looking for love/affection whatever from women.
i am always up for a debate, and unlike our xtian/muslim/loony friends here, i CAN be persuaded with good arguments. so bring it on… ;-)
You seem to think that only heterosexual or homosexual can be natural. Why not both? Because its “not beneficial for the survival of the species”? If you told me you spend part of your day “jacking off”, I’d tell you, “that’s normal, and natural”, but it doesn’t preserve the species.
Diversity is something that is very naturally occurring. There’s not just one set of traits or behaviors that is normal, natural.
With a population size of humans, 10-20 percent of the population engaging in only homosexual sex is not damaging the survival of the species. Nothing anywhere suggests that homosexuality is some new thing. It has always existed. Yet the species has somehow been able to totally dominate the planet.
When you say things like “we are NOT supposed to be wired…” you sound like a religious freak who think’s we are “designed” a particular way by some intelligent being.
@jschmoe
we are a very successful species. we have survived a long time and dominated this planet. an anomaly like homosexuality is not damaging us in the great scale of things. so what? homosexuality has been around for a long time, sure. so has cancer, and many other defects.
jacking off? first of all, its gotta come out one way or another. second, we do many things for pleasure that are not linked to survival of the species. bad example, come back with a better one.
diversity: i agree with you 100%. in a genetical pool as large as ours, diversity happens often and in many different ways. is every form of diversity beneficial and desirable? no.
we are, for the most part, pretty intelligent beings. but to a large extent we are still pretty instinct driven. driven by our hormonal makeup. in the end, we still operate by the old principle: the strong alpha males do anything they can to attract the best females. it is a very strong principle in our society for a damned good reason.
this is my opinion. it is not a very popular one, but i don’t care. i have gay people as my friends and they are not quite fond of my opinion either.
once again, lets not make this an issue of acceptance and open-mindedness. lets not be afraid of analyzing this objectively. you saying i sound like a “religious freak” is laughable, i do not go home to worship at the altar of homophobia… ;-)
You say we do many things for pleasure that is not linked to survival of the species. I agree. Sex for example. I don’t know anyone who would ever say, “Oh, I like to give my lady friend a right good rogering to prolong our species’ existence.” The question I might ask you is, “Is it normal, natural to have sex with other people for pleasure?” My guess is, that you would agree that it IS natural. So the next question would be, “Is it natural for someone to get pleasure from having sex with someone of the opposite sex?” My guess here is that you would say, yes. (because its natural for you as an individual) Is it natural for someone to get pleasure from having sex with someone of the same sex? My guess here is that you would say, no. (because its not the case for you as an individual).
So now I ask you… Do you think its natural, normal for an individual to take pleasure in the consumption of steamed asparagus. Mmmmmmmm I quite enjoy steamed asparagus. And let me be very clear, I haven’t chosen to like it. I just do. I can’t explain exactly why I like it. I just do. It tastes good to me, and it gives me pleasure to consume it. Now I have a friend who’s the exact opposite. Putting asparagus in his mouth causes him to wretch and gag. Absolutely NOT pleasurable. Now mind you, my friend’s parents were not murdered by an asparagus farmer. His sister didn’t shove asparagus stalks up his nose as a boy. He just doesn’t care for asparagus, and never has.
So, is there a definitive normal and natural choice for asparagus consumption?
Your close-mind on this issue seems apparent with your “one of my friends is a lesbian who’s not really a lesbian” quote. It seems easier for you to label someone bitter, rather than accept they sexual preference to be homosexual or bisexual.
To boris:
If you wanted to look at this issue objectively, then you’ve failed.
I’ve known many gay people as well. Some of them are the largest and strongest “alpha” men that most people can find and they try their best to attract other strong men, not women.
Since you theorize that this aversion to homosexual practices pheonomena is firmly rooted in biological roots, I can only surmise that you have never done an ounce of research in your life.
As a species compared to most other species on the planet, we have been here the least long as well. Successfull? If you measure our success at developing languages and technology sure. We are also successfull at wiping out other species, polluting the land and water and killing each other more often than not. How do you measure success?
Also, comparing homosexuality to cancer is the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a long time.
Boris, you seem to be missing something; evolution works on the tribe just as well as it does on the individual. If a familial grouping survives and breeds better than other familial groupings, then the genes that the first group contains will be passed on preferencially.
