Here's what I read in your first paragraph: Blah, blah, blah (Ignorant nonsense about animal behavior) = that homosexuality is a choice (ignorant nonsense about sexuality). You could aswell have argued that since animals get cancer too, but we being endowed with free will thus can choose to not get cancer. This is the most stupid reasoning I've read on the internet this week.

There is a reason that the gay animal argument isn't convincing, and that is that all kinds of horrible behaviors, like cannibalism and infanticide are widespread behaviors in the animal kingdom aswell, so just because something is natural in this sense doesn't make it appropriate in a human society.

But the argument itself is merely a response to the idea that homosexuality is "unnatural" it's not a justification for gay marrige. If you want to pretend that homosexuality is a choice then I'd suggest you prove it by turning yourself gay before you keep making an ass of yourself. Thousands of gay mormons teens are desperate to learn the secret to change their sexual orientation, and I'm quite curious myself, enlighten us please!

And animals are not making decisions? Really? Animals with pretty much identical brain chemistry are not conscious beings? Animals have no sense of self? (I guess cats aren't animals then). I take it you're not a biologist.

My take on it. Animals can display homosexual behaviors. Most animals are not "self aware" in the sense that human beings are. Animals mainly do things based on instinct. They don't have ethical debates in their minds when they do something. If they are hungry they eat something. If they are horny they hump another animal. Humans on the other hand, use a higher level of reasoning. When they are horny, most don't simply go out and try to hump the nearest female they see. They follow certain rules. Most figure it would be "wrong" to rape another person. They "think" about the consequences and they think about whether things are good, bad, right, wrong, ethical and moral.

A small percentage of animals in different species display homosexual behavior and obviously aren't "choosing" this behavior. They are simply acting on instinct. That's one reason anti-gays can't call homosexuality unnatural because it happens naturally in nature. These particular animals are simply doing something that feels natural to them and they act on it.

The only difference between humans and animals is that humans can make the conscience decision to choose to not involve themselves in these sexual acts. That doesn't mean gays can choose not to be homosexual. They simply have the ability to resist what is their natural urge, if they so desire. Just as a heterosexual has heterosexual urges and can try and control their natural urge to engage in heterosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is natural and there is no deference between being gay and being straight, even though we are self aware.

Furthermore asking if gay animals wants to be gay, as the original poster did, seems weird. For the most part i don't think they are capable of asking such a question. But really that's a question for biologists to answer whenever they are not busy with a zillion other questions.

Or perhaps orange with his fantastic ability to choose to be straight also have the ability to communicate with animals. Go ask a fucking chimp orange!

The chimps said: "We just ARE, stupid."

And my dog just looked at me with that pitying look she gets sometimes.

I'm ashamed I asked now. ;)

Phew. Now I can sleep at night knowing that chimps are pretty okey with being gay. :-)

Haven't you ever watched a documentary on bonobos? It's animal porn! ;)

No I haven't partaken, can you find it on youtube perhaps? :-)

The bonobos, with whom we share 97 percent of our DNA, practice lesbianism as their primary form of sexual congress. And they do a whole lot of "gettin' busy" in lieu of violence (unlike chimpanzees). They're really pretty fascinating.

/anthropology major being geeky

Google might help.

I don't actually have first hand information as to their salicious lifestyle -- I have science geeky friends who've shared with me. :)

My gawd, the SCOTUS decision must have the homophobs shaking in their boots. Not only do we have Orange making stupid arguments that have been dismissed by reasonable people decades ago, Raymond has even put in a cameo!


I love the smell of desperation!

Sexual behavior vs. sexual orientation is not a valid comparison. Humans can choose from a long list of sexual behaviors, but they can not choose their orientation. Just because you don't like the way the parts fit together or you don't see a purpose for it doesn't change the fact that that's the way nature made them.

