Q. about homosexuality in animals

[tcsenter]

It is true, male animals have been observed attempting to mount or mate with other male animals.

However, male animals have also been observed trying to mount or mate with trees, stumps, cars, human legs, park benches, entirely different species, those decorative 'lawn deer' and 'lawn jockey' thingies, fence posts, laundry baskets, stuffed animals, planters, beach balls, children, a pile of clothes on the floor, blankets, and virtually anything else that moves, albiet not quite fast enough, in addition to virtually anything else that does not move.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean in terms of validating the practice of humans sticking their penises in whatever they want.

 

[Mallow]

Just to bring this up in the line of conversation... remember humans are animals ^_^

 

[lowtech1]

Macaques monkeys have lesbian sex, and another type of monkey have sex with anything when nervous (can't recall the monkey name). And then there are ducks, goats, sheep & bulls that practice having sex on each other when young.

There has been claim that certain tribes in South East Asia that the men live among them self & for the boy to come to age they have to perform sex practice with the older men.

However, human is a different animal altogether and our social behaviors is much different of animal. And, the few minor cases could conclude that human is mostly heterosexual. If gene defection is the argument then the account of study of hermaphrodite could conclude that homosexuality as being a mostly a choice/fad. If I remember correctly scientist claim that there are about 1/42000 person have hermaphrodite gene, while an average person in New York might cross path of 30000 people in their lifetime. But in reality the average person likely to meet much higher number of ?gay? people than hermaphrodite.

IMHO, it is very likely that we have homosexual tendency in human if we looks at the animal behaviors around us, but the number is much too high with out factoring in the choice/fad phenomenon.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is. That's just freaking common sense. Do you choose what kind of woman you are attracted to? Why would you be able to choose which sex you are attracted to? Ask your girlfriend if she can suddenly decide to be attracted to women, then have it happen. It doesn't matter whether other animals have homosexual examples or whether there is a biological cause... but bigots like to pretend it does.

I disagree. There is no scientific basis to say that it's "freaking common sense" that homosexuality is innate in some humans. You cannot say without a doubt that in some people they were born homosexual, since it has not been proven yet by any scientific means. There are THEORIES, but NOT PROOF.

Different people are born with different levels of urges. Some people have a tendency to become enraged easily, some people have an urge to eat a lot, and some people have homosexual tendencies. Comparing humans to animals in this respect I believe is RIDICULOUS. Animals are, by nature, heterosexual. Only in situations where females are unavailable or the animal is under some environmental stress factor will it resort to homosexuality, or sex with inanimate objects.

I do respect other peoples opinions on this subject, but I think people DO have a choice, and by saying that they DO NOT seems to be working in the wrong direction. A lot of people say "Why should this person reject his natural urge?" Well, whether or not you think homosexuality is wrong, you must agree that people surpress urges ALL THE TIME, and NOT just people with homosexual desires. We surpress rage and hatred so we don't kill someone. We surpress our sexual desires so we don't hurt people we love. We are much more complicated than animals, and these social reasons have an extreme effect.

My problem with people saying homosexuality is natural is that they think that when someone has homosexual urges they are therefore homosexual. They were born that way and that is that. Well, frankly I think that is a horrible thing to say. People have the choice whether or not to surpress an urge they have, sexual or not. I think its very uncool to say that they do not and they are stuck, which is basically what some people here are saying.

acting on the urge does not make you homosexual, you are already homosexual for even having that urge. think about it. are you straight because you have sex with women, or are you straight because you are attracted to women? same thing for the gays. freaking common sense... seriously.

furthermore, saying that homosexuality is not a choice, does not imply they were born with it. if i take a child, and give him electric shocks whenever he sees a bunny, he will start freaking out whenever he sees a bunny after a while. this isn't a choice, but he wasn't born with it either.

 

[gopunk]

"Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagenmihl

- two percent of male ostriches ignore females and court males

i think that refutes the claim that animals are only homo because there are no members of the opposite sex around...

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: lowtech
Macaques monkeys have lesbian sex, and another type of monkey have sex with anything when nervous (can't recall the monkey name). And then there are ducks, goats, sheep & bulls that practice having sex on each other when young.

There has been claim that certain tribes in South East Asia that the men live among them self & for the boy to come to age they have to perform sex practice with the older men.

However, human is a different animal altogether and our social behaviors is much different of animal. And, the few minor cases could conclude that human is mostly heterosexual. If gene defection is the argument then the account of study of hermaphrodite could conclude that homosexuality as being a mostly a choice/fad. If I remember correctly scientist claim that there are about 1/42000 person have hermaphrodite gene, while an average person in New York might cross path of 30000 people in their lifetime. But in reality the average person likely to meet much higher number of ?gay? people than hermaphrodite.