This means that homosexual behavior can possibly be an evolutionary advantage. For instance, males that can take on the roles of females can increase the number of mothers in a tribe thaat are able to take care of that tribes children. Also, if (as it has been suggested) the same genes that produce a gay male produce an over-fertile female, then the tribe will have more children to raise (which makes the males that can be female more useful…)
The point is, you are wired a particular way to enjoy the females of your species. I am too. Most males are wired in that way. That does not mean that any other way of being (males that are more feminine, or wired to desire other men) is not valuable or natural, even on an evolutionary scale. The other forms of male (not designed to fight for alpha male status) are most likely useful and advantageous, or they’d be bred out of us as a species.
(As an aside, if we are set up to have strong alphas taking all the best women, would it not stand to reason that some of the males will never get to breed, and as such would be a problem? How better to neutralize that problem than to have a portion of your non-alpha males be put into nonbreeder roles?)
“diversity: i agree with you 100%. in a genetical pool as large as ours, diversity happens often and in many different ways. is every form of diversity beneficial and desirable? no.”
This is exactly the point. Homosexuality MAY not be a desirable survival trait (a point which can be argued), but the fact that it is still around in such prominence suggests that it is not an undesirable trait either. Thus is sits in our genetic pool like millions of other traits that have little effect on our survival. Blond hair and blue eyes serves no purpose for survival, as far as I know, and people with those traits are a minority. Do those people have defects?
“we are, for the most part, pretty intelligent beings. but to a large extent we are still pretty instinct driven. driven by our hormonal makeup. in the end, we still operate by the old principle: the strong alpha males do anything they can to attract the best females. it is a very strong principle in our society for a damned good reason. ”
Like nearly everything in life, this is not as black and white as you seem to think it is. In our society, those who far from alpha males still manage to reproduce. Is this an abomination as well?
First of all, this entire thing is ridiculous. You all fight over anomalies in the human race, then try and push it off on animals? What’s wrong with you people?
Second of all, if you aren’t gay or bisexual, then you have no idea what it’s like. At all. If you really want to know what it’s like, go get railed by a person of the same sex. Shut up otherwise.
Third, important one here. My family roots from Christianity. I, for one, do not recognize this. My mother and father both know I, for an individual, do quite enjoy being railed by a person of the same sex. What’s so damn shocking about “gay” behavior? You’re all sitting here and trying to debate what’s right and what’s wrong, and you’re ALL failing. Every single one of you. Do any of you know what it’s like to wake up and see the downfall of the human race? Well, if any of you had ANY conscious thought, you would. It happens every freaking day.
This article, is what’s making the human race go down the tube. This is what makes people like me absolutely furious, especially when the rest of their family go under the exact same profiling, at least as far as religion is concerned. My mother gets sick of things like this popping up, because she wasn’t raised to hate everything that isn’t, as you quote, normal.
Quite honestly, if none of you know ANYTHING, from any experience at ALL, you have no right to speak up and tell everyone else it is wrong. Everyone has an opinion, including myself. Just because you speak it, doesn’t mean everyone else has to FOLLOW it.
And yes, comparing homosexuality to cancer is definitely the stupidest thing I’ve heard yet. Oh, wait, my grandmother has cancer. She’s also straight. Screw you.
“Also, comparing homosexuality to cancer is the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a long time.” why? cause it doesnt fit into our nice little politically correct worldview? i have come from the assumption that homosexuality is a defect. no, its not lethal like cancer.
“The other forms of male (not designed to fight for alpha male status) are most likely useful and advantageous, or they’d be bred out of us as a species.”
homosexuality can be caused by the environment, and from my personal observations more often than not it is (not scientific, for what its worth). you can not “breed out” a defect like that.
@anonymous.one
this is a discussion forum. we are merely expressing our opinions. trust me, noone really cares if you like getting “railed” (what a creative term btw) by another guy. i frankly do not care for being PC and care even less if you are offended by my views.
Boris, two things; not all gays are so because of external forces. (Most homosexuals would tell you that all homosexuals are born that way, but I honestly can’t think of a way to prove or disprove that, so…) Many people that I’ve known have been homosexual without any external stress being put on them. In fact, many would say that the only external stresses they’ve ever felt had to do with other people pushing them towards ‘heteronormal’ behaviors.
