Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study

reply to post by ZenOnKwalsky

A lot of homosexual behaving animals "choose" that option cause they are exposed to chemical pollution... Google a little...detergents hormones etc even in small doses are impairing their natural sexual responses. Thats , seem to be one, maybe main reason for tem going "gay"

It's common courtesy and practice on ATS to provide links and or material to back up your claims, not to send readers on a wild goose chase to find it for themselves.

Could you please provide some information in the thread to back up your claim?

In my opinion - if there's enough chemicals in the sea to make *some* dolphins in a pod *gay* - don't you thin logic would tell you it would effect the whole group the same way?

Something in that theory just doesn't cut the mustard...

peace


[edit on 20-6-2009 by silo13]

reply to post by silo13

In my opinion - if there's enough chemicals in the sea to make *some* dolphins in a pod *gay* - don't you thin logic would tell you it would effect the whole group the same way?

Oooohhh touche!!!

That is a perfect response!

They are just grasping at straws. They can not let go of their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. Actually, not according to the Bible, but according to their pastors. The Bible never condemned homosexuality.

If I could, I would give your post 1000 stars.

reply to post by bobbylove321


Excuse me,but I think that if animals are gay, which has been proved, then it is not a choice, it is a gay gene.

reply to post by spellbound


You are debating against the wall. The wall being the Bible (or accurately, the interpretation of the Bible).

Let see that bobbylove321 admit that it is possible for him to be attracted to some people of the same sex. Let's see him admit that it is possible that he can make the choice to be attracted to another man.

I dare say, if he does admit to it, then it makes him a bisexual!

I hope that one day it will dawn on those people.

Attraction to other people is very natural, regardless of sex. This research proves one and only one thing: homosexuality is very natural.

This is essentially science vs. religion debate.

reply to post by Kailassa



"The excuses for this often include the statement that homosexuality is abnormal. These animal studies are simply being used to refute that lie.
If you want to argue that all homosexual behaviour in animals is unnatural you are simply showing your ignorance. There are well studied animal societies in which homosexuality is an established aspect of social interaction."


Hopefully, you meant 'you' in the universal sense. Im personally not arguing at all.

To illustrate, just as you (in the universal sense) substitute the word 'excuse' for the word 'reason' one could also substitute the word 'atypical' for 'abnormal'.

I.E: "The reason for this often include the statement that homosexuality is atypical." And I personally would add: "in both the human race and animal kingdom."

Then I imagine the futility of the entire matter is brought into focus for it is fact the practice is atypical for a very good reason. For while I agree that religious beliefs should not dictate the discussion, if I WERE to argue it would be against the futility of a behavior that is a clear and undisputed biological dead end. To ME personally that makes it an issue beyond silly moral bickering.

After all, every homosexual creature of any species owes his or her very existence to parents that werent.

Anyone who has a problem with homosexuality really only has an issue with their own sense of sexual identity.

I've never had any issue with homosexuals... I'm straight as an arrow, and the thought of being intimate with another man is, well let's just say it's not my cup of tea.

Yet, I know how I feel about women, and it's not a mental thing... it could be a whiff of her perfume, or the sight of her hair bouncing gently, or that quick glimpse of something she wouldn't normally want to be showing....

At the end of the day, if it gives you an erection, then you're into it... no matter what.

Still... it's because of my own experiences with women, and how automatic my responses are, that I can relate to homosexuals...

Yes, I do realize that in some situations this IS an effect of nurture. I know plenty of lesbians who were sexually assaulted by males as children, and that does often turn them. But this is a small percentage of the gay folks I know...

At the end of the day, whether or not it's nature or nurture doesn't really matter. It's everyone's right to live with a sexual orientation they feel best fits them, whether that is because of normal automatic arousal to a member of the same sex, or it's because of some political or personal experience that occurred... it doesn't matter in the least...

What matters is that people can be who they feel they are without anyone telling them they are wrong, sinful, bad, disgusting, evil, or otherwise...


[edit on 20-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]

While we're all so inerested in why people are/become/choose to be (whatever I couldn't care less) homosexual, why don't we take a look at everyones sexual practices that were once private?

Lets see, aren't there those people who reportedly enjoy being defecated on, people who enjoy being whipped and beaten, people who are attracted by children, clowns, animals, twins, all sorts, not to mention heterosexual anal sex, bisexual behaviours, "heterosexual men who enjoy 'receiving' toys from their partner...

The list of what could be is endless, but frankly I don't want to know who does what or why. The same applies to homosexual behaviour.