IMHO, it is very likely that we have homosexual tendency in human if we looks at the animal behaviors around us, but the number is much too high with out factoring in the choice/fad phenomenon.

There is no such thing as a hermaphrodite gene.

Hermaphrodite is both sexes. There are on record maybe 15 people in the world born hermaphroditic. It is a birth defect caused by an influx of homones during early pregnancy while the various organs are differentiating themselves. It has very little to do with being gay. It is a physiological phenomen. All humans start out as female; does that mean everyone is gay? Of course not. Hormones are released while the fetus develops depending on the sex of the fetus to give that fetus the physical characteristics of the sex it must be. If this gets screwed up then you can have all kinds of problems.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: gopunk
"Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagenmihl

- two percent of male ostriches ignore females and court males

i think that refutes the claim that animals are only homo because there are no members of the opposite sex around...

It only goes to prove that homosexuality has a genetic origin.

Don't try to tell me that an osterich choose to be gay.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis Homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is. That's just freaking common sense. Do you choose what kind of woman you are attracted to? Why would you be able to choose which sex you are attracted to? Ask your girlfriend if she can suddenly decide to be attracted to women, then have it happen. It doesn't matter whether other animals have homosexual examples or whether there is a biological cause... but bigots like to pretend it does.

I disagree. There is no scientific basis to say that it's "freaking common sense" that homosexuality is innate in some humans. You cannot say without a doubt that in some people they were born homosexual, since it has not been proven yet by any scientific means. There are THEORIES, but NOT PROOF. Different people are born with different levels of urges. Some people have a tendency to become enraged easily, some people have an urge to eat a lot, and some people have homosexual tendencies. Comparing humans to animals in this respect I believe is RIDICULOUS. Animals are, by nature, heterosexual. Only in situations where females are unavailable or the animal is under some environmental stress factor will it resort to homosexuality, or sex with inanimate objects. I do respect other peoples opinions on this subject, but I think people DO have a choice, and by saying that they DO NOT seems to be working in the wrong direction. A lot of people say "Why should this person reject his natural urge?" Well, whether or not you think homosexuality is wrong, you must agree that people surpress urges ALL THE TIME, and NOT just people with homosexual desires. We surpress rage and hatred so we don't kill someone. We surpress our sexual desires so we don't hurt people we love. We are much more complicated than animals, and these social reasons have an extreme effect. My problem with people saying homosexuality is natural is that they think that when someone has homosexual urges they are therefore homosexual. They were born that way and that is that. Well, frankly I think that is a horrible thing to say. People have the choice whether or not to surpress an urge they have, sexual or not. I think its very uncool to say that they do not and they are stuck, which is basically what some people here are saying.

well nobody said that being openly homosexual wasn't a choice. what's being argued here is that it seems common sense that the feeling of attraction to a particular person (male or female) is not a choice. like you mentioned, the choice therein lies with that person either acting on the attraction or not. there is also a problem with your line of argument. people supress the urge to hurt or kill people. fine, i'll buy that. but by extending that analogy to homosexuality you are implying that homosexuality is wrong. personally, i don't particularly care for homosexuals, nor do i think that homosexuality is normal. but i wouldn't go so far as to say that it is wrong. your religion might say that it is wrong, but realize that the rest of the world might not necessarily fall under the moral obligations of what you relgion mandates as right and wrong.

I understand your point, and I did not mean to label homosexuality as being "wrong". It just appeared that way when I picked an urge that humans often resist. My apologies.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis Homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is. That's just freaking common sense. Do you choose what kind of woman you are attracted to? Why would you be able to choose which sex you are attracted to? Ask your girlfriend if she can suddenly decide to be attracted to women, then have it happen. It doesn't matter whether other animals have homosexual examples or whether there is a biological cause... but bigots like to pretend it does.

I disagree. There is no scientific basis to say that it's "freaking common sense" that homosexuality is innate in some humans. You cannot say without a doubt that in some people they were born homosexual, since it has not been proven yet by any scientific means. There are THEORIES, but NOT PROOF. Different people are born with different levels of urges. Some people have a tendency to become enraged easily, some people have an urge to eat a lot, and some people have homosexual tendencies. Comparing humans to animals in this respect I believe is RIDICULOUS. Animals are, by nature, heterosexual. Only in situations where females are unavailable or the animal is under some environmental stress factor will it resort to homosexuality, or sex with inanimate objects. I do respect other peoples opinions on this subject, but I think people DO have a choice, and by saying that they DO NOT seems to be working in the wrong direction. A lot of people say "Why should this person reject his natural urge?" Well, whether or not you think homosexuality is wrong, you must agree that people surpress urges ALL THE TIME, and NOT just people with homosexual desires. We surpress rage and hatred so we don't kill someone. We surpress our sexual desires so we don't hurt people we love. We are much more complicated than animals, and these social reasons have an extreme effect. My problem with people saying homosexuality is natural is that they think that when someone has homosexual urges they are therefore homosexual. They were born that way and that is that. Well, frankly I think that is a horrible thing to say. People have the choice whether or not to surpress an urge they have, sexual or not. I think its very uncool to say that they do not and they are stuck, which is basically what some people here are saying.