Secondly, even if all homosexuals were so because of outside forces, why is that number so small? Most women have been hurt by a male at some point. Most men have been abused or shamed wrt sex at some point. If you are claiming that these stresses are what cause homosexuality, then why are only a very small proportion of people homosexual?
Id be willing to be it’s because those stresses are not what causes homosexuality; if they appear to, they are just triggering an underlying way of being.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just think that it’s most likely not right. ;)
@outsider
right, there is really no way to prove one way or another, and once again i will be swayed by some real scientific proof if we ever come up with any. in the meantime all i have is a pretty half-baked theory based on some observations. abuse, well it affects different people differently. who knows…
i do not like the PC situtation in our society, where its def. most unacceptable to even suggest gays are not “normal”. i support gay marriage, and everything else that might make them feel less like “second class” citizens. i would not consider myself close-minded. others may disagree.
i also do not like insecure statements like the one from anonymous.one. preventing people from expressing themselves aint gonna help your cause.
“First of all, this entire thing is ridiculous”
“you’re ALL failing”
“if any of you had ANY conscious thought”
Quite honestly, if none of you know ANYTHING, from any experience at ALL, you have no right to speak up and tell everyone else it is wrong”
Sweeping generalizations will help no one’s argument. Worst of all is this comment:
“if you aren’t gay or bisexual, then you have no idea what it’s like. At all. If you really want to know what it’s like, go get railed by a person of the same sex. Shut up otherwise.”
So by the same ‘logic’, one would have to be a drug addict to be able to talk about drugs. Also, one would have to be a diabetic in order to talk about diabetes. And one would have to be a professional football player to be able to talk about Monday night’s game.
I know you are upset about being discriminated against or called abnormal based on irrational thinking, but do not attempt to fight irrationality with irrationality. It is counter productive.
Thank you sidfaiwu. I think that this anonymous person is just missing the point about the article entirely. Statements like “Do you know what it’s like…?” really make me angry at the person that asks them because very often, you don’t even care if I DO know what it is like. Please be more reasonable.
Boris,
The reason that comparing homosexuality with cancer is unjust and simply stupid (which is a harsh word) is because they are nothing alike at all. It has nothing to do with whether your comparison is “PC” or not. It seems that you are waiting for people to attack you for being what you call offensive. I understand that it must be easier for you to lump all defects of the human species into one category but you must understand that homosexuality is NOT a defect. For example, it was taken out of the DSM-IV many years ago because it is not a mental defect (not that the DSM-IV is the end all be all.) Not in just this society, but many societies, homosexuality has been accepted and looked upon with understanding. The ancient Greeks (known for many things as well as their homosexuality) didn’t even have a word for same sex intercourse because all love was looked upon as Ok and the same. It didn’t matter if it was boy-on-boy or girl-on-girl or whatever.
Boris’s comment: “look, one can’t really argue that homosexuality is biologicaly normal.”
Quite actually, we can. We are.
lmao, biologically ‘normal’ my ass
my friend, evolution makes no mistake because it makes everymistake
because it exists, it is normal
“lmao, biologically ‘normal’ my ass
my friend, evolution makes no mistake because it makes everymistake
because it exists, it is normal ”
I could not agree more. This pretty much sums up everything to be said on this page. The rest is a meaningless battle of semantics.
Statistically, there is always a higher concentration of homosexuals in places of high density of humans (big cities).
It could be argued that homosexuals, ostracized in small town flock to big towns, but let’s put that aside for now, shall we?
Some animal species, mainly in less complex organism, we see a strong tendenty to desactivation or even ‘suicide’ when the colony as a whole reach a certain density.
Hypothetically, it could be said that, geneticaly, the human race creates non-reproductive members when the population concentration is too high, to preserve the resources and stabilise the population growth.
Alas, those statistic are sorely lacking and theses conclusions are but a way of saying homosexual behavior is CERTAINLY NOT a personnality defect, but actually dependant on some genetic flag to be activated (and the flag is activated by population density, maybe via pheromones… whatever…)…
Haha pretty much…
Just a couple of things:
* What’s beneficial to the individual is also beneficial to the species: don’t forget that natural selection doesn’t work for the benefit of the latter. The species couldn’t care less if it had a minority of non-breeding members, and if the “homosexual genes” do contribute towards fertility in a roundabout way then it can only be beneficial for those organisms having them to pass them on.