Quite frankly I can't understand why people can't keep there noses to themselves. If someone finds that they are sexually attracted to whatever, so long as it is within the law, it is their business and not for you to understand. NOBODY should promote their sexual practices to anybody because it is for each person to feel and chose what they want.

I couldn't care less if you are homosexual, just like you don't care what I get up to in my sex life. All that matters is that you find a compatible partner who consents to what you want to do. Unfortunately being Homosexual somewhat limits your ability to procreate, I feel for you, but equally, there are many heterosexual couples who are now infertile and so you are not alone in your plight.

That aside I'm sure we'll get along just fine.

I just wanted to add what I think should be a new motto for everybody regarding sexuality...


STOP RUBBING MY FACE IN IT!


Take that how you will...

Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
"The excuses for this often include the statement that homosexuality is abnormal. These animal studies are simply being used to refute that lie.
If you want to argue that all homosexual behaviour in animals is unnatural you are simply showing your ignorance. There are well studied animal societies in which homosexuality is an established aspect of social interaction."

Hopefully, you meant 'you' in the universal sense. Im personally not arguing at all.

To illustrate, just as you (in the universal sense) substitute the word 'excuse' for the word 'reason' one could also substitute the word 'atypical' for 'abnormal'.

I.E: "The reason for this often include the statement that homosexuality is atypical." And I personally would add: "in both the human race and animal kingdom."

You're just using the "unnatural" argument, and substituting the term "atypical." Same argument, same level of ignorance.

Whether or not a behaviour is atypical is irrelevant. Blue eyes are typical in some some societies, and atypical in come societies, but what's the relevance of that to anything? Does it affect whether blue eyes are good or bad?

It can, however, be a basis for prejudice. I grew up in a blonde, blue-eyed Nazi type of family, and believed as a child that blue eyes were superior. One day I spoke to a brown-eyed neighbour whose family had been victims of the Nazis. He hated blue eyes, believing they signified cruelty, aggression and stupidity, and insisted people with brown eyes had better health, better eyesight and better characters.

Seeing the two beliefs side by side made it clear that they were just prejudices, whose only basis was the comfort of familiarity and the hatred of people for irrelevant events.

Then I imagine the futility of the entire matter is brought into focus for it is fact the practice is atypical for a very good reason. For while I agree that religious beliefs should not dictate the discussion, if I WERE to argue it would be against the futility of a behaviour that is a clear and undisputed biological dead end. To ME personally that makes it an issue beyond silly moral bickering.

After all, every homosexual creature of any species owes his or her very existence to parents that werent.

You present an argument and then try to make out you are not arguing. I find that deceptive and cowardly.

Human evolution can be looked at as the evolution of societies.
When an inherited trait made a society more likely to survive, that society would survive, preserving that trait within it.

Sickle-cell anaemia is a deadly inherited trait which usually precludes furthering that particular genetic line, as people with it rarely live long enough to reproduce. It is a recessive trait, meaning that it takes an inheritance of the correct gene from both parents for the gene to express itself as sickle cell anaemia. If a person only has the gene from one parent they have a genetic advantage, as the gene helps protect from malaria. The society with a high level of this gene had an evolutionary advantage over one without, so sickle-cell anaemia has been preserved.

Menopause is a trait which appears at first glance to be an evolutionary disadvantage to humans. We are the only type of animal in which the female completely loses her reproductive abilities long before the end of her lifespan. As this lowers the female's ability to personally pass on her genome, one could expect this trait would have been bred out.

However we share part of our genome with our relatives. A trait inhibiting the individual's ability to pass on their genes directly can be passed on if it aids one's relatives, allowing their genes to be passed on. Post menopausal women, being freed from child-bearing, are in a position to help raise their grandchildren and to serve as tribal healers and sources of wisdom. This gave the tribe containing the genome for menopause such an advantage that now it is a universal trait amongst women. (Studies have proved a child with a maternal grandmother has a better chance of survival than one without.)

And now to discuss homosexuality.

Yes, I know there are those who contend homosexuality is not genetic, despite the separated twin studies, because "the gene" has not been found.
It's not so long ago I had a bunch of psyches telling me that literature proved my child's autism, which had been evident from birth, must be the result of environment, (i.e. my bad mothering,) because no gene for it had been found. For educated people they were remarkably ignorant, believing that absence of proof meant proof of absence. Just last year a gene influencing autism was found.

Genetic inheritance can be extremely complex, with interactions between many genes causing a tendency to a trait, which may then be triggered by the mitochondria or by chemicals, stress or whatever.
If twins are born with the genome for breast cancer, they will not necessarily both get breast cancer. But, nonetheless, breast cancer can be an inherited trait.