well nobody said that being openly homosexual wasn't a choice. what's being argued here is that it seems common sense that the feeling of attraction to a particular person (male or female) is not a choice. like you mentioned, the choice therein lies with that person either acting on the attraction or not. there is also a problem with your line of argument. people supress the urge to hurt or kill people. fine, i'll buy that. but by extending that analogy to homosexuality you are implying that homosexuality is wrong. personally, i don't particularly care for homosexuals, nor do i think that homosexuality is normal. but i wouldn't go so far as to say that it is wrong. your religion might say that it is wrong, but realize that the rest of the world might not necessarily fall under the moral obligations of what you relgion mandates as right and wrong.

I understand your point, and I did not mean to label homosexuality as being "wrong". It just appeared that way when I picked an urge that humans often resist. My apologies.

Its ok. A number of people view homosexuality as wrong.

This thread has, so far, been quite an intelligent discussion of homosexuality and it causes. It is very refreshing not to have the shrill cries from the extremists ruining things.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: gopunk
acting on the urge does not make you homosexual, you are already homosexual for even having that urge. think about it. are you straight because you have sex with women, or are you straight because you are attracted to women? same thing for the gays. freaking common sense... seriously. furthermore, saying that homosexuality is not a choice, does not imply they were born with it. if i take a child, and give him electric shocks whenever he sees a bunny, he will start freaking out whenever he sees a bunny after a while. this isn't a choice, but he wasn't born with it either.

Don't you think that calling someone a homosexual just because they have a homosexual urge is severly limiting them as a person?

Would you call someone who has thought about killing their boss a murderer? Or would you call someone who had an urge to lie but didn't a liar?

Our actions, not our temptations, define us as humans.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis Homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is. That's just freaking common sense. Do you choose what kind of woman you are attracted to? Why would you be able to choose which sex you are attracted to? Ask your girlfriend if she can suddenly decide to be attracted to women, then have it happen. It doesn't matter whether other animals have homosexual examples or whether there is a biological cause... but bigots like to pretend it does.

I disagree. There is no scientific basis to say that it's "freaking common sense" that homosexuality is innate in some humans. You cannot say without a doubt that in some people they were born homosexual, since it has not been proven yet by any scientific means. There are THEORIES, but NOT PROOF. Different people are born with different levels of urges. Some people have a tendency to become enraged easily, some people have an urge to eat a lot, and some people have homosexual tendencies. Comparing humans to animals in this respect I believe is RIDICULOUS. Animals are, by nature, heterosexual. Only in situations where females are unavailable or the animal is under some environmental stress factor will it resort to homosexuality, or sex with inanimate objects. I do respect other peoples opinions on this subject, but I think people DO have a choice, and by saying that they DO NOT seems to be working in the wrong direction. A lot of people say "Why should this person reject his natural urge?" Well, whether or not you think homosexuality is wrong, you must agree that people surpress urges ALL THE TIME, and NOT just people with homosexual desires. We surpress rage and hatred so we don't kill someone. We surpress our sexual desires so we don't hurt people we love. We are much more complicated than animals, and these social reasons have an extreme effect. My problem with people saying homosexuality is natural is that they think that when someone has homosexual urges they are therefore homosexual. They were born that way and that is that. Well, frankly I think that is a horrible thing to say. People have the choice whether or not to surpress an urge they have, sexual or not. I think its very uncool to say that they do not and they are stuck, which is basically what some people here are saying.

well nobody said that being openly homosexual wasn't a choice. what's being argued here is that it seems common sense that the feeling of attraction to a particular person (male or female) is not a choice. like you mentioned, the choice therein lies with that person either acting on the attraction or not. there is also a problem with your line of argument. people supress the urge to hurt or kill people. fine, i'll buy that. but by extending that analogy to homosexuality you are implying that homosexuality is wrong. personally, i don't particularly care for homosexuals, nor do i think that homosexuality is normal. but i wouldn't go so far as to say that it is wrong. your religion might say that it is wrong, but realize that the rest of the world might not necessarily fall under the moral obligations of what you relgion mandates as right and wrong.