* Homosexuality is just the extreme of a long scale ranging from heterosexuality to homosexuality. The majority experiments or at least thinks about homosexual encounters, even if it is just a dream. It can just be an experiment, or like bonobos a form of release and social interaction. I personally would identify with heterosexual/monogamous, but I would definately kiss a girl should the appropriate situation present itself, and probably masturbate one too if she were a close enough friend. I’m interested in the experience, but not as a way of life.
Humans are sexual creatures, what should it matter if we like males or females? They’re all capable of sex, pleasure and reciprocation. If you stop looking at the world in terms of black and white and instead see a scale which places people along in a dynamic position loosely dependant upon genes, experiences and personality, itanshi’s comment becomes painfully obvious in its simple truth.
I don’t know why we christians are still trying to justify our belief in the wrongness of homosexuality by claiming it to be unnatural. I mean, we’re not afraid to tell people that we live by the teachings of a man who lived 2000 years ago as delivered to us in an ancient book that’s gone through enough translation to make our heads spin, yet we have to have some scientific or “natural” reason to consider homosexuality a sin? The hell?
We’re a bunch of kooks that believe in miracles, so why can’t we just say, “We don’t like homosexuality because the Bible says it’s icky,” and leave it at that? Trying to twist science to back up our viewpoint just makes us look silly(er).
Seems the discussion did get caught up in semantics. Normal has many definitions including ‘occurring naturally.’ Since homosexuality occurs in nature it is by definition normal. But aside from word games, homosexuality seems to be primarily genetic and evidence points to inheritance by the mother through the X chromosome. Funny thing about genetics and natural selection is that while we can certainly come up with ideas as to how traits proved beneficial, ultimately we only have educated guesses and no proof. Something doesn’t have to have a direct benefit to be passed on, it may have a side effect that is beneficial or be remnant of something that once was beneficial. If it doesn’t prove detrimental, it won’t be weeded out by the gene pool. If a ‘gay gene’ is carried by the mother there are a variety of reasons for it to be passed on and not weeded out.
It can also be cultural. The Sambia tribe in New Guinea is an example of homosexuality as a learned behavior (http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/ethno/sambia.html). There was also the Greeks who thought homosexual love was the ideal.
Cultural influences of course can also serve to pass the genetic basis on by pressuring homosexuals to engage in heterosexual lifestyles. Because our species is very social and has been for millions of years, we cannot ignore the impact that society has on its own gene pool. It’s been a very long time since homo sapiens has been subject to pure natural selection (which I believe can be detrimental to the species ultimately). Ever since we’ve had consciousness we’ve altered the game of selection.
Ultimately though other than for reasons of scientific curiosity what does it matter if someone is homosexual or heterosexual or transsexual? It doesn’t. It is not harmful or detrimental in any way. Some people may choose homosexuality, most are born homosexual. Some born homosexuals choose heterosexuality. Who gives a damn who other people sleep with? This country as a whole is way too hung up on the religious idea that sex is bad (Thanks Saul of Tarsus, f-ing a-hole). Sex and love are great things independent of each other and combined. The sooner society gets that into their head, hopefully replacing that pesky sky-daddy, the sooner we can start solving actual problems like poverty and education.
Hello boris,
I know I’m a little late in responding to this but from your post at 18:
“i do not like the PC situtation in our society, where its def. most unacceptable to even suggest gays are not “normalâ€. i support gay marriage, and everything else that might make them feel less like “second class†citizens. i would not consider myself close-minded. others may disagree.â€
Now wait a minute. You support gay marriage even though you don’t find it normal? Fantastic! I think you are right. We have let this ‘politically correct’ thing go too far. You have an opinion that you should be able to state. I have the opinion that you are wrong, but I should not vilify you for it.
I made the assumption that since you don’t think it’s normal, you support the restriction of their rights; for that, I apologize.
