Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study

reply to post by northof8

...So, Homosexual activity is animalistic by its very nature?...

in as much as it's natural - yes

I always find it funny how people compare themselves to animals to make a point... At least they are admiting they are animals...

what are you?

Originally posted by northof8
"Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study" Animals is the key here. We all knew that for a long time. So, Homosexual activity is animalistic by its very nature?

Any type of sexual relation is animalistic by it's very nature...

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by northof8
"Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study" Animals is the key here. We all knew that for a long time. So, Homosexual activity is animalistic by its very nature?

Any type of sexual relation is animalistic by it's very nature...

Don't equate procreation with the spread of GRID to the rest of the population. The only reason GRID was re-named AIDS was so the homosexual community could continue the spread of the disease.

Last time I looked animals don't have organized debauchery in bath houses. Last time I looked there were no animals actually seeking out HIV as a status symbol.

The behavior of the homosexual community is predatory and beastly. We insult animals when we compare this filth to animals in the wild.

And the band played on...

Originally posted by northof8

Don't equate procreation with the spread of GRID to the rest of the population. The only reason GRID was re-named AIDS was so the homosexual community could continue the spread of the disease.

Last time I looked animals don't have organized debauchery in bath houses. Last time I looked there were no animals actually seeking out HIV as a status symbol.

The behavior of the homosexual community is predatory and beastly. We insult animals when we compare this filth to animals in the wild.

And the band played on...

Yet the majority of people with AIDS are straight.

Funny that.

So your point is what?

Mikey

GRID is what it is. The majority of people with GRID are not straight and the first reported case with GRID in North America was a homosexual. Read the book... A Homosexual wrote the thing.

Back on topic, I find it very funny that this study shows Homosexuals will look at lower life forms to justify their lifestyles. Why keep trying to find justification in any whacky theory that comes along?

So just because animals do it does that mean that homosexuals are lower life forms? hmmm... Sounds reasonable to me.

Originally posted by northof8


GRID is what it is. The majority of people with GRID are not straight and the first reported case with GRID in North America was a homosexual. Read the book... A Homosexual wrote the thing.

While it may be natural for you to just stay inside your box and not look outside your borders. AIDS is a worldwide issue, not a North American one.

Fact is fact, majority of people with the virus are straight.

Mikey

reply to post by northof8

So just because animals do it does that mean that homosexuals are lower life forms? hmmm... Sounds reasonable to me.

please define lower life form - anything that can't work the TV remote?

we're all animals

we're all natural

Sorry, no matter who says it or how many times its repeated, being gay is not natural or normal.

reply to post by OLD HIPPIE DUDE


how do you know?

honest question - not a smart ass question

what's normal?

forgetting about the rest of the animal kingdom for a moment - and the research - and the evidence...

if homosexuality has existed for however long - even if we only talk about our recorded history (even if we only talk about this past week) it's existence makes it normal

it's just people's personal preference that says it's not normal

people say it's not normal - as if saying that makes it so

but it exists - whether you say so, or not...

what we want to be normal isn't the same thing as what is normal

normal being what really happens


[edit on 6/25/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

Then by your standard inbreding,beastiality, and molestation are natural and normal.

Originally posted by Fuggle
reply to post by 0010110011101

 

Good.

Maybe this'll help put an end to that stupid "it's not natural!" argument.

agreed, religions and personal beliefs are a tragedy in the face of facts and nature around. Its like a primitive looking tribe of naked people in the forest, they get mowed down by invaders from the east, suddenly there is no deep ages old knowledge of the forests, so those get mowed down and a grocerry store with GMO food gets put there along with a mall. To provide the modern sparta with sustanance. Everyone today has been in my mind for over 10 years, a load of *snip*.

reply to post by OLD HIPPIE DUDE


:-)

Then by your standard inbreding,beastiality, and molestation are natural and normal.

Yes - and no. They're not my standards - I'm not in charge of natural or unnatural

I hardly ever get to be in charge of anything

but they are all things that happen - regularly - so you could say they were natural

you're talking about right and wrong then?

it's easy to see why inbreeding is wrong (though it does happen - regularly)

molestation can only happen against someone's will - so very, very wrong

bestiality - again - without consent - wrong

so, what's wrong with homosexuality - why is it not natural?

why is it wrong?

reply to post by northof8

don't know how I skimmed past this part -

The behavior of the homosexual community is predatory and beastly. We insult animals when we compare this filth to animals in the wild.

hey, hey - hey!

oh no you don't...

your personal preferences don't give you permission to talk like this to anyone

if you want to throw the word filth around - how about the filth that comes out of people's mouths and is hurled at others like a weapon

you don't have to like the subject - but we treat each other with respect and tolerance in here

or, at the very least we try

there's a fairly intelligent discussion going on here - do you have anything to contribute besides this nonsense?



[edit on 6/25/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I never said that being gay was right or wrong, all I said was being gay is not natural or normal.
Comparing humans to animals is wrong.
Animals attack and kill for two reasons, to defend or to eat.
Humans kill for any reason or no reason.

reply to post by OLD HIPPIE DUDE

I never said that being gay was right or wrong, all I said was being gay is not natural or normal.

true - you didn't say it outright - but to me is seemed to be implied when you said: "Then by your standard inbreding, beastiality, and molestation are natural and normal. "

All pejorative words - mixed with the word standard - the mix just kinda screams judgment - to me. Good/bad, right/wrong

If you don’t believe it has anything to do with right and wrong, and you sincerely believe it’s just not normal – then I have to ask - how do we decide what is natural - what is normal?