I understand your point, and I did not mean to label homosexuality as being "wrong". It just appeared that way when I picked an urge that humans often resist. My apologies.

Its ok. A number of people view homosexuality as wrong. This thread has, so far, been quite an intelligent discussion of homosexuality and it causes. It is very refreshing not to have the shrill cries from the extremists ruining things.

Yes it is quite refreshing. It's nice to be able to disagree and still be civil.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: glen
Why would anyone choose to be gay?

 

[CoolTechie]

I took sex and sexuality last quarter in school .. I learned alot

there is a difference between man and women. physically, especially hormones

research has been done to show that homosexuals often have hormone imbalances

The funny thing is, I learned that due to religious and political consequences -- most scientific research projects are shot down on both the differneces in man & women and hetero / homosexualtiy.. "just let it be.." saw many frustrated scientists held back

An example of an animal that participates in same gender sexual activity? The Lion ..the particular documentary we saw specifically stated that it had no dependancy on whether there were females around or not.

I am confident that the imbedded sexual preference of most people is natural and can be variable. I am sure one day genetics will prove this.

Also, my x g/f was a baptist christian.. amazing girl, but brainwashed on some fundamental levels.. she eyewitnessed the turmoil of someone who was struggliing with homosexuality first hand.. yet she still believed they chose that disposition.. scary

 

[Soybomb]

I believe many bonobo chimps are bi

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: gopunk
"Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagenmihl

- two percent of male ostriches ignore females and court males

i think that refutes the claim that animals are only homo because there are no members of the opposite sex around...

It only goes to prove that homosexuality has a genetic origin.

Don't try to tell me that an osterich choose to be gay.

and when did i say that? you were the one saying "there are no homosexual animals (that have been found)"

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: gopunk
acting on the urge does not make you homosexual, you are already homosexual for even having that urge. think about it. are you straight because you have sex with women, or are you straight because you are attracted to women? same thing for the gays. freaking common sense... seriously. furthermore, saying that homosexuality is not a choice, does not imply they were born with it. if i take a child, and give him electric shocks whenever he sees a bunny, he will start freaking out whenever he sees a bunny after a while. this isn't a choice, but he wasn't born with it either.

Don't you think that calling someone a homosexual just because they have a homosexual urge is severly limiting them as a person?

Would you call someone who has thought about killing their boss a murderer? Or would you call someone who had an urge to lie but didn't a liar?

Our actions, not our temptations, define us as humans.

so you are saying that unless you have had sex with a woman, you are not heterosexual? calling a homosexual a homosexual is only as severly limiting as homosexual-intolerant people make it.

a murderer is one who kills, a homosexual is someone who is attracted to members of their own sex. i fail to see how your example holds any water.

 

[Eli]

I think it's funny that you people make all these assumptions about animals.. concious thought, etc.

Do we really know whats going on inside their heads? No?

I didn't think so.

I have seen dogs and cats that do indeed at least seem to be having concious thought process. I think the idea that everything is instinct, they don't think or feel, is absolutely rediculous.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

there is a difference between man and women. physically, especially hormones

There is a difference between ethnic groups . . . physically, especially melanin. What's your point?

research has been done to show that homosexuals often have hormone imbalances

Do you have anything resembling a reasonable source? Overweight (and virtually all obese) people have hormone imbalances . . . cause, effect, irrelevant, or all of the above?

I am confident that the imbedded sexual preference of most people is natural and can be variable. I am sure one day genetics will prove this.

Complex behaviors (like sexual preference) can be natural (ecological perspective) and variable without being genetic. Even a genetic pre-disposition is likely to be manifested by multiple genes and subsequent interaction of those various genes' expressions with the environment.

All organisms that can execute free will . . . choose their sexual practice (and to a large extent preference) . . . what they do not choose is how it evolves and whether their practice and/or preference are congruent with their imbedded nature.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think it's funny that you people make all these assumptions about animals.. concious thought, etc.

Do we really know whats going on inside their heads? No?

I didn't think so.

I have seen dogs and cats that do indeed at least seem to be having concious thought process. I think the idea that everything is instinct, they don't think or feel, is absolutely rediculous.

Damn skippy . . . one of our cats (white Persian) urinates on any clothing placed on the floor. She will not urinate on clothing on the bed, on the sheets, or pillows. What does it mean? I have no idea . . . but it pisses me off to no end.

Our other cat (fat arse tabby) self-regulates his feeding. If his dish is empty he executes one of two strategies . . . 1) climb onto a dresser in the bedroom and knock items off . . . one at a time until someone gets up or 2) start chewing on paper . . . he's not eating the paper he just chews on it. He climbs under the covers of our bed during the day to sleep . . . the other cat sleeps with just her head resting on a pillow.