That's kind of like saying that if you can choose to either pat someone on the back or punch them in the face, you can also choose whether you're going to be right or left handed when you do it. Totally different issue. They used to tie left-handed kids' hands behind their backs to force them to write with their right hands, because it was believed that left-handedness was "unnatural". It didn't make them right-handed, it just humiliated them.

Me too because I'm ambidexterous and used both hands.

And you're right, it's the same as expecting someone to change their sexual orientation.

Orange is a tool.

Is Orange trolling? I would seriously feel so much better if I know he was trolling.

I don't think he is purposely trolling. Which is definitely worse that he's not.

Who cares if animals do or do not engage in homosexual behavior. As far as the marriage debate is concerned, it makes no difference whatsoever if animals do or do not. (Yes, there are all kinds of scientific reasons to research this, but none of it, not any of it matters to whether or not any two people should be allowed to marry)

Last time I checked, even animals that mate for life, do not check in with their animal governmental authority and gain an animal marriage licence, homosexual animals or otherwise. None of them do this. Only humans marry so whatever animals do is irrelevant to the argument. Other species do all kinds of things that humans would never do, and we do not base laws around those practices, so who really cares?

The fact is that when two people fall in love, in almost every case, they can get married. The government of a large majority of states have bigoted laws that block a minority group of people the same right. This should be stopped as soon as possible.

Speaking of gay animals, two of my neighbors have gay dogs. For whatever reason, both households refuse to get their dogs fixed, and both have boy dogs.

Well, every time they let their dogs out to poop at the same time, the animals take turns mounting each other, and if you look closely, there is even penetration going on. Not that I look closely mind you. I normally try to turn my head and give the two some privacy.

My TBM ex once adopted a pair of male dogs, and the intact one was gay, as he completely ignored the unspayed female my ex already had. Eventually, the female was spayed, and the gay dog was also neutered, so there were no unplanned litters to worry about.

And acknowledge that Orange is a fruit.

Problem is, he doesn't seem to be very imaginative / playful when it comes to sex, so his fantasizing seems to be woefully limited.

Maybe if he'd actually succumb to his true self, his worldview would be opened and expanded.

Maybe he just needs to have his world rocked, to shift his reality prism.



(And to anyone I may have offended with my post(s) yesterday addressed to Orange, I apologize, they were uncalled for and petty.)

I wondered how come I found my thread still on the first page but with only half of the replies from yesterday. Don't tell me how ugly it got while I was away though, I'm glad admin deletes such stuff.

Yeah. Orange needs to pay a little more attention to his own sex-life and less on what goes on in everyone else's bedrooms.

Right out of the ol' LDS playbook.



Orange: "Animals don't have gay sex."

Schlock: "Bonobos have all sorts of gay and lesbian sex, here's a link."

Orange: "Yep, animals have lots of gay sex, but they don't need marriage to thusly engage."



Orange: "Gay sex is gross. Let me detail the mechanics of how it works."

Schlock: "I'm thinking that there is so much more to gay sex than what your understanding would indicate. Besides, marriage isn't about sex, it's about equality. Why are you so focused on the details of gay sex?"

Orange: "Gay sex is gross. And I'm an atheistic biologist."



Whew! Exasperating! And button-pushing. Reminds me of many of my TBM relatives, and their passive-aggressive ways.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2013 08:32PM by schlock.

If we would start to ban people from marrige because it's gross to think about them having sex all unmarried parents would be forced to stay unmarried. (and preferrably all my siblings and anyone I find too unattractive).

And yeah right, he's a biologist. He drew a picture of a tree in kindergarten.

Now I'm smiling, thanks (but not because I'm thinking about yucky TBM garment sex).

:)

Gay animals -- a pertinent topic in the Mo World, because BKKKP and the like used to use the arguments that "there are no gay animals" to bolster their claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

I was at BYU in the 1990s. We had a pair of boy gerbils in the conservation biology student lounge. They'd mount each other all the time. It made it tough to really take the BKKKP statements all that seriously.

RG



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2013 07:50PM by reinventinggrace.