Boris — I can’t believe you have any homosexual friends since you think they’re defective. If someone thought I was defective, I’d flip him/her off and walk away — permanantly. Or maybe these gay friends of yours think you’re defective, too, so you’re all just birds of a feather. I think your logic is defective making you an anomoly just like cancer.
oh no… i don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to marry. every time i hear the “sanctity of marriage” BS it makes me laugh really hard… what we’ve made of marriage is a joke. but regardless, if gays want to marry i am all for it (even though i cant possibly imagine why they’d want). i don’t think i could ever agree letting a gay couple raise kids since i believe any child needs a *REAL* mom and dad (in a half-way functional relationship). both, not just poor substitues. for that matter, i would like to see many straight couples be denied that right. generally, any right they could possibly want that is not hurting someone else (raising kids is the only example i could come up with right now) they should totally have.
i don’t sugarcoat things for my friends. i AM defective. for example, my eyesight is pretty bad. if we didn’t have eye-sight correcting devices i could never survive. so fucking what? i don’t make it out to be this great and awesome thing. if i could reverse that part of my genetic makeup i would in a second.
i don’t respect people who’s skin is so thin they can’t stomach someone else’s opinion even though it might be a little harsh or not in line with their own.
exactly, homosexuals should enjoy the insanity and sorrow of marriage like the rest of us straights
hell, i’ve seen gay couples who’ve been together longer off hand then many straight couples, would marriage be icing on the cake or a chain saw? curious
hopefully this will open some peoples closed minds,
i bet most christians will reply “were not animals though. we know better than to sin”
gah!
While animals may exhibit homosexual behavior…it is not an activity of enjoyment, but merely finding one’s role in the tribes pack. While one animal exhibits dominancy, the other is submissive. Humans tend to read too much into other animals behavior and attach emotions and thoughts that are simply not there. Animals do not “think” as we do. The animals homosexual behavior is driven from genetics and not environment. Be careful what you wish to compare yourself to….otherwise you may be stating that human homosexuality is strictly genetic. That’s a path I do not believe you want to pursue is it? Of course since there is no heaven or hell, one can do what one pleases, just use common sense and do not impose your behavior upon those who do not share your views.
I do not think humans have the ability to think.
Some people put too much weight on our ability to think. It is not natural extension of a human mind but one which requires activation and effort.
Humans run on autocruise for most of their time and only on occasion really think. Majority of human “choices” in life are intuitive, reactive, pattern following or some combination of them.
Human emotions are not different from animal emotions, the base emotions are there but “thinking human” wants them to be much more than those really are to elevate himself above other animals.
Human sexuality is also quite dominant/submissive in nature and I am not even talking of the particular subgroupings. It is as much of a role finding excercise as with other animals, regardless of preferences.
To me, the greatest difference between animals and humans is our belief that we are somehow better. Different maybe but hardly the crown of animal kingdom.
Hallo,
Even though I don’t consider myself as someone with bisexual or homosexual inclinations, I still think homosexual behavior is normal based on the many observations from the animal kingdom as well as human culture and history.
The article published here, as well as other studies and books such as a book titled “Biological Exuberance” suggest homosexual acts occur frequently in the animal kingdom and for many species, thus refuting the claim that animals do not exhibit any kind of homosexual behavior and therefore homosexuality is abnormal.
One though may go along the lines that it’s simply “faulty wiring” that produces this type of behavior, the same reason humans exhibit it, and that it’s simply a matter of genes. I would disagree with this logic based on looking at human behavior in general in the past. The practice of homosexuality was widespread in ancient Greece, Roman empire (until the advent of Christianity), the Islamic countries (especially the Abbasi country and Al-Andalus), Japan (in many parts of it and particularly with the Samurai), and others. There were definitely variations between the different cultures regarding how widespread or acceptable it was (the Greeks accepted more then the Romans for instance), however in general homosexuality existed and and was widespread.
Therefore observing human history regarding the conduct of homosexuality indicates it is probably normal, and that the reason it’s viewed as something very abnormal in modern societies is due to social/cultural changes, mainly the spread of Victorian era values regarding sexual behavior and morality throughout the world. The continued influence of western media serves to solidify this position, in general through transmitting the view that homosexuals should be accepted but homosexuality itself still is abnormal and is confined within a very small group of people with faulty genes.