As I've established, a trait inhibiting the individual's ability to pass on their genes directly can be passed on if it aids one's relatives, allowing their genes to be passed on. Sisters of homosexuals have been shown to have more offspring than the average woman. Homosexuals may also have aided society in other more general ways in the past. Not being responsible for children, they might have been useful as surrogate parents for orphaned children, or for added labour in finding food, or for protecting the tribe.

Whether or not homosexuals are/were whatever you define as "typical" in either animal or human societies, there is scientifically supported reason to believe their presence in society was an advantage to the tribe, aiding that societies long-term survival.

So arguing against homosexuality on the basis of a group consisting solely of homosexual men being unable to reproduce is a red herring. Any group of men is unable to reproduce. However once you consider homosexuals in society, they or their genes aid the reproduction of their relatives in that society and may make the societies more able to survive.

"You present an argument and then try to make out you are not arguing. I find that deceptive and cowardly."

Tasteless and unwarranted remark, btw.


I sometimes miss the old internet message board rule of K.I.S.S(keep it simple, stupid) that makes overly-worded responses necessary. Still, this doesnt require much rebuttal.



1.I was not presenting an 'argument'. I was stating a biological fact.

2."Human evolution can be looked at as the evolution of societies"

And human evolution is due exclusively to opposite gender sexual relations. Same gender sexual relations have contributed absolutely nothing to human evolution.

If endangered species practice same gender relations permanently for whatever reason,they are on the fastest track to extinction.

3. Given the above is fact it truly invalidates any need to 'argue' on biological grounds except for the ego driven and makes the rest of your well written but pointless post non applicable. Your post is rife with terms such as 'passed on' 'reproduction' and such. Ironically, those very terms should illustrate the point .


Good evening.



[edit on 20-6-2009 by Clark Savage Jr.]

reply to post by Clark Savage Jr.

Tasteless and unwarranted remark, btw.
1.I was not presenting an 'argument'. I was stating a biological fact.

You obviously need to brush op on your biology.
Mislabeling a statement as truth, using it in an argument and pretending you are not arguing ...
Are there schools which teach people to avoid logic in their arguments so the resultant mess of unreasoning nonsense leaves their opponents too astonished to argue?

2."Human evolution can be looked at as the evolution of societies"

And human evolution is due exclusively to opposite gender sexual relations.

I proved that is not the case.
Human evolution only happens if the societies survive.
Any trait or situation which aids survival of the society contributes to human evolution.

Same gender sexual relations have contributed absolutely nothing to human evolution.
If endangered species practice same gender relations permanently for whatever reason,they are on the fastest track to extinction.

Straw man. No-one is recommending we all restrict ourselves to same-sex activity.
In fact, with the population density we have on this Earth, you should be grateful that some people prefer sex that is inevitably non-reproductive.
For that reason homosexuals are contributing to human evolution by not overburdening our planet with new people.

3. Given the above is fact it truly invalidates any need to 'argue' on biological grounds except for the ego driven and makes the rest of your well written but pointless post non applicable.

So, is this the best you can do?
You have not yet made a single logical point against homosexuality.

reply to post by Kailassa


To answer your last question.

No.

I tried for the simplified version and the hope was that the same impressionable mind set that so easily changed your opinion regarding eye color might still be in effect and the simplified might appeal to you.

At any rate, I find it distasteful to bicker publicily and see little need for 500 words to demonstrate the obvious.

Your views, after all are only possible because biology supports mine. Unless of course, you,genes and all, are here living and breathing and endlessly typing due to the incredible act of same- gender-sexual-relations produced evolution.

Edited to sound less argumentive.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by Clark Savage Jr.]

reply to post by 0010110011101


From an objective perspective I find the argument: "if it occurs in nature its natural for human beings" a bit weak. Just because a behavior occurs in species other than human beings does not make it natural for us, for example mice naturally eat their weakest offspring. Similarly, there are many different behaviors unique to humans alone, ie. fathers to be experience hormonal changes, and the argument that they don't occur in non humans does not make it unnatural for us.

On that note, I fail to see why homosexuality is such a huge social issue. Let people be what they want to be.

reply to post by Isfet


I know, I don't get it. What's the issue. If animals are gay, they're gay, it happens. If people are gay, they are gay, it happens.

Just accept people for who they are... it's that simple.

Originally posted by bobbylove321
Being homosexual is a choice and nothing else.

For everyone that argues that there's a gay gene, then show some solid proof. As of today, there's no ACTUAL proof that says there's a gay gene.

Animals can do whatever they want because it's not important.

Humans being gay on the other hand is simply a choice, and it's their lifestyle, so it's NOT natural.

Yeah, the most pathetic post I've ever seen on this website. Congrats



Obviously, you're not gay. So what makes you an expert?

You know how many times I wished I'd stop liking members of my own sex but failed?

That must mean one thing: IT'S F'N NATURAL.

lmao....some of you are sooo...for lack of a better word...nevermind.

I'd like to ask why two females raising a baby makes them lesbian? That is so beyond ridiculous. Where did the baby come from? What they went to an albatross fertility clinic?

Please tell me what these birds did to be lesbians. I read the article it states raising young is a sexual behavior then making a HUGE leap and calling them lesbians. I'm not saying your not born that way, I just don't understand the leap to lesbians birds because they raise a baby. Please enlighten me.

[edit on 21-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
I tried for the simplified version and the hope was that the same impressionable mind set that so easily changed your opinion regarding eye color might still be in effect and the simplified might appeal to you.

At any rate, I find it distasteful to bicker publicily and see little need for 500 words to demonstrate the obvious.

Your views, after all are only possible because biology supports mine. Unless of course, you,genes and all, are here living and breathing and endlessly typing due to the incredible act of same- gender-sexual-relations produced evolution.

I see veiled insult,
a weak excuse for not presenting an argument,
and a suggestion that gay sex is bad because two gays bonking together couldn't have fathered my ancestors.

Sorry, but unless you can prove Earth needs more humans on it, the fact that male on male sex does not produce offspring is either irrelevant or a point in its favour.

reply to post by Isfet

From an objective perspective I find the argument: "if it occurs in nature its natural for human beings" a bit weak.

No.

It is natural in humans.

It is natural in animals.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

The argument that there is no homosexuality in animals has been debunked. No one can argue that anymore. It's over.

Christians make new excuses because they know they can't argue against the truth that there is homosexuality in animals.

Pretty soon, they will run out of ammo.

The debate is over. Deal with it.

Just because a behavior occurs in species other than human beings does not make it natural for us, for example mice naturally eat their weakest offspring.

Off topic again. Like I said, I will not cite examples of similar human behaviors.

The topic here is homosexuality in animals. NOT, cannibalism, eating their youngs, etc, etc. Stick to the topic.

I fail to see why homosexuality is such a huge social issue. Let people be what they want to be.

Yes, exactly. Only the Christians (to be fair, other religious people) bring this up. We have never had this problem until some genius though that their holy books said that homosexuality was immoral.

/waves_frantically

I'm not citing religion and I really don't give a crap who you choose to have sex with. I don't know you and if I did it wouldn't matter. What I do have a problem with is people stretching the truth to fit their agendas.

I'm waiting for someone to explain how the raising of young is deemed a sexual behavior and where the chick came from. Any of you could clear that up for me, it would be GREATLY appreciated.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Yes, exactly. Only the Christians (to be fair, other religious people) bring this up. We have never had this problem until some genius though that their holy books said that homosexuality was immoral.

To be fair people who prefer same sex relationships have had a fairly up and down history of being accepted and then frowned upon.. Generally speaking nations and societies (past and present) have not interfered until people were being overtly gay (for want of a better expression). Emperor Hadrian had to keep to himself but even then had trouble with public opinion. The greeks apparently habitual took on men coming of age (which has been interpreted sexually) but it was frowned upon to continue these relationship once the younger person attained manhood. Then we got to the glorious 20th century and it became outlawed across the western world to be openly gay.

So thats just being openly gay that was illegal, keep it to yourself and noody cared. Just like if heterosexual people decided to go out and have sex in the street they would be arrested for it. Indecent exposure and all the rest of it. The penalties of course were harsher for being an open homosexual thanks to the religious right but ultimately all of these laws are intended for us to keep our sex lives private (except for peadophilia, beastiality and rape laws which are all about consentual sex).

There isnt any point in arguing over what is natural or not.. Clearly we are complex beings, although homosexuality in an extreme could not easily be passed on to offspring, nor could the sexual fetish for being tied up and spanked. Is it natural? Well some people find that they like it and that in at least some of them it occured naturally rather than through trauma or whatever. Either way, it is a natural occurence. Normal is always so very personal and isnt worth discussing.

If you seek to bring an open argument with people about what your preferred sexual practices are so that they accept them then you're not going to get anywhere.. its much easier to let them not care what you do, which can only occur as long as you dont start telling them. This applies to all people no matter what sexual preference or fetish they might like. Keep it to yourself.

Nobody wants, or needs, to know.

Why is it such a big deal? What you and your partner do is your own business, and should stay that way, the ban on homosexuality was repealed, you are free to do whatever you want, of course people might not like it if you openly flout your sexuality, just as it is for heterosexuals.