Birds & Bees may be gay....

[ItsDarts]

Source

OSLO (Reuters) - The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals. With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural." "We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear -- homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said. Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature," told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them." The museum said the exhibition, opening on Thursday despite condemnation from some Christians, was the first in the world on the subject. Soeli said a Dutch zoo had once organised tours to view homosexual couples among the animals. "The sexual urge is strong in all animals. ... It's a part of life, it's fun to have sex," Soeli said of the reasons for homosexuality or bisexuality among animals. One exhibit shows two stuffed female swans on a nest -- birds sometimes raise young in homosexual couples, either after a female has forsaken a male mate or donated an egg to a pair of males. One photograph shows two giant erect penises flailing above the water as two male right whales rub together. Another shows a male giraffe mounting another for sex, another describes homosexuality among beetles. BURN IN HELL One radical Christian said organizers of the exhibition -- partly funded by the Norwegian government -- should "burn in hell," Soeli said. Laws describing homosexuality as a "crime against nature" are still on the statutes in some countries. Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent homosexual behavior among hyenas 2,300 years ago but evidence of animal homosexuality has often been ignored by researchers, perhaps because of distaste, lack of interest or fear or ridicule. Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are among extremes in having sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. "Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them," Soeli said. Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end. Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, he said. And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women," he said

Did the christian god have anything to say about gays in the animal kingdom? If it's in the Genes, then isn't this the christian gods' fault? Why are chrisitans against gay marriage? I understand that the church has a right to do what it wants, but I also understand that the act of being gay is just another sin, like murder, yet you allow murderes to get married.

Discuss...

(Disclaimer, I am not gay, but I do support their fight for equal rights)

[underbear1]

Cole Porter was right
Birds Do It
Bees Do It

Isn't DELOVELY!

[phoenix_fire]

Well, I mean...I don't want to be insulting here so I'll put this as delicately as I can. Your argument seems to state that because animals do it, it's natural and there's no reason why humans shouldn't do it. But animals do a lot of things that most of us would agree that humans shouldn't do. They kill and eat other animals, even of their own species. I think we would agree that it is wrong to kill and eat other humans. Many species devour their young. I think we can agree that that is taboo as well. Much of animal sex is not consential, so if we are to do as the animals, you are then advocating rape. Would you prefer that we also use secretions to mark our territory? The female praying mantis devours her mate after or even during sex. How's that for a precedent? In anthills, only the queen has the children and the other females are subjugated. I don't think I'd want to be a female in either case there. Monkeys may be homosexual, but they also like to throw their excrement at people. I think that's illegal in most states.

Hmm...that wasn't as delicate as I had intended. Oh well.

[JohnMK]

That's a very one-dimensional analysis of it.

It's natural, yes. It's voluntary, it brings happiness and pleasure, . . . I don't quite see how this compares to cannibalism, rape, or infanticide.

[RickSp]

LOL. First some Christians claim homosexuality is "unnatural". Then when homosexuality is indeed found to exist in nature and therefore is entirely natural, they argue that it is still bad, evil, yucky.

Monkeys apparently aren't the only ones throwing excrement.

[underbear1]

<===Throws his excrement, and if you continue to compare cannibalism with whom I love, it may hit ya!

[JohnMK]

"bona fide fanatic," that you carried on at such length with your post with the same fallacy without spotting it, is unsettling to say the least.

[phoenix_fire]

None of you have actually responded to it. Stop me if I'm wrong: the assumption of the thread is that if animals do something, it is then natural and ok. I presented examples of animal behavior that is entirely natural but that is very much not ok. It seems like a logical counterpoint to me. We can't use the fact that animals do a thing to prove that it is right and good for us to do it. The only difference is that some people have attached an exception to homosexuality and they consider it to be an inviolable right without actually thinking about it. This viewpoint is inconsistent.

[The Bacon Guy]

Homosexuality is not acceptable because it is a natural state; it is acceptable because it doesn't harm anyone. Nobody was arguing that because it is natural it is ok. The point of the thread was to refute the argument that homosexuality is in some way unnatural.

[RickSp]

Homosexuality is a naturally occurring variation in the human genome. For years it has been called a "crime against nature" in various statutes across the country. This designation is obviously absurd as homosexuality does indeed occur naturally in animals.

phoenix_fire, your point seems little more than a reflection of your own anti-gay bias. Comparing homosexuality to cannibalism is ridiculous, offensive, and illogical, as is comparing it to any other range of animal behaviours. It is exactly as stupid as when Rick Santorum suggested that if gay marraige is allowed that people will start marrying their pets.

Homosexuality is natural for humans as indeed it is for right whales. This does not imply that an acceptance of homosexuality will lead to ocean habitation, nor the eating of krill.

[Dadoo]

As cannabalism, rape and murder ARE natural acts, and expected behaviours from humankind and animals alike...

There are Laws against it.
- Most illegal activities are "natural".

We don't outlaw activities that are not pursued.

[JohnMK]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Homosexuality is not acceptable because it is a natural state; it is acceptable because it doesn't harm anyone. Nobody was arguing that because it is natural it is ok. The point of the thread was to refute the argument that homosexuality is in some way unnatural.

Perfect, thank you.

[JohnMK]

Quote by: Dadoo We don't outlaw activities that are not pursued.

Interesting to think about. As far as I know there's no law stopping anyone from blowing up Pluto. It's certainly not a crime against humanity.