By saying this I do not wish to discredit any biological aspects to homosexuality, but rather confining the reasons for this behavior to it.
Given all this irrationality, it is refreshing to see exhibitions such as this which call for the use of logic in basing judgments regarding certain types of behavior, instead of basing them on inherited social norms based on irrational religious morality.
heh could you imagine 2 lesbian flamingos? funny stuff
gotta love “gods divine plan’…maybe gods gay….can gods be gay? i mean they debate wether he is a man or women(not that i think theres a god at all) but what if hes 2 gay men? just washing their bodies in hot herbal essence shampoo all day…man he/she/it is really gay….
[...] Religious Freaks » Christians Shocked At Nature’s “Unnatural†Behavior The Oslo Natural History Museum recently opened up the world’s first museum exhibition about homosexual animals. Geir Soeli, the project leader, contends that “homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented fo (tags: lgbtq amusement) [...]
to all you, “intelligent” “guys”. These animles are “homosexules” or “bisexual”, because it is not the same, no?.
-there are sadomasochists? and onlookers? or XXX to ?
My dog fuck cushions and legs of friends. he is “humanfilia”?
or that this happening?
can hem from a civilization of the esterior space?
the government and Bush know it?
now I watch my dog in a different way. ;)_
Moved here
[...] In response to an earlier post about homosexuality in nature, I received a very strong comment from Henry Asta. Now we’ve discussed this issue before, but read Henry’s comments… they are somewhat frightening and provide a little insight into the mind of a hard-core Christian. [...]
[...] read more | digg story [...]
You guys can’t be serious. Look closely at the giraffe picture, it’s a joke!!!
It is amazing what is considered normal. How can someone be a pure evolutionist, that is someone who believes the theory of evolution is a ‘fact’ instead of theory, can beleieve that homosexuality is normal when by nature the natural desire is to procreate and homosexaulity would be a dead end?
Hello Again Azmodel,
Before I finish this quote, I need to pause and educate you on what a scientific theory is. In science, when an explanatory idea achieves the status of ‘theory’, it is considered a great compliment. That is because a scientific theory is an explanation that has withstood rigorous testing and has been validated again and again by emerging evidence. An explanatory idea, whether rising to the level of theory or not, can never be a fact. Facts are things that are understood to be true but explain nothing. An example of a fact would be “There are 12 inches in a foot”. It’s true, but doesn’t explain what an inch or a foot is. Compare this some other ideas that are ‘just’ theories:
- Germ Theory: the idea that illnesses are caused by organism too small to see
- The Theory of Gravity
- The Theory of Relativity
- Plate Tectonic Theory: The idea that geological objects can be explained by the movement of large chunks of the Earth’s crust floating on the Earth’s liquid mantel
- Atomic Theory: the idea that matter is made up of the interaction of very small particles too small to see
And those are just a few. Now I can finish the quote:
I addressed this in a previous comment, if you care to read it.
lol… looking at evolution vs. the equivalent “theory” from genesis, tell me which one makes more sense and has more evidence to back it up.
Ahem A “law” differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates,principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant.
But that is left to be tabled for evolution is not an absolute nor is creationism as is dictated in the two stories of creation.
The say that homosexuality is natural or a norm would be the equilivalient of saying that having six toes is natural among 6 billion.
Welcome back Azmodel,
Actually, a scientific ‘law’ is an antiquated term in science. The term ‘law’ implied a universal truth that was unknowable. The classic example is Newton’s ‘Law’ of Gravity which stated that all objects obey an inverse-square law of attraction. But it turned out to not be a universal truth and was updated with the Theory of relativity. This has happened enough times for scientists to recognize that they needed to abandon the use of the term ‘law’ and stick strictly to theories.
You also neatly ignored the point about the comparable validity of evolution to other theories which I listed and that you, like everyone else, likely accept as valid.
The norm? I don’t think anyone claims that it is the norm. Everyone recognizes homosexuals as a minority group. It is natural in the sense that it occurs in nature, as does six toed-ness. The question is whether we should make reasonable accommodations for these minorities. A minority of the population is born with physical disabilities and we have made accommodations for their differences. We should extend such courtesy to homosexuals.
Hello.This post was extremely interesting, particularly since I was investigating for thoughts on this matter last Saturday.