My Homophobic Dog Hates My Gay Peacock

Originally posted by Mijamija
It's been awhile....but I got it.....I'll just go hang myself now while I wait

That reference was just for you, my friend. Ah well, "we are all born mad, and some remain so...I can't seem to...depart."

This is the only relatively scientific explaination/observation I could find:

Sometimes, science can be exceedingly rude—unpalatable, even.
The rare batch of data, especially from the psychological sciences, can abruptly expose
a society’s hypocrisies and capital delusions, all the ugly little seams in a culturally valued fable.
I have always had a special affection for those scientists like Gallup who,
in investigating highly charged subject matter, operate without curtseying to the court of public opinion.
And, before anyone does so, what an absurd, spineless suggestion for science to refrain
from engaging in any intellectual inquiry, from exploring theoretical possibilities,
because we fear what we may learn about ourselves.
It’s the devils we don’t know that we have the most to fear.
That Gallup’s ideas could be championed by antisocial conservatives to promote further intolerance
against gays is inevitable, perhaps; but if it’s any consolation
it should also have them doing a bit of navel-gazing,
seeing that their hatred is just an artifact of their godlessly evolved minds.


HERE

Doh! You just beat me to the punch! It is a great quote, so please allow me to post it again:

Sometimes, science can be exceedingly rude—unpalatable, even. The rare batch of data, especially from the psychological sciences, can abruptly expose a society’s hypocrisies and capital delusions, all the ugly little seams in a culturally valued fable. I have always had a special affection for those scientists like Gallup who, in investigating highly charged subject matter, operate without curtseying to the court of public opinion. And, before anyone does so, what an absurd, spineless suggestion for science to refrain from engaging in any intellectual inquiry, from exploring theoretical possibilities, because we fear what we may learn about ourselves. It’s the devils we don’t know that we have the most to fear. That Gallup’s ideas could be championed by antisocial conservatives to promote further intolerance against gays is inevitable, perhaps; but if it’s any consolation, it should also have them doing a bit of navel-gazing, seeing that their hatred is just an artifact of their godlessly evolved minds.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Thank you for taking the time to take this seriously enough to find something, anything that might merit is as actual study.

It may be absurdly true. If we are the sole species capable of creating a religion then we are very possibly alone in our bigotry of homosexuality as a species.
Interesting post from you.

I snorted when I read the title...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I bow to you , Sir!
Thank you for a thought provoking thread.

reply to post by howmuch4another


Do we truly know enough about other species to know if we are the only species that has formed religions? If you don't mind I am going to use my reply to you to also post a summation of the Scientific American blog linked earlier published in Forbes:

At his Scientific American blog, evolutionary psychologist Jesse Bering discusses the hypothesis that a negative attitude toward homosexuality is a product of natural selection. The argument that it is, due to Gordon Gallup of SUNY-Albany, is basically that parents who actively discourage or stigmatize homosexuality in their kids will have more grandkids, and so on. “In its simplest form,” Gallup conjectures, “parents who showed a concern for their child’s sexual orientation may have left more descendants than those who were indifferent.”

reply to post by howmuch4another


Your question, even if a bit presumptive, about humans being the only species to form religion was so compelling it sparked a dovetail in my research to actually see if there was any merit to the presumption that humans alone are religious. While religion is much more than ritualistic behavior and generally is viewed as being a belief system that embraces or regards supernatural beings as a focal point of worship, that ritual is a part of religion should not be in doubt. Considering that, consider this:

Ritual actions are not characteristic of human cultures only. Many animal species use ritualized actions to court or to greet each other, or to fight. At least some ritualized actions have very strong selective purpose in animals. For example, ritualized fights are extremely important to avoid unnecessary strong physical violence between the conflicting animals.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Hawking

Originally posted by schuyler
So your dog FEARS your peacock? Or does he hate your peacock for homosexual behavior? Who controls the narrative controls the issue. We are now in a situation where anyone who objects to homosexual behavior is labeled a "homophobe," which, as I'm sure we all know, a "fear" of homosexual behavior.