[Jack]

if animals do something, it is then natural and ok.

I agree with most of the statements above, #9-13, and would like to add that most animal behavior is natural. Is it OK? It evidently is for that animal. Each animal society determines within itself what boundaries will be placed on which behaviors. The boundaries are unnatural in that they're created, not spontaneously occurring. But the behaviors are natural, and common to many animals. Even humans. Once you accept that humans are animals, these common traits make perfect sense.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: RickSp Homosexuality is a naturally occurring variation in the human genome. For years it has been called a "crime against nature" in various statutes across the country. This designation is obviously absurd as homosexuality does indeed occur naturally in animals. phoenix_fire, your point seems little more than a reflection of your own anti-gay bias. Comparing homosexuality to cannibalism is ridiculous, offensive, and illogical, as is comparing it to any other range of animal behaviours. It is exactly as stupid as when Rick Santorum suggested that if gay marraige is allowed that people will start marrying their pets. Homosexuality is natural for humans as indeed it is for right whales. This does not imply that an acceptance of homosexuality will lead to ocean habitation, nor the eating of krill.

Ironically, those who use the "naturally occurring" argument to justify homosexuality themselves class it with less desirable animal behaviors. I'm not the one who put the argument in those terms: the other side did. I'm merely speaking toward the consequences of that line of thought.

rick, you always like to assume bias on my part. I DO think homosexuality is wrong. But the only people that I would pressure about it are those who also call themselves Christian, as I would any other Christian who I see unrepentantly engaging in any other sin. I think homosexuality is wrong for non-Christians too, but my first concern wouldn't be that they're gay but that they're not Christian. I can't expect people to act like Christians who aren't. You haven't seen me debating on the marriage amendment threads or the civil union threads or anything else of that nature. Wonder why that is?

[RickSp]

Quote by: phoenix_fire rick, you always like to assume bias on my part. I DO think homosexuality is wrong.

In this thread, you lump homosexuality with cannibalizism and feces throwing simians. Perhaps I "assume" bias because you post really bigotted statements?

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: RickSp In this thread, you lump homosexuality with cannibalizism and feces throwing simians. Perhaps I "assume" bias because you post really bigotted statements?

Oh please. Like I said, YOU are the one making that connection. When you use the actions of animals as a justification for the actions of humans, YOU are the one that equates humans with animals. YOU have to face the consequences of making that argument. I make no such "bigotted statements", and it tweaks me off that you would accuse me of something like that. You didn't read the rest of the post at all, did you? You're so ready to jump down my throat. You've got the torches ready: you've already tried me in your mind as one of "those religious nuts" and you're ready to pass the sentence. You've decided already that you are higher minded and that, because I believe in something that you think is stupid, everything I say to you is immediately incorrect and inflammatory. I wonder very much who is the bigot in this case.

[ItsDarts]

One of the points being missed by the christian(s) is that homosexuality has been linked to genetics. A gay man has no more "choice" in the matter of being attracted to another man as a straight guy has no choice but to be attracted to a female. Christians wrongfully assume that being gay is a choice, but its not. If you are only attracted to women, just try to think of sleeping with another man... you can't honestly do it. You can imagine it, but it really does nothing for you. You may even experiment with the idea, but you will eventually lean towards one way or the other. There are those who will be able to go both ways (bi-sexual) and again this is shown to be natural in the bonobo monkeys. This isn't harmful to the survival of the species (obviously since its been around at least since recorded history), so any equivocation to other natural acts that are harmful is irrelevent.

On the same note, it is perfectly natural for a straight person to to reject advances made by a gay one, however, it isn't natural to place a moral judgement into the frey and they should be allowed the same and equal rights of other humans.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Phoenix ........When you use the actions of animals as a justification for the actions of humans, YOU are the one that equates humans with animals.

Correctly so, Humans are, afterall, Animals. Granted we have higher brain functions, but what does that have to do with what happens "naturally"? Homosexuallity doesn't happen in ALL spicies of animals, thus for THAT spicies it isn't natural. Cannibalism happens in SOME spieces but it doesn't happen in ALL, thus it isn't natural for ALL. Oddly enough, cannibalism does happen in our spicies, but I would argue only for survival instincts (these are natural too), thus making it "right" for that moment. The whole point is that if it happens by natural means (genetics) it doesn't necessarily make it wrong, esspecially if it isn't harmful to the survival of the spicies.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: ItsDarts One of the points being missed by the christian(s) is that homosexuality has been linked to genetics. A gay man has no more "choice" in the matter of being attracted to another man as a straight guy has no choice but to be attracted to a female. Christians wrongfully assume that being gay is a choice, but its not. If you are only attracted to women, just try to think of sleeping with another man... you can't honestly do it. You can imagine it, but it really does nothing for you. You may even experiment with the idea, but you will eventually lean towards one way or the other. There are those who will be able to go both ways (bi-sexual) and again this is shown to be natural in the bonobo monkeys. This isn't harmful to the survival of the species (obviously since its been around at least since recorded history), so any equivocation to other natural acts that are harmful is irrelevent. On the same note, it is perfectly natural for a straight person to to reject advances made by a gay one, however, it isn't natural to place a moral judgement into the frey and they should be allowed the same and equal rights of other humans.

But this supposition has the same kinds of rammifications as the other. Different people have physiological predilections toward a lot of things, but they can choose not to do them. We do not question "moral judgments" made about many other choices.