Last week I watched the damn cat open a cupboard door, take out the catnip, and pull the plastic package out of the box . . . if not for the absence of opposable thumbs he might have gotten the package open.

I don't know if they are homosexual though b/c they lost their jewels years ago.

 

[Marshallj]

People are making such a big deal out of nothing. Attraction comes from within you, you don't "choose" what you like.

You either look at males and are sexually attracted to them, or you look at females and are sexually attracted to them (or a little bit of both). One of my friends is gay and he said that he didn't choose who to like, it just happened to come out that way. He felt ashamed about it and wished he could be straight like everyone else, and he even "dated" some girls to try to be normal. But the attraction wasn't there and he never had the desire to have sex with any of them, so he didn't.

I also don't think it's a "switch" that's either on or off, I think it's more variable. There seems to be different degrees of bisexuality.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: Eli
I think it's funny that you people make all these assumptions about animals.. concious thought, etc.

Do we really know whats going on inside their heads? No?

I didn't think so.

I have seen dogs and cats that do indeed at least seem to be having concious thought process. I think the idea that everything is instinct, they don't think or feel, is absolutely rediculous.

i don't know if you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, but nobody is claiming to know the thought process of lower animals. the main point (stated several times) is that differences exist between the human brain and other animals. this point is clear. nobody is trying to diagram what this difference is, although it's very clear that most of the difference lies in the increased complexity of the human brain. these differences suggest that studying "animal homosexuality" (which is utlimately controlled by the brain) won't lead to any valuable conclusions about the cause/source of human homosexuality, especially if you consider that "animal homosexuality" is a very loose description - many people have pointed out that, on occasion, animals will also try to copulate w/ inanimate objects.

 

[IGBT]

Male rats and rabbits mount each other when the population density exceeds a comfort level..natures way of reducing excessive population..along with disease.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glen
Why would anyone choose to be gay?

Your argument is invalid. It assumes that no one would ever do anything or make any major life decision that is not in their best interest. That is, of course, entirely untrue. People make self-destructive decisions all the time. Your statement is the same as saying "Why would anyone choose to commit suicide?" It doesn't matter why, the fact is that they do.
Face it, being homosexual is not like being black, and never will be. If it could be proven that people are born homosexual, it would be in exactly the same way that people are born pre-disposed to alcoholism.
What bothers me is that homosexuals could be fighting for freedom of choice, for freedom to live their lives how they choose. That is something I would fully support. Instead, they're just fighting for a cause that says that people have no choice in life and have to live according to how they are born. Sad.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glen
Why would anyone choose to be gay?

Your argument is invalid. It assumes that no one would ever do anything or make any major life decision that is not in their best interest. That is, of course, entirely untrue. People make self-destructive decisions all the time. Your statement is the same as saying "Why would anyone choose to commit suicide?" It doesn't matter why, the fact is that they do.
Face it, being homosexual is not like being black, and never will be. If it could be proven that people are born homosexual, it would be in exactly the same way that people are born pre-disposed to alcoholism.
What bothers me is that homosexuals could be fighting for freedom of choice, for freedom to live their lives how they choose. That is something I would fully support. Instead, they're just fighting for a cause that says that people have no choice in life and have to live according to how they are born. Sad.

Sure, they could live their life in a way which the public accepts, but will they be happy?

A gay guy might want to be with a man, but may force himself to marry a woman just to appear "normal". But deep down inside he won't really be sexually attracted to her.

Just because we're able to force ourselves to resist our urges doesn't mean that we'll be happy that way.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glen
Why would anyone choose to be gay?

Your argument is invalid. It assumes that no one would ever do anything or make any major life decision that is not in their best interest. That is, of course, entirely untrue. People make self-destructive decisions all the time. Your statement is the same as saying "Why would anyone choose to commit suicide?" It doesn't matter why, the fact is that they do.
Face it, being homosexual is not like being black, and never will be. If it could be proven that people are born homosexual, it would be in exactly the same way that people are born pre-disposed to alcoholism.
What bothers me is that homosexuals could be fighting for freedom of choice, for freedom to live their lives how they choose. That is something I would fully support. Instead, they're just fighting for a cause that says that people have no choice in life and have to live according to how they are born. Sad.

you couldn't be more wrong. the cause they are fighting for is one of freedom. freedom of oppression and the freedom to live one's life as one see's fit. they are fighting for the right to be. it's the same thing that americans fought, and died for hundreds of years ago. what is sad is how blind you are.