So hatred is now "fear" Disgust is now "fear" Objecting on moral grounds is now "fear" Thinking homosexuality is sinful is now "fear." Asw long as every objection is deemed a "phobia" no one is allowed to really address the issues.

the whole thing is being crammed down our throats (no pun intended.)

What are you so afraid of? Gay men and women being happy together? Is it going to affect your life somehow?

This is a good example of what I mean. You are doing it. You are couching the debate by insisting objections are because of "fear." I object to that characterization. I do not believe that objections to homosexuality arelbased on fear. I believe that some people believe sincereky, and without fear, that homosexuality is unnatural, tears at the fabric of society, is self-indulgent, and is simply political. They might be disgusted with it or feel that it is sinful, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with "fear."

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Fascinating. I wonder if ritual in and of itself is proof of any religion? I am learning much tonight from your digging sir.

I would love to know if a spyder monkey has a god.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If homosexuality is ever going to be accepted as a natural biological fact of life, it seems to me that all those gay whiptail lizards, dragonflies, Guiana leaffish and people should understand that no one can eat their cake and have it too. If the gay community and their supporters want credibility and equally want to be taken seriously for discrediting religious attitudes towards them, it is not at all in their best interest to take scientific studies and turn them into just another religious doctrine.

Well done sir!

Title alone.........

S&F

I have always wondered if these type of study's lay credence to the above questioning...........

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I think your dog might just be hungry.

Those peacocks can't move very quickly with that fabulous tail feather ensemble they get either.

Few articles on the net. Some questioning the same thing.......

Are humans the only species to have homophobes?

As one person replied.......

Your quoting of Kinsey's bogus studies on homosexuality -- criticized heavily by famed statistician John Tukey -- makes me severely doubt the rest of your answer.

Or how about this one Jean Paul........

Is it homophobic to split up gay penguins?

When Toronto zoo bought African penguins Pedro and Buddy from Pittsburgh's National Aviary, they expected them to mate with two females. Instead, despite being trailed by lovelorn lady penguins, they only had eyes for each other, engaging in what naturalists call "courtship behaviour".

reply to post by sonnny1


Thank you, Brother, for taking up the challenge of research on this issue as well. Your posting of that skeptics forum tends to underscore how difficult it is to actually find any peer reviewed studies on the matter. Plenty of opinions, but actual quantifiable or quantitative study? Sigh.

If it does turn out to be true that only humans exhibit - and out of respect to shcuyler's most excellent point I will begin placing quotes around the word - "homophobia" this would be fine with me. It is just that at this time there seems to be much data that is lacking in order to support the absurd contention that out of all the species exhibiting homosexual behavior humans alone have segments of the population that have an adverse reaction to this homosexuality.

The tale of the two star crossed lover penguins also brings up a compelling question. The article makes the point that two other male penguin "couples" presumed to be homosexual - Roy and Silo and Harry and Popper - each "split up" after one of the males took up with a female penguin. What if these "break-ups" of "gay couples" was - in part - due to the adverse reaction the female couples had over their new mate having a "gay" lover? If the female penguin showed adverse reaction to the idea of an "extramarital gay" relationship with another penguin would this make her "homophobic"?

If we are to continue anthropomorphizing penguins and other animals this way we might presume that the minority but ever so fiercely vocal "gay penguin community" might shout that poor female penguin down, some going as far as to "out" her claiming her "homophobia" is a "proven" sign that she is really just a closeted lesbian penguin.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Thank you, Brother, for taking up the challenge of research on this issue as well. Your posting of that skeptics forum tends to underscore how difficult it is to actually find any peer reviewed studies on the matter. Plenty of opinions, but actual quantifiable or quantitative study? Sigh.

No........Thank You...

I did find this though,which lends some material to the study of it.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

My wife and I watch a lot of the Science channel, when we rarely sit down to watch television. That and what we call the "All Armageddon, All the Time" channel (Discovery). We constantly remark about the segment of the science community which consistently makes outlandish and unverifiable "scientific observations".