Seems to me it’s normal if it happens often enough to be put into a category of it's own. Homosexuality gets it's own category – because it happens - and we recognize that.

If heterosexuality is the accepted norm - it's either because it happens and is observed more regularly than homosexuality - or is for some reason preferred by the majority. While it may occur more often, that doesn’t mean that homosexuality doesn’t happen at all - by default.

So – it’s normal. It doesn’t rain more often than it rains – but rain is still normal

Preference - at least as far as I'm concerned - can't determine what is natural – only what is preferred – it’s what people want to be true or what they value. It’s about choice – and nothing more than choice.

Unless we’re talking about form and function

If the only reason we have sex is to procreate – well – maybe that would actually mean something. This discussion has touched on many different areas that suggest that sex is not just about making more of us – it may be useful for more than one thing.

But forget about useful – how about meaningful? If you really want to separate us from the animals – then there it is – meaningful. We are in charge of what is meaningful to us.

Unless you want to bring someone else into this discussion.

Comparing humans to animals is wrong. Animals attack and kill for two reasons, to defend or to eat. Humans kill for any reason or no reason.

What do attacking and killing have to do with either heterosexuality or homosexuality?

and this I’ll never understand – why is it wrong for us to compare? We are animals after all. We don’t even need to get into superior or inferior – it has nothing to do with that – we are animals.

Even if we can go to the moon and the badgers can’t – doesn’t change the basic facts

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
that sex is not just about making more of us – it may be useful for more than one thing.

Sexual intercourse is by definition the union of male and female genitalia. Anything beyond that is merely courtship, foreplay, footsies, fun time or what ever you want to call it. Simply touching your sex organ with another object does not constitute sex.

When you fill out an application for a job or a Facebook account the only choice you have for "sex" is male or female. There is no choice for homosexual. This is because sex is defined by the physical difference between male and female. It is not a mental state, a behavior, or something you can learn. Sex is a physical reality that you can not change.

Speaking of what's natural, nature only works one way. You can try and talk about how natural it is, but there's no way around the physical reality of what is.

reply to post by dbates

Sexual intercourse is by definition the union of male and female genitalia.

well - if we're just talking about words - OK :-)

but - I didn't use the words sexual intercourse - I used the word sex - which covers more territory than just intercourse

...Simply touching your sex organ with another object does not constitute sex...

no - but it can still be sexual

and - even sexual intercourse can happen for reasons other than plain old reproduction. Such as:

...fun time or what ever you want to call it...

fun time works - I think :-)

I do recognize - without making fun - that sex is about much more than fun time for many people. Maybe even most people.

The thing that I think many people miss in this whole thing is that it's NOT just about fun time (or at least - not necessarily) for anybody - it obviously can be about something deeper and more meaningful

the idea that seems to elude most everybody upset by the notion of two people of the same sex being sexual - together - at the same time - is that's it's possible that it has a deeper meaning for them as well

When you fill out an application for a job or a Facebook account the only choice you have for "sex" is male or female. There is no choice for homosexual. This is because sex is defined by the physical difference between male and female. It is not a mental state, a behavior, or something you can learn. Sex is a physical reality that you can not change.

again - words. That's all about gender - not sex - not sexual intercourse

you obviously can be gay - and still have a gender that is specific - and natural

unless we want to have a whole other discussion going - we can agree - your gender is not a choice.

The part that throws everyone into a tizzy seems to be understanding that gender preference is also not about choice.

Speaking of what's natural, nature only works one way. You can try and talk about how natural it is, but there's no way around the physical reality of what is.

and this is where you lose me

what do you mean when you say nature only works one way?

what I'm trying to say - perhaps not very well - is that being sexual is about more than procreation - and that all of it is natural

if you want to dismiss science (not saying you do) then it would be easy to say that anything that doesn't involve reproduction isn't natural

but science is beginning to demonstrate that homosexuality happens - in nature - which changes the nature of the argument about choice

Originally posted by OLD HIPPIE DUDE
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

Comparing humans to animals is wrong.

Comparing Humans to animals is wrong, but not for the reasons you state.

All organisms are split into five Kingdoms:
Animal Kingdom: organisms that usually move around and find their own food.
Plant Kingdom: organisms that make their own food and do not actively move around.
Fungi Kingdom: organisms that absorb food from living and non-living things.
Protist Kingdom: organisms that have single, complex cells.
Moneran Kingdom: organisms that have single, simple cells.

Source: www.fcps.edu...

Comparing humans to animals is wrong because humans ARE animals. If they aren't, which of the other 4 kingdoms would you put them in?

Different species of animals behave somewhat differently but there are some commonalities, but in the overall context of biology, humans are just one more species of animal. A huge percentage of the posts in this thread seem to miss that point, but thanks to those who also pointed out that humans are animals, not something separate from animals, as some people seem to want to believe.

Originally posted by darkelf
Why can’t we just mind our own business and let people (who are not accountable to us, by the way) live their lives the way they seem fit. Whose laws are they breaking that they feel the need to justify anything?

Because we have people that have let their minds be posoined by religious dogma. That's why we need to show people, that reality is not what they are told. Unfortuanatelly from time to time those people gain total control and fire up their stacks.

reply to post by krzyspmac


Not to mention the people who believe that the "naturalness" of something can be determined... and of course natural always happens to be what someone feels is "right"...

There is no good or bad... only thinking makes it so....