Or, maybe it's just that those types are the most eager to appear on these programs.

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Hawking

Originally posted by schuyler
So your dog FEARS your peacock? Or does he hate your peacock for homosexual behavior? Who controls the narrative controls the issue. We are now in a situation where anyone who objects to homosexual behavior is labeled a "homophobe," which, as I'm sure we all know, a "fear" of homosexual behavior.

So hatred is now "fear" Disgust is now "fear" Objecting on moral grounds is now "fear" Thinking homosexuality is sinful is now "fear." Asw long as every objection is deemed a "phobia" no one is allowed to really address the issues.

the whole thing is being crammed down our throats (no pun intended.)

What are you so afraid of? Gay men and women being happy together? Is it going to affect your life somehow?

This is a good example of what I mean. You are doing it. You are couching the debate by insisting objections are because of "fear." I object to that characterization. I do not believe that objections to homosexuality arelbased on fear. I believe that some people believe sincereky, and without fear, that homosexuality is unnatural, tears at the fabric of society, is self-indulgent, and is simply political. They might be disgusted with it or feel that it is sinful, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with "fear."

I agree that some just have disgust or believe it's sinful.

"unnatural" or "tears at the fabric of society" have a context of fear to my weird brain.
Peace

This...

Originally posted by Hawking

Is it a matter of dominance?

Yes.


In all species it seems...

Originally posted by WTFover
My wife and I watch a lot of the Science channel, when we rarely sit down to watch television. That and what we call the "All Armageddon, All the Time" channel (Discovery). We constantly remark about the segment of the science community which consistently makes outlandish and unverifiable "scientific observations".

Or, maybe it's just that those types are the most eager to appear on these programs.

While the scientific community has become increasingly and strikingly similar to any other religious institution and has seemingly eschewed the scientific method in favor of shamanism and popular mystical incantations. No doubt the so called "soft sciences" reveal a disturbing willingness within the scientific community to embrace shamanism just as long as the mystical incantations are phrased in language that looks like science. However, it is not so clear that it has been any scientist or science study that is making the claim that only humans exhibit "homophobic" behavior. I suspect - and you and I have seen this kind of behavior regarding case law - that these claims are being made by non-scientist who read an article claiming homosexuality abounds within the animal kingdom and then take a leap of faith that only humans are "homophobic".

The term "homophobic", by the way, was coined by George Weinberg a psychologist which is to say a "soft scientist" or modern day shaman.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Doh! You just beat me to the punch! It is a great quote, so please allow me to post it again:

Sometimes, science can be exceedingly rude—unpalatable, even. The rare batch of data, especially from the psychological sciences, can abruptly expose a society’s hypocrisies and capital delusions, all the ugly little seams in a culturally valued fable. I have always had a special affection for those scientists like Gallup who, in investigating highly charged subject matter, operate without curtseying to the court of public opinion. And, before anyone does so, what an absurd, spineless suggestion for science to refrain from engaging in any intellectual inquiry, from exploring theoretical possibilities, because we fear what we may learn about ourselves. It’s the devils we don’t know that we have the most to fear. That Gallup’s ideas could be championed by antisocial conservatives to promote further intolerance against gays is inevitable, perhaps; but if it’s any consolation, it should also have them doing a bit of navel-gazing, seeing that their hatred is just an artifact of their godlessly evolved minds.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Thank you for taking the time to take this seriously enough to find something, anything that might merit is as actual study.

Aha! Seems like this is a start in the right direction, I too will be reading this over.....it sounds interesting and I like the writing style.

Sorry I cannot contribute in the research end of the discussion, but as you may have guessed, I spent much more effort on Stoppard, Beckett and Camus, and not so much effort on stats, research and scientific inquiry.

reply to post by Mijamija


No worries friend. Camus, I think, would appreciate the Sisyphusean effort required to find any genuine scientific study regarding